THE SAUMA CONTROVERSY AFTER 1968 for More Than Two Centuries Western Scholarship Has Engaged in the Quest for the Original, Prot

THE SAUMA CONTROVERSY AFTER 1968

For more than two centuries Western scholarship has engaged in the quest for the original, Proto-Indo-Iranian (PIIr.) plant, the accepted common origin of the remarkably concordant Indian soma and Iranian haoma traditions1. Despite many valuable contributions the botanical identity of sauma remains the issue of a lively controversy, which, nevertheless, has made substantial progress on various parts of the problem during the last three decades. Until the publication of Soma: divine mushroom of immortality by Wasson (1968), sauma was generally believed to be the fermented juice of a plant2. Today it is recognized that the duration of the rituals does not allow enough time for fermentation to take place, and that, since the religious literature lacks unequivocal references to this process3, the pharmacological origin of sauma’s intoxication is rather to be found in psychotropic alkaloids4. Precisely the definition of sauma’s mada, however, is a stumbling block and, as the present author believes, the very cause of scholarly dis- agreement on its botanical identity5. Since the beginning of sauma research a sharp distinction has been drawn between the frequent references to the strengthening action of soma and haoma and the more obscure allusions to some kind of ecstatic visionary experience6. Whether one opts for the PIIr. cult of a stimulant, or adheres to the hypothetical use of a more spectacular drug, is very much dependent on one’s general conception of the Aryan religions.

1 Cf. the exhaustive status quaestionis by O’Flaherty (1968). 2 Among the few exceptions note cannabis and ‘mountain rue’. 3 The mada of haoma is considered superior to all other intoxications, including that of the alcoholic hura (Y. 10.8; Yt. 17.5). 4 Nevertheless, linguistic support for sauma’s local substitution by hops and rhubarb was lent by Abaev (1975) and Morgenstierne (1973), and Rausing (1987) even identified late Vedic soma with sugar cane. 5 Cf. Taillieu (1994). 6 Most frequently the ¤gveda associates soma with the warring Indra and his Aryan pro- tégés as a strengthening, invigorating drink; correspondingly, haoma grants physical strength, victory, protection, etc. (Y. 9-11 passim). Hallucinations have been read chiefly into the Laba- sukta (¤V. 10.119) and the obscure descriptions of the mada- (Y. 10.14, 19; etc.). Highly per- suasive evidence is further adduced from Middle-Persian accounts of drug-induced visions in the Zoroastrian religious context, cf. Arda Viraz Namag, the conversion of Wistasp (Dk. 7.4.84 sq.) and Zoroaster’s interview with Ohrmazd (Dk. 9.36; Zand i Wahman Yast 3.6-22). 44 D. TAILLIEU

Wasson, who had gained international fame for his rediscovery of the Meso-American psilocybian mushroom cult, intuitively identified the Vedic soma with Amanita muscaria7. He assumed that the ¤gvedic hymns praise the beauty of soma and that the many allusions to its mor- phology create the picture of a mushroom: apart from the lack of ¤gvedic references to soma’s roots, leaves, blossoms and seed, the choice of later substitutes seems te be governed by the criteria of small- ness, leaflessness and fleshiness. However, critical reviews8 have proved that Wasson overestimated the Vedic poets’ interest in the botanical (morphological) aspect of their soma. Many of the supposedly descriptive verses find a perfect explana- tion on the ritual and mythological level9, whereas some genuine characteristics of soma were misinterpreted10. Equally unconvincing is the correspondence of soma’s mountainous habitat with the mycorrhizal relationship of the fly-agaric to birches and conifers, which are found in the Indo-Iranian territory only at great heights. On the one hand, soma’s localisation on the mountain may have ritual or mythical purport11, on the other hand, explicit ref- erence to river valleys is made (¤V. 8.6.28; Y. 10.17), but most importantly, Amanita muscaria has never been found in the Indo-Iran- ian area. Wasson’s crucial argument, the consumption of soma in two forms (directly and metabolized), the hypothetical core of the Vedic Mys- tery, met with unanimous aversion and rejection. The refutation of muqr¢m ahya madahya by Zaraqustra (Y. 48.10) as well as soma ‘putting into movement the human waters’ (¤V. 9.63.7) are not to be taken literally, whereas ‘to urinate soma’ (¤V. 9.74.4) is an obvious example of metaphorical word play on Ved. mih- ‘to rain’ and ‘to urinate’.

7 Wasson (1968 to 1979). 8 In particular those by Brough (1971) and Kuiper (1970). 9 To these belong especially the nir∞ij- (¤V. 9.71.2), references to ‘the hide of bull and the dress of sheep’ (9.70.7), etc. 10 E.g. Skt. hári-, Av. zairi-, according to Wasson (1968: 36 sq.), is ‘the precise adjec- tive that one would wish to employ in Vedic to describe the fly-agaric’, expressing both its colour (ranging from red to light yellow) and the intensity of that colour (dazzling, brilliant, lustrous, resplendant, flaming); cf. also Bailey (1974). Also, haoma’s var¢saji, fraspar¢ga and fravaxsa (Y. 10.5) Wasson (1968: 19-21) erroneously interpreted as the ‘stalk’ of the mushroom. 11 Cf. Brough (1971: 336, 342). THE SAUMA CONTROVERSY 45

Despite early enthusiasm Wasson’s argumentation suffered a pro- found lack of decisive force12. Additional evidence involving the etymo- logical connection of PIIr. *sauma- with PIE *swombho- ‘fungus’ by Bailey (1979: 491; 1984) and the identification of the putika-, a major substitute of soma, with a fungus by Kramrisch (1975) did not suffice to safeguard the fly-agaric hypothesis13. Gershevitch (1974) managed to rebuild its argumentation, but the evidence remained inconclusive. Nevertheless, his re-introduction of (Old-)Iranian sources into the debate initiated a recent tendency giving precedence to these over their Indian counterparts. According to the hypothetical origin of the ¤g-veda in Punjab and the Indus valley14, the Indian religious tradition is attested only after the Proto-Vedic emigration from the PIIr. lands. Thus the geographical continuity of the Iranian sources is of overriding importance in the search for the original plant15.

About half a century ago a hitherto unknown species of mandrake was discovered in South-west Turkmenia, north of the Sumbar valley, where it grows at the edge of the thicket on mountain slopes. Since its morphological characteristics correspond to the ‘male’ mandrake of Pliny and Dioscurides, Khlopin (1980) assumed Mandragora turcomanica to have had a much wider distribution in the past. Contrary to the ‘female’ (Greek) variety it is characterized by a white root, rhubarb-like leaves, bell-shaped violet flowers and great, fetid, saffron-coloured berries. Greek and Middle-Eastern ethno-pharmacological records16 attest to the popularity of mandrake in ancient and mediaeval medicine and magic, particularly the anthropomorphic root of mandrake being used in the treatment of wounds, skin diseases, tooth- and headache, podagra, eye problems, etc. The narcotic action of the berries was valued against insomnia and in the mitigation of birth-giving, but the unripe fruits led to (non-fatal) intoxication.

12 Initial success with Ingalls (1971), Elizarenkova — Toporov (1976), Bongard- Levin — Grantovskij (1981) and others. 13 Cf. Schwartz (1989: §186-222); Kuiper (1984); Emmerick (1985). 14 Flattery (1989: §16-19). However, the historico-geographical perspective of the early Aryans as defined by Gonda (1975: 20-25) has recently been challenged by Parpola (1988). 15 Of course, the claim that the Avesta offers a better reflection of ancient realia (Flat- tery, 1989: §19) is contested by Mylius (1992: 45). 16 Theophrastus (Research on Plants 9.7.8 and 9.9.1), Pliny (Naturalis Historia 25.94), Dioscurides apud Biruni (Kitab aÒ-Òaydana fi’†-†ib 950), Abu Hanifa al-Dinawari, al-Arragani and Avicenna (Law of Medicine 337-338, 369, 444). 46 D. TAILLIEU

According to Khlopin, Turkmenian mandrake matches both morpho- logically and pharmacologically17 the features of sauma, which is also, though not exclusively, located on mountains. Whereas the juice of its apple-like berries continued to serve the Iranians as haoma18, the emi- grated Indo-Aryans probably used the Himalayan variety as soma.

Renewed interest in the mythological positions of soma and haoma19 led Windfuhr to compare the Chinese Orion mythology, which is inti- mately connected with the panacea ginseng20, with the Indo-Iranian sauma traditions. Thus he identified the celestial definition of the Maz- dayasna religion as ‘the star-decked, spiritually fashioned girdle around the sky, three-fold with four knots’, the xwarrah of which is appointed as ‘general’ over the ‘unmixable stars’ (the Milky Way), with a schematic representation of Orion21. Another model for this constellation is the ‘four-cornered var¢na’ where Qraetaona venerates Haoma (Yt. 5.53), who granted his birth to Aqwya, one of the first sacrificers of haoma (Y. 9.3-14)22. Orion’s neighbours, the ‘rain-star’ Sirius (in Canis maior) and Taurus, are represented by the prototypical archer Tistrya, the releaser of the waters, and G≠us Urvan. The resulting configuration of Taurus, Orion and Canis maior coin- cides with the Zoroastrian months of Asa, Haurvatat and Tistrya. It was one of the most auspicious and fundamental configurations in the sky — the other being located around its celestial opponent Scorpio —, indicat- ing major transition periods. The rising of Orion and Sirius, announcing rain and harvest, at the summer solstice around 2000 B.C. corresponds to the probable beginning of savana-year at that time. Due to the Indian preoccupation with the juice rather than the plant itself, Soma was identified as the moon, whereas Prajapati (the first sacrifice) represented Orion. Nevertheless, Soma retained his ‘arrows’ (¤V.

17 Khlopin defined sauma as a healing tonic ‘mit irgendwelchen Halluzinationen’ (p.230). 18 The Middle-Persian ‘white hom’ would, according to Khlopin (1980: 230), indicate the shift of ritual interest from the golden fruits to the white root. 19 Cf. Falk (1989: 77 with n. 3-4). 20 Cf. the use of the character shen (to which jen ‘man’ was added) for ‘three’, ‘Orion’ and ‘ginseng’. 21 GBd. 6.J and 2.9; in Y. 9.26 Haoma is invested with this girdle. 22 This original trio — Zaraqustra’s father Pourusaspa is a later addition — represents the three ‘girdle’-stars of Orion. THE SAUMA CONTROVERSY 47

9.70.5; 10.70.5) and control over the waters (¤V. 9.35.2, 97.15), and like Tistrya fighting Apaosa he assumes three forms (¤V. 10.53.1). In keeping with the Chinese correlation of Orion with the celestial north pole, Polaris is called saumya druva tara. Thus Windfuhr (p. 719) assumed that ‘the problem for the various peoples (…) was to find the plant that best fits this description, or to find a substitute once they moved out of an area where it occurred.’ This extreme view of mythology — in casu the perhaps palaeolithic themes of the navel of the earth, the water, the doubling of mountain or tree, the nude figure and the bull, the divine priest pointing both up and down and scattering the seeds of plants, the bird, the archer and his arrow-shot, and the thunderbolt23 — demanding a botanical representative was also held by Kuiper (1970)24. Apart from the arbitrary consistency of sauma’s morphological and pharmacological characteristics with ginseng, the curious notion of soma ‘protecting his head’ (¤V. 9.68.4)25 corresponds to the annual shrinking of the ginseng root in order to keep the rhizome with the generation bud at soil level. Furthermore, it is reminiscent of the celestial position of Orion around 2000 B.C., when his ‘head’-star just touched the celestial equator (roughly the Milky Way). On the other hand, the evidence in favour of sauma’s anthropomorphic appearance is weak26 and it is doubtful whether ginseng — due to over-harvesting the plant is now limited to the Ussuri region of Manchuria and Korea — or its relatives in the Himalaya (Panax pseudo- ginseng) and maritime Siberia (the giant Eleutherococcus senticosus) were ever available to the PIIr. peoples.

By far the most likely candidate is Ephedra, the traditional hom of the Zoroastrian rituals27, which — contrary to fly-agaric, mandrake and ginseng — is an indigenous and common plant of the greater Iranian area. Only the mountainous species of Ephedra — of these E. pachyclada,

23 Cf. Butterworth (1970). 24 Falk, however, emphasized the marked distinctions between the soma and the haoma mythology, and concluded that the ‘tendency of Soma/Haoma to look for a suit- able place in already existing mythologies proves (…) that the mythological qualities of Soma/Haoma did not stand at the beginning of its career.’ (1989: 77 sq.) 25 Cf. Brough (1971: 358). 26 Windfuhr’s (1985: 704 sq.) references apply only to the divine personifications of soma and haoma, cf. Kellens (1988) and Falk (1989: 83). 27 Cf. Kotwal — Boyd (1991) for the Zoroastrian Yasna. 48 D. TAILLIEU maior, intermedia and gerardiana also occur in the North-India — pro- duce the stimulating drug28. As the various species are hardly distin- guishable, the soma merchant was asked whether his plants were har- vested on Mount Mujavat29. In addition to the well-known invigorating, strengthening effect of soma, Falk (1989: 79-82) adduced evidence that the drink also pre- vented the Vedic poets from falling asleep during their nightly sacrifice to Indra30. Its role in popular belief matches the immortalizing and fertilizing power attributed to soma and haoma. Bundles of Ephedra have been found in burials of the Tarim basin31; either the crushed twigs of Ephedra pachyclada are boiled in milk, or the brown powder inside is mixed with butter as an aphrodisiac in Khyber and parts of Afghanistan32. A trace of the tree-like Ephedra procera was found by Falk (1989: 88- 90) in the the association of the fig tree with soma33. Remarkably consistent with the conservative character of the Zoroas- trian religion, the antiquity of Ephedra’s role in Indo-Iranian rituals is confirmed by the PIIr. origin (*sauma-) of its vernacular Indo-Iranian names34. Moreover, archeological evidence from the Togolok-21 com- plex seems to prove the very early dating of Ephedra’s cultual role35. This conclusive linguistic evidence, however, does not preclude the theory advanced by Flattery and Schwartz (1989), who assumed that the original sauma drink was prepared from two psychotropic plants36, 28 A side-effect of ephedrine seems reflected in the priestly fear to die of urine-reten- tion; Falk (1989: 83 n.27). 29 The full effect of ephedrine, however, could only be appreciated in situ, i.e. in the mountains, for the water-soluable alkaloids disappear rapidly in a humid climate. 30 Cf. ¤V. 1.53.1; 8.48.14; 9.107.7; etc. The basic soma ceremony then is not the AgniÒ†oma but the Atiratra. 31 Cf. Falk (1989: 84 sq.). 32 Morphological and other correspondences were dealt with much earlier, cf. O’Fla- herty (1968), and recently by Falk (1989). 33 Cf. the asvattha as ‘leader of the healing plants’ (¤V. 10.97), the riddle of the birds (¤V. 1.164.20-22), and the Ilya (ChUp. 8.5.3; KauÒUp. 1.3 sq.). 34 See Flattery and Schwartz (1989: 70 = Table 3); e.g. amsania, asmania in Punjab, oman, uman, uroman in Pashto, Skt. soma, Skt. and Nepali som(a)lata, hom in Central Persia and Afghanistan, um(a), hum(a), omah, umah in Baluchistan, imom, imik in Wakhan, sumani in Chitral, etc. 35 Cf. Parpola (1988: 236-238). The pictural argument of Mahdihasan (1973 to 1987b) does not withstand critical investigation, cf. Falk (1989: 84; 1990). 36 The evidence from the Zoroastrian ritual and the Avesta — the qualification of haoma as pouru.sar¢da- ‘of many kinds’ (Y. 10.12), the frequent use of the Plural, and the separate listing of haoma and para.haoma in enumerations of offerings (Y. 3.2; 4.1; 7.26; 8.1) — is without parallel in the Indian material, cf. Mylius (1992: 46 sq.). THE SAUMA CONTROVERSY 49

Ephedra being the additive to the hallucinogenic harmel. The latter plays an important role in Islamic apotropaic fumigation, which undoubtedly has roots in pre-Islamic religious beliefs and practices37. Thus the derivation of its Iranian vernacular names from *svanta- ‘sacred’ sug- gests its identity with the Aryan ‘sacred’ plant, i.e. sauma38. In response to the criticism voiced by Steblin-Kamenskij (1987) that the burning of harmel does not parallel the drinking of sauma, Flattery and Schwartz emphasized the collocation of the verb saok- with haoma’s stock epithet duraosa- (Y. 32.14), reflected in the burning of sudab (garden rue) at the Gahambar festival, and the offering to the fire of the dried hom residue (Ephedra and pomegranate twigs). Provided that sauma was both consumed as an intoxicating drink and burnt as apotropaic incense, the ritual consumption and burning of Ephedra, pomegranate and garden rue can only be explained by the rela- tion of these plants to harmel. Whereas Ephedra can only be an ancient additive to the original hal- lucinogen39, the single pomegranate twig (urwaram) in the Yasna represents Av. hadanaepa¸ ta40. Its artificial name might well be a pun on the

37 The ethno-botanical attributes to the Avestan haoma correspond fairly well to those of harmel in the invocations accompanying the apotropaic fumigation and the praisings of the Mandaic Safta d Sambra. Thus the use of the plant is attributed to the founder(s) of the religion (Zaraqustra; the primary figures of Si‘ite Islam). Haoma and harmel are invoked to bring healing, victory, courage, salvation and protection, to promote child- birth, expel demons etc. Both are located in the mountains and share the epithet ‘yellow, golden’ (Av. zairi-; Turkish altun). 38 Cf. Av. sp¢nta- (Vr. 9.3). Modern Iranian ‘harmel’ includes Persian esfand, spand, spend, sifand, sipand, sipandin, isfanj, etc., cf. Flattery and Schwartz (1989: 40 (= Table 1), §259-264). According to Henning (1965: 39) the use of harmel in fumigation belongs to daevayasna sorcery; recently, Gershevitch (1992: 176 sq.) has argued a new etymology, deriving Baskardi sipaxt, sepand from *sprand < PIE *sprenkti- (*spreng-ti-) ‘sprouting, blossoming’. Cf. Gnoli (1993). 39 The stimulating action of ephedrine precludes Ephedra from being a substitute of the original hallucinogen, but precisely this property would counter-act the narcotic side-effect of harmel; cf. however Mylius (1992: 47). Although unfit for burning, Ephedra is offered to the fire in the Yasna (Y. 62) and used — with or without juniper — as firewood in Kho- rasan, cf. Boyce (1970: 64 sq.); Flattery and Schwartz (1989: §97-101). Its stimulating effect renders Ephedra totally unsuitable to substitute an original hallucinogen, moreover, ‘for a single, arbitrarily chosen substitute for sauma to be so universally adopted would have required an implausibly uniform Indo-Iranian society (and priesthood)’ (1989: §112). 40 Contrary to Punica the hadanaepa¸ ta is said to have soft wood (Vd. 14.2-3), but its seed-capsules do resemble the pomegranate fruit, as is expressed in Arab *Ìuraymla or *Ìurmayla (derived from Ìarmal) and ’umm-Ìarmal (imÌarmal, etc.) ‘mother of harmel’ = ‘pomegranate’. For the etymology of Av. hadanaep:ta, cf. Bailey (1985: 871), Das (1987) and Malandra (1979). 50 D. TAILLIEU seed capsules of harmel, and thus explicitly confirm the use of the intoxicating sauma41. Parallel to the priestly initiation with haoma (Pahl.Y. 9.26), the Zoroastrian novice consumes an infusion of crushed pomegranate leaves and twigs, and the same drink is administered to the dying. Pomegranate seeds replace those of harmel (sadab in Nir. 40.11, Pahl.Riv. 175.4) on the dron bread of the Parsis. In addition, pomegranate represents the plant isfand at the Isfandagan festival42, and it is together with tamarisk and Ephedra the vegetative source of the bar¢sman, which Flattery (1989: §123-6) identified with the original bundle of harmel43. Equally unfit for consumption and fumigation, Ruta graveolens represents the closely resembling harmel in the offerings to Water and Fire (ab-zohr and atas-zohr)44, in the consumption of dron bread45 and the burning of rue at the Gahambar festival46. Moreover, whereas the morphological resemblance of garden rue to harmel has provided the former with the Iranian name *sadab, in India it was associated with soma despite the false scent of the soma substitutes47.

41 Haoma and hadanaepa¸ ta are separately listed as ingredients of the zaoqras (Y. 22; 24; 66; etc.). 42 Note the parallel bahman plant at the Bahmanjana festival; different conclusions Flattery (1989: §122), Gignoux (1991) on Zs. 3.49, and Gnoli (1989: 322). 43 The barsom is burnt with the hom residue (Boyce 1975: 167) and barsom and hom are confused in the definition of Arab hawm al-majus, on which see Gershevitch (1974: 58 n.30, 73 sq.), Flattery and Schwartz (1989: §54, 272 sq.). Whereas Ephedra (hom) is an obvious bar¢sman plant, tamarisk is not indigenous to Iran; likewise the practice of holding twigs is of non-Iranian origin. 44 When no ab-zohr from the Yasna is available, it is composed of grains, fruits, garlic, milk and rue; for the atas-zohr of the Caharom funeral ceremony some fat (or a pair- ing of horn or a scrap of wool) of the sacrificial animal is pounded with aromatic root (bud-i nakos), garlic and rue. Cf. the five-fold composition containing raisins and harmel, which is served at the Isfandagan festival, and the burning of fat and harmel on the occa- sion of Mihragan. See further Boyce (1966). 45 The dron ceremony continues the original sauma ordeal (cf. Y. 8.3-4) of the Yasna, which was transformed after the insertion of the Hom Yast (Y. 9-11) at the point of sauma consumption. As garniture of the dron bread pomegranate is preferred in daily practice (against sudab in Nir. 28), for the consumption of garden rue causes gastroenteritis. 46 Cf. above. The preparation of sir-u-sedow (‘garlic and rue’) corresponds to the eschatological immortalizing draught of hom i sped and the fat of the ox Hadayus, but the burning of sudab reflects Y. 32.14. See Kellens (1996) on Av. duraosa-. 47 Persian sudab (cf. Schwartz, 1989: §276-287) from sadab ‘harmel’, which as *sata-ap- ‘hundred waters (or masculine fluids)’ corresponds to Soma’s control of the waters or to the aphrodisiacal use of sauma. Somalata, saumya, somavallari, etc. associ- ate rue (through harmel) with soma. Since garden rue probably originated in Greece, harmel was named in Europe after rue, cf. the old name Ruta montana, ‘wild rue’ or ‘mountain rue’. THE SAUMA CONTROVERSY 51

Flattery believed that harmel was gradually left out of the sauma drink when its major function as an ordeal medium was no longer needed to establish priestly authority48. Once the ranks of priesthood came to be decided by social processes (chiefly kinship), mutual expo- sure to the dangers inherent in the intoxicant was no longer wanted, and the use of harmel became restricted to special occasions. This historical reconstruction of sauma being both the chief means of establishing the fidelity of (itinerant) priests, and, on the other hand, its intoxicating ingredient being successfully given up, did not convince Gnoli (1989). The role of Zaraqustra in the Iranian history of ritual refor- mations has, nevertheless, no sound basis in the Gathas49.

Whereas to a regretful Boyce (1975: 157 sq.) it seemed ‘unlikely that the identity of the ancient plant will ever be decided with agreement between students of the two religions’, the Indian evidence is now being harmonized with the Iranian arguments in favour of Ephedra. However, because a consensus on the psycho-pharmacological effects of sauma seems to be a vain aspiration, the identity of sauma will doubtless remain contentious. Future research should re-examine the ritual and mythological details of the soma and haoma traditions, for the mere correspondence of morphological characteristics, habitat and applications will no longer do. Against Mylius’ (1992: 45) contention that the botanical identity of sauma is but of minor importance, the mere survival of its ceremonies today and its consequent role in the Aryan religions render the search for the original plant more than worthwhile.

BIBLIOGRAPHY50

ABAEV, V. I., (1975) Contribution à l’histoire des mots: 1. Vieil-iranien hauma- et le nom eurasien du houblon, in Mélanges Linguistiques offerts à

48 Cf. the ordeal of the dron ceremony (Y. 8.3-4), Arda Viraz Namag, the Chirocmeta by Bolus of Mendes quoted in Pliny’s Naturalis Historia 24.160-167, the roll-call of additional witnessing priests in elaborate ceremonies like the Gahambars, initiation of priests, the Visperad, and the zot’s consumption of the unknown parahom mixture in the daily liturgy. 49 Cf. Boyce (1975: 156 sq.), Gershevitch (1974: 45 sq.), Kellens (1988: 300 sq.) and Schwartz (1985; 1989: §158), but contrastingly Duchesne-Guillemin (1988). 50 Due to the limited extent of this contribution it is at present impossible to give an exhaustive bibliography of recent sauma studies. 52 D. TAILLIEU

E. Benveniste (Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguis- tique de Paris 70), 1-3 BAILEY, H. W., (1974) The range of the colour zar- in Khotan Saka texts, in Mémorial Jean de Menasce (éd. PH. GIGNOUX — A. TAFAZZOLI), Louvain — Téhéran, 369-374 — (1979) A Dictionary of Khotanese Saka, London — (1984) Vedic kÒúmpa- and connected data, in Am®tadhara: professor R. N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume (ed. S. D. JOSHI), Delhi, 17-20 — (1985) Plant Names (Appendix I), in Cambridge History of Iran II. Median and Achamenian Periods (ed. I. GERSHEVITCH), Cambridge, 870-873 BAREAU, A. (1969) review of Wasson (Soma, 1968) in JA 257, 173-176 BONGARD-LEVIN, G. M. — GRANTOVSKIJ, E. A., (1981) De la Scythie à l’Inde. Enigmes de l’Histoire des anciens Aryens (tr. Ph. Gignoux), Documents et Ouvrages de Références 3, Paris BOYCE, Mary, (1966) Atas-zohr and ab-zohr, in JRAS 1966, 100-118 — (1970) Haoma, priest of the sacrifice, in W. B. Henning Memorial Volume (ed. M. BOYCE — I. GERSHEVITCH), London, 62-80 — (1975) A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. I, HdO 1.8.1.2.2A, Leiden BROUGH, John, (1971) Soma and Amanita muscaria, in BSOAS 34, 331-362 — [1973] Problems of the ‘Soma-mushroom’ theory, in Indologica Taurinen- sia 1(Atti del convegno internazionale di studi indologici, Torino 26-29 aprile 1971), 21-32 [non vidimus] BUTTERWORTH, E. A. S. (1970), The Tree at the Navel of the Earth, Berlin DAS, R. P., (1987) On the identification of a Vedic plant, in Studies on Indian Medical History, papers presented at the International Workshop on the Study of Indian Medicine held at the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 2-4 Sept. 1985 (ed. G. J. Meulenbeld — D. Wujastyk), Gronin- gen, 19-42 DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN, J., (1988) Haoma proscrit et réadmis, in Mélanges P. Lévêque 1 (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besancon 367, Centre de Recherches d’Histoire ancienne 79), 127-131 ELIZARENKOVA, T. I. — TOPOROV, V. N., (1976) Les représentations mytholo- giques touchant aux champignons dans leurs rapports avec l’hypothèse de l’origine du Soma, in Y.M. LOTMAN — B.A. OUSPENSKI, Traveaux sur les systèmes de signes (Ecole de Tartu), Bruxelles, 62-68 EMMERICK, R. E., (1985) Ein Männlein steht im Walde, in Papers in honour of Professor Mary Boyce I (= Acta Iranica 24, 2ième série vol. X), 179-184 FALK, H., (1989) Soma I and II, in BSOAS 52, 77-90 — (1990) review of S. Mahdihasan (The history and natural history of Ephedra as Soma, Pakistan Science Foundation, Islamabad 1987) in BSOAS 53, 159-160 FLATTERY, D. S. — SCHWARTZ, M., (1989) Haoma and Harmaline. The Bota- nical Identity of the Indo-Iranian Sacred Hallucinogen “Soma” and its Legacy in Religion, Language, and Middle Eastern Folklore, Near Eastern Studies 21, Berkeley — Los Angeles — London GERSHEVITCH, Ilya, (1974) An Iranist’s view of the Soma controversy, in Mémo- rial Jean de Menasce (ed. Ph. GIGNOUX — A. TAFAZZOLI), Louvain, 45-75 THE SAUMA CONTROVERSY 53

GIGNOUX, Ph., (1991) review of D. S. Flattery — M. Schwartz (Haoma and Harmaline, 1989), in Abstracta Iranica 14, 186 GNOLI, Gh., (1989) review of D. S. Flattery — M. Schwartz (Haoma and Har- maline, 1989), in East and West 39, 320-324 — (1993) On the Iranian Soma and Pers. sepand ‘Wild Rue’, in East and West 43, 235-6 GONDA, J., (1975) Vedic Literature (A History of Indian Literature, Vol. I, Fasc. 1), Wiesbaden HENNING, W. B., (1965) A grain of mustard, in AION Sez. ling. 6, 29-47 INGALLS, D. H. H., (1971) Remarks on Mr. Wasson’s Soma, in JAOS 91, 188- 191 (repr. in Essay of American Oriental Society 7, 20-23) KELLENS, J., (1988) review of Acta Iranica 25, in WZKM 78, 300-301 — (1996) “Duraosa” in Encyclopædia Iranica (ed. E. YARHATER) VII.6 KHLOPIN, Igor N., (1980) Mandragora turcomanica in der Geschichte der Orientalvölker, in OLP 11, 223-231 KOOGER, J. P., (1968) Het raadsel van de heilige Soma-plant der Indo-Iraniërs, in Pharmaceutisch Tijdschrift 94, 137-143 KOTWAL, F.M. — BOYD, J.W., (1991) A Persian Offering. The Yasna: a Zoro- astrian High Liturgy (Studia Iranica, Cahier 8), Paris KRAMRISCH, S., (1975) The Mahavira vessel and the plant Putika, in JAOS 95, 222-235 KUIPER, F. B. J., (1970) review of Wasson (Soma, 1968), in IIJ 12, 279-286 — (1984) Was the Putika a mushroom?, in Am®tadhara: professor R.N. Dan- dekar Felicitation Volume (ed. S.D. Joshi), Delhi, 219-227 MAHDIHASAN, S., (1973) Soma in the light of comparative pharmacology, etymology and archeology, in Janus 60, 91-102 [non vidimus] — (1985) A Persian painting illustrating Ephedra, leading to its identity as Soma, in Journal of Central Asia 8, 171-175 [non vidimus] — (1987a) Soma of the Aryans and ash of the Romans, in ABORI 68, 639-644 [non vidimus] — (1987b) The History and Natural History of Ephedra as Soma (Pakistan Science Foundation), Islamabad [non vidimus] MALANDRA, W. W., (1979) Atharvaveda 2.27: Evidence for a Soma-amulet, in JAOS 99:2, 220-223 MORGENSTIERNE, G., (1973) A Vedic word in some modern Hindu Kush lan- guages?, in Irano-Dardica, Wiesbaden, 273-276 MYLIUS, K., (1992) review of D. S. Flattery — M. Schwartz (Haoma and Har- maline, 1989), in IIJ 35, 45-48 O’FLAHERTY, W. D., (1968) The Post-Vedic History of the Soma Plant, in WASSON (Soma, 1968), 95-147 PARPOLA, A., (1988) The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the cul- tural and ethnic identity of the Dasas, in Studia Orientalia 64, 195-302 RAUSING, G., (1987) Soma, in Orientalia Suecana 36, 125-126 SCHWARTZ, M., (1985) Scatology and eschatology in Zoroaster: on the par- onomasia of Yasna 48.10 and on Indo-European H2EG ‘to make taboo’ and the reciprocity verbs *KWSEN(W) and *MEGH, in Papers in honour of Pro- fessor Mary Boyce II (= Acta Iranica 25; 2ième série, vol. XI), 473-496 54 D. TAILLIEU

— (1989) cf. D.S. Flattery STEBLIN-KAMENSKIJ, I., (1987) review of Acta Iranica 24-25, in BSOAS 50, 376- 378 STUHRMANN, R., (1985) Worum handelt es sich beim Soma?, in IIJ 28, 85-93 TAILLIEU, D., (1994) Old-Iranian haoma: a note on its pharmacology, in AOB 9 [1995], 187-191 WASSON, R. Gordon, (1968) Soma. Divine mushroom of immortality (Ethno- Mycological Studies 1), New York — (1970a) Soma of the Aryans: an ancient hallucinogen?, in Bulletin on Nar- cotics 22: 3, 25-30 — (1970b) Soma: comments inspired by Professor Kuiper’s review, in IIJ 12, 286-298 — (1971) The Soma of the Rig Veda: what was it?, in JAOS 91:2, repr. in Essays of the American Oriental Society 7 — (1972) Soma and the fly-agaric: Mr. Wasson’s rejoinder to Professor Brough (Ethno-Mycological Studies 2), Cambridge, Massachusetts [non vidimus] — (1979) Soma brought up-to-date, in JAOS 99, 100-105 WINDFUHR, Gernot L., (1985) Haoma/Soma: the plant, in Papers in honour of Professor Mary Boyce II (Acta Iranica 25; 2ième série, vol. XI), 699-726

Turfstraat 28 D. TAILLIEU B-3690 Zutendaal (Belgium)