ZX2 ...Zx1 Table of Contents

ZX2 ...... Zx1 Table of Contents

VIEW PER PAGE:102050ALL12 SHOWING 1-50 of 52

ZABĀN-E ZANĀN

NASSEREDDIN PARVIN a newspaper and a magazine published in Isfahan and Tehran, respectively, by Ṣeddiqa Dawlatābādi (1883-1961), a pioneer advocate of women’s rights in Iran (18 July, 1919 to 1 January, 1921, a total of 57 issues).

ZĀDSPRAM

PHILIPPE GIGNOUX a 9th-century Zoroastrian scholar and author. He was one of the four sons of Gušn-Jam (or Juwānjam, according to Boyce and Cereti).

ZĀDUYA

TOURAJ DARYAEE a Persian noble in the 7th century CE who was instrumental in the crowning of Farroḵzād Ḵosrow as Sasanian king. ZAEHER, ROBERT CHARLES

CARLO CERETI

(1913-1974), a scholar of Iranian and Indian studies, historian of religions, Professor at Oxford University, British Intelligence officer stationed at the British Embassy in Tehran, and the major planner of the plot leading to the overthrow of Moḥammad Mosaddeq’s government.

ẒAHIR-AL-DAWLA, EBRĀHIM KHAN

MEHRNOUSH SOROUSH

(d. Tehran, 1240/1824), military leader and governor of Kermān under Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah Qajar.

ZĀL

A. SHAPUR SHAHBAZI AND SIMONE CRISTOFORETTI legendary prince of Sistān, father of Rostam, and a leading figure in Iranian traditional history. His story is given in the Šāh- nāma.

ZAMYĀD YAŠT

PALLAN ICHAPORIA

Yašt 19, the last in sequence of the great pieces of the Yašt hymn collection of the Younger Avesta.

ZAND CROSS-REFERENCE

Zoroastrian term for the literature written in Middle Persian to translate and explicate the Avestan scriptures. The supplementary explanations, which developed into the exegetical literature that we know from the Sasanian period and which are preserved in the Middle Persian/Pahlavi texts are known as the Zand, hence the expression “Avesta and Zand” or “Zand-Avesta.”

See EXEGESIS i. In Zoroastrianism.

ZAND DYNASTY

JOHN PERRY a dynasty that ruled in Persia (excluding Khorasan) from Shiraz, from the time when Nāder Shah’s (r. 1736-47) successors, the Afsharids, failed to recover western Persia until the founding of the Qajar dynasty by Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qajar (r. 1779-97).

This Article Has Images/Tables.

ZAND Ī FRAGARD Ī JUD-DĒW-DĀD

YAAKOV ELMAN AND MAHNAZ MOAZAMI

“A Commentary on Chapters of the Vidēvdād”, a sixth-century Zoroastrian text. It has been preserved more or less intact as 240 pages and made up of about 540 sections.

ZĀR

MARIA SABAYE MOGHADDAM harmful wind (bād) associated with spirit possession beliefs in southern coastal regions of Iran. People believe in the existence of winds that can be either vicious or peaceful, believer (Muslim) or non-believer (infidel).

ZARANGIANA

CROSS-REFERENCE territory around Lake Hāmun and the Helmand river in modern Sistān. See DRANGIANA.

ZARATHUSTRA

CROSS-REFERENCE the name generally known in the West for the prophet of ancient Iran, whose transformation of his inherited religion inaugurated a movement that eventually became the dominant religion in Iran up until the triumph of Islam. See ZOROASTER.

ZARINAIA

RÜDIGER SCHMITT legendary Saka queen during the reign of the likewise legendary Median king Astibaras.

ZARIRI, ʿABBĀS

JALIL DOOSTKHAH

(b. Isfahan 1909; d. Isfahan 1971) noted story-teller (naqqāl). Zariri like most other eulogists of his era, was functionally illiterate. He memorized and recited whatever he heard from other storytellers and scroll-writers. However, he became literate towards the end of his life.

ŻARRĀBI, MOLUK

ERIK NAḴJAVĀNI the stage name of Moluk Faršforuš Kāšāni (b. Kāšān, ca 1289 Š./1910; d. Tehran, 1378 Š./1999), Persian singer and actress. Moluk was born into a musically inclined family.

ZARUDNIĬ, NIKOLAĬ ALEKSEEVICH

NATALIA ANANJEVA

(1859-1919), prominent zoologist and explorer of fauna in Iran. Between 1884 and 1904, he conducted field trips in the Caspian region, the plains of Bukhara, the Khiva (Ḵiva) oasis, and northern and eastern Persia. More than 130 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, arthropods, and mollusks were named after him.

This Article Has Images/Tables.

ZĀYANDARUD NEWSPAPER

NASSEREDDIN PARVIN weekly newspaper published in Isfahan by ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Mo ʿin-al-Eslām Ḵᵛānsāri from 1 RabiʿI 1327 to 22 Ḏu’l-ḥejja 1333 (23 March 1909 to 31 October 1915).

ZĀYČA ENRICO G. RAFFAELLI

Middle Persian term meaning "birth chart, horoscope."

ZAYN AL-AḴBĀR

CROSS-REFERENCE a history written in 11th century by Gardizi. See GARDIZI.

ZEFRA

MULTIPLE AUTHORS mountainous district and village northeast of Isfahan, best known for its dialect. This article is divided into two sections: i. The district ii. The dialect

ZEFRA I. THE DISTRICT

MOHAMMAD-HASAN RAJA’I ZEFRA’I AND HABIB BORJIAN mountainous district and village northeast of Isfahan. Historical documents have little mention of Zefra. Nevertheless the village is embellished with a fine congregational mosque from the Saljuq era with subsequent renovations; the mosque’s antique gate and pulpit are dated 790/1388 and 791/1389, respectively.

This Article Has Images/Tables.

ZEǏMAL’, EVEGENIǏ VLADISLAVOVICH

ALEXANDER NIKITIN

(1932-1998), Russian numismatist and historian of ancient Iran and Central Asia.

ZEKRAWAYH B. MEHRAWAYH

HEINZ HALM

10th-century Ismaʿili missionary in Iraq.

ẒELLI, REZĀQOLI MIRZĀ

MORTEŻĀ ḤOSEYNI DEHKORDI

(1906-1945), singer. He had a clear voice with wide range, which his distinct, beautiful yodeling (taḥrir) made especially enchanting. His singing is an example of the Tehran singing school. He died of tuberculosis.

ZEMESTĀN-E 62

ʿALI FERDOWSI

(Winter of 62, 1987), a novel published by the well-known and prolific Persian novelist Esmāʿil Fasih.

ZENDA BE GUR

SOHILA SAREMI

ZHUKOVSKIĬ, VALENTIN ALEKSEEVICH

FIRUZA ABDULLAEVA

(1858-1918), one of the most prominent representatives of Russian, namely St. Petersburg, Oriental studies. The scholarly interests of Zhukovskiĭ were extremely wide, covering the whole range of subjects from dialectology and folklore to archeology. His archives contain papers on many different subjects; some of them still await publication.

This Article Has Images/Tables.

ŻIĀʾ-AL-SALṬANA

DOMINIC PARVIZ BROOKSHAW

, Šāh Begom (1799-1873), seventh daughter of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah Qajar (r. 1797-1834), private secretary to him, calligrapher and poet.

ZIGGURAT

MICHAEL HERLES

ZIYARIDS

C. EDMUND BOSWORTH

(Āl-e Ziār), a minor Islamic dynasty of the Caspian coastlands (931-ca. 1090). They ruled first in northern Iran, and then in Ṭabarestān and Gorgān.

ZODIAC

ANTONIO PANAINO

This Article Has Images/Tables.

ẒOHUR-AL-ḤAQQ

MOOJAN MOMEN

(also called Tāriḵ-e Ẓohur-al-Ḥaqq and Ketāb-e Ẓohur-al-Ḥaqq) the most comprehensive history of the first century of the Bahai faith yet written, compiled in nine volumes by Mirzā Asad-Allāh,

ZOROASTER

MULTIPLE AUTHORS the name generally known in the West for the prophet of ancient Iran, whose transformation of his inherited religion inaugurated a movement that eventually became the dominant religion in Iran up until the triumph of Islam.

ZOROASTER I. THE NAME

RÜDIGER SCHMITT

The authentic form of Zoroaster’s name is that attested in his own songs, the Gathas: Old Av. Zaraθuštra-, on which are based regular derivatives like zaraθuštri- “descending from Zoroaster."

ZOROASTER II. GENERAL SURVEY

W. W. MALANDRA

ZOROASTER III. ZOROASTER IN THE AVESTA

MANFRED HUTTER

Zaraθuštra is considered the founder of the Mazdayasnian religion who lived in Eastern Iran during the end of the second millenium BCE.

ZOROASTER IV. IN THE PAHLAVI BOOKS

A. V. WILLIAMS

ZOROASTER V. AS PERCEIVED BY THE GREEKS

ROGER BECK

ZOROASTER VI. AS PERCEIVED IN WESTERN EUROPE

MICHAEL STAUSBERG

There is a continuous tradition of reports about Zoroaster among early and later medieval Christian historians, chroniclers, and annalists. In slightly modified form, this tradition continues through the early modern periods stretching from Humanism to Enlightenment.

ZOROASTER VII. AS PERCEIVED BY LATER ZOROASTRIANS

JENNY ROSE

This entry treats the development of the concept and image of Zoroaster among the Zoroastrians of Persia and India after the Islamic conquest (10th century onwards).

This Article Has Images/Tables.

ZOROASTRIAN RITUALS MICHAEL STAUSBERG

Ritual has been variously theorized in recent decades. While the category remains elusive, the formative social importance of ritual is by now generally acknowledged even in Zoroastrian studies.

ZOROASTRIANISM

MULTIPLE AUTHORS

Historical reviews

ZOROASTRIANISM I. HISTORICAL REVIEW UP TO THE ARAB CONQUEST

WILLIAM W. MALANDRA

This article presents an overview of the history of Zoroastrianism from its beginnings through the 9th and 10th centuries CE. Details of different periods and specific issues relating to Zoroastrianism are discussed in the relevant separate entries.

ZOROASTRIANISM II. HISTORICAL REVIEW: FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST TO MODERN TIMES

JAMSHEED K. CHOKSY

As Zoroastrians lost political control of Iran to Arab Muslims in the seventh century, and thereafter Zoroastrians began slowly but steadily adopting Islam, the magi attempted to preserve their religion’s beliefs, traditions, and lore by writing them down. This Article Has Images/Tables.

ZRANKA

CROSS-REFERENCE territory around Lake Hāmun and the Helmand river in modern Sistan. See DRANGIANA.

ZUR-ḴĀNA

HOUCHANG E. CHEHABI

(lit. “house of strength”), the traditional gymnasium of urban Persia and adjacent lands.

ZURVAN

ALBERT DE JONG ancient Zoroastrian deity of Time. Although the etymology of the Avestan word causes difficulty, there is consensus over its basic meaning, “period (of time).”

ZURVANISM

ALBERT DE JONG a hypothetical religious movement in the history of Zoroastrianism. The myth of Zurvan is fairly well known from Armenian, Syriac, Greek, and Arabic sources, but it is not to be found in any Zoroastrian source.

ZURWĀNDĀD TOURAJ DARYAEE the eldest son of the grand vizier (wuzurg framādār) Mehr Narseh, who appointed him to the high religious office of chief hērbed.

ZĀR SONGS: VORĀRA, YO MAMA

MUSIC SAMPLE

Z~ CAPTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS

CROSS-REFERENCE list of all the figure and plate images in the Z entries

______

ZABĀN-E ZANĀN a newspaper and a magazine published in Isfahan and Tehran, respectively, by Ṣeddiqa Dawlatābādi (1883-1961), a pioneer advocate of women’s rights in Iran (18 July, 1919 to 1 January, 1921, a total of 57 issues).

ZABĀN-E ZANĀN, the title of a newspaper and a magazine published in Isfahan and Tehran, respectively, by Ṣeddiqa Dawlatābādi (1883-1961), a pioneer advocate of women’s rights in Iran.

The newspaper. Zabān-e zanān, the third women’s newspaper ever published in Iran, ran from 20 Šawwāl 1337 to 21 Rabiʿ 1339 Š./18 July, 1919 to 1 January, 1921, a total of 57 issues altogether. It started as a biweekly paper but became a weekly after its first year. Most of its editorials and articles dealt with issues concerning women, but it also carried a serialized novel called Dāstān-e reqqatangiz (A heart rendering/pitiful story). The historical significance of this newspaper was in its avant-garde progressive stand for the rights of women. It was the first newspaper founded and published by a woman in Iran that forcefully addressed the question of women’s rights in articles written by women, and also the first journal that used the word Zan (Woman) in its title. It is also noteworthy that Zabān-e zanān, starting with the sixth issue, attempted to use Persian terms for current Arabic words. This approach did not, however, amount to a forced purified Persian style, and some of the substitute equivalents used were invented terms found in the Dasātir.

Zabān-e zanān attracted the hostility of some fanatical reactionaries from the very outset of its publication. They attacked both the journal and its publisher in anonymous clandestine notices (šab-nāmas), and by spreading rumors and writing hostile articles in other newspapers. Both the publisher’s residence and the journal’s office came under repeated attacks by fanatics, who threw stones, invaded the premises, and even used firearms (Zabān-e zanān, no. 21, 3 Ṣafar 1339 Š./15 October 1920). Dawlatābādi moved to a new house for safety and managed to go on publishing the paper under the protection of the police (Ṣadr Hāšemi, pp. 9-10).

Zabān-e zanān had taken an actively critical stand against the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 and the policies of Prime Minister Mirzā Ḥasan Woṯuq-al-Dawla, nor did it take a more favorable position with his successor. Eventually on 15 Dey 1299 Š./5th January 1921, Sepahdār Aʿẓam Moḥammad-Wali Khan Tonokāboni, the new prime minister, dispatched a harsh telegram to the provincial governor of Isfahan, ordering him to ban the publication of Zabān-e zanān (Bayāt and Kuhestāni- nežād, eds., I, pp. 581-82, 584-85). Efforts by Dowlatābādi to reverse the ban had no effect. A fanatic cleric called the removal of the ban an act against Islam and religious ordinance (monāfi- e Eslām wa šariʿat; ibid, p. 583). Moḥit Ṭabāṭabāʾi (p. 174) and Ṣadr Hāšemi (p. 10) have wrongly suggested that the ban on Zabān-e zanān was a consequence of the coup d’état of 1921.

Zabān-e zanān was printed at Ḥabl-al-Matin printing house in four double-column pages of 21 x 34 cm and carried no illustrations. The annual subscription rate was 12 and 30 krans for the biweekly and weekly editions, respectively. Female students received a discount. Incomplete sets of Zabān-e zanān are available at the Central Library of University of Tehran, the Central Library of the University of Isfahan, and the Ebn Meskuya Library in Isfahan.

The magazine. Twenty-six months after the ban on the newspaper, Dowlatābādi embarked upon the publication of a monthly magazine with the same title in Tehran. This magazine was published from Farvardin/March-April (rather than from June as Ṣadr Hāšemi, p. 10, has recorded) to Āḏar 1301 Š./November 1922, or a total of six issues. The magazine published articles, translations, and news items about women, but contrary to its predecessor in Isfahan, did not concern itself with political issues and events.

The first three issues were lithographed in Malek-al-Ḵaṭṭāṭin Šarifi’s pen at Marvi printing house in 32 single-column pages of 12.5 x 21.5 cm and carried no illustrations. Subsequently it was typeset at Iran printing house, including the note that its previous use of lithograph was to improve the handwriting of schoolgirls. The annual subscription was set at 20 krans.

The complete set of Zabān-e zanān magazine is available at the National Library in Tehran, and scattered issues are kept at the Central Library of the University of Tehran, the Central Library of the University of Isfahan, and the Central Library of Fārs.

Bibliography:

Ḥosayn Abutorābiān, Maṭbuʿāt-e Irān az Šahrivar 1320 tā 1326, Tehran, 1987, p. 98.

Kāva Bayāt and Masʿud Kuhestāni-nežād, eds., Asnād-e maṭbuʿāt, 1286-1320 H. Š., 2 vols., Tehran, 1993.

L. P. Elwell-Sutton, “The Iranian Press 1941-1947,” Iran 6, 1968.

Guʾel Kohan, Tāriḵ-e sānsur dar maṭbuʿāt-e Irān, 2 vols., Tehran, 1984, pp. 698-702.

ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Nāhid, Zanān-e Irān dar jonbeš-e mašruṭa, Tabriz, 1981, pp. 110-11.

Ali No-Rouze [Ḥasan Moqaddam], “Registre analytyque annoté de la presse persane (depuis la Guerre),” RMM 60, 1925, no. 97.

Foruḡ-al-Zamān Nuri Eṣfahāni, Rāhnemā-ye maṭbuʿāt:fehrest-e našriyāt-e mawjuddar Ketāb-ḵāna-ye ʿomumi-e Ebn Meskuya-ye Eṣfahān, Isfahan, 2001, p. 162. Ṣadr Hāšemi, Jarāʾed o majallāt III, pp. 6-11.

Mehdoḵt Ṣanʾati, “Hargez namirad ān-ke del-aš zenda šod ba ʿešq,” Nima-ye digar, no. 17, 1992.

Bižan Sartipzāda and Kobrā Ḵodāparast, Fehrest-e ruz-nāmahā- ye mawjud dar Ketāb-ḵāna-ye melli, 1978, no. 276.

Mortażā Solṭāni, Fehrest-e majallahā-ye fārsi az ebtedā tā sāl-e 1320 Š., Tehran, 1977, no. 110.

Moḥammad Moḥiṭ Ta˘bāṭabāʾi, Tāriḵ-e taḥlili-e maṭbuʿāt-e Irān, Tehran, 1984.

(Nassereddin Parvin)

Originally Published: March 6, 2009

______

ZĀDSPRAM a 9th-century Zoroastrian scholar and author. He was one of the four sons of Gušn-Jam (or Juwānjam, according to Boyce and Cereti).

ZĀDSPRAM, a 9th-century Zoroastrian scholar and author. He was one of the four sons of Gušn-Jam (or Juwānjam, according to Boyce and Cereti). Among his brothers Zurvāndād, Manušcihr, and Ašavahišt, the second is well known for his Epistles and the book of the Dādestān ī dēnīg. According to an unverifiable tradition, Zādspram was a descendant of Ādurbād ī Mahraspandān, the famous mōbed under Šāpur II (r. 309-79). In Fārs province, and especially at Širkān, Zādspram must have had major responsibilities as a theologian, since he was described as coming “from the South” (nēmrōz)—a possible allusion to the fact that he exercised authority over the area which had formed one of the four regions of the empire as divided under Ḵosrow I (r. 531-79) and Hormozd IV (r. 579-90), as witnessed by the bullae of the spāhbeds (Gyselen, 2001). Zādspram’s brother Manušcihr, the high priest of Fārs and Kerman, reproached him for wanting to simplify the purification ceremonies (baršnūm), as he stated in two letters and an edict (Nāmagīhā ī Manušcihr). As for Zādspram’s father, he is quoted in several Pahlavi works, along with numerous commentators, which give an indication of an intense religious reflection, especially regarding rules of physical and moral purity, owing to the need to face the development of Muslim ideas and practices during the early centuries of Islamic rule.

Zādspram wrote several works: The Anthology (Vizīdagīhā ī Zādspram) and “The Book of the Enumeration of Races” (nibēg ī tōhmag-ošmārišnīh), a treatise which has not survived but must have contained description of animal species, in the manner found in the Dāmdādnask. The recent edition of the Anthology by Gignoux and Tafazzoli is based on the Copenhagen manuscript K35 (fols. 233v-254r, of the 16th century), and on the edition by Anklesaria (see below), which was itself based on three manuscripts (K35, BK, and TD), all of them incomplete, as shown by the abrupt lacuna at the end of chapter 35. BK is an old copy of K35 and contains parts that are missing in the latter, and both TD and K35 may have come down from a one and the same original version.

E. W. West translated several parts of the Anthology in the Sacred Books of the East series (chap. 1-3 in vol. 5; chap. 4-27 in vol. 47; chap. 28 in vol. 37; see also in West, 1904). R. C. Zaehner translated the first and the twenty-fourth chapters, and Sir H. W. Bailey (1943, pp. 209-16) transliterated the important medical chapters 29 and 30. Other authors, such as M. F. Kanga, have translated passages of the book. Several scholars have pointed out the origin of certain passages as derived from the Zand (Commentary) of lost Avestan texts. In fact, Zādspram quoted these lost sources, as was shown by Menasce (Camb. Hist. Iran III/2). The latter drew attention to the following references made by Zādspram: chapters 3.43 and 57 of the Dāmdād nask; chap. 9.6 of Gāthā 31; chap. 35.18 of the Spand nask; as well as the mention of a book on “the explanation of the Yasna ceremony” (chap. 6.1) and a book on “the work of the Ancients” (chap. 4.8). M. Boyce (1984, pp. 74-75) believes that chapters 13, 16, 20-22 may be based on some Zand texts, and G. Gropp (1991, pp. 79- 89) has pointed out the originality of Zādspram’s comment on the Ahunavairiia prayer in the first chapter (par. 13-23).

Three or four complete or partial editions of the Anthology are noteworthy. The edition entrusted first to M. B. Davar (1908) and then to B. T. Anklesaria (1909) was finished only in1943, but, with a few exceptions, the printed copies were lost in a fire which destroyed the Fort Press in 1945. Unvala finished the work after Anklesaria’s death in 1944 and published its first volume in 1964, which contained the introduction and the Pahlavi text. Volume II, which was to provide the transliteration and the translation, has never appeared. The introduction contains very long extracts of the Epistles of Manušcihr. In Iran, Mehrdād Bahār published a glossary of the Anthology in 1972, and M.-T. Rāšed Moḥaṣṣel provided a Persian translation of the text in 1987. F. Sohn presented in 1980 a very detailed study of the medical data described in chapters 29 and 30 and supplemented them with chapter 18 of the Bundahišn, which deals with human reproduction, a field in which Zādspram was also interested. A critical review of this work (Gignoux, 1998) demonstrated that. although a professional physician, Sohn may have made too much use of modern medical science rather than appropriately putting Zādspram’s theories into their historical and religious context. Finally, a complete edition of the Anthology, with transliteration, transcription, translation, and commentary, was prepared by Gignoux and Tafazzoli in 1993. The close cooperation of these two scholars has provided the Pahlavi text with a critical apparatus and a complete glossary, and has made a major text for the history of Mazdean thought readily accessible in a precise and intelligible translation.

The Vizīdagīhā īZādspram has often been compared with the Bundahišn, which deals with the same subjects but shows less unity of thought and wording than the Anthology. In the opinion of Mary Boyce, the latter, in contrast to the Bundahišn, can have been written by a single author. Comparison of the two texts does lead to solution of linguistic difficulties and facilitates a better understanding of points of doctrine. The Anthology has been divided by some scholars into three parts, by others into four. Tavadia (1956) believed that the purpose of the book was to illustrate the three periods of the history of the world: a cosmological phase at the beginning, the life of Zoroaster forming the central epoch, and the closing phase of Renovation. This threefold division, as Tavadia explained, suggests the view of history in Christianity and the teaching of Māni about the Two Principles and the Three Moments—before the mixture of the Two Principles, after their mixture, and following their separation. Here we have in effect a cosmological scheme common to those great religions.

According to Gignoux-Tafazzoli and others, the Anthology can be divided into four parts in terms of its contents. The first part, formed by chapters 1 to 3, deals with Mazdean cosmogony and different phases of creation. Chapter 1 is devoted to the state of mixture and the bargaining between Ohrmazd and Ahriman regarding the creation of material beings, in which Zurvān is also involved. Chapter 2 describes the arrival of Ahriman in the world and his successive misdeeds against the good creation of Ohrmazd, with various astrological references. Chapter 3 recounts the different fights between the waters guarded by Tištar and Ahriman, followed by the latter’s aggression against the mountains, the land, the plants, the livestock, and the slaying of the Uniquely-created Bull, whose body parts gave rise to various plant and animal species. A classification of animals according to their species and prototypes forms an attempt at a zoological treatise and is also attested in the Bundahišn, where it might be interesting to trace back the sources. Finally, the five kinds of fires are analyzed in accordance with their Avestan names and their implantation in the cosmos. The second part, covered by chapters 4 to 26, is devoted to the legendary events in Zoroaster’s life: the attempts to kill him, his miraculous escape from death, his remarkable qualities, and his conversations with Ohrmazd.

Chapters 27 and 28 describe the five characters of priests, the ten counsels for the pious man, and the three divisions of religion discerned in the Ahunawar, the Gāthās, and the nasks (see list s.v. AVESTA).

Chapters 29 and 30 may be considered as a separate, third section, as they are introduced by a special title. Zādspram here discusses his concept of the composition of the human person, according to a fourfold scheme: the parts pertain, respectively, to the body (tanīg), the life breath (gyānīg), the knowledge (dānišnīg), and the soul (ruwānīg). The underlying theories go back to Greek thought or Syriac ideas: micro-macrocosmic doctrine (see MICROCOSM AND MACROCOSM), the teaching of four cosmic elements forming the human body, relations with the astrological seven planets, and the medicine of Hippocrates and Galen; these have been analyzed from a comparative point of view by Gignoux (2001, chap. 2). Equally interesting is the doctrine of the multiplicity of souls, which is more original, being based on ancient Iranian data. Zādspram distinguishes three souls: the corporal soul or the soul in the body (ruwān ī tanīg/andar tan), the external soul or the soul on its way (ruwān ī bērōn/andar rāh), and the soul destined to be immortal (ruwan ī pad mēnōgān axwān). As has been argued (Gignoux, 1996, 2001, p. 23), this theory may explain the Shamanic type of the journey to the beyond, which is attested in ancient Iran (by the journeys of Vištāspa, Ardā Vīrāz, and Kirdēr; see SHAMANISM). Chapter 30 also describes the situation of the soul after death, which has to achieve its extra-terrestrial journey. This journey is the ultimate one, with which the other journeys (such as the abovementioned) implicitly alluded to in Zādspram’s discussion are analogous; significantly, the author insists twice (30.32 and 30.37) on the existence of the three ruwān. The post-mortem condition takes up a major part in this chapter, with an enumeration of the twelve prototypal forms of creatures within the framework of individual eschatology.

The final chapters, 34 and 35, form the fourth part and are devoted to general eschatology and to the events of the end of time and Renovation (frašgird, elsewhere spelled frašegerd), which will take place according to a rhythm which is, in a way, opposite to that of creation (see COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY i. and FRAŠŌ.KƎRƎTI). The resurrection of the just and that of the damned, who are meanwhile purified, is described at length, as are the different ways of life which they will enjoy in the beyond.

Bibliography:

B. T. Anklesaria, Vichitakiha-i Zatsparam. With Text and Introduction, pt. I, Bombay, 1964.

Mehrdād Bahār,Vāža-nāma-yeGozīdahā-ye Zādesparam, Tehran, 1972. H. W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth Century Books, Oxford, 1943; repr. 1971, pp. 209-16.

M. Boyce, “Middle Persian Literature,” in Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/IV/2/1, Leiden and Köln, 1968, pp. 41-42.

Idem, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, London, 1984, pp. 74-75.

C. G. Cereti, La letteratura Pahlavi, Milan, 2001, pp. 107-18.

Ph. Gignoux, “Un témoin du syncrétisme mazdéen tardif: le traité pehlevi des “Sélections de Zādsparam,” in Transition Periods in Iranian History, Studia Iranica. Cahier no. 5, Paris, 1987, pp. 59-72.

Idem, rev. of Sohn, 1980, in Stud. Ir. 27, 1998, pp. 291-96.

Idem, Man and Cosmos in Ancient Iran, Serie orientale Roma 91, Rome, 2001.

Ph. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli, Anthologie de Zādspram, Studia Iranica, Cahier 13, Paris, 1993.

G. Gropp, “Zādsprams Interpretation des Ahunavairyo-Gebetes,” in R. E. Emmerick and D. Weber eds., Corolla Iranica. Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. David Neil MacKenzie on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday on April 8th, 1991, Frankfurt am Main, 1991, pp. 79- 89.

M. F. Kanga, “Vicitakihā ī Zātsparam Ch. 27. A Critical Study,” in Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Emile Benveniste, Paris, 1975, pp. 445-56.

J. de Menasce, “Zoroastrian Literature after the Muslim Conquest,” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 546-50.

Idem, “Zoroastrian Pahlavi Writings,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, pp. 1190-94.

Moḥammad-Taqi M.-T. Rāšed Moḥaṣṣel, Gozīdahā- yeZādasparam, Tehran, 1987.

F. W. Sohn, Die Medizin des Zādsparam. Anatomie, Physiologie und Psychologie in den Wizīdagīhā ī Zādsparam, Berlin, 1980.

D. Taillieu, “Death and the Maiden – The Figure of the Daēna in the Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram,” in Le ciel dans les civilisations orientales. Heaven in the Oriental Civilizations, Acta Orientalia Belgica XII, Brussels et al., 1999, pp. 239-52.

J. C. Tavadia, Die mittelpersische Sprache und Literatur der Zarathustrier, Iranische Texte und Hilfsbücher 2, Leipzig, 1956, pp. 83-86.

E. W. West, Pahlavi Texts, pt. I, Sacred Books of the East 5, Oxford, 1880; repr., Dehli, 1965, pp. XLVI-L and 153-87.

Idem, Pahlavi Texts, pt. IV, Sacred Books of the East 37, Oxford, 1892; repr., Dehli, 1965, pp. 401-5.

Idem, Pahlavi Texts, pt. V, Sacred Books of the East 47, Oxford, 1897; repr., Dehli, 1965, pp. 133-70.

Idem, “First Series of the Selections of Zâd-Sparam,” in Ancient Persian Studies in honour of the late Shams-ul-ulama Dastur Peshotanji Behramji Sanjana, Leipzig, 1904, pp. xxliii-lxxxii. R. C. Zaehner, “Zurvanica II,” BSOS 9, 1937-39, pp. 573-85.

Idem, “A Zervanite Apocalypse I-II,” BSOS 10, 1939-42, pp. 377- 98 and 606-31.

(Philippe Gignoux)

Originally Published: July 20, 2005

______-

ZĀDUYA a Persian noble in the 7th century CE who was instrumental in the crowning of Farroḵzād Ḵosrow as Sasanian king.

ZĀDUYA, a Persian noble in the 7th century CE who was instrumental in the crowning of Farroḵzād Ḵosrow as Sasanian king. He is said to have been the “chief of the servants” (raʾis al-ḵawal) during the chaotic period between the reigns of Pērōz II and Farroḵzād Ḵosrow in 631-32 CE (Ṭabari, II/2, p. 1066, tr., pp. 408-9). The office held by him may be the prastīgbed, a term already found in Šāpūr I’s inscription at Naqš-e Rostam (Mid. Pers. plstkpt/Parthian prštkpty, sec. 48) in the early Sasanian period (Shahbazi, pp. 676, no. 1311).

When Pērōz II was murdered by the nobility, Zāduya left for a place called the Stone Fortress (Ḥeṣn-al-Ḥejāra), close to Nisibis in Mesopotamia, where a son of Ḵosrow II, named Farruḵzād Ḵosrow had been hiding to escape the fratricide of the ruling Kawād II Širuya. Zāduya brought back the young prince to Ctesiphon to be placed on the throne. Ṭabari states that his rule was acknowledged and lasted for six months (Ṭabari, II/2, p. 1066; tr. p. 409; Masʿudi, Moruj, ed. Pellat, sec. 655; idem, Tanbih, p. 103; Nöldeke, pp. 396-97).

There is also a mention of a Zāduya who, as the margrave (marzbān) of Saraḵs, made peace with the Arab general, ʿAbd- Allāh b. ʿĀmer, during the Arab Muslim conquest of Khorasan in 651-52 CE (Nöldeke pp. 416 ff.). It is impossible to ascertain if this is the same Zāduya who held a high office before and then served as a margrave in the east (Balāḏori, p. 405).

Bibliography:

Abu‘l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā Balāḏori, Ketāb fotuḥ al-boldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1968.

Philip Huyse, Die dreisprachige Inschrift Sabuhrs I: an der Ka‘ba-i Zardušt, Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, part 3/1, 2 vols., London, 1999, I, p. 60.

Abu’l-Ḥasan ʿAli Masʿudi, Moruj al-ḏahab wa maʿāden al-jawhar, rev. ed. Charles Pellat, 7 vols., Beirut, 1962-79.

Idem, Ketāb al-tanbih wa’l-ešrār, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1967.

Theodor Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden, Leiden, 1878; repr., Leiden, 1973; tr. ʿAbbās Zaryāb as Tāriḵ-e Irāniān wa ʿArabhā dar zamān-e Sāsāniān, Tehran, 1999.

Šāpur Šahbāzi, Tārik-e sāsānīān, Tehran, 2010. Moḥammad b. Jarir Ṭabari, Taʾriḵ al-rosol wa’l-moluk, ed. M. J. de Goeje et al., 15 vols., repr. Leiden, 1964; tr. by various scholars as The History of al-Ṭabari, 40 vols., Albany, New York, 1985-2007, V, tr. Clifford E. Bosworth as The Sāsānids, the Byzantines, the Lakmids, and Yemen,, Albany, N.Y., 1999.

(Touraj Daryaee)

______

ZAEHER, ROBERT CHARLES

ZAEHER, ROBERT CHARLES (b. Sevenoaks, Kent, 8 April 1913; d. Oxford, 24 November 1974), a scholar of Iranian and Indian studies, a historian of religions, Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics at Oxford University, a British Intelligence officer stationed at the British Embassy in Tehran, and the major planner of the plot leading to the overthrow of Moḥammad Mosaddeq’s government (see COUP D’ETAT OF 1332 Š./1953).

During his years as Spalding Professor at Oxford University, Zaehner wrote widely and often polemically, a circumstance which presented him as one of the protagonists in the field of comparative history of religions, though his fame proved to be much more short-lived than that of some of his contemporaries such as Mircea Eliade. His parents, originally from Switzerland, had immigrated to England, where Robert was born and received his education. He first went to the public school of Tonbridge, then, having won a scholarship, continued his education at Christ Church, a college of the University of Oxford. Once in Oxford, he first took Honour Moderations in Classics, but later on chose Oriental Studies, focusing on Iran. His main subject was Persian language, with Old Iranian as his minor. He took his first class in Persian in 1936, then studied Old and Middle Persian under Professor Harold W. Bailey, who became a key figure throughout Zaehner’s academic life as well as an inspiring friend and a sure lead in the understanding of Middle Iranian texts.

During World War II, as part of his military service, he spent the years 1943-47 posted at the British Embassy in Tehran, where he worked as assistant press attaché and then as press attaché. In 1946, while in Tehran, he converted to the Catholic faith, a faith that became an influencing factor in much of his later life and academic research, although his allegiance went to mysticism and the contemplative tradition of this faith rather than to ecclesiastic hierarchy (Hughes, pp. 140-41). Later on, he moved back to Oxford, where in 1950 he began teaching as University Lecturer in Persian, but soon he was assigned back to Iran, where he served as acting counselor at the British Embassy in Tehran (1951-52), playing a major role in the plots for the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadeq.

In 1952 he was elected Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics at Oxford University and simultaneously became Fellow at All Souls. In 1956 he became a fellow of the British Academy. Once elected as the Spalding Chair in Eastern Religions and Ethics, Zaehner gradually shifted his interest to the religious history of the Indian subcontinent and to problems of general interest to the historian of religions. As a matter of fact, being selected for an Oxonian professorship as a successor to Sir Sarvepalli Radakrishnan came as a surprise to many, since the Spalding Chair was considered reserved for Asians and, besides, because he had not yet published any books, although his Zurvan had already been accepted for publication by Oxford University Press (Lambton; Morrison; Parrinder).

In the field of Oriental studies, Zaehner’s first academic love was certainly Zoroastrianism, as well as the study of the languages needed to understand this ancient faith. His work on the Good Religion counts as the most original and scientifically inspiring in his whole career. In this field he contributed a powerful speculative book entitled Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma, an interesting synthesis meant for the general public: The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (1961), and a popular anthology of Zoroastrian texts: Teachings of the Magi: a Compendium of Zoroastrian Beliefs (1956), as well as a number of articles. His most ponderous articles on Zoroastrianism all date to the pre- war period (1938a-1940b), investigating aspects of Zurvanism and related themes, thus providing the ground for his most important book, Zurvan. In his Dawn and Twilight, Zaehner synthetically spells out his ideas on Iran’s pre-Islamic religion. The book is divided into two parts: “Dawn,” where the author presents Zoroaster’s character and thought, as well as the evolution of the Good Religion up to the end of the Achaemenid period, and “Twilight,” spanning the years from the rise of the Sasanian dynasty to the onslaught of the Arabs. Zaehner dates Zoroaster to 628-551 BCE, thus adhering to the traditional view put forward by Walter Bruno Henning, who, in 1949, dedicated his Ratanbai Katrak Lectures to a magisterial study on the Iranian prophet, later turned into a most thought- provoking volume, Zoroaster: Politician or Witch-doctor? Furthermore, Zaehner believed that Zoroaster’s doctrine was proclaimed in ancient Chorasmia, a vast area to the south of the Aral Sea (Zaehner, 1961, p. 33), here again following Henning. According to him, Zoroaster was a religious reformer, fighting the traditional creed and knowing no compromise; for instance, in Zoroaster’s doctrine, Asha, the “Truth,” was pitted against Druj, the “Lie” (Wickedness, Disorder; see Zaehner, 1961, p. 36), and no compromise between the two was possible. Moreover, he thought “Free Will” to be an essential part of the Iranian prophet’s theological doctrine (Zaehner, 1961, pp. 41-42). Creatures had been created free, and therefore Man, the most important of all created beings, was entirely responsible for his choice and for his destiny. In Zaehner’s reconstruction, Zoroaster believed in one supreme god, immortal and creator of all things and immaterial (Zaehner, 1961, p. 60).

Zaehner distinguished three distinct periods in the history of pre-Islamic Zoroastrianism: “primitive Zoroastrianism,” that is, the prophet’s own message and his reformed, monotheistic creed; “Catholic Zoroastrianism,” appearing already in the Yasna Haptaŋhaiti and more clearly in the Younger Avesta, which saw other divinities readmitted in the cult, a religious trend attested in the Achaemenid period, probably already under Darius I and Xerxes I, certainly from Artaxerxes I onwards as shown by the calendar reform that he dates to about 441 BCE (Zaehner, 1961, p. 155); and finally the dualist orthodoxy of Sasanian times (Zaehner, 1961, p. 81). Although in the main Zaehner stuck to a traditional interpretation of the history of Zoroastrianism in the early period, his discussions of Haoma and its rite, which he considered to be the focal point of Zoroastrian cult, and on the other divinities worshipped by Iranians of those ancient times (Zaehner, 1961, pp. 97-153) provide food for thought. Most notable among these divinities is Mithra, whose worship, although in a deeply different form, was pervasive in the Roman empire (see MITHRAISM).

Zaehner’s approach to Sasanian Zoroastrianism was much more original in both thought and method than his contribution to the study of the more ancient period. This was due to a number of factors, mainly the fact that, although not properly a philologist, he was much more at home with Middle Persian texts and later secondary sources than with the world of the Avesta, the treatment of which required very different linguistic skills. He was able to understand better than many others the religious variety of Sasanian times.

His earlier book on Zoroastrianism (Zaehner, 1955a), postulates the existence of a widely spread Zoroastrian sect believing Ohrmazd and Ahriman to be the twin sons of Zurvan, the deity of Time. To do so, Zaehner translated and studied a vast number of primary and secondary sources included in the volume. Although he was more or less severely criticized (Molé, 1959; Shaked, 1992; Boyce, 1957 and 1990) both for his general reconstruction of the Zurvanite phenomena and for a tendency to force a meaning on the text (Cereti and MacKenzie), this theory still represents Zaehner’s most original and well argued contribution to our knowledge of Iranian religion. He also theorized the existence of at least three Zoroastrian sects in Sasanian times: the “Mazdean” dualists, whose doctrine is recorded in Pahlavi literature dating from the early Islamic centuries; a group of monotheists who grew strong toward the end of the Sasanian empire, after the reforms by Ḵosrow I; and finally the Zurvanites. According to him, the latter was the dominant form of Zoroastrism in the late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, as shown by the fact that Christian and Manichean polemists mainly attack the beliefs of this sect. He further distinguished between three types of Zurvanism (Zaehner, 1961, 178-89, 205-10).

Zaehner’s interpretation of Zurvanism is mainly based on reports attested in Christian polemical sources, ultimately going back to Sasanian times. These treatises convey a variant version of the cosmogonic myth in which Zurvan figures as the father of two twins, one, Ohrmazd, engendered by his wish to have a son, the other, Ahriman, by his doubt in the efficacy of his own sacrifice, a version confirmed by sporadic passages found in some Manichean texts (Zaehner, 1955a, pp. 419-29, 431- 32, 439). Furthermore, Zaehner remarked that in Manichean Middle Persian texts the Father of Greatness is called Zurvan, demonstrating, in his opinion, that the divinity of time must have been the supreme deity in the then current pantheon of Persian Zoroastrians. Building on this evidence, he attempted to show that some Pahlavi texts, notwithstanding deliberate censorship by the Zoroastrian clergy, still preserved evident traces of the Zurvanite doctrine. Such were for certain the Selections of Zādspram and the Iranian Bundahišn, while the Indian Bundahišn kept more strictly to orthodox Mazdean doctrine.

Zaehner identified two forms of Zurvanism, one materialistic, the other ethical (1955a, p. 269), underlining that in Zurvanism fate prevails over free will, while in “orthodox” Zoroastrianism free will had the upper hand (1955a, p. 255). Furthermore, he tried hard to prove that Zurvan was a quadripartite god, following Henrik Samuel Nyberg (1931, pp. 84-91). He identified seven possible divine tetrads characterizing Zurvanite theological doctrine (1955a, p. 231). Āz, the female demon of greed plays a major role in Zurvanism as reconstructed by Zaehner, proving in the end to be more powerful than Ahriman himself, although both were bound to succumb to Ohrmazd. Zaehner considers Zurvanism to have had a tendency toward ascetic life, quite unnatural in Zoroastrianism, which had a very positive opinion of worldly activities (1955a, p. 271).

Many scholars, active both earlier and later than Zaehner (e.g., Boyce, 1957, pp. 304-5), considered Zurvanism to be a heresy of Zoroastrianism mainly based on a new interpretation of Yasna 30.3-5, the Gathic passage mentioning two twin spirits, one of whom chose the good, the other the bad. Zaehner’s book on Zurvan, ultimately based on Nyberg’s articles on Zoroastrian cosmogony (Nyberg, 1929, 1931, and 1938; see also Schaeder, 1927 and 1941) brought new life into this ancient debate (see further Shaked, 1992, p. 220, n. 3). Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin appreciated Zaehner’s work and considered Zurvanism a current heresy of Zoroastrianism of Greek derivation (1953, pp. 123-24; 1962, pp. 184-89, 302-307; 1956, see also, 1956, for his positive review of Zaehner’s Zurvan), while Mary Boyce (1957, 1990), though sharing the idea that Zurvanism was a diverging form of the Zoroastrian religion, considered it to be current and majoritarian in southwestern Iran in the Sasanian period and thought that it was a syncretism between Iranian and Babylonian concepts. Both authors considered it to have been later marginalized in the Pahlavi books because of deliberate censorship by the clergy, but never went as far as to believe it to be an independent cult, entirely separated from Mazdean Zoroastrianism. Other scholars, such as Marijan Molé (1959, 1961, 1963, pp. 8- 14), Ugo Bianchi (1958) and later Shaul Shaked (1992) disagreed with Zaehner, believing that Zurvanism had never been a “heresy” on its own, much less a different or independent faith, rather, at the most a variant version of the cosmogonic myth to be understood in the frame of religious variety in ancient Iran. Interestingly, in Pahlavi literature we find no explicit reference to Zurvanism, with the possible exception of a single quotation in Dēnkard VIII—a Middle Persian rendering of the stanza of the twins found in Yasna 30 (Zaehner, 1955a, pp. 429-31; see Shaked, 1992, p. 226). Zaehner’s Zurvan should be read together with his “Postscript to Zurvan” (1955b), in which the author improves on various aspects of the book (on scholarly debate on Zurvanism, see Rezania, pp. 13-31).

Zaehner’s marked interest in Indian religious thought, together with his duties as Spalding Professor, led him to become one of the leading specialists of Hindu theology and philosophy. In 1962, he published a popular compendium of Hindu docrines with the title Hinduism and later he added other important works, such as the popular edition of religious texts, Hindu Scriptures (1966), which included a valuable translation of the Bhagavad-Gītā, later independently republished (1969), and a challenging comparative book on Hindu and Muslim Mysticism (1960).

Even in his more scholarly books, Zaehner was prone to be influenced by his personal beliefs when analyzing religious phenomena. This was all the more true for a group of books that may be aptly defined as apologetic and polemical, arguing as they do in favor of his own Christian and ethical beliefs—works such as Christianity and Other Religions (1964), The Convergent Spirit (1963), Evolution in Religion (1971), and Dialectical Christianity and Christian Materialism (1971; Parrinder, p. 69). More complex and intellectually stimulating are two other impassioned works, At Sundry Times (1958) based on his Owen Evans lectures, and Concordant Discord (1970), deriving from his Gifford Lectures (Parrinder, pp. 69-70).

Mysticism was another important field of study for Zaehner. Not only did he investigate Hindu and Muslim mysticism, but he also took part in the debate on the use of psychedelic drugs to have mystic visions, which was to become so fashionable for the Beat Generation and those that followed. In his Mysticism, Sacred and Profane (1957) he vehemently criticized Aldous Huxley’s advocacy of the use of mescaline to obtain religious insights, which is found in the latter’s The Door of Perception. In another work, Drugs, Mysticism and Make-Believe (1972), derived from three talks aired on the BBC in 1970, he again attacked those who, like psychologist Timothy Leary (d. 1996), promoted the use of drugs (Parrinder, pp. 70-71). His last book, Our Savage God (1974), written on the emotional wave following the murder of the actress Sharon Tate and some of her friends by members of a cult led by Charles Manson, is an emotionally tense, passionate protest against religious, ethical, and moral indifferentism (Parrinder, p. 71).

However, as stated above, Zaehner was more than just a scholar. In the years of Moḥammad Mossadeq’s government, he played an important role serving his government in Iran. During World War II, Zaehner was posted at the British Embassy in Tehran, where he worked under Ann K. S. Lambton, who, as press attaché, was in charge of British propaganda. In postwar years, Lambton moved back to London to work at the School of Oriental and African Studies, where she served as Professor of Persian. Nonetheless, she kept on being a very influential adviser to the British government on Iranian matters. When in 1951 Mossadeq nationalized the oil industry and started a political confrontation with Great Britain, Lambton advised that his government should be overthrown and suggested that Zaehner be sent to Tehran to run undercover operations. Acting on Lambton’s suggestion, the newly elected Foreign Secretary, Herbert Morrison, appointed Robin (i.e., Robert) Zaehner as acting counselor in the British Embassy in Tehran. He was thus to play a major role in the events that followed. Officially, his task was to promote Mosaddeq’s overthrow through legal means, although he often crossed the thin line into a gray area of intrigue (Louis, 2004, pp. 130-35).

Once he was back in Iran, Zaehner revitalized the network of anglophile Iranians that he had built in the years of his first posting, and started exerting pressure against that country’s legitimate government. He had a close relationship with the three Rašidiān brothers (Sayf-Allāh, Qodrat-Allāh and Asad- Allāh), members of a wealthy and influential family, through whom he bribed members of parliament, political activists, and other affluent champions of Tehran’s civil society to throw Mossadeq out of power. The Rašidiān brothers received large sums of money for their anglophile network, but they also showed commitment to the British cause when in 1953 they played a major role in the coup that ousted Mosaddeq. Lacking direct British support, they proved ready to spend out of their own pocket to overthrow Mosaddeq. In those years Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) provided Zaehner with all the money he needed to fight his battle against the aging prime minister through legal or quasi-legal means (Azimi, p. 43). He distributed large sums of money, and his habit of giving bribes hidden in tin biscuit cans was described by many of the writers who traced the history of those years (e.g., Azimi, p. 43; de Bellaigue, p. 194). This same practice was continued by another British civil servant, Sam Falle, Zaehner’s former collaborator. On 16 July 1952, Mosaddeq resigned, and the shah appointed Aḥmad Qawām-al-Solṭana prime minister.

Remarkably, the British, either by miscalculation or lack of political will, failed to provide full support for Qawām, whose government lasted only a few days and who was ousted by vehement popular opposition already on July 21. In October 1953, the British diplomatic mission was forced to leave Iran; Zaehner himself had left a few months earlier. Notwithstanding all his efforts and nationalistic dedication, when he returned to Oxford in the summer of 1952, his action had not yet led to any concrete results. At that time, Zaehner himself was quite disillusioned about the possibility for Great Britain to gain the upper hand in Iran (de Bellaigue, pp. 193-95). However, things were eventually to evolve in the direction he had hoped for, and on 19 August 1953 Mosaddeq’s democratic government was ousted in a coup orchestrated by foreign powers.

Robert Charles Zaehner’s years in Teheran after World War II were characterized by many achievements, first of all his determinant role in forging the Rašidiān’s network into an effective political tool at the service of the British, as well as his establishing a good relationship with Ernest Perron, the shah’s Swiss favorite, who granted him a good insight into court affairs. However, there were also a few political misjudgements, such as in the case of Qawām-al-Salṭana’s ill-fated government. His command of the Persian language, his actions and his lifestyle turned him into somewhat of a legend in post-war Iran: flamboyant, bon-vivant, well introduced in local society, a hard drinker, an opium smoker, he was regarded by many of his colleagues as unfit for his operational job (Louis, 2004, p. 146) and this also proved to be a limit for his activities.

Bibliography:

Works.

(1) Books:

Zurvan, A Zoroastrian Dilemma, Oxford 1955a; repr. with new introd., New York, 1972.

The Teachings of the Magi: A Compendium of Zoroastrian Beliefs, London, 1956.

Mysticism, Sacred and Profane: An Inquiry into Some Varieties of Praeternatural Experience, Oxford, 1957.

At Sundry Times: An Essay in the Comparison of Religions, London, 1958; repr. with a new preface, as The Comparison of Religions Boston 1962.

Hindu and Muslim Mysticism, London, 1960. Hindu and Muslim Mysticism, London, 1960.

The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, London, 1961.

Hinduism, London and New York, 1962.

The Convergent Spirit: Towards A Dialectics of Religion, London, 1963.

Matter and Spirit: Their Convergence in Eastern Religions, Marx, and Teilhard de Chardin, New York, 1963; also published as The Convergent Spirit: Towards a Dialectics of Religion, London 1963.

Christianity and Other Religions, New York 1964; also published as The Catholic Church and World Religions, London, 1964.

Hindu Scriptures, London, 1966.

Concordant Discord: The Interdependence of Faiths, Oxford, 1970.

Tr., Bhagavad-Gītā, with a Commentary Based on the Original Sources, Oxford, 1969. Evolution in Religion: A Study of Sri Aurobindo and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Oxford, 1971a.

Dialectical Christianity and Christian Materialism, London, 1971b.

Drugs, Mysticism and Make-believe, London, 1972; also published as Zen, Drugs, and Mysticism, New York, 1973.

Our Savage God: The Perverse Use of Eastern Thought, London, 1974. The City Within the Heart, London, 1980.

(2) Articles:

“Zurvanica I,” BSOAS 9/2, 1938a, pp. 303-20.

“Zurvanica II,” BSOAS 9/3, 1938b, pp. 573-85.

“Zurvanica III, BSOAS 9/4, 1939, pp. 871-901.

“Aparmānd,” JRAS, 1940, pp. 35-128.

“A Zervanite Apocalypse I,” BSOAS 10/2, 1940a, pp. 377-98. “A Zervanite Apocalypse II,” BSOAS 10/3, 1940b, pp. 606-31.

“Postscript to Zurvan,” BSOAS 17, 1955b, pp. 232-49.

“Abu Yazid of Bistam: A Turning-point in Islamic Mysticism,” Indo-Iranian Journal 1, 1957, pp. 286-301.

“Islam and Christ,” Dublin Review, no. 474, 1957, pp. 271-88.

“Zoroastrianism” in R. Zaehner, ed., The Concise Encyclopedia of Living Faiths, New York, 1959, pp. 209-22.

“Utopia and Beyond: Some Indian Views,” Eranos-Jahrbuch 32 1964, pp. 281-309.

“Zoroastrian Survivals in Iranian Folklore,” Iran 3, 1965, pp. 87- 96.

“Ahriman in Luristan,” in Sir J. J. Zarthoshti Madressa Centenary Volume, Bombay, 1967, pp. 26-36.

“Religious Truth,” in John Hick, ed., Truth and Dialogue in World Religions: Conflicting Truth-Claims, Philadelphia, 1974, pp. 1-19.

“Our Father Aristotle,” in Philippe Gignoux and Ahmad Tafazzoli, eds., Mémorial Jean de Menasce, Louvain, 1974, pp. 91-122.

Other references.

Fakhreddin Azimi, “Unseating Mossadeq: The Configuration and Role of Domestic Forces,” in Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, eds., Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Syracuse, N.Y., 2004, pp. 27-101 and notes on pp. 286-303.

Christopher de Bellaigue, Patriot of Persia: Muhammad Mossadegh and a Tragic Anglo-American Coup, New York, 2012.

Ugo Bianchi, Zamān i Ōhrmazd: Lo Zoroastrismo nelle sue origini e nella sua essenza, Torino, 1958.

Mary Boyce, “Some Reflections on Zurvanism,” BSOAS 19, 1957, pp. 304-16.

Idem, “Some Further Reflections on Zurvanism,” in D. Amin, M. Kasheff, and A. Sh. Shahbazi, eds, Iranica Varia: Papers in Honor of Professor Ehsan Yarshater, Acta Iranica 30, Leiden, 1990, pp. 20-29.

Carlo G. Cereti and David N. MacKenzie, “Except by Battle: Zoroastrian Cosmogony in the 1st Chapter of the Greater Bundahišn,” in Carlo G. Cereti, Mauro Maggi, and Elio Provasi, eds, Religious Themes and Texts of Pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia: Studies in Honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on 6th December 2002, Wiesbaden, 2003, p. 31-59.

Jacque Duchesne-Guillemin, Ohrmazd et Ahriman: L’aventure dualiste dans l’antiquité, Paris, 1953.

Idem, “Notes on Zervanism in the Light of Zaehner’s Zurvan, with Additional References,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15, 1956, pp. 108-12.

Idem, La religion de l’Iran ancien, Paris, 1962.

Walter B. Henning, Zoroaster, Politician or Witch Doctor? Ratanbai Katrak Lectures, 1949, Oxford, 1951.

Robert D. Hughes, “Zen, Zurvan, and Zaehner: A Memorial Tribute,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 6/2, Fall 1976, pp. 139-48.

Aldous Huxley, The Door of Perception, London, 1954.

A. K. S. Lambton, “Robert Charles Zaehner," BSOAS 38/3, 1975, pp. 623-24. William Roger Louis, “Britain and the Overthrow of the Mosaddeq Government,” in Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, eds., Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Syracuse, N.Y., 2004, pp. 126-77 and notes on pp. 307-16; revised version, as “Mussadiq, Oil, and the Dilemmas of British Imperialism,” in idem, Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez and Decolonization, New York, 2006, pp. 727- 87.

Marijan Molé, “Le problème zurvanite,” JA, no. 247, 1959, pp. 431-69.

Idem, “Le problème des sects zoroastriennes dans les livres pehlevis,” Oriens 13/14, 1961, pp. 1-28.

Idem, Culte, mythe et cosmologie dans l’Iran ancient: Le problème zoroastrien et la tradition mazdéenne, Paris, 1963.

George Morrison, “Obituary: Professor R. C. Zaehner,” Iran 13, 1975, p. iv.

Henrik Samuel Nyberg, “Questions de cosmogonie et de cosmologie mazdéennes I,” JA, no. 214, 1929, pp. 193-310.

Idem, “Questions de cosmogonie et de cosmologie mazdéennes II,” JA, no. 219, 1931, pp. 1-134 and 193-244. Idem, Die Religionen des alten Iran, Leipzig, 1938. Geoffrey Parrinder, “Robert Charles Zaehner (1913-1974),” History of Religions 16, 1976, pp. 66-74.

Kianoosh Rezania, Die zoroastrische Zeitvorstellung: Eine Untersuchun über Zeit- und Ewigkeitkonzepte und die Frage des Zurvanismus, Wiesbaden, 2010.

Hans Heinrich Schaeder, “Urform und Fortbildungen des manichäischen Systems,” Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 4, 1927, pp. 67-157.

Idem, “Der iranische Zeitgott und sein Mythos,” ZDMG 95, 1941, pp. 268-99. Shaul Shaked, “The Myth of Zurvan: Cosmogony and Eschatology,” in Ithamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked, and Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, eds, Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Tübingen, 1992, pp. 219-40.

(Carlo Cereti)

Originally Published: September 22, 2015

______ẒAHIR-AL-DAWLA, EBRĀHIM KHAN

(d. Tehran, 1240/1824), military leader and governor of Kermān under Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah Qajar.

ẒAHIR-AL-DAWLA, EBRĀHIM KHAN (d. Tehran, 1240/1824), military leader and governor of Kermān under Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah Qajar (r. 1797-1834). A cousin, stepson, and son-in-law of Fatḥ- ʿAli Shah, Ebrāhim Khan was an important patron of architecture, particularly famous for the Ebrāhim Khan Complex in the old bazaar of Kermān. Entrusted with the governorship of Kermān, he undertook the reconstruction of the city after the devastating siege of Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qajar (r. 1794-97). He favored and supported the Shaikhis (Šayḵis) of Kermān.

Youth. Ebrāhim Khan was from the Qawānlu branch of the Qajar tribe (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 110; Vaziri, 2006, p. 759, footnote). His father, Mehdi-Qoli Khan, was the brother of Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qajar and a paternal uncle of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah, while his mother, Āsia Ḵānom, was the daughter of Moḥammad Khan Qawānlu. There are no references to Ebrāhim Khan’s birth date, but we know that his father died early, during the siege of Astarābād by Karim Khan Zand when Ebrāhim Khan was a child. After this event, Āḡā Moḥammad Khan married Ebrāhim Khan’s mother to Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah, and raised and nurtured Ebrāhim Khan as his own son, together with his other nephews, Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah and his brother Ḥosayn-Qoli Khan (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, pp. 301, 348; Vaziri, 2006, p. 759 footnote; Hedāyat, 1957, p. 76). Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah also highly revered Ebrāhim Khan and honored him with the appellation of Ẓahir-al-Dawla and Ebrāhim Khan-e ʿAmu (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 78; Vaziri, 2006, p. 85). In 1206/1791, Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah married his first offspring and first daughter Homāyun Solṭān (Ḵānom Ḵānomān, Ḵān Bāji) to Ebrāhim Khan (ʿAżod-al- Dawla, pp. 27, 28, 316; Hedāyat, 1971, p. 250; Vaziri, 2006, p. 762; Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, p. 1417).

Ebrāhim Khan as a military leader. Ebrāhim Khan was an important military leader and companion of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah. With his numerous campaigns in different regions, Ebrāhim Khan helped the new king establish and stabilize his dominion over the territories conquered by Āḡā Moḥammad Khan. Before being appointed governor of Kermān, he was commissioned to pacify and suppress the insurgents in the regions of Isfahan, Fārs and Iraq, in 1798 (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 195; Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, p. 1450; Donboli, pp. 49-50), Gilān in 1800 (Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, p. 1458; Donboli, p. 69), and Khorasan in 1800-02 (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 195; Hedāyat, 1971, pp. 375-76, 362, 367; Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, pp. 1456-8, 1462; Donboli, pp. 69, 71, 79, 87). A consistent source of insurgency and instability lay in the southeastern regions of Kermān and Baluchistan. Once entrusted with the governorship of Kermān, he became specifically responsible for maintaining the security of these troublesome regions. For the rest of his career, he fought frequently with the local khans of Kermān, Bam, Narmāšir, Baluchistan, and Sistān, and gained a strong hold over these regions (Hedāyat, 1971, pp. 387, 403; Vaziri, 2006, pp. 734, 759, 760, footnote; Donboli, pp. 124-5).

Ebrāhim Khan as governor of Kermān. In the wake of Āḡā Moḥammad Khan’s crushing siege of Kermān in 1794, the city was left moribund and without a governor. The rulers of Yazd were able to exert some control over Kermān, but they were constantly in conflict with the local khans. After Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah had ascended to the throne and consolidated his power in the northern and central regions of Iran, he turned his attention to the southeastern parts of the country, which were on the verge of political disintegration and had lost their economic infrastructure and were no longer operating under the hegemony of the central government. In order to regain control, Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah appointed Ebrāhim Khan as governor of Kermān. During his tenure as governor, which lasted 22 years (1218- 40/1803-24), Ebrāhim Khan undertook a comprehensive restoration plan and was remarkably successful in reconstructing socio-economic infrastructure and maintaining the political stability of Kermān and its surrounding regions (Hedāyat, 1971, p. 387; Vaziri, 2006, pp. 82, 85, 757, footnote; idem, 1974, p. 116; Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, p. 1468; Bāstāni Pārizi, 1965, pp. 3-5). He asked the king for a tax-exemption for the city to be able to invest in the economic reconstruction of the city (Pur Aḥmad, p. 241). With his strong hold over and constant suppression of the local khans, Ebrāhim Khan improved the security of the region so that trade, which was essential to the economy, could be resumed. The economic restoration of the region demanded a large labor force, which was difficult to amass, given the dramatic depopulation of the region in the face of severe political and economic problems. Ebrāhim Khan persuaded people from neighboring regions, and of various professions, to resettle in Kermān, and to benefit from the emerging economic possibilities in the region (Vaziri, 1974, p. 193; Bāstāni Pārizi, 1965, p. 13).

The physical restoration of the city was also crucial to his plans. He restored and expanded its governmental center, the arg (‘citadel’), and added new administrative and military sectors. The high-ranking officials of the city also built new elaborate residences there. Ebrāhim Khan also equipped this enlarged complex with the city’s fifth gate, which was named Darvāza-ye arg (‘the citadel gate’; Vaziri, 1974, pp. 105, 118). He also repaired many qanats in the city and suburbs of Kermān and restored fields and gardens. His most famous building project is a multi-functional complex, now part of the old bazaar of Kermān, named after him, Majmuʿa-ye Ebrāhim Khan (‘the Ebrāhim Khan complex’). The complex consists of a bazaar, now known as Bāzār-e zargari, (‘the goldsmiths bazaar’), a religious school with a library, as well as a bath (Vaziri, 1974, pp. 110, 112, footnote; Bāstāni Pārizi, 1965, p. 12; idem, 1974, p. 9). Ebrāhim Khan sought not only to rejuvenate the labor force, but also to restore the cultural life and religious affairs of the city. According to the sources, he patronized religious schools and invited clerics from Arabestān, Fārs, and Khorasan, such as Shaikh Neʿmat-Allāh Baḥrayni, Shaikh ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Aḥsāʾi, Mollā ʿAli Aʿmā, and Sayyed Kāẓem Rašti, a leader of the Shaikhis (Bāstāni Pārizi, 1965, p. 3). He also liked poetry and supported poets, having himself composed some poems under the pen name of Toḡrol (Hedāyat, 1957, p. 76).

Death. In 1824, Ebrāhim Khan went to capital, Tehran, for an event in which some other governors also participated. Before his departure, he appointed his elder son ʿAbbās-Qoli Mirzā as his deputy in Kermān and his other son Rostam Khan as his deputy in Bam (Vaziri, 2006, p. 765, footnote). While in Tehran, he succumbed to a fatal ailment (Hedāyat, 1971, pp. 635-6; Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, p. 1567). As his date of birth is not recorded, his exact age at the time of death is not known. However, we can assume that he was not very old, given the fact that at the time of the siege of Astarābād (1783) he was a child, and that he married his first wife in 1791. Moreover, on the occasion of his death, the author of Maʾāṯer-e solṭāniya remembers him as a young, good-humored, kind person (Donboli, p. 392). Descendants. As a member of the royal family, Ebrāhim Khan was presumably wealthy and powerful even before he became governor of Kermān. However, during his long reign over the vast regions of the southeast, and in the course of many restoration and reconstruction projects, Ebrāhim Khan and his family accumulated even more property and wealth and therefore gained outstanding status and power in the city of Kermān and in neighboring regions (Bāstāni Pārizi, 1965, p. 3). Thus, the descendants of Ebrāhim Khan have exercised remarkable influence in the political, cultural, and religious history of Kermān and neighboring cities to the present day (Vaziri, 2006, pp. 85-7). The large and influential Ebrāhimi and Amir-Ebrāhimi families of Kermān trace their lineage back to Ebrāhim Khan (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 195; Vaziri, 1974, p. 139).

Ebrāhim Khan had 21 daughters, the most famous of whom was Galin Ḵānom, who married Šoʿāʾ-al-Salṭana, the 35th son of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, pp. 193-4). The number of his sons has been recorded differently. He probably had 21 sons, whose names have been recorded in historical sources. ʿAbbās- Qoli was his eldest son from his first wife, the daughter of Fatḥ- ʿAli Shah. Appointed Ebrāhim Khan’s deputy during his father’s last trip to Tehran, Abbās-Qoli Khan was officially named his successor by Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah. Nevertheless, he revolted against the king and was defeated, but escaped a severe punishment due to his relation to the king (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 110; Hedāyat, 1971, pp. 695-7; Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, p. 1567; Bāstāni Pārizi, 1965, pp. 5, 13, 14). His full brothers were Qahhār-Qoli Khan and Abu’l-Fatḥ Khan. Another son of Ebrāhim Khan was Rostam Khan, who married Šāh Gowhar Ḵānom, a daughter of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 319), and who was appointed by Ebrāhim Khan as governor of Bam, but was defeated by his rebellious stepbrother, ʿAbbās-Qoli Khan, in 1827 (Vaziri, 2006, pp. 744-5, footnote). The remaining brothers were Šāhroḵ Khan, who married Šāh Gowhar Ḵānom after the death of Rostam Khan (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 34), Asad-Allāh Khan, Ḡolām-Ḥosayn Khan, Moḥammad Ḥasan Khan; Naṣr-Allāh Khan, ʿAli-Qoli Khan, Ḵosrow Khan, Musā Khan, Esmāʿil Khan, ʿIsa Khan, ʿAli- Moḥammad Khan, Bahrām Khan, Moḥammad Ṣādeq Khan, Ḡolām-ʿAli Khan, Moḥammad-Taqi Khan, ʿAbd-al-Raḥim Khan, and Moḥammad Karim Khan, who was the most famous of Ebrāhim Khan’s sons and the head of the Shaikhis in Kermān (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 319; Vaziri, 2006, p. 762).

Ebrāhim Khan and the Shaikhis. In a pilgrimage to Karbala, Ebrāhim Khan met Sayyed Kāẓem Rašti and was highly influenced by him. Ebrāhim Khan’s son, Moḥammad Karim Khan, pursued religious studies under the supervision of Sayyed Kāẓem and was then appointed by him as the head of the Shaikhis in Kerman. As a result of the support of Ebrāhim Khan and his family, Shaikhism was promoted and strengthened in Kermān, which became the seat of the Shaikhis of Iran. The Ebrāhim Khan School and its library were devoted to the study and promotion of Shaikhism. After Moḥammad Karim Khan died, his son Moḥammad Khan took over his position (ʿAżod-al-Dawla, p. 195; Hermann and Rezai, pp. 92-4).

Bibliography:

Primary sources.

ʿAżod-al-Dawla, Tāriḵ-e ʿAżodi, ed. A. Navāʾi, Tehran, 1977. ʿAbd-al-Razzāq ‘Maftun’ Donboli, Maʾāṯer-e solṭāniya, ed. Ḡolām Ḥosayn Ṣadrī-Afšār, Tehran, 1972.

Moḥammad-Ḥasan Khan Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, Tāriḵ-e montaẓam- e nāṣeri, ed. M. E. Reżvāni, Tehran, 1988.

Reżā-Qoli Khan Hedāyat, Rawżat al-ṣafā-ye nāṣeri, 10 vols., Tehran, 1270-74/1853-56 (the first seven volumes constitute a revised edition of Mirḵᵛānd’s Rawżat al-ṣafāʾ), vol. 9, repr. Qom, 1971.

Idem, Majmaʿ al-foṣaḥā, 2 vols., Tehran, 1878; ed. Maẓāher Moṣaffā, 6 vols., Tehran, 1957-61.

Moḥammad-Jaʿfar Ḵurmowji, Tāriḵ-e Qājār: Ḥadāʾeq al-aḵbār-e nāṣeri, ed. Ḥ. Ḵadivjam, Tehran, 1965.

Aḥmad-ʿAli Khan Vaziri, Joḡrāfia-ye Kermān, ed. M. E. Bāstāni Pārizi, Tehran, 1974.

Idem, Tāriḵ-e Kermān, ed. M. E. Bāstāni Pārizi, Tehran, 2006.

Secondary sources.

A. Āl-e Dāvud, “Ebrāhim Khan Ẓahir-al-Dawla Qājār,” Dāʾerat al- maʿāref-e bozorg-e eslāmi, vol. 2, available online at http://www.cgie.org.ir/shavad.asp?id=123&avaid=687.

M. E. Bāstāni Pārizi, Farmāndehān-e Kermān, Tehran, 1965.

Idem, Ganj-ʿAli Ḵān va ḵeyrāt-e u, Kermān, 1974.

D. Hermann and O. Rezai, “Le rôle du vaqf dans la formation de la communauté shaykhī kermānī à l'époque qājār (1259- 1324/1843-1906), Studia Iranica 36, 2007.

A. Pur Aḥmad, Joḡrāfiā va kārkardhā-ye bāzār-e Kermān, Kermān, 1997

(Mehrnoush Soroush)

Originally Published: March 4, 2011

______

ZĀL legendary prince of Sistān, father of Rostam, and a leading figure in Iranian traditional history. His story is given in the Šāh- nāma.

ZĀL (also called Dastān, Zar, and Zāl-e Zar), legendary prince of Sistān, father of Rostam, and a leading figure in Iranian traditional history. His story is given in the Šāh-nāma (partially retold in prose by Yarshater, 1959, pp. 83-9, 93-133), so closely paralleled in Ṯaʿālebi’s Ḡorar (pp. 68-10, 114, 119-22, 127-9, 138- 41, 143 ff., 355-57, 379 ff., 383-88) as to suggest a common source, the Šah-nāma-ye Abu Manṣuri. Sām, lord of Sistān and the foremost noble of Iran, had no child. A woman of his harem gave birth to a beautiful boy whose “hair was all white.” Sām was ashamed, likening the infant to a child of “dēv” or “Ahriman” (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, pp. 164, v. 45, p. 166, vv. 63, 65; all references are to this edition and volume unless given otherwise), and he abandoned it on the Alborz Mountain, but the fabulous bird, Simorḡ, which nested there, nursed the boy, and he grew to become a dashingly handsome young man endowed with great physical power and a brilliant mind, whom travelers saw and admired (I, pp. 167-68). One night Sām dreamt that a mounted warrior rode in from India and informed him that he had a grown-up son. Sām consulted wise men, but they all blamed him for having destroyed his God-given child. Again he dreamt that from the mountain of India there appeared an army led by a youth flanked by a Zoroastrian priest (mōbad) and an advisor, and that these companions condemned his act: “If you needed a bird as the nurse for your son, what use is this royal and heroic state? If white hair is a cause of shame, what say you of your own white hair and beard?” Profoundly ashamed, Sām went to the Alborz, besought God for forgiveness, and discovered his son: “a figure worthy of royal crown and throne, with side and arms of a lion, sun-like countenance, heroic heart, sword-seeking hands, deep black eyes and lashes, coral lips and rubicund face” (I, pp. 169-73, vv. 104-49). The youth was unwilling at first to leave Simorḡ, but the bird assured him of a glorious future, and gave him samples of his feathers, which contained God-given fortune (farr), to use when in peril: “put one of my feathers onto fire, at once shall you behold my farr” (I, pp. 171-72). The boy, now called Dastān (cf. Yarshater, 1983, pp. 432, 453), Zāl, Zar, or Zāl-e zar, came with Sām to Sistān and was clothed in noble garments (pahlavāni qabāy). (On zar “old,” see Bailey, Dictionary, p. 346. For an attempt to explain Dastān as an adaptation of Middle Persian dastan “capable,” or as a family name “of the descendants of *Dast,” see Skjærvø, pp. 165-66.)

Having heard the wonderful story, King Manučehr summoned Zāl to his court and recognized that he possessed the Royal Glory (farr-e kayān), the heart of the wise, and the courage of a lion” (I, p. 175). The story of Simorḡ and Zāl “spread throughout the world” (ibid., p. 176, v. 185), and court astronomers cast his horoscope and predicted that he would be a mighty and wise paladin. The king made Sām lord over “the whole of Kabul, Donbor, Māy and Hend, from Zābolestān to the other side of Bost,” entitled him the chief paladin (jahān pahlavān), and invested him with “a throne of turquoise and crown of gold, a ruby signet-ring and golden girdle” (I, pp. 177-78). All these Sām delegated to Zāl when they returned to Zābolestān as he himself had to lead an expedition against the Gorgsārs and Māzandarān. Zāl ruled with justice and became an avid learner, surpassing others in astronomy, religion, and art of war (I, pp. 178-81). Zāl met and fell in love with Rudāba, daughter of Mehrāb, king of Kabul, and married her after overcoming many difficulties and proving his facility in horsemanship, archery, and other military skills as well as in explaining some (Zurvanite) riddles (Zaehner, pp. 242-44, 444-46) at the court of Manučehr. Zāl and Rudāba had two sons, Rostam and Zavāra. Later a slave girl from Kabul bore Zāl another son, Šaḡād (V, pp. 241-42).

The career of Zāl spans the entire Kayanid period (Yarshater, 1983, pp. 373-74, 377, 389, 432). He served as a military commander under all kings, but usually in an advisory role, and was regarded as the last bastion of hope. He defeated two Turanian lords who had attacked Mehrāb at Kabul, clashed with Afrāsiāb after the murder of Nowḏar, rejected Ṭus and Gostahm in favor of electing Zaw as the successor of Nowḏar, and sent Rostam to fetch Kay Qobād from the Alborz mountain and offered him the crown, thereby establishing the Kayanid dynasty (I, pp. 309-14, 317-27, 338-44). He initially opposed Kay Ḵosrow’s nomination of Lohrāsp as heir to the throne and played host to Goštāsp for two years (Daqiqi, in Šāh-nāma V, pp. 171-72), tried to dissuade Rostam from fighting Esfandiār (V, pp. 371-72), and when he saw his son severely wounded and his family threatened, he once more appealed to Simorḡ for help. Guided by the bird, Rostam killed Esfandiār, but he and Zavāra fell victim to Šaḡād’s treachery and were killed (V, pp. 396-422, 442- 56). Bahman, son of Esfandiār, then invaded Sistān, overthrew the house of Rostam, imprisoned Zāl, and took his treasures, but released him after his own uncle, Pašōtan, intervened on his behalf (V, pp. 471-83). But Masʿudi of Marv, who had composed a verse Šāh-nāma early in the 10th century, stated (apud Ṯaʿālebi, Ḡorar, p. 388; cf. Ṭīabari, I, p. 687 and Maʿudi, Moruj II, p. 127) that Bahman killed Zāl and slaughtered his family. Epic narratives other than the Šāh-nāma (e.g., Bahman-nāma, Farāmarz-nāma, Borzu-nāma and Šahriār-nāma) ascribe to Zāl many heroic deeds, especially in wars with Afrāsiāb and Bahman. The Mojmal al-tawāriḵ (ed. Bahār, p. 54) asserts that Zāl wrote several books on the history of the House of Bahman and maligned Goštāsp. The Tāriḵ-e Sistān (ed. Bahār, pp. 22-23) states that Zarang owed its name and prosperity to Zāl-e Zar, and according to the Bundahišn (36.40; tr. Markwart, ProvincialCapitals, p. 52), Sām divided his realm between his six sons, giving Sistān and the region of the south (Nimrōz) to the leading one, Dastān, Abaršahr to Abarnak, Rey to Ḵosrow, Patišxwārgar to Mārgandag, Isfahan to Sparnag, and Asōrestān to Damnag. Zāl’s personality has been the subject of much speculation. Šehāb-al-Din Sohrevardi explained him as a mystic figure (Parhām, pp. 334-47, with literature). His white hair at birth would have been viewed as a sign of future greatness, similar to the case of Pābak, father of Ardašir, who was born with long hair (Ṭabari, I, 814), which his mother took as presaging future glory (Balʿami, ed. Bahār, pp. 875-76). The nursing by a mighty bird was another sign of unusual fame and achievement, analogous to the legend of the rearing of Achaemenes by an eagle (Aelianus, Nature of Animals 12.21, with Spiegel, II, p. 262; cf. Nöldeke, p. 4). These stories are common-place with the type of “the feared child,” whose lordly sire is warned by signs of the infant’s future greatness and tries to dispose of him but fails because the child is saved and reared by a miraculous beast and finally replaces the guilty potentate (Yarshater, 1991, pp. 67-68). That some revered Zāl as an extraordinary, wise and mystical personality is borne out by the fact that to this day the mystic order of Ahl-e Ḥaqq in Kurdistan regard Simorḡ, Zāl, and Rostam as the duns, the incarnation of the light of God. And the Malek Ṭāwusi tribes of northwestern Iran, Iraq and Syria also count Kāva, Zāl, Rostam, and Simorḡ as the incarnations of Malek Ṭāwus, himself the highest manifestation of God on earth (see, with literature, Amir Moʿezzi, p. 80).

While the origins of the stories about the House of Rostam go back to the Saka people (Yarshater, 1983, pp. 454-55), A. S. Shahbazi has argued that the names of the sons of Sām should be connected with the names of the provinces of the Parthian Empire and that the fully developed accounts of the House of Rostam ultimately reflect the history of an Arsacid family which ruled over Zarang (Old Pers. Zranka, Gk. Drangiana, the old Sistān; Kent, Old Persian, p. 211) and was annihilated by Ardašir I, the historical model of Ardašir Bahman (Shahbazi, pp. 158-59). According to this theory, Zāl/Zar would have been named after the land Zarang (cf. also Zar-bānu “Lady of Zar,” a daughter of Rostam: Irānšāh, pp. 210, 270-73). An alternative theory, originally espoused by Stig Wikander (pp. 324-26) and subsequently developed by Gianroberto Scarcia and others, connects Zāl/Zar with Zurvān, god of Time. This view is primarily based on the Zurvanite character of Zāl’s riddles and on his exceptional longevity, which can be understood as an emblem of eternity. In many of his studies (see Bibliography), Scarcia insists on the possible euhemeristic derivation of Zāl from Zurvān. Both Wikander and Scarcia have drawn attention to the analogy between the Simorḡ-Zāl relation in Ferdowsi and the Phoenix-Aiōn relation in the classical tradition, particularly in numismatics (Scarcia, 2003, p. 16) and to the fact that the ‘albino’ Zāl has a counterpart in the ‘albino’ Noah (Nuḥ). The latter was the patriarch of Mount Ararat, anciently connected with Zurvān (Zruan) according to the first chapter of the work attributed to Sebēos. A significant relation between the Phoenix and a Cosmic Mountain is to be found in the case of Mount Kasios too, another mountain with a clear Zurvanite character (Scarcia, 2003, pp. 22-24).

Bibliography:

Moḥammad-ʿAli Amir Moʿezzi, “Nokāt-i čand dar bāra-ye taʿābir- e ʿerfāni-e Šāh-nāma,” Iran-nāma/Iran Nameh 10/1, Winter 1992, pp. 76-82.

Irānšāh/Irānšān b. Abi’l-Ḵayr, Bahman-nāma, ed. Raḥim ʿAfifi, Tehran, 1991. Marijan Molé, “Le partage de monde dans la tradition iranienne,” JA, 240, 1952, pp. 455-63.

Theodor Nöldeke, Das iranisches Nationalepos, 2nd rev. ed., Leipzig, 1920.

Bāqer Parhām, “Taʾammol-i dar taʿbir-e Sohravardi az sar-anjām- e nabard-e Esfandiār bā Rostam dar Šāh-nāma wa āṯār wa natāyej-e ān dar tāriḵ-e andiša wa siāsat dar Irān,” Iran- šenāsi/Iranshenasi 5/2, Summer 1993, pp. 324-52.

The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos, trans. R. W. Thomson, Liverpool, 1999.

G. Scarcia, “Sulla religione di Zabul. Appunto per servire allo studio del ciclo epico sistanico,” Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 15 (n.s.), 1965, pp. 119-165.

Idem, “Ripensare Zābul,” in Oriente e Occidente. Convegno in ricordo di Mario Bussagli (Roma, 31 maggio – 1 giugno 1999), eds. C. Silvi Antonini, B. M. Alfieri, A. Santoro, Pisa-Roma, 2002, pp. 236-241.

Idem, “Bastām e la stirpe dei draghi,” in Transcaucasica 2, Venezia, 1980, pp. 82-107. Idem, “Sulla Fenice dei Baluci,” in Il falcone di Bistam, eds. M. Compareti, G. Scarcia, Venezia, 2003, pp. 7-26.

G. Scarcia and M. Taddei, “The Masgid-i sangī of Larvand,” East and West 23, n.s. (1-2 March-June), 1973, pp. 89-108.

A. Shapur Shahbazi, “The Parthian Origins of the House of Rostam,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute, N.S. 7, 1993, pp. 155-63.

Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Eastern Iranian Epic Traditions,” AAASH 51, 1998, pp. 159-70.

Friedrich Spiegel, Erânische Altertumskunde, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1871-78.

Stig Wikander, “Sur les fonds commun indo-iranien des épopées de la Perse et de l’Inde,” La Nouvelle Clio 2, 1950, pp. 300-29.

Ehsan Yarshater, Dāstānhā-ye Šāh-nāma, Tehran, 1959.

Idem, “The Feared Child in Iranian Mythology,” K. R. Cama Oriental Institute International Congress Proceedings (5th to 8th January 1989), Bombay, 1991, pp. 65-68.

Idem, “Iranian National History,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III, pp. 359- 477. Robert Charles Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma, Oxford, 1955.

July 20, 2009

(A. Shapur Shahbazi and Simone Cristoforetti)

Originally Published: July 20, 2009

______

ZAMYĀD YAŠT

Yašt 19, the last in sequence of the great pieces of the Yašt hymn collection of the Younger Avesta.

ZAMYĀD YAŠT or Yašt 19, the last in sequence of the great pieces of the Yašt hymn collection of the Younger Avesta; it is followed by two short and insignificant pieces, Yt. 20 (Hōm Yašt), a name shared with the major text of Yasna 9-11.15) and Yt. 21 (Vanand Yašt).

The text honors Zamyād Yazad, the divinity (of the) Munificent Earth, the protective divinity of the 28th day of each month. The Middle Persian name of the divinity is transmitted with instable quantity of the vowel of its first syllable. Whereas the Pāzend introduction to Yašt 19 as rendered in Geldner’s edition writes zamyāṱ yazaṱ, the Pahlavi commentary on the Sīh-rōzag has zāmyād (written zʾmyʾt) as also found in Manichean Middle Persian (zʾmyʾd). The instability mirrors the ablaut difference between the Avestan genitive zəmō huδåŋhō yazatahe and the corresponding accusative ząm huδåŋhəm yazatəm as listed in parallel in the catalogues of the thirty day-names, Sīh-rōzag 1.28 and 2.28. The former runs: “(day) of the Munificent Yazata Zamyād—these places, these regions—of Mount Uši.darəna ..., of all mountains ... and of the Kavyan Glory and of the Unseized Glory” (zəmō huδåŋhō yazatahe—imå aså imå šōiθrå—garōiš uši.darənahe ... vīspaēšąmca gairinąm ... kāuuaiieheca xᵛarənaŋhō ... axᵛarətahe xᵛarənaŋhō). In Sīh-rōzag the attribute yazata “divinity” is also found with Miθra (S. 16) and Vāta “wind” (S. 22).

Zā/ămyād yazad is the correct phonetical development from earlier *zā/ăm-huyād yazad < *zā/ăm huδād yazad, in which huδād has replaced the phonetically weak huδā(h) < Av. huδåŋh(ō/əm). The development is obscured by the priestly tradition, which kept to the division of the elements, thus translating Av. zəmō huδåŋhō and ząm huδåŋhəm into the common Pahlavi zamīg hudā(ha)g (written hwdʾk or hwdʾhk), thus producing a sort of historicism.

The existing Zamyād Yašt consists of two parts. The first is the geographical fragment, a list of the eminent mountains of the Young Avestan world (secs. 1-8), whose tops are, as it suggests itself, closest to the celestial bodies, to heaven and paradise. A prominent place is held by Mount ušaδā ušidarəna (sec. 2), from which the eschatological Saošyant (future Savior) will arise (according to sec. 66, there without ušidarəna; on the other hand, ušaδā is lacking in Y. 2.14, S. 1.28, etc., but note Yt. 1.14: uši.dąm uši.darənəm both with Old Av. d). The second part is the so-called Kayān Yasn, which celebrates the Glory of the Kavi rulers or Kayanids (kavaēm xᵛarənō; see FARR[AH]), taking this term in a much broader sense, including also prophet Zarathushtra and the Saošyant (secs. 9-96).

As already was seen by Darmesteter (1892), but not taken notice of by recent editors before Humbach and Ichaporia (1998), the list of mountains of the geographical fragment is mirrored by the quite similar list of mountains in the Pahlavi Bundahišn 9. The latter, however, is just the first chapter of a geographical treatise; it is continued in Bundahišn 10 (seas), 11 (rivers), and 12 (lakes), which certainly mirror Avestan originals as well. The four Bundahišn chapters are evidence of a lost Avestan pre- Zamyād Yašt. This lost original included a list of regions starting with the phrase imå aså imå šōiθrå “these (are) the places and regions,” which has survived like a strange erratic block as a clumsy quotation in Sīh-rōzag (see above). The lost list was similar to, but not identical with, that in Vidēvdād 1 (Pahlavi version in Bundahišn 31), which starts with paoirīm asaŋhąmca šōiθranąmca “the first of places and regions” (Pahl. fradom az gyāgān ud rōstāgān).

The yašt texts were customarily subdivided into chapters called Kardehs (Pahl. kardag). In the caseof the existing Zamyād Yašt, these do not include the geographical fragment, from which we must infer that this first chapter of the pre-Zamyād Yašt was added to Kayān Yasn at a relatively recent time, but early enough to transfer its own name to the latter. The addition possibly is the result of a scholarly effort to obtain conformity with the tradition laid down in the Sīh-rōzag, in which Mount Ušidarəna and the Glory of the Kavi rulers are mentioned as it were in one breath.

Contents of Kayān Yasn. Kardeh 1-3 (secs. 9-24). The Kavyan Glory is in possession of Ahura Mazdā, the Aməṧa Spəṇtas, and the other divinities.

Kardeh 4-6 (secs. 25-44). The Kavyan Glory associates with the Pēšdādian rulers: Haošyaŋha Paradāta (Hōšang), Taxma Urupi (Tahmuraf) and, finally, Yima Xšaēta (Jamšīd). From Yima Xšaēta the Glory flew away, in immediate consequence of a heavy sin committed by him (sec. 34). The flight of the Glory is triplicated; it is compared with the flight of a falcon, which customarily returns to its falconer; thus two returns to Yima are implied. The first time, the Glory is taken hold of by Miθra (sec. 35), the second time, by Θraētaona (secs. 36-37), the third time, by Kərəsāspa (secs. 37-38), whose mention occasions an extensive digression into the legend of that hero (secs. 39-44). Since neither the triplication nor the digression fit in the course of events as planned by the author of the poem, they are unlikely to be an original part of it. They are inserted, rather, by some minstrel in order to extend the recitation and to show his acquaintance with the range of subjects of heroic poetry. On the other hand, the Old Avestan spellings g (for γ) and əˊu (for ao) in draogəm, mərəgahe, dəˊušmanahiiāi in the critical sec. 34 let the reader catch a glimpse of the Old Avestan prehistory of the Yima legend.

Kardeh 7-9 (secs. 45-69). After Yima’s downfall, the Glory is no longer in the possession of a legitimate holder; it is axᵛarəta “unseized’’ (Pahlavi agrift). Azhi Dahāka tries to take hold of it, but, owing to the support by Ahura Mazdā’s Fire, he does not succeed; the Glory is able to take refuge in the Vourukaša Sea. The next aspirant is the Turanian scoundrel Fraŋrasyan (see AFRĀSIĀB), from whom the unseized Glory flees to the region of the Kānsaoya Sea and Mount Ušaδā (on which, see above).

Kardeh 10-11 (secs. 70-77). The Glory of the Kavyan dynasty, i.e., the Kavyan Glory in its proper sense, associates with the rulers from Kavi Kavāta up to Kavi Haosravah.

Kardeh 12-15 (secs. 78-96). The Glory favors Zarathushtra and his patron, Kavi Vištāspa. It likewise favors the Saošyant when he appears at the end of time and accomplishes the Frašō.kərəiti (the “brilliant-making”)—the Renovation of the World.

The text of Kayān Yasn shows some notable corruptions not sufficiently taken notice of by its previous editors. Thus the manuscript F1, the pillar of our Yašt tradition, describes the rise of the Saošyant by the verb fraxšaiieite in sec. 66, but by the verb fraxštāite in the corresponding sec. 92. It is evident that the former must be corrected after the latter. The correct reading preserved in oral tradition is reflected in the readings of the secondary manuscripts B27, J18, and R15 unearthed but not made use of in this case by Hintze (1994).

The Frašō.kərəiti is attributed in secs. 11-12 to the efficiency of the creations of Ahura Mazdā, but in the parallel secs. 89-90 it is described as the work of the eschatological Saošyant. The text, which contains some strange corruptions, is the same in the two passages (except for verb number), but it is given in full form only in the former, whereas it is abbreviated in the latter passage. In view of the usual compositional procedure, this gives the erroneous impression of the latter being a repetition of the former, but everything points to the reverse: the latter must be the original passage. Kayān Yasn does not simply celebrate the legendary rulers of Iran; it also celebrates the history of salvation of the Iranians from the very beginning up to its anticipated fulfillment.

Bibliography:

James Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta II, Paris, 1892; repr., Paris, 1960.

Bamanji N. Dhabhar, Translation of Zand-i Khūrtak Avistāk, Bombay, 1963.

K. F. Geldner, Avesta. I-III, The Sacred Books of the Parsis, Stuttgart, 1886; repr., Delhi, 1991.

Almut Hintze, Der Zamyād-Yašt. Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Wiesbaden,1994.

Helmut Humbach and Pallan Ichaporia, Zamyād Yasht, Yasht 19 of the Younger Avesta, Wiesbaden, 1998. William W. Malandra, An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion. Readings from the Avesta and the Achaemenid Inscriptions. Translated and Edited, Minneapolis, 1983.

Eric V. Pirart, Kayān Yasn (Yasht 19.9-96), Barcelona, 1992.

Fritz Wolff, Avesta. Die heiligen Bücher der Parsen übersetzt auf der Grundlagevon Chr. Bartholomae’s Altiranischem Wörterbuch, Strassburg, 1910; repr., Berlin, 1924 and 1961.

February 24. 2006

(Pallan Ichaporia)

Originally Published: August 15, 2006

______

ZAND

See EXEGESIS i. In Zoroastrianism. EXEGESIS i. In Zoroastrianism

EXEGESIS

i. In Zoroastrianism

Zoroastrian exegesis consists basically of the interpretation of the Avesta (q.v.). However, the closest equivalent Iranian concept, zand, generally includes Pahlavi texts which were believed to derive from commentaries upon Avestan scripture, but whose extant form contains no Avestan passages. Zoroastrian exegesis differs from similar phenomena in many other religions in that it developed as part of a religious tradition which made little or no use of writing until well into the Sasanian era. This lengthy period of oral transmission has clearly helped to give the Middle Persian Zand its characteristic shape and has, in a sense, limited its scope. Although the later tradition makes a formal distinction between “Gathic” (gāhānīg), “legal” (dādīg), and perhaps “ritual” (hādag-mānsrīg) Avestan texts, there appear to be no significant differences in approach between the Pahlavi commentary on the Gathas (q.v.) and those on dādīg texts, such as the Vendīdād, the Hērbedestān and the Nērangestān. For the purpose of this article, therefore, all such texts will be regarded as parts of Zoroastrian exegesis. Since many 19th and 20th century works by Zoroastrians contain an element of exegesis, while on the other hand no exegetical literature in the strict sense of the word can be said to exist, the phenomenon of modern Zoroastrian exegesis as such will be discussed here, without detailed reference to individual texts.

Several facts suggest that a form of exegesis was known at a period when Avestan was still spoken. In Y. 57.8 Zarathustra is said to have recited the Gathas “together with explanations, together with answers” (maṯ.āzaiṇtīš maṯ.paiti.fraså), which points to an oral transmission of the fruits of Gathic exegesis, presumably as part of the process of priestly teaching. This type of instruction is the subject of the Hērbedestān, which consists of an Avestan text with Pahlavi translation and commentary. The Avestan part of the text indicates that, at a time when Avestan was still well understood, the chief aim of religious studies was to teach disciples to recite correctly. The learning process is described in Y. 19.6, as follows: yasca . . . baγąm ahunahe vairiiehe marāṯ frā.vā marō drəṇjaiiāṯ frā.vā drəṇjaiiō srāuuaiiāṯ frā.vā srāuuaiiō yazāite . . . “and whoever. . .shall study the Ahuna Vairiia section, and (after) studying it shall recite it (quietly), and (after) reciting it (quietly) shall recite it formally, and (after) reciting it formally shall celebrate it as part of the liturgy.” It seems likely that the acquisition of an adequate understanding of both literal meaning and deeper significance of a text formed part of the initial stage of this process. Zoroastrian exegesis, in fact, probably arose out of the need for priestly teachers to answer the questions of their students.

The difficult and hallowed Old Avestan texts naturally required more explanation than texts which evolved for a time along with the contemporary language, and three commentaries on such texts are extant: Y. 19, 20, 21 contain an Avestan exegesis on the yaθā ahū vairiiō, aṧəm vohū and yeŋhē hātąm prayers, respectively. They are said to have been part of the Bag Nask (q.v.), which, it seems, contained similar commentaries on all Gathic texts. The most striking feature of this type of exegesis is that it explains the deeper meaning of the original text by linking it to well-known and fundamental tenets, such as those concerning the creation (cf. Y. 19.1, 2, 4, 8, 9, etc.), and to aspects of the social order approved by Zoroastrianism (Y. 19.17,18). Occasionally, the literal meaning of the text concerned is clarified (Y. 21.1, 2), and a comprehensive knowledge of the Gathas and other Old Avestan texts is taken for granted (Y. 19.2 refers to 34.5; 19.14 to 53.9 and 51.11; 19.15 to 45.2; 19.17 to 43.6, etc. Y. 35.8 is referred to in 21.2 and 39.5 in 20.1).

The fact that such exegetical texts were preserved in Avestan, rather than in the contemporary languages of later Zoroastrian communities, shows that they had become fixed parts of priestly studies and were memorized verbatim by the time Zoroastrians lost their active command of Avestan. In the course of time, these texts themselves became objects of exegesis.

Further exegetical activity of the pre-Sasanian period can only be guessed at. It has been suggested that a novel exegesis of the Gathic verse Y. 30.3, which refers to “two Spirits, twins..,” played a role in the development of Zurvanism (e.g., Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, p. 232). Association and identification probably played a prominent part in early Zoroastrian exegesis. The western Iranian divinity *Anāhiti (see ANAHID) was identified with a minor Zoroastrian divinity, Arədvī Sūrā *Harahvaitī (Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 202-4), and in this way came to be included in the Zoroastrian pantheon. Similarly, the gradual identification of Spənta Mainyu with Ahura Mazdā (q.v.) himself had implications for the interpretation of traditional teachings. A few Avestan texts (Yt. 13.28, 76; 11.14; 15.43; Y. 57.17; 19.9) reflect an early stage in the development of the Zoroastrian myth of the creation, where the primeval antagonism, the clash and a subsequent pact between Spənta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu (see AHRIMAN) were held to have brought about the present state of the world, as opposed to the ideal creation of Ahura Mazdā. Later, Spənta Mainyu’s identification with Ahura Mazdā seemed to imply that the latter performed a creative act twice. This apparent anomaly was eventually explained by introducing the distinction between a non-material (mēnōg) and a material (gētīg) creation (see GĒTĪG AND MĒNŌG). Also, at one stage, attempts were probably made to identify various divinities of pre-Zoroastrian origin with purely Zoroastrian ones by alluding to the former as the “likeness” (upamana) of the latter. Čistā (q.v.) is referred to in Yt. 10.126, 16.1 as the upamana of the Mazdayasnian religion, in whose honor Čistā’s hymn came to be recited; in some older texts the words “Likeness of the Creator” (dāmōiš upamana) almost certainly denote Verethraghna (cf. Yt. 10.70 and 127). It is clear that, at a later stage, such identifications were no longer understood; the concepts of Čistā and Daēnā (see DĒN) coalesced, while Dāmōiš Upamana came to be regarded as a separate divinity (Kreyenbroek, 1991, pp. 139-40).

Inevitably, exegesis came to play a more prominent role in the Zoroastrian tradition of later times, when the community had lost its active knowledge of the Avestan language. The evidence suggests that an understanding of the sacred texts was acquired by memorizing a fixed translation of the Avestan original, rather than by mastering the grammar of that language. As a result, the finer shades of meaning of the original must have been lost quite early—a situation which paved the way for the adoption of a system of translation, only conceivable in a non-written tradition, whereby each Avestan word (and often its homonyms and words sounding more or less alike) was rendered by one Middle Persian term. The original Avestan word-order was usually preserved in spite of the wide differences between the two natural languages in this respect.

It seems that doctrinal considerations did play a part in the development of the Middle Persian Zand. For example Av. daxma- (“place of disposal of corpses”; see CORPSE) is seldom rendered by Phl. daxmag, presumably because the word is sometimes used in a negative sense in the Avesta (Vendidād 3.9, 13; 7.54, etc.), whereas it had wholly positive connotations in later Zoroastrianism. Similarly, the Pahlavi version of most Young Avestan texts differentiates between the Avestan common noun aṧi- “reward” and the name of the divinity Ašái (q.v.), the former being normally rendered by Phl. tarsāgāhīh “reverence, respect,” the latter as Ard or Ahrišwang. The Pahlavi version of the Gathas, however, fails to mention Ašái’s proper name where this would be appropriate, and the same is true of other texts in Old Avestan (e.g., Y. 38.2) and pseudo Old Avestan (Y. 56.3,4). On the other hand Phl. Y. 52, a Young Avestan text set between two Gathas, does mention the name of the Yazata. It seems likely that this represents the result of exegesis: it was evidently held that the moral Gathic concept could not be related to the originally pre-Zoroastrian divinity.

In Sasanian times, Zoroastrian exegesis probably continued to develop in the context of priestly teaching. We know that until well into the post-Sasanian period, the title hērbed was used to refer to a priest who had studied the Zand, and who was thus a qualified priestly teacher (Kreyenbroek, 1987). The fact that a coherent version of the Zand has come down to us which still shows many of the characteristics of an orally transmitted text strongly suggests that the training of hērbeds consisted in part of memorizing texts belonging to the Zand. Many of these texts comprise commentaries on the actual translations. It can be inferred that, as part of the teaching process, it was usual for teachers to explain and comment upon the texts to be memorized, and that some of their comments became part of the text as it was memorized. There is evidence to show that, besides aspirant hērbeds, courses taught by priestly teachers were also attended by those who sought no such qualifications, but listened to the hērbed’s teaching in order to gain religious merit (Kotwal and Kreyenbroek, 1992, intro.). One text (Zand ī Wahman yasn 2.1-4) shows that, after the revolt of Mazdak, Ḵosrow I restricted lay religious studies to Avestan texts, forbidding the teaching of Zand to non-priests. (The Mazdakites had presumably presented their doctrines as the true exegesis of Zarathushtra’s teachings, and both Mazdakites and Manicheans could be referred to as zandīk, i.e., “people whose heresies are based on Zand.”) Independent exegesis by individual hērbeds was thus clearly perceived as a potential threat to the stability of the Sasanian empire. This not only shows that such teachings could reach large sections of the laity, but also illustrates the difficulty of controlling the exegetical activities of individual hērbeds. In a chain of orally transmitted religious teachings, minor deviations would inevitably creep in; in some cases these could in turn lead to more serious divergences from the dominant tradition as time went on, Mazdakism being an extreme example. In the absence of an extensive body of written sources, it was plainly impossible to make a detailed comparison between the teachings of a hērbed and those of his predecessors or contemporaries. As a result, discrepancies between the various teachings were regarded as inevitable (Manuščihr, 1.10.7), and the teachings of all qualified teachers were accepted as valid (Manuščihr, 1.4.15-16, see Kreyenbroek, “Spiritual Authority”). In the Zand the “judgments” of various teachers are often given side by side. In the Pahlavi Vendīdād and the Hērbedestān, the names of individual teachers are regularly mentioned. Later texts stress the authority of the views of earlier teachers (e.g. Manuščihr, 1.4.7, 10 ff.), and there are regular references to “the three Teachings” (čāštag, see e.g., Šāyest nē šāyest 2.3-4, Rivāyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištān 21.2), suggesting that in the course of time the idea of a body of canonical teachings gained some ground.

Until well into the post-Sasanian period, no sophisticated criteria seem to have existed for establishing the relative validity of different expert opinions on questions of interpretation. At the time of the high priest Manuščihr—i.e., the late 9th century, when writing already played a prominent role in the tradition and comparisons between teachings could easily be made—the traditional practice of accepting different interpretations as equally valid was seriously challenged. In the conflict between Manuščihr and his brother Zādsparam, both parties based their arguments on valid but conflicting judgments by leading teachers. Manuščihr then looked to an elementary form of legalistic reasoning to demonstrate the superiority of his case. Breaking with the traditional practice that the judgments of one chosen dastwar were followed in all matters, he advocated eclecticism, stating that the most “redeeming” (bōzišnōmand) judgment was to be applied in each individual case (Manuščihr, 1.9.10). His Epistles show, however, that he could not draw upon an existing body of sophisticated rules and principles for determining the validity of a judgment, and that he was forced to fall back on personal authority and on the principle of vīkaiiehe, i.e., that, if two dastwars favored one decision and only one authority preferred another, the two won their case (Manuščihr, 1.6.6; 2.2.7, and Kreyenbroek, 1994). It seems likely that this state of affairs, where no means had been found to transform a fundamentally oral type of scholarship into a discipline more in accord with a written culture, was typical of all branches of Zoroastrian religious learning at this time, including that of exegesis in the narrower, Western sense. In the centuries that followed, the community was plainly too poor to reform and develop Zoroastrian exegesis, and it is unlikely that further advances were made in this field.

The resulting break in the exegetical tradition implied that no further significant theoretical efforts were made to link the fundamental teachings of the faith with the developments and everyday experiences of the community. The lack of such a discipline was probably hardly felt as long as the personal prestige of the priesthood was sufficient to provide the communities with adequate leadership and guidance, and Zoroastrian theology did not meet with major challenges from the outside. The absence of an exegetical tradition, however, played a crucial role in the events which were to shape modern Zoroastrianism, especially in India. In the first half of the 19th century a Christian missionary, John Wilson, publicly attacked the Zoroastrian faith in the Indian press, condemning it as non- monotheist. His arguments were based on his knowledge of Anquetil’s translation of the Avesta, at a time when few, if any, Parsis thought of Avestan as a language that could be understood and translated, and tradition and orthopraxis formed the only basis of their religion. The ensuing confrontation between Wilson and learned priests representing the outraged Parsi community showed that the Parsis were no longer capable of defending, or indeed defining, their religion in terms adequate for meeting theological challenges of this kind (Boyce, 1979, pp. 196-99). The years that followed saw a reawakening in the community’s interest in the spiritual and intellectual content of Zoroastrianism, and thus, in a sense, in questions of exegesis. Different schools of thought developed and most of these made use of a form of exegesis, usually concentrating on the interpretation of a limited number of Avestan terms in a sense that corresponded with the teachings of the groups. So far, however, modern Zoroastrian exegesis has not established itself as a recognizable discipline.

Bibliography (for cited works not given in detail, see “Short References”):

B. T. Anklesaria, ed. and tr., The Pahlavi Rivāyat of Āturfarnbag and Farnbag-Sroš, Bombay, 1969.

M. Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, 1979.

Bundahišn, tr. Anklesaria. Ēmēd ī Ašawahištān, Riwāyat ī Ēmēd ī Ašawahištān, ed. B. T. Anklesaria as Rivâyat-i Hêmît-î Asavahistân, Bombay, 1962.

F. M. Kotwal and P. G. Kreyenbroek, The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān I: The Hērbed estān, Paris, 1992.

G. Kreyenbroek, “The Dādestān ī Dēnīg on Priests,” IIJ 30, 1987, pp. 185-208. Idem, “On the Shaping of Zoroastrian Theology: Ashi, Verethraghna and the Amesha Spentas,” in P. Bernard and F. Grenet, eds., Histoire et cultes de l’Asie Centrale, Paris, 1991, pp. 137-45.

Idem, “On the Concept of Spiritual Authority in Zoroastrianism,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 17, 1994, pp. 1-15.

Idem, “Cosmogony and Cosmology i. In Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism,” EIr. VI, pp. 303-7.

Manuščihr, Nāmagīhā, ed. B. N. Dhabhar as Nâmakîhâ-i Mânûshchîhar: The Epistles of Mānūshchīhar, Bombay, 1912.

Zādspram, ed. B. T. Anklesaria as Vichitakiha-i Zatsparam, Bombay, 1964.

Zand ī Wahman yasn, ed. and tr. B. T. Anklesaria as Zand-î Vohûman Yasn and Two Pahlavi Fragments, Bombay, 1919.

(Philip G. Kreyenbroek)

Originally Published: December 15, 1999

______ZAND DYNASTY a dynasty that ruled in Persia (excluding Khorasan) from Shiraz, from the time when Nāder Shah’s (r. 1736-47) successors, the Afsharids, failed to recover western Persia until the founding of the Qajar dynasty by Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qajar (r. 1779-97).

ZAND DYNASTY (1164-1209/1751-94), a dynasty that ruled in Persia (excluding Khorasan) from Shiraz, from the time when Nāder Shah’s (r. 1736-47) successors, the Afsharids, failed to recover western Persia until the founding of the Qajar dynasty by Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār (r. 1779-97).

Karim Khan, ‘the Wakil’ (1164-93/1751-79). The founder of the dynasty was Moḥammad Karim Khan b. Ināq Khan (Figure 1; commonly known as Karim Khan Zand) of the Bagala branch of the Zand, a pastoral tribe of the Lak branch of Lors (perhaps originally Kurds; see Minorsky, p. 616), with winter ranges on the Hamadan plains near Malāyer and summer pastures in the Zagros slopes north of Kermanshah. He and many of his tribe had been deported to Khorasan in 1144/1732 by Nāder Shah and served in the latter’s army. Soon after Nāder’s assassination in 1160/1747, Karim Khan led his people home. In alliance with ʿAli- Mardān Khan Baḵtiāri, he captured Isfahan in 1163/1750 and installed a Safavid puppet ruler, Shah Esmāʿil III (r. 1750-65, d. 1773). The next year, Karim Khan defeated a bid by ʿAli-Mardān Khan for sole power, and adopted his rival’s title of wakil-al- dowla (‘deputy of the state,’ or regent). After defeating three other contestants for power, he pacified most of western and central Persia from the Caspian littoral and Azerbaijan to Kerman and Lār (Ḡaffāri, pp. 42-199), and ruled at Shiraz from 1179/1765 until his death in 1193/1779.

Throughout his life, Karim Khan never assumed the title of king (šāh), but was known as the wakil (‘deputy’). Moreover, he further interpreted this title as wakil-al-raʿāyāʾ (‘deputy of the subjects’), which was the term for a local official appointed by the shah to investigate crimes and complaints of government abuse (Donboli, 1970-71, II, p. 31; Perry, 2007, pp. 41-43). The Safavid Esmāʿil III predeceased him in 1187/1773, and the fiction of a Safavid revival was quietly dropped. Karim Khan did not attempt to recover the Afsharid Khorasan which became a tributary of the Afghan monarch Aḥmad-Šāh Dorrāni (r. 1747-73; see AFGHANISTAN x).

Karim Khan devoted his efforts to reviving trade and agriculture in Fārs and western Persia. He rebuilt Shiraz (Ḡaffāri, pp. 355- 58), concluded commercial agreements with the British East India Company (see EAST INDIA COMPANY [THE BRITISH]) at Bušehr, and in 1775-79 he besieged and occupied Basra in Ottoman Iraq. He never fully subjugated the Qajars of Astarābād, and on his death Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār, his hostage for sixteen years, escaped from Shiraz and began to consolidate Qajar power in the north of Persia.

From Ṣādeq Khan to Jaʿfar Khan (1193–1204/1779–89). None of Karim Khan’s five successors formally adopted his title of ‘deputy’ (wakil), nor did they take that of ‘shah.’ The first three of them ruled nominally for one of Karim Khan’s sons, and the last two are referred to in Persian sources by a conventional imperial epithet or simply as ‘khan,’ but often as ‘the king’ by European observers (see Fasāʾi, tr. Brydges, pp. cxxv-clxxxv, passim). Karim Khan had probably expected his capable younger brother and lieutenant, Moḥammad-Ṣādeq Khan (known as Ṣādeq Khan), to succeed him, since his two adult sons, Abu’l-Fatḥ (see ABU’L- FATḤ KHAN ZAND) and Moḥammad-ʿAli, were incompetent to rule. However, Ṣādeq Khan was administering Basra and did not return in time to forestall his rivals among the leading Zand khans. Karim Khan’s half-brother Zaki Khan, allied with ʿAli- Morād Khan Zand of the Hazāra branch of the Zand and ostensibly proclaiming Karim Khan’s son Moḥammad-ʿAli (who was also Zaki Khan’s son-in-law), treacherously killed Naẓar-ʿAli Khan and Šayḵ-ʿAli Khan of the Zand-e Bagala and their supporters, who had battened onto Abu’l-Fatḥ, the eldest son of Karim Khan (see dynastic table; Ḡaffāri, pp. 374-83). On Ṣādeq Khan’s arrival at Shiraz he was deserted by his army, when Zaki Khan threatened reprisals on their families in Shiraz, and fled to Bam.

In 1779 Zaki Khan sent ʿAli-Morād Khan Zand in pursuit of Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār who had fled from Shiraz to Māzandarān, but ʿAli-Morād Khan rebelled at Isfahan in the name of Abu’l-Fatḥ. Marching against him, Zaki Khan committed such atrocities at the village of Izadḵᵛāst that his own men mutinied and killed him. Ṣādeq Khan was thus enabled to return and occupy Shiraz, but he was still opposed by ʿAli-Morād Khan. The latter was joined by Zaki Khan’s youngest son Akbar Khan Zand, and after an eight-month blockade Shiraz fell by treachery in February 1781. On ʿAli-Morad Khan’s order, Akbar Khan killed the two surviving sons of Karim Khan (Abu’l-Fatḥ and Moḥammad-ʿAli), as well as Ṣādeq Khan together with all his sons except Jaʿfar Khan, who had come to terms privately with ʿAli-Morād Khan. However, ʿAli-Morād Khan soon became suspicious of Akbar Khan’s ambitions and inspired Jaʿfar Khan to avenge his father and brothers by putting Akbar Khan to death in 1782 (Ḡaffāri, pp. 466-71). ʿAli-Morād Khan (r. 1781-85) was faced with a resurgence of Qajar power and established his capital strategically at Isfahan. He campaigned energetically in Māzandarān, but Jaʿfar Khan took advantage of his absence to march on Isfahan. Hastening to defend his capital in midwinter while ill, ʿAli-Morād Khan died at Murčaḵur in February 1785. His reign, which saw the Zands relinquish claims to Persia north of Isfahan, may be seen as the watershed between Zand and Qajar history (Ḡaffāri, pp. 471-693).

Jaʿfar Khan (r. 1785-89), through his energetic son Loṭf-ʿAli Khan, subdued Lār and Kerman and re-occupied Isfahan, but he was driven out twice by Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār and fell back on Shiraz. His treachery in dealing with his own supporters provoked a mutiny, led by Ṣeyd-Morād Khan, the cousin of ʿAli- Morād Khan of the Zand-e Hazāra, in which Jaʿfar Khan was killed (Ḡaffāri, pp. 693-756). Ṣeyd-Morād Khan sent a force under his brother Šāh-Morād against Jaʿfar Khan’s son Loṭf-ʿAli Khan, who was then at Kerman, but these troops mutinied and Loṭf-ʿAli Khan was able to return to Shiraz, which the city’s mayor (kalāntar) Ḥāji Ebrāhim (1745-1800 or 1801; see EBRĀHĪM KALĀNTAR ŠIRĀZI) had secured in his favor (Ḡaffāri, pp. 756- 60).

Loṭf-ʿAli Khan (1204-09/1789-94). Loṭf-ʿAli Khan, Jaʿfar Khan’s young son (b. 1182/1769), was the only one of Karim Khan’s successors to win admiration for his courage and integrity (see Fasāʾi, tr. Brydges, pp. cxx–cxci; Malcolm, II, pp. 175-201). Having recovered Shiraz from the mutineers, he then held it against a determined Qajar assault. His downfall was precipitated by a mutual distrust between him and Ḥāji Ebrāhim. On his way to attack Isfahan in 1206/1791, Loṭf-ʿAli Khan was deserted by most of his army on the instigation of Ḥāji Ebrāhim’s brother (commanding the infantry), and on racing back to Shiraz he found the city in the hands of Ḥāji Ebrāhim. Denied help from Bušehr, the Zand leader nevertheless continued, with the few troops still loyal to him and a few Arab levies, to fight off the Qajar advance on Shiraz, which Ḥāji Ebrāhim had offered to surrender to Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār. The latter finally entered Shiraz on 1 Ḏu’l-Ḥejja 1206/21 July 1792 (Kuhmarraʾi in Golestāna, pp. 353-54). Ḥāji Ebrāhim later became the first grand vizier (ṣadr-e aʿẓam) and a major political figure of the early Qajar period.

Loṭf-ʿAli Khan surprised Kerman in 1794 and held it for four months before the Qajars were admitted by treachery. He then fled to Bam, whose governor seized him and handed him over to the Qajars. Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār had his last Zand enemy blinded and cruelly tortured before taking him back to Tehran for execution in Rabiʿ II 1209/November 1794. This marked the end of Zand rule, although Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār was not formally crowned until 1796, and even in the following year, after his death, Zaki Khan Zand’s son Moḥammad Khan Zand with a Bājalān tribal army unsuccessfully attempted to seize power from the Qajars (Donboli, 1927 and 1972 pp. 33-35, 39; Donboli, tr. Brydges, pp. 46-48, 57-58).

The dynasty’s reputation rests on its founder Karim Khan, who was able not only to weld together an army from the different Iranian pastoral tribes of the Zagros but also to build a measure of trust and some lasting alliances with the bureaucrats and magnates of the major cities of western and southern Persia (Isfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz, and Kerman). His shrewd economic policies and notable humanity are recorded in many popular anecdotes. His successors destroyed his achievements through their internecine warfare; they could not inspire confidence in the urban establishment, as typified by Ḥāji Ebrāhim, and so forfeited the Zand mandate to the Qajars.

See also: KARIM KHAN ZAND; ĀḠĀ MOḤAMMAD KHAN QĀJĀR; ABU’L-FATḤ KHAN ZAND; ʿALI-MORĀD KHAN ZAND; AKBAR KHAN ZAND.

Bibliography:

Sources.

Moḥammad-Hāšem Āṣaf [Rostam-al-Ḥokamāʾ], Rostam al- tawāriḵ, ed. M. Moširi, Tehran, 1969; tr. B. Hoffmann as Persische Geschichte 1694-1835 erlebt, erinnert und erfunden. Das Rustam at-tawārī˙ in deutscher Bearbeitung, 2 vols., Bamberg, 1986.

ʿAbd-al-Razzāq ‘Maftun’ Donboli, Maʾāṯer-e solṭāniya, Tehran, 1927 (lithograph); 1972 (offset); tr. Sir Harford Jones Brydges as The Dynasty of the Kadjars, London, 1833; repr. New York, 1973 (includes original “Preliminary Matter” by Brydges, pp. xiii–cxci).

Idem, Tajrebat al-aḥrār wa tasleyat al-abrār, ed. Ḥasan Qāżi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1970-71. Ḥājj Mirzā Ḥasan Ḥosayni Fasāʾi, Fārs-nāma-ye Nāṣeri, ed. M. Rastgār, 2 vols., Tehran, 1367 Š./1988, esp. vol. I, pp. 227-39; tr. H. Busse as History of Persia under Qajar Rule, New York, 1972, esp. pp. 2-63.

Abu’l-Ḥasan Ḡaffāri, Golšan-e morād, ed. Ḡolām-Reżā Ṭabāṭabāʾi-Majd, Tehran, 1990 (up to the year 1785).

Abu’l-Ḥasan Golestāna, Mojmal al-tawāriḵ, ed. Modarres Rażavi, Tehran, 1970 (with supplement by Kuhmarraʾi, up to the year 1789).

Mirzā Moḥammad Kalāntar, Ruz-nāma-ye Mirzā Moḥammad kalāntar-e Fārs, ed. ʿAbbās Eqbāl, Tehran, 1946.

Studies.

Gavin H. R. Hambly, “Āghā Muḥammad Khān and the Establishment of the Qājār Dynasty,” Camb. Hist. Iran VII, 1991, pp. 104-43.

J.Malcolm, A History of Persia, 2 vols., London, 1829, esp. vol. II, chap. 17.

Vladimir Minorsky, “Lak,” EI² V, 1986, p. 616. John R. Perry, “The Last Ṣafavids, 1722-1773,” Iran 9, 1971, pp. 59-69.

Idem, Karim Khan Zand. A History of Iran 1747–1779, Chicago, 1979.

Idem, “The Zand Dynasty,” Camb. Hist. Iran VII, 1991, pp. 63-103; map of Persia under the Zand dynasty on pp. 70-71, dynastic table on p. 961.

Idem, “Zand,” EI² XI, 2002, pp. 443-44.

Idem, “The Vakil al-ra’âyâ: a Pre-modern Iranian Ombudsman,” in Iran und iranisch geprägte Kulturen: Studien zu Ehren von Bert G. Fragner; überreicht an seinem 65. Geburtstag (Beiträge zur Iranistik), ed. B. Hoffmann, R. Kauz, and M. Ritter, Wiesbaden, 2007, pp. 41-50.

A. H. Zarrinkoob, “Karīm Ḵẖān Zand,” EI² IV, 1978, pp. 639-40.

(John Perry)

______

ZAND Ī FRAGARD Ī JUD-DĒW-DĀD

“A Commentary on Chapters of the Vidēvdād”, a sixth-century Zoroastrian text. It has been preserved more or less intact as 240 pages and made up of about 540 sections.

ZAND Ī FRAGARD Ī JUD-DĒW-DĀD “A Commentary on Chapters of the Vidēvdād” (hereafter: ZFJ), a sixth-century Zoroastrian text. It has been preserved more or less intact as 240 pages of MS TD2. It resembles a rivāyat rather than a zand, that is, a collection of responsa rather than a commentary, since it is made up of about 540 sections, each devoted to a query and its answer; it is further divided into roughly 40 chapters, with a summary at the end, and covers those chapters of the Pahlavī Widēwdād (hereafter: PV) which are more legalistic (i.e., 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17).

Its close relationship to PV can be ascertained by merely comparing the two: even discounting the half of ZFJ that has a direct parallel in PV, PV often remains ZFJ’s point of departure. However, although this indicates that ZFJ is later than PV, it does not indicate how much later.

That date may be estimated by comparing the authorities it cites with those of PV, which Alberto Cantera (2004, pp. 207-229) has dated to the late fifth century, and which is certainly the major source for ZFJ. Thus, Sōš(y)āns, probably the earliest authority in the Pahlavi books of whom we have a sizeable corpus of statements, appears 28 times in PV, but only 17 times in ZFJ; likewise, Kay-Ādur-Bōzēd appears 18 times in the PV, but only 7 times in ZFJ. Again, Gōguš(n)asp appears 20 times in the PV, but only 10 times in ZFJ. This telescoping of earlier authorities is a natural effect of the passage of time and indicates that ZFJ is later than PV. On the other hand, some names that never appear in the earlier compilations do appear in ZFJ. Examples are , which is rendered here as Pēšagsīr, after an authority of the Sasanian Lawbook (Mādayān ī Hazār Dādestān); Māh-Ohrmazd; Mardbūd son of Dād-Ohrmazd; and Weh-šābuhr, hērbed of Sagestān (= Sīstān). This is the other side of telescoping, wherein later authorities, closer to the time of redaction, replace earlier ones.

There is another clue to dating ZFJ. One of the most striking features of ZFJ is the existence of three schools, or groups of authorities, two of which are named for dastwars (see DASTUR) who are relatively well known—the Abargites and the Mēd(y)ōmāhites, who are also mentioned in, the Sasanian Lawbook (MHD 52.3), and a third, named for the aforementioned Pēšagsīr, who is mentioned in MHD 42.19 and 61.10, and may or may not be the same scholar. According to Šāyast-nē-šāyast (hereafter: Šnš) 1.4, Abarg was a student of Sōš(y)āns and Mēd(y)ōmāh was a student of Gōguš(n)asp, both of whom are well-represented in PV; the schools named after the first two were presumably founded in the fifth century. The formation and rise of three such schools must have been the work of more than a generation. If, following, Cantera, we date Sōš(y)āns and his generation to the end of the fourth century, and Abarg and his to the first half of the fifth, we must allow another generation or two, as well as yet another generation for the redaction of PV, and then allow time for the rise of the schools and the redaction of ZFJ. However, this then raises a serious question: if the schools—or at least the Abargites and the Mēd(y)ōmāhites— were active in the second half of the fifth century, why is there no mention of them in PV?

There are several possibilities. Although comparing the views of the Abargites and Mēd(y)ōmāhites and their founders, or indeed comparing the views of the founders and the schools, reveals no great legal controversy that would account for enmity between the various schools; as usual, political or personal factors may have come into play. Or perhaps PV was redacted toward the end of the generation of Abarg and Mēd(y)ōmāh and before the rise of the schools.

Indeed, the real innovations in ZFJ are the work of ZFJ’s redactor and of a late interpolator/commenter, who prefaces his remarks with the phrase az man “in my opinion,” and who often presents quite innovative views. ZFJ contains at least two later collections of interpolations: one by Az Man, as we shall call him, and someone who objected to ZFJ’s rather liberal view of questions relating to non-Zoroastrians, and who added four pages of text to the chapter on sexual relations (ZFJ 593-597 [34.19-22], referring to our tentative chapter and section headings).

However, the evidence for the activities of these schools, as important as it is, is not the most striking aspect of ZFJ, for the schools merely continue the work of their founders in predictable ways. The work of ZFJ’s anonymous layer represents a qualitative leap in systematization and analytic power over the approaches of the schools or the authorities who preceded them, as we will detail below. As noted, ZFJ’s topical interests are determined by those dealt with in the legal/ritual chapters of the PV, divided into forty chapters. These chapters vary in size, from chapter 33 on menstrual pollution, which has as many as 70 of these subsections/inquiries, and chapter 15, on the obligation to examine land or streams for dead matter, which has 43, or chapter 34, on forbidden sexual relations, which has 32, to some that have as few as two (chapter 11) or even one, on non-Zoroastrian corpses (chapter 7).

ZFJ presents us with a view of the intellectual landscape of the sixth century, where three schools disputed various points of ritual law, building on the work of their predecessors. Of these schools, the Mēd(y)ōmāhites are mentioned over 50 times, but since, as we shall see, the redactor of ZFJ is far more innovative than any of them, it is bootless to trace his affiliation to any of them. Despite all this intellectual activity, the real innovative thought in ZFJ has to be credited to the redactor and to Az Man.

As noted, despite ZFJ’s close relationship to PV, about half of its inquiries do not have parallels in the latter text, but rather carry forward in a more systematic and detailed manner the task that the redactor of PV had set: to construct an internally consistent system of Zoroastrian ritual law. As a result, although the 22 chapters of PV run to 55,000 words, ZFJ, which concentrates on only nine of those chapters, still runs to 34,500 words.

ZFJ’s systematic, abstract, legalistic approach is manifest in a series of questions sprinkled throughout, questions which touch on the fundamental parameters of the Zoroastrian ritual system whose analysis and construction was in process. For example:

What is the care that must be of 15 steps? (ZFJ 574 [33.37])

What is the law of the shadow? (ZFJ 509 [18.12])

What is hixr ī murdagān (filth from the dead)? (ZFJ 500 [16.12]) Note that the first two queries involve operative rules or laws governing certain situations; only the last one involves the question of categorizing. But these categories are not defined. For example, a large part of the opening section of ZFJ deals with various ways in which nasā and hixr, different states of dead matter in which the latter is less polluting, impinge on vegetation that is moist, dry, rooted and uprooted, and so on (ZFJ 435-437 [1.5-1.13]). But, unlike, say, the Institutes of Justinian, which, under the influence of Greek philosophy on Roman law, is full of conceptual definitions of legal institutions, ZFJ does not define the difference between these two basic forms of dead matter, an issue that is basic to an understanding of the laws of pollution. This is in spite of the author/compiler presumably having a precedent in PV 5.3-4, where, in a dispute between Abarg and Mēd(y)ōmāh, one type of hixr is defined as nasā which has either been ingested or digested by an animal. Although ZFJ 523-524 (23.12) suggests that a change of state might purify a polluted substance, it does not deal explicitly with nasā and hixr. (For these terms, see also BURIAL iii. In Zoroastrianism; CLEANSING i. In Zoroastrianism.) ZFJ, like PV (and later on, Šnš), prefers operational definitions, not conceptual ones.

These queries, characteristic of ZFJ, are far less common in PV, although the beginnings of interest in such questions can be found there; thus, while ZFJ represents a departure of sorts from the program of PV, which is more exegetical, ZFJ is still part of the Pahlavi intellectual tradition. Still, an index of just how innovative it is may be gathered by the fact that about half of its queries do not have parallels in PV.

Space considerations limit our discussion of ZFJ’s intellectual program; we will thus deal with only two innovations. ZFJ attempts to determine the parameters of the various categories of pollution, the minimum measures of polluted substances (often hambun-iz), the effect of the interaction of pollution with other substances that are important to humans (crops, water, fire, firewood, tools and containers, etc.). ZFJ 564 (33.10) is a good example of this. While PV 16.1 attempts to define the character of the onset of the menstrual flow primarily in terms of color, ZFJ asks more pointedly: “A woman who is in menses, then she has marks of menstruation and what, how much, and how (are they)?”

ZFJ’s answer is a restatement in more exact terms of PV 16.1-2: a blood flow is considered the most severe; then comes a flow with “the least amount of yellowness (hambun-iz zardīh),” and then some sort of moisture with a reddish tinge, again, “even the smallest amount.” Whether the latter use of hambun refers only to the amount of the flow, or also to the degree of red tinge is not clear, but in any case, the redactor/author is clearly concerned with defining the minimal amount of flow in various ways.

The word hambun appears four times in PV (2.5C, 3.14I, and 3.40F), but not in this sense; in contrast, it appears some 19 times in ZFJ as denoting a minimal measure in the legal/ritual sense (439 [2.1, twice], 475 [10.10], 487 [15.2], 495 [15.39], 496 [15.40], 505 [18.2], 515 [21.4], 537 [28.5], 563 [33.10, four times], 632 [37.8], 654 [39.1], 658 [40.1], 663 [40.5], 666 and 670 [Summary]).

In its concern with minimal measures ZFJ introduces three such measures beyond the smallest amount (hambun); two of them relate to the amount of dead matter that constitutes a violation of the prohibition against “chewing dead matter,” at least in the opinion reported in the name of the Mēd(y)ōmāhites. According to this school, the amount is either such that mizag dānēd, its taste may be discerned, or ōgārēd, it may be swallowed, which perhaps refers to an amount small enough to be swallowed at one go, so according to ZFJ 654 (39.1).

There is a fourth measure, based on PV 6.10C, where the Avesta prohibits leaving dead matter even “as little as the foremost *joint of the smallest finger” in a field in which a human or a dog has died. ZFJ 486-487 (15.2) converts this to a minimal amount so that each finger’s-size constitutes a sin. It should be noted that Šnš does not use hambun in this technical sense at all, though the word does occur in Šnš 2.28-2.32.

ZFJ’s concern with minimal measures becomes a concern with multiple levels of sin, or, as PV 6.5E already noted, multiple counts of sin per violation(s) of a prohibition, depending on how such violations are calculated.

Thus, according to ZFJ 486-487 (15.2), if one has not removed the dead body of a human or dog from a field and thus allows water to reach various polluted substances, the degree of sin is proportional to the degree of the pollution. Moreover, ZFJ adds another level of complexity to the question of liability. By Avestan law, the measure is such that each finger-sized piece of flesh that is not removed from a field is itself accounted as a sin (V-PV 6.10), but, according to ZFJ, the pōryōtkēšān, the original Zoroastrian teachers, have decreed that the minimum is the usual hambun-iz, “even the smallest amount.” Here then we have a distinction between an Avestan prohibition that is more lenient, and one instituted by the pōryōtkēšān which is more stringent, a distinction familiar from rabbinic law. Still, the severity of the sin depends on the degree of pollution. Contact of dead matter (nasā or hixr) with water, which is more severe, incurs a margarzān-sin; severe hixr, which is somewhat less severe than hixr itself, incurs a tanāpuhl-sin; lesser degrees (xwartar) incur a yāt-sin.

A second innovation on the part of ZFJ involves the conception of pollution as occupying three-dimensional space, and the consequent formulation of numerous hypothetical cases regarding the polluting potential of a dead body in various geometrical configurations: a tent within a house, two houses adjacent to one another, etc. The clearest enunciation of this principle is in the summary chapter at ZFJ 667, where the redactor writes: “If a body dies in a house, the entire house and the empty space (inside it) are polluted.” The 34 sections of chapter 8 are all devoted to this subject, and, but for two passages, they are all anonymous. The exceptions are ZFJ 459- 460 (8.8) and ZFJ 462 (8.16). In the first, the redactor parses a dispute between the two schools of Abargites and Mēd(y)ōmāhites in regard to a complex of three houses with a doorway/vestibule, where the issue concerns the conditions under which the doorway functions as a barrier to pollution. In the second, the question concerns two adjacent houses, or one house that has been partitioned but in which there is a hole in the wall, with a dead body on one side, and the opinion of Pēšagsīr is recorded, though its exact import is as yet unclear.

Were these true traditions, and thus the concept of pollution occupying space originated with the schools, or were these retrojections on the part of the redactor, who assumed that the schools agreed with his view on this? Since these are the only passages in which the schools relate to three-dimensional pollution, it is likely that their presence is due to the redactor’s assumption rather than reality, but we can hardly be certain. What is certain, however, is that this turn to Euclidean “solid geometry,” as well as the systematically analytic approach of ZFJ, is due to the Hellenization of Iranian intellectual life that is so apparent in the Dēnkard and, mutandis mutandi, as documented by Leib Moscovitz, in the Babylonian Talmud.

Bibliography:

D. Agostini, E. Kiesele, and S. Secunda, “Ohrmazd’s Better Judgment (meh-dādestānīh): A Middle Persian Legal and Theological Discourse,” in Studia Iranica, 43, 2014, pp. 177-202.

A. Cantera Studien zur Pahlavi-Ubersetzung des Avesta, Wiesbaden, 2004.

Y. Elman, “Contrasting Intellectual Trajectories: Iran in Mesopotamia,” in Samuel Secunda and Uri Gabbay, eds., By the Rivers of Babylon, Tübingen, forthcoming.

K. M. JamaspAsa and M. Nawabi, eds., Iranian Bundahišn and Rivāyat-I Ēmēt-I Ašavahištān etc. MS. TD2, Pt. 2, Shiraz, 1979.

K. M. JamaspAsa, “On the Heretic and Immoral Woman in Zoroastrianism,” in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin Emerito Oblata, Leiden, 1984, pp. 243-66.

Idem, “The Ritual of Hair Trimming and Nail Paring in Zoroastrianism,” in Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne I, Leiden, 1981, pp. 316-25.

Idem, “A Pahlavi Revāyat Based on Vendidād,” in Gifts to a Magus. Indo-Iranian Studies Honoring Firoze Kotwal, ed. Jamsheed K. Choksy and Jennifer Dubeansky, New York, pp. 245-62.

G. König, “Der Pahlavi-Text Zand ī Fragard ī Juddēwdād,” in Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies, ed. M. Macuch, D. Weber, and D. Durkin-Meisterernst, Wiesbaden, 2010, pp. 115-32.

M. Moazami, Wrestling with the Demons of the Pahlavi Widēwdād. Transcription, Translation, and Commentary, Leiden and Boston, 2014.

L. Moscovitz, Talmudic Reasoning: From Casuistics to Conceptualization, Tübingen, 2002.

P. O. Skjærvo and Y. Elman, “Concepts of Pollution in Late Sasanian Iran: Does Pollution Need Stairs, and Does it Fill Space?” in ARAM, forthcoming.

J. C. Tavadia, Šāyast-nē-šāyast. A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs, Hamburg, 1930.

(Yaakov Elman and Mahnaz Moazami)

Originally Published: October 7, 2014

______

ZĀR harmful wind (bād) associated with spirit possession beliefs in southern coastal regions of Iran. People believe in the existence of winds that can be either vicious or peaceful, believer (Muslim) or non-believer (infidel).

ZĀR, harmful wind (bād) associated with spirit possession beliefs in southern coastal regions of Iran.

In southern coastal regions of Iran such as Qeshm Island, people believe in the existence of winds that can be either vicious or peaceful, believer (Muslim) or non-believer (infidel). The latter are considered more dangerous than the former and zār belongs to this group of winds. Many varieties of zār are known, including Maturi, Šayḵ Šangar, Dingemāru, Omagāre, Bumaryom, Pepe, Bābur, Bibi, and Namrud (Sāʿedi, pp. 57; Interviews, 2007, 2009). Most types of zār are very dangerous and cause disease, discomfort, and at times serious illnesses for the victim. Everyone is subject to the action of the zār, but the poor and the deprived seem to be the most common victims. Zārs are also considered contagious; for example, when people love or hate one another, they can give their zār to those whom they love or hate. The belief is that one can never get rid of zārs, but can only come to terms with them to leave the victim alone. These beliefs are common to many areas in south and southwest Iran, including Baluchistan where harmful winds are usually called Gowat (‘wind’ or ‘air’; Riāḥi; Darviši).

Special ceremonies are held to pacify the zār and alleviate the patient's symptoms. These ceremonies, called by a leader, bring together the patient and those previously afflicted by the zār and involve incense, music, and movement. The details of the ceremony differ according to location and have undergone changes with the passage of time (Sāʿedi, pp. 42-52; Taqvāʾi, 1999; Bāzmāndegān Qešmi). While Ḡolām-Ḥosayn Sāʿedi (q.v) reported the practice of this ceremony along the coast of the Persian Gulf, from Bušehr to Bandar-e Lenga in 1961, at the time of this research, zār was no longer practiced in certain locations such as Bušehr and observed far more actively in Qeshm Island than in Bandar ʿAbbās. Furthermore, certain details, such as riding the sacrifice before slaughtering it or drinking the blood of the sacrifice by participants in the zār ceremony, have not been mentioned in older sources such as Taqvāʾi or Modarresi, but they have come up in interviews with locals and local researchers (Interviews, 2007, 2009). Sāʿedi also emphasizes the presence of young females with good voices and dancing abilities in the ceremonies, but their presence was neither mentioned in interviews nor shown in films that were produced more recently (Bāzmāndegān Qešmi). Based on records and interviews regarding the zār ceremony in Qeshm Island, roughly two phases in the ritual can be recognized: separation and incorporation. Preparations for the zār constitute the separation phase. This phase begins with a person complaining from feelings of disease and discomfort to cult leaders (the male Bābā zār or the female Māmā zār). As some cult leaders have already been possessed by zārs and have managed to control them, they can help others in controlling their zārs. Some leaders may recommend that the patient first seek the help of a doctor while others may oppose seeking this type of help if they believe that the needles from injections prescribed by the doctor will further agitate the zār and create more problems for the patient. Having opted for a remedy from Bābā or Māmā zār, the patient will prepare to stay in isolation for up to seven days. During this period, only Bābā zār or Māmā zār can visit the patient and use specific treatments such as rubbing a combination of aromatic herbs, such as Guraku and Gešt, and spices on the patient’s body. After the separation phase ends, the patient’s body is cleaned and washed, and preparations are made for the incorporation phase. Members of the cult inform everyone about the upcoming ceremony and, as it is considered a sin not to attend a ceremony, every member of the cult attends. There can also be a group of spectators, who may or may not be possessed, who participate in the ceremony. Everyone gathers in a circle with the patient in the center while a piece of cloth, with eggs, dates, confetti, and aromatic herbs, is spread on the floor. After the patient’s head is covered with a piece of white cloth to keep him/her from the glances of strangers, a tray holding aromatic herbs on charcoal is passed around and the patient and the participants are frequently incensed with the smoke from the mixture. The zār leader takes the lead on music (drums) and is followed by musicians and others present. The leader usually knows the name of the zārs and the music (specific beat of drums) that goes with them. Bābā or Māmā zārs also sing and the participants respond in turn. During the singing of the incantations, which can be in different languages or dialects (Sabaye Moghaddam, p. 26) or pure melodic sounds containing no discernible words, a zār makes itself known by means of a sign that is recognized by the possessed person, who then feels a strong inner urge to move. Every piece of music goes with a specific spirit; with each type of music, some members of the cult may start moving and shaking. If there is no reaction from the patient, musicians change the tune until they see a reaction that helps the healer identify the spirit who has taken over the afflicted. The reaction is usually expressed as a swinging of the upper body, vertical movements of the head, and the shaking of the shoulders. When the zār is identified, the healer starts a conversation where she/he tries to find out what the spirit wants in exchange for leaving the patient alone. Māmā zār or Bābā zār speak with the spirit through the patient and ask the zār about the reasons behind the affliction as well as its demands for leaving the patient alone.

The language through which Bābā/Māmā zār communicate with the zār may be a language that is ordinarily unfamiliar to both Bābā/Māmā zār and the patient. It is sometimes a combination of Persian, Arabic, Sawhili, and Indian. The zār names its demands, which may be as simple as a few prayers or a piece of bamboo (ḵeyzarān) or something more substantial such as a sacrifice. Bābā/Māmā zār then makes a “binding” by tying a piece of cloth around the patient’s arm. This is an assurance that the demands of the zār will be met. The belief among the cult is that if the zār’s wishes are not granted, the zār will return and create more problems for the patient. If the demands of the zār can be easily obtained, they are quickly attended to through the initiation of a ceremony with music, food, and the offering that the zār has demanded. Otherwise, the demands will be met at a later time in a similar ceremony. For example, if the zār asks for a sacrifice or blood, there will be a ceremony where the sacrificial animal is brought in (with the patient riding it) and slaughtered, after which the blood is drunk by the leader and the patient. At this point, the incorporation phase is completed, the patient becomes a member of the cult and is expected to participate in all future ceremonies. These ceremonies may take up to seven days beyond the separation phase. Members of the cult must follow certain rules regarding their outfits (which should always be clean and white) and must adhere to prohibitions on the touching of corpses (animal or human), the drinking of alcohol, sex with unlawful partners (Sāʿedi, pp. 36-37). Selling or letting go of the object the zār has asked for is prohibited as well; if the zār has asked for an outfit or an accessory, the patient must have that particular outfit/accessory on in all future ceremonies (Sabaye Moghaddam, p. 28). It is believed that if these rules are broken, the zārs will rise again, thus necessitating another ceremony to appease them (Interviews 2007, 2009).

Many similarities amongst the beliefs and the rituals associated with zār in Iran and many African countries suggest a common origin for this belief and practice. The dominant presence of Africans amongst both the afflicted and the healers also point to the possibility that the belief and practice might have originated in Africa (Modarressi; Natvig, pp. 675-89) and gained popularity in ports in south west of Iran. At the turn of the 20th century, scholars generally favored an Abyssinian or Ethiopian origin for zār though there were also theories that proposed Persian or other origins (Natvig, pp. 671-85). Frobenius, speculating upon the cultural traits common between Persia, northeast Africa and the Sudan region, developed the hypothesis that zār and bori (an old West African religion of the Hausa clan structure; Lewis, 1971, p. 96) were manifestations of an early system of beliefs derived from Persia and spread throughout the grassland belt from the Abyssinian highlands through Kordofan to Hausaland (Frobenius, pp. 569-72). Meanwhile Modarressi (p. 150) states that the name zār is Persian and was applied to the cult when it was introduced in southern Iran by African sailors from the southeast coast of Africa in the 16th century. According to Mirzai Asl, Africans brought to Iran as a result of slave trade activities in the 19th century have held on to their African heritage by reconstructing their identity (Mirzai Asl, pp. 240-42). It is difficult to trace the origin of these beliefs and rituals in Iran as Ethiopians have been mentioned to be living in southeast Iran at the time of Herodotus (Field, p. 155); however, there are no written records of practices associated with them before the 20th century.

Close to half a century of government opposition to these practices (Sāʿedi, p. 25; Interviews, 2007) has forced the believers to scale back the extent of the ceremonies, which may have in turn resulted in their disappearance from many regions including Bušehr. The advent of modern medicine and hospitals could also have influenced the way people of the region viewed and dealt with illness. Despite these factors, zār beliefs and practices have not ceased to exist in Iran and many other countries in the Middle East and Africa.

For a music sample, see Zār Songs: Vorāra, Yo mama.

Bibliography:

Written sources. Moḥammad-Reżā Darviši, Music and Trance, the Dhikrs of Gwātī Ceremonies Balūchīstān, Tehran, 2008.

Henry Field, Contributions to the Anthropology of Iran, Chicago, 1968, p. 155.

Leo Frobenius, The Voice of Africa 2, London, 1913, pp. 569-72.

I. M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, An Anthropological Study of Spirit Possession and Shamanism, London, 1971, p. 96.

Idem, Ahmed Al-Safi and Sayyid Hurreiz, Women’s Medicine, The Zar-Bori Cult in Africa and Beyond, Edinburgh, 1991, p. 10.

Behnaz A. Mirzai Asl, “African Presence in Iran: Identity and its Reconstruction in the 19th and 20th Centuries,” Revue française d’histoire d’Outre Mer 89, 2002, pp. 229-46.

Taghi Modarressi, “The Zar Cult in South Iran,” in R. Prince, ed., Trance and Possession States, Montreal, 1986, pp. 149-55.

Richard Natvig, “Oromos, Slaves, and the Zar Spirits: A Contribution to the History of the Zar Cult,” The International Journal of African Historical Studies 20/4, 1987, pp. 669-89. ʿAli Riāḥi, Zār va bād va Baluč, Tehran, 1977.

Maria Sabaye Moghaddam, “Negāhi be eʿteqādāt va marāsem-e zār dar miān-e sākenān-e savāhi-e jonub-e ḡarbi-e Irān,” Najvā- ye Farhang 4/11, 2009, pp. 23-30.

Ḡolam-Ḥosayn Sāʿedi, Ahl-e havā, Tehran, 1961.

Interviews held by the author with Mr. Moḥammad Ḵaṭibizāda, Mr. Reżāʾiān, Māmā Ṣafiya, Bābā Ḡolām, Bābā Qanbar, and Mr. Mowlāʾiān and locals in Qeshm, Bandar ʿAbbās and Tehran, 2007 and 2009.

Films.

Aḥmad Bāzmāndegān Qešmi, Zār, Ḥawza-ye Honari-e Ostān-e Hormozgān, 2007.

Nāṣer Taqvāʾi, Bād-e jen, Bandar Lenga, 1969.

Idem, Kešti-e Yunāni, Kish Island, 1999.

Photos.

Aḥmad Bāzmāndegān Qešmi, Ḥawza-ye Honari-e Ostān-e Hormozgān, 2007.

July 20, 2009

(Maria Sabaye Moghaddam)

Originally Published: July 20, 2009

______

ZARANGIANA territory around Lake Hāmun and the Helmand river in modern Sistān. See DRANGIANA.

DRANGIANA or Zarangiana; territory around Lake Hāmūn and the Helmand river in modern Sīstān.

DRANGIANA (or Zarangiana), territory around Lake Hāmūn and the Helmand river in modern Sīstān. The name of the country and its inhabitants is first attested as Old Persian z-r-k (i.e., Zranka)in the great Bīsotūn iii inscription of Darius I (col. I l. 16), apparently the original name. This form is reflected in the Elamite (Sir-ra-an-qa and variants), Babylonian (Za-ra-an-ga), and Egyptian (srng or srnḳ) versions of the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, as well as in Greek Zarángai, Zarangaîoi, Zarangianḗ (Arrian; Isidore of Charax), and Sarángai (Herodotus) and in Latin Zarangae (Pliny). Instead of this original form, characterized by non-Persian z (perhaps from proto-IE. palatal *γ or *γh), in some Greek sources (chiefly those dependent upon the historians of Alexander the Great, the perhaps hypercorrect Persianized variant (cf. Belardi,p. 183) with initial d-, *Dranka (or even *Dranga?), reflected in Greek Drángai, Drangḗ, Drangēnḗ, Drangi(a)nḗ (Ctesias; Polybius; Strabo; Diodorus; Ptolemy; Arrian; Stephanus Byzantius) and Latin Drangae, Drangiana, Drangiani (Curtius Rufus; Pliny; Ammianus Marcellinus; Justin) or Drancaeus (Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 6.106, 6.507) occurs. Gherardo Gnoli (p. 43) has suggested that the form with initial z- attested in the royal inscriptions was the official one, which had first entered the administrative nomenclature of the Medes (p. 46), whereas the Persianized d form first appeared in the work of Ctesias, who lived at the royal court, and belonged exclusively to the spoken language. It is more likely, however, that Zranka is distinct from the many Median borrowings in Old Persian, as it does not conform to the customary use of the Median or Persian forms observed without exception in the different versions of the Bīsotūn inscription; it must thus be regarded as an East Iranian form that entered Old Persian directly.

The etymology of Zranka/*Dranka is far from clear. Whereas most scholars prefer a connection with Old Persian drayah- (Av. zraiiah-, Mid.Pers. zrēh, NPers. daryā “sea, lake”) and, because of the location in the Hāmūn basin, have interpreted it as “sea land,” that interpretation raises serious morphological problems; Georg Morgenstierne (p. 43) linked Zranka with New Persian zarang “mountain peak” (Bal. d(ə)rəng “precipice”) and suggested that it may have been “originally the name of the mountain, which dominates the province: Kōh-i Khwāja.” The ancient name Zranka lived on in the toponym Zarang (Ar. Zaranj), name of the medieval capital of Sīstān, now the ruins of Nād ʿAlī (Ball, pp. 189-90 no. 752). According to Strabo, the northern part of Drangiana was bordered both on the north and the west by Aria, whereas most Drangian territory extended south of the Parapamisus and was bordered on the west by Carmania, on the south by Gedrosia, and on the east by Arachosia. Strabo also reported that the province formed a single tax district with Aria, information that applies only to Parthian times (11.10.1, 15.2.9). The land was characterized as rich in tin (Strabo, 15.2.10), and the inhabitants were said to imitate the Persian way of life but to have little wine. The most detailed description, though riddled with errors, is that of Ptolemy (6.19), according to whom Drangiana was bounded in the west and north by Aria, in the east by Arachosia, and in the south by Gedrosia; a river, supposedly a branch of the Arabis, flowed through it. Ptolemy also mentioned individual tribes living there: the Darandae near the Arian border, the Batrians near Arachosia, and the inhabitants of Tatakēnḗ (or the like) between, perhaps reflecting the subdivision of Drangiana in Seleucid and Parthian times (cf. Tomaschek, col. 1666, correcting the first and third names to Drangae and Paraitakēnḗ respectively). He listed a number of towns and villages, of which Prophthasía (cf. 8.25.8) and Ariáspē are known from other sources as well: Strabo (11.8.9, 15.2.8) and Pliny (Historia Naturalis 6.61) named Prophthasía, located on or near Lake Hāmūn on the network of major roads, and Stephanus Byzantius (s.v. Phráda) knew its pre-Alexandrian name Phráda; both this city and Ariáspē were mentioned as rich and illustrious by Ammianus Marcellinus (23.6.71). Isidore of Charax (Mansiones Parthicae 17) mentioned only Párin (to be emended to Zárin) and Korók among Drangian towns. From all these reports Paolo Daffinà (p. 30) concluded that in the Hellenistic period Drangiana was not restricted to the lower Helmand basin but extended northeast toward the Hindu Kush. Pliny listed the Zarangians among a large number of peoples living between the Caucasus and Bactria, side by side with the Drangians (Historia Naturalis 6.48, 6.94), obviously confusing information on a single people taken from different sources.

The Drangians were listed among the peoples ruled by the legendary King Ninus before the Achaemenids (Diodorus, 2.2.3, apud Ctesias in Jacoby, Fragmente IIIC, p. 422, fr. 1, par. 2.3). There is no evidence on the situation of the country during the Median period; it may well have belonged to the Median empire, but it may instead have belonged to an eastern Iranian state centered on Marv and Herat (Henning, pp. 42-43, based on Herodotus, 3.117.1). Herodotus, perhaps following Hecataeus, reported a large plain ringed by mountains and bordered by the Choras-mians, Hyrcanians, Parthians, Sarangians (Dran-gians), and Thamanaeans (surprisingly omitting the Arians); from it flowed the Akes, perhaps the modern Harīrūd, which irrigated the fields of all these peoples before the Persian conquest. This plain may indeed be sought somewhere in Chorasmia, Herat, or Drangiana/Sīstān, but “with the clues given it fits no more easily on a map than the Garden of Eden” (Cook, p. 195).

Alexander the Great came to the capital of Drangiana in pursuit of Bessos and his followers (Arrian, 3.25.8; cf. Diodorus, 17.78.4; Strabo, 15.2.10) in the winter of 330-29 B.C.E. and subdued the entire satrapy (Arrian, 3.28.1, 7.10.6, who used the forms Drángai and Zarángai or Zarangaîoi interchangeably; cf. Justin, 12.5.9). Early in the summer of 325 B.C.E. Alexander sent Craterus with part of the army from India via Arachosia, Drangiana, and Carmania (Arrian, 6.17.3; cf. Strabo, 15.2.5). At that time Stasanor of Soli was satrap of Aria and Drangiana, having succeeded one Arsames (Curtius Rufus, 8.3.17; Arrian, 6.27.3; cf. Justin, 13.4.22); his appointment was confirmed by Perdiccas after Alexander’s death (Diodorus, 18.3.3). Unlike Craterus Alexander himself made a dangerous march across the Gedrosian desert, ordering racing camels and pack animals sent to him in Carmania from “Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, and the other countries bordering on the desert” (Diodorus, 17.105.7). As part of the great mingling of Greco-Macedonian and Oriental customs and institutions initiated by Alexander, which culminated in the famous mass wedding ceremonies at Susa in 324 B.C.E., Zarangian, Bactrian, Sogdian, and Arachosian cavalry units were included in the royal horse guards (Arrian, 7.6.3). In 321 B.C.E., when Antipater redistributed the satrapies, Stasander of Cyprus received Aria and Drangiana (Diodorus, 18.39.6, 19.14.7). According to Polybius (11.34.13), after the Greco-Bactrian king Euthydemus had subdued the Sogdians, Arachosians, Drangians, and Arians (Justin, 41.6.3), Antiochus III marched against him; he returned in the winter of 206-05 B.C.E., crossing Arachosia, the Erymanthus (i.e., the Etymand(r)us or Helmand) river, Drangiana, and Carmania in turn. Some time in the mid-2nd century B.C.E. Drangiana became part of the Arsacid empire under Mithridates I. Ammianus Marcellinus (23.6.14) incorrectly listed Drangiana, between the Paropamisus and Arachosia, as one of the provinces of the Sasanian empire.

Bibliography:

(For abbreviations found here, see “Short References.”) W. Ball, Catalogue des sites archéologiques d’Afghanistan I, Paris, 1982.

W. Belardi, “Sul nome dell’Egitto nel persiano antico,” AI(U)ON, Sezione linguistica 2, 1960, pp. 171-84.

J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire, London, 1983.

P. Daffinà, L’immigrazione dei Sakā nella Drangiana, Rome, 1967, esp. pp. 23 ff.

G. Gnoli, Ricerche storiche sul Sīstān antico, Rome, 1967, esp. pp. 41 ff.

W. B. Henning, Zoroaster, Politician or Witch-Doctor? Oxford, 1951.

G. Morgenstierne, “Notes on Balochi Etymology,” NTS 5, 1932, pp. 37-53.

[W.] Tomaschek, “Drangai,” in Pauly-Wissowa, V/2, cols. 1665- 67.

(R. Schmitt)

Originally Published: December 15, 1995

______

ZARATHUSTRA the name generally known in the West for the prophet of ancient Iran, whose transformation of his inherited religion inaugurated a movement that eventually became the dominant religion in Iran up until the triumph of Islam. See ZOROASTER.

ZOROASTER the name generally known in the West for the prophet of ancient Iran, whose transformation of his inherited religion inaugurated a movement that eventually became the dominant religion in Iran up until the triumph of Islam.

ZOROASTER, the name generally known in the West for the prophet of ancient Iran, whose transformation of his inherited religion inaugurated a movement that eventually became the dominant religion in Iran up until the triumph of Islam. The subject is covered in the following entries:

i. The Name.

ii. General Survey.

iii. Zoroaster the Avesta.

iv. In the Pahlavi Books.

v. As Perceived by the Greeks.

vi. As Perceived in Western Europe.

vii. As Perceived by Later Zoroastrians. (Multiple Authors)

......

ZOROASTER i. THE NAME

The authentic form of Zoroaster’s name is that attested in his own songs, the Gathas: Old Av. Zaraθuštra-, on which are based regular derivatives like zaraθuštri- “descending from Zoroaster."

ZOROASTER

i. THE NAME

The Gathic form and its derivatives. The authentic form of Zoroaster’s name is that attested in his own songs, the Gathas, Old Av. Zaraθuštra- (Old Avestan [OAv.] and Young Avestan [YAv.] references are fully listed by Schlerath, 1971, pp. 134 f.), on which are based regular derivatives like zaraθuštri- “descending from Zoroaster” or zaraθuštrō.təma- “most Zoroastrian.” Although phonetically an irregular development (see below), the Av. form with its -θ- was linguistically an actual form, as is shown by later attestations reflecting the same basis: Man. Parth. zrhwšt (Zar(a)hušt, with -h- from *-θ-), Man. Sogd. zrwšc, ʾzrʾwšc, Mazdean Sogd. zr(ʾ)wšc (Z(a)rušč,) from which come also Man. Uighur zrwšc and Chinese suo-luo-ći̯ e (cf. the references in Bailey, 1953, p. 40, n . 6). In contrast to these forms, however, the Persian ones, viz. Book Pahlavi and Mid. Pers. inscriptional zltw(h)št Zar(a)du(x)št (with -ušt from -uxšt, which is the regular outcome of *-uršt < OIr. *-uštra-) and NPers. Zartušt, -dušt, Zarātušt, -δušt (on which are based Syr. Zardušt, Z(a)rādušt, and Ar. Zarā/ăḏušt) as well as Man. Mid. Pers. zrdrwšt (Zar(a)društ likewise showing metathesis of an original *Zar(a)duršt) require an earlier form with internal -t-, *Zaratuštra-, the same that underlies Av. Zaraθuštra-. (The assumption of a despirantisation of -θ- to -t- for the Persian forms does not help.) The reflex of a form with either -θ- or -t- is present also in Aram. zrtštrš = *Zaraθ/tuštriš (proper name or common noun) on a 4th century seal (cf. Schmitt, 1997, pp. 922 f.).

Also quite close to the Avestan form are Skt. Jarathuśtra- (in Neriyosangh’s translation of the Avesta) and Byzantine Gk. Zarathroústēs (with metathesis only; in Cosmas of Jerusalem [8th cent.], who elsewhere has the variant Zōrothrystēs, which is reshaped after the Greek standard form Zōroástrēs). From the same basis comes (only with anticipation of r and dissimilatory shortening in *Zarathr° ) the form Zathrāstēs, the name of “an Aryan law-giver” in Diodorus 1.94.2 (cf. Schmitt, 1996, p. 94; Gnoli, 2000, p. 100). The significant formal changes and reinterpretations involved in the case of Gk. Zōroástrēs (and Zōróastris) and Arm. Zradašt, Zradešt will be discussed below, but shorter forms like Gk. Zarátās, Záratos, Zarádēs or Lat. Zaratus (see the index of Bidez–Cumont, 1938, p. 389b), possibly contractions of the prophet’s name, are not relevant to the study of the name Zaraθuštra-.

Etymology. Much has been said about the etymology of the Avestan and in general the Iranian forms of this name as well as about their attribution to certain dialects. The only point universally agreed upon is that the second element is Av. uštra- “camel” (it is found in other anthroponyms also). Since a first element ending in a dental, in this case something like *zarat-, should as a rule produce Av. *Zaraṱ.uštra- or (in continuous writing) *Zaraδuštra-, the irregular development demands some explanation. The phonological or morphological reconstructions thus far proposed to explain -θ- are all speculative. These include: an initial laryngeal in *Huštra- (Werba, 1982, p. 173), an original *ṷuštra- in the foreign word for “camel,” a basic form *Zarati-uštra- (with loss of *-i̯ - in the sequence *-θi̯ u-), and a postulated “OSogd.” *Zarat-huštra- (“with euphoric hu,” Gershevitch, 1995, 4a). It is more reasonable to regard the name as reflecting a dialectal origin of not genuine Avestan form, without discounting a purely phonetic explanation of -θ-, such as that proposed by Thieme, 1981, pp. 124 f., who reconstructs the form *Zaratruštra- by assuming the proleptic addition of an -r- and its subsequent dissimilation. But it is still unclear at what stage of the transmission of the Avestan texts the attested form came into being.

In general, OIr. *Zarat-uštra- is behind the various forms attested in the Iranian languages (a variant OIr. *Zara-uštra- is also postulated solely on the basis of Gk. Zōroástrēs). Several interpretations have been proposed for *zarat-, which is perhaps the zero-grade of *zarant-. One see it as *zarant- “old” (Ved. járant-; cf. Oss. zœrond), and explains it as “with old/decrepit [better: aging] camels.” A second interpretation starts from the verbal *zarat- “moving, driving” (cf. Av. zarš “to drag,” Bailey, 1953, pp. 36–42), and suggests “who is driving (i.e., can manage) camels” or “who is fostering/cherishing camels.” A third takes the verbal *zarat- “desiring, longing for” (cf. Ved. har “to like” and, despite its ambiguity, OAv. zara-), and give the meaning “who is longing for camels.” A fourth proposal sees *zarant- “angry, furious” as the base and interprets the name as “with angry/furious camels.” Finally, with the noun *zarant- “yellow” (parallel to YAv. zairi-; cf. Werba, 1982, pp. 184 f.), one has obtained the meaning “with yellow camels.” The intensive debate of recent time (cf. Mayrhofer, 1977a, pp. 46–53; Mayrhofer, 1977b, pp. 105 f. no. 416; Mayrhofer, 1977c; Schlerath, 1977) has shown that even if the juxtaposition of OIr. *zarat- and *zara- is justified, it does not necessarily point to a verbal element *zara(t)-. Since no verbal root of such a form exists in Iranian, the only interpretation that can be “based on a word well attested, although not in Avestan” (Schmidt, 1980, p. 197), is the one mentioned in the first proposal, “with old camels.” Some of the alternatives, however, may be more plausible for semantic reasons (cf. Mayrhofer, 1977b, p. 106), particularly as “aging,” let alone “old,” may hardly be understood positively (see Mayrhofer, 1977c, p. 89 fn. 22). Thus, in the final analysis the problem remains far from settled. Also the view of Humbach (1991, pp. 8 and 10), that an allusion to Zoroaster’s name may be seen in the collocation of the rather obscure word zarəm in Y. 44.17b with the word uštrəm “camel” in Y. 44.18c (with the two separated by some 30 words), does not lead anywhere. Several more etymologies have been proposed, some quite fanciful, but none is scientifically based (for references see Mayrhofer, 1977a, pp. 44–53; Schmitt, 1996, p. 93, n. 37).

Greek Zōroástrēs. The relation of the Gk. standard form Zōroástrēs to Av. Zaraθuštra- (etc.) presents a distinct problem, since a regular rendering of this form would have produced something like Gk. *Zarathóstrēs. The form Zōroástrēs is first attested in Xanthus the Lydian (frag. 32 in Jacoby, Fragmente, IIIC, p. 758.8) and (Ps.-)Plato (Alcibiades Maior 122a1). This and its continuants (Lat. Zoroastres and the secondary Gk. formation Zōróastris, as in Plutarch and others) were often taken as important evidence, because they show no dental and differ in several respects from the Avestan form (for details see Schmitt, 1996, pp. 93–98). Nevertheless, the attempts (e.g., Markwart, 1930, pp. 24–26 and Werba, 1982, pp. 183 f.) to entirely separate Gk. Zōroástrēs from Av. Zaraθuštra- and derive it from a totally different original form, perhaps reshaped by the magi, have been unsuccessful.

The Greek form seems to have arisen from a reinterpretation based on Greek folk etymology, since -astr- certainly recalls Gk. ástra “the stars” and the initial zōro- the Gk. zōrós “pure, unmixed.” Such a double influence of folk etymology is not very likely, however, particularly insofar as the meaning and usage of zōrós are concerned. This is the reason why Gershevitch (1995, pp. 20 f.) and Schmitt (1996, pp. 96–98) dwelt on detailed phonetical explanations. Thus, Gershevitch envisaged a succession of phonetic developments, which led from OIr. *Zara- uštra- via Gk. *Zarṓstrēs through metathesis to *Zōrástrēs, merely assuming that at the last stage the common compositional vowel -o- was inserted into this trisyllabic form. Schmitt also started from an OIr. *Zara-uštra-. However, he assumed that it first produced Gk. *Zara-óstr(ēs) which changed through metathesis into an intermediate form *Zaro-ástr(ēs), which provoked the association with Gk. ástra (but was not caused by it), resulting through a subsequent formal remodeling after the theonym Ōromázēs (internally rhyming with it) in the attested form Zōroástrēs (furtherr evidence for the connections between these two names were also given).

Since the reconstructed OIr. form *Zara-uštra- is merely based on Gk. Zōroástrēs, it remains uncertain and unproven, even if it is in line with the common opinion. (The same holds true also for an alleged *Zara-huštra-, as postulated by Bartholomae, 1895– 1901, p. 39, and Schlerat, 1977, pp. 133 f., because this cannot be a regular development of Zaraθuštra- at such an early date as that of the first attestations). But if accepted, one still has to justify the reconstruction of the OIr. form *Zara-uštra- and its relationship with *Zarat-uštra. There seem to be only two possibilities: either East Ir. *zarat- was substituted by Northwest Ir. *zara- (> NPers. zar) “old” (so Schlerath, 1977, pp. 129 f. ), or *zarat- was (morphologically?) adapted to *zara-, (in analogy to such compounds as Av. Dāraiiaṱ.raθa- vs. OPers. Dāraya-vauš).

Contrary to Herzfeld (1947, pp. 55 f.) and Gershevitch (1964, pp. 28b and 38ab), the form beginning with *zara- cannot be understood at all as a genuine OPers. dialectal form. And in the absence of definite proof that the adaptation of the type found in such OPers. compounds as Dāraya-vauš or Xšaya-ršan- is really a morphological process and not a phonological one (see Schlerath, 1977, pp. 127 ff.), it is not even clear whether the compound in question (*Zara(t)-uštra-) must be a verbal governing compound rather than a bahuvrīhi beginning with an adjective. As a result, the Greek rendering of the name is also without decisive value for etymologizing the ambiguous Iranian forms of it and does not help to limit the various possible solutions.

It was only from the reshaped Gk. form -ástrēs that the conception of an alleged astral cult of Zoroaster could arise, from which analogous explanations of the name were deduced, such as astrothytēs “star-worshipper” proposed by Dinon (frag. 5 in Jacoby, Fragmente, IIIC, p. 524.3). But those pseudo- scholarly interpretations are without any value.

Armenian evidence. The most important testimonies of Zoroaster’s name in classical Armenian sources, showing the form Zradašt (often with the variant Zradešt), are the following (cf. Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik, pp. 41 f. no. 74): Eznik of Kołb (sect. 192), Ełišē (History, p. 162.15, in addition the adjective zradaštakan “Zoroastrian,” pp. 19.3; 143.18), and Mosēs Xorenacʿi (History 1.6, 17–18 pp. 23.15; 55.7; 56.1, 4 f., 14), by whom Zoroaster is introduced as a magus and a king of the Bactrians or Medes. The form Zradašt, which is the result of an older form with initial *zur-, was taken as evidence for a MPers. spoken form *Zur(a)dušt by Andreas (1910, p. 872), who even went so far as to draw conclusions from this also for the Avestan form. But the suspicion seems to be unavoidable, that the older form with initial *zur- was simply influenced by Arm. zur “wrong, unjust, idle” and therefore the name must have been reinterpreted in an anti-Zoroastrian sense by the Armenian Christians. Besides, it cannot be excluded, that the (Parthian or) Middle Persian form, which the Armenians took over (Zaradušt or the like), was merely metathesized to pre-Arm. *Zuradašt.

Bibliography:

F. C. Andreas, “Bruchstücke einer Pehlewi-Übersetzung der Psalmen aus der Sassanidenzeit,” SPAW 1910, pp. 869–72.

H. W. Bailey, “Indo-Iranian Studies,” TPS 1953, pp. 21–42.

Chr. Bartholomae, “Vorge schichte der iranischen Sprachen,” in Geiger and Kuhn, Grundr. Ir. Phil. I/1, 1895–1901, pp. 1–151.

Joseph Bidez and Franz Cumont, Les mages hellénisés: Zoroastre, Ostanès et Hystaspe d’après la tradition grecque. II: Lestextes, Paris, 1938.

Ilya Gershevitch, “Zoroaster’s Own Contribution,” JNES 23, 1964, pp. 12–38.

Idem, “Approaches to Zoroaster’s Gathas,” Iran 33, 1995, pp. 1– 29.

Gherardo Gnoli, Zoroaster in History, New York, 2000. Ernst Herzfeld, Zoroaster and His World, I, Princeton N. J., 1947, pp. 53–56.

Helmut Humbach, The Gathas of Zarathushtra and the Other Old Avestan Texts, I, Heidelberg, 1991.

Josef Markwart, Das erste Kapitel derGāthā uštavatī (Jasna 43), Rome, 1930, pp. 22–28.

Manfred Mayrhofer, ZumNamengut des Avesta, Vienna, 1977a, pp. 43–53.

Idem, Die avestischen Namen (Iranisches Personennamenbuch, I/1), Vienna, 1977b, pp. 105 f.

Idem, “Zarathustra und kein Ende?” AAASH 25, 1977c, pp. 85– 90.

Bernfried Schlerath, “Zarathustra im Awesta,” in Wilhelm Eilers (ed.), Festgabe deutscher Iranisten zur 2500Jahr feier Irans, Stuttgart, 1971, pp. 133–40.

Idem, “Noch einmal Zarathustra,” Die Sprache 23, 1977, pp. 127– 35.

Hanns-Peter Schmidt, “Review of Mayrhofer 1977a and 1977b,” Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 232, 1980, pp. 190–98.

Rüdiger Schmitt, “Onomastica Iranica Platonica,” in Christian Mueller-Goldingen and Kurt Sier (eds.), Lēnaiká: Festschrift für Carl Werner Müller, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1996, pp. 81–102.

Idem, “Onomastica Iranica symmicta,” in Riccardo Ambrosini et al. (eds.), Scríbthair a ainm n-ogaim. Scritti in Memoria di Enrico Campanile, II, Pisa, 1997, pp. 921–27.

Paul Thieme, “Der Name des Zarathustra,” ZVS 95, 1981, pp. 122–25 (repr. in: Idem, Kleine Schriften, II, Stuttgart, 1995, pp. 1154–57). Chlodwig Werba, Die arischen Personennamen und ihre Träger bei den Alexanderhistorikern: Studien zur iranischen Anthroponomastik, Ph. D. diss., Vienna, 1982, pp. 172 f. and 181–91.

(Rüdiger Schmitt)

Originally Published: July 20, 2002

______

ZOROASTER ii. GENERAL SURVEY

ZOROASTER

ii. GENERAL SURVEY

“Zoroaster” is the name generally known in the West for the prophet of ancient Iran, whose transformation of his inherited religion inaugurated a movement that eventually became the dominant religion in Iran up until the triumph of Islam. Many of the topics dealt with in this article have already been presented in the many volumes of the Encyclopaedia Iranica. At times the views expressed here on these often difficult matters are in harmony with those of other contributors, at times at variance. While the present contribution is intended to present comprehensive treatment of Zoroaster, the reader should consult the many cross-references in order to find often more detail than can be included in a summary article, to appreciate certain differences in approach by various scholars, and to access the rich bibliographical references which would be redundant to reproduce here.

The name. The name Zoroaster derives from Greek Zōroástrēs. In his own Gathas he refers to himself as Zaraθuštra, and this is the form of the name used throughout the Avesta. There has been considerable discussion concerning both the form and meaning of the name (see ZOROASTER, THE NAME). Uncontroversial is recognition of the name as a compound whose final member uštra- is the common word for ‘camel.’ But, what sort of camel(s)? The prior member zaraθ ˚ appears to be a present participle with θ for expected ṯ, which is the normal spelling of word-final tin pausa, irrespective of whether the word is verbal or nominal. Among the Western Middle Iranian languages are found Pahl. zltw(h)št, MMPers. zrdrwšt, and NPers. Zardušt, all of which have been thought to derive from *Zarat-uštra, with regular voicing of the intervocalic stop t. However, Parthian has zrhwšt, and the Eastern Iranian language Manichean Sogdian [SogdM.] has zrwšc. As Gershevitch (1995) showed, the starting point for all forms of the name must be *zarat-. If the derivation is a present participle of the verb zar- ‘to be, become old’ we can compare the Old Indian evidence, where numerous compounds, including some proper names, have jarat/d- as prior members. In Old Indic jara- does occur in compounds, but only as final member. Further, I count eighteen Avestan names that are compounds whose prior members are present participles ending is ˚aṯ ˚. These facts militate against assuming that there were actually two etymologically distinct forms of the name current in ancient Iran, namely, *Zarat-uštra- and *Zara-uštra. The latter, which is the basis of Gr. Zōroástrēs, owes its form to a common phonetic development within Old Persian, whereby word final tin pausa disappears. That is why Darius I’s name is Dāraya-waʰuš and not *Dārayaδ-waʰuš (cf. Av. Dārayaṯ.raθa- nom. pr.). In Parth. zrhwšt the h may derive from θ or be a non-etymological prothetic h/x. The latter, being suggested by SogdM. xwštr ‘camel’, would be possible if first Parthian had borrowed OPers. *zara-uštra- and then changed to ʰušt. The word for ‘camel’ is not attested in Parthian, nor is prothetic h. The Sogdian form of the name is problematic. According to Gershevitch, an Old Sogdian *Zaraθuštra- would have passed into Middle Sogdian as *Zarθušc, not as attested Zrušc. This indicates that Zrwšc was borrowed, probably from Parthian, whose medial h would have disappeared.

Still, through all this, it remains to explain the θ of the Avestan name. Gershevitch proposed that this was actually an Old Sogdian (Zaraθuštra’s native language; see below) name, originally *Zarat-huštra-. The sequence th would have gone to θ, and it was as such that he became known. Of, course this is pure guesswork, as neither *huštra- nor th > θ has any verification for hypothetical Old Sogdian. Since θ > h is well- attested in Parthian (e.g., the present stem dh-, Av. daθa-), Zrhwšt can be derived safely from *Zarθušt. That is, Parthian assumed the Avestan pronunciation, as did also Sogdian, by whatever route the name took. Why did the dental t not enter Middle Persian as a fricative? Perhaps it did. In Middle Persian the normal outcome of θ is h. However, where the spelling is historical, Pahlavi uses t to represent θ, as it lacks a separate sign for θ. Perhaps the name did come into Middle Persian at first as zltwšt /Zarθušt/; subsequently the t, rather than > h, was treated as a dental stop that developed the pronunciation zard˚ on the false analogy of words like zlt /zard/ “yellow,” slt /sard/ “cold,” dlt /dard/ “pain.” As for the θ itself, one may guess that it is nothing more than final t becoming a fricative. If the name of the prophet were no longer felt to be a compound, then the unvoiced dental fricative would have been written as θ rather than the normal ṯ.

Finally, what is the meaning of zaraṯ? The obvious candidate is “old, aging,” thus Zaraθuštra- “whose camels are old.” However, to some sensibilities this would be an inexplicably inappropriate name, especially in comparison to his father-in-law Frašaoštra- “whose camels are wonderful.” Also found in the frawaši (see FRAVAŠI) lists of Yt. 13 are Wohuštra- “whose camels are good” and Arawaoštra- perhaps “who has snarling/bellowing camels.”

Zoroaster’s date and place. “When and where Zaraθuštra lived, one does not know.” Those words of H. Lommel (1930, p. 3) ring as true today as they did when he wrote them. Despite many attempts to situate Zaraθuštra in historical time and geographic place, all we have are possibilities that may strike one as more or less reasonable.

Date. Controversy over Zaraθuštra’s date has been an embarrassment of long standing to Zoroastrian studies. If anything approaching a consensus exists, it is that he lived ca. 1000 BCE give or take a century or so, though reputable scholars have proposed dates as widely apart as ca.1750 BCE and “258 years before Alexander.” In order to present the matter in an orderly fashion I shall (1) give account of the facts offered by our various sources, then (2) proceed to a presentation of the various theories. (1) The sources. Since there are no events mentioned in the entire Avesta which can be linked to any historically verifiable chronology, the only arguments made on the basis of the extant Avesta necessarily are founded on assumptions such as those regarding glottochronology or the reliability of genealogical sequences or the place of Zaraθuštra and the Gathas within the corpus of Standard Avestan texts or even a sense of what may seem reasonable to an individual scholar. These arguments ultimately boil down to a judgment that for such-and-such to have occurred so-and-so many years must have elapsed.

There are Iranian sources outside the Avesta that offer dates for Zaraθuštra. They are contained both in the Pahlavi books and in Arabic and Byzantine sources which drew on Sasanid traditions. In order to evaluate these sources, it is necessary to appreciate that they are dependent on Zoroastrian ideas about time and chronology. Unlike dynastic chronologies, where time is reckoned by regnal years, Zoroastrian chronology is based on a cosmic calendar that is essentially mythological. According to the myth, history unfolds from the beginning in a series of four ages each of three-thousand years. Time will cease at the end of the twelfth millennium with the Frašegird (see FRAŠŌ.KƎRƎTI). Given this model, events, whether legendary or historical, were placed within the millennial continuum of cosmic history in such a way that the modern critic must pay attention to the necessity imposed on the Sasanid chronographers to fit “history” within the parameters of the cosmic calendar.

The Pahlavi Bundahišn Chap. 36 is “On the calculation of years of the time of 12,000 years” and lays out world history according to the 4 x 3,000 year scheme. However, these 12 millennia, it becomes immediately apparent, are conceived on the model of the year as it passes through the 12 signs of the zodiac, beginning with Warrag/Aries and concluding with Māhīg/Pisces. Only with the 3rd age does the history of the material world (gētīg; see GĒTĪG AND MĒNŌG) commence. Its first millennium begins with the creation of the first mortal, Gayōmard (see GAYŌMART), and concludes with Jamšēd (see JAMŠID), the first king; its second millennium is dominated entirely by the evil dragon Dahāg (see AŽDAHĀ); its third millennium begins with the defeat of Dahāg by the hero Frēdōn and concludes with Wištāsp, last of the Kayanid dynasty, up to the time of his conversion. The 4th age commences with the conversion of Wištāsp by Zardušt, and its first millennium appears to conclude with (the Sasanid dynasty of) of Ardašīr. The dynastic chronology of this millennium is given as: Wištāsp (post- conversion) 90, Wahuman ī Spanddādān 112, Humāy ī Wahuman duxt 30, Dārāy ī Cihrzādān 12, Dārāy ī Dārāyān 14, Alaksandar 14, Aškānān 284, Ardašīr 460. The sum of years from Wištāsp up to Alexander = 258 years, and this “258 years before Zardušt” was taken in our sources as the established date for Zoroaster. Note that the title of Bd. 36 given above is according to the Indian Bundahišn; the Iranian Bundahišn adds “year of the Arabs” implying that the author was drawing on histories in Arabic sources (Christensen, pp. 50-51). It is curious that, after giving “460 years until the brood of Arabs usurped (the) throne,” the author adds “to the Persian year 447; it is now the year 527 of the Persian year.” Noteworthy also is that the total sum of years = 1,016, rather than the even 1,000 each of all previous millennia. As scholars have pointed out, the period for the Arsacids (Aškānān) was drastically truncated ostensibly to accommodate the millennial ideology. Compounding the problems in this regnal/dynastic chronology is the presumption that its creators were also confronting the problem posed by having to square the millennial calendar of Zoroastrianism with historical time reckoned according to the Seleucid era, beginning 312 BCE (for a discussion of the “traditional date” see Shahbazi, 1977; Boyce, 1992, pp. 20-21).

Classical sources also give chronologies for Zoroaster (see ZOROASTER: AS PERCEIVED BY THE GREEKS). While Herodotus (ca. 480-424 BCE) never mentions Zoroaster, a contemporary, Xanthos of Lydia, is cited by Diogenes Laertius (3rd century CE) as placing Zoroaster’s date 6,000 years before Xerxes’ Greek campaign. If this date has a basis in Persian informants, it probably represents a confusion on Xanthos’s part over the last two ages of 3,000 years of the Zoroastrian world calendar. Plutarch assigned a date of 5,000 years before the Trojan war.

(2) The theories. On the face of it, the most reasonable date is the one offered by the Pahlavi tradition, namely, “258 years before Alexander.” Reasonable, it seems, because it gives a precise reckoning that is not outlandish, such as the Greek 6,000 years, and fits in well with the established dates for the rise of the Achaemenid empire. The “258” has been espoused by various Iranists over the years, though none so vigorously as W. B. Henning (1951, pp. 35-42) and, subsequently rallying to his defense, I. Gershevitch (1995). However, the context in which this dating occurs (see above) hardly inspires confidence in respect to its historicity (see Shahbazi, 1977). This does not mean that Zoroaster did not live just prior to the rise of the Achaemenid dynasty under Cyrus the Great (549-530 BCE), only that the traditional date cannot be employed to establish when Zoroaster lived.

Once relieved of the necessity of accepting the “258” date, scholars have been free to speculate on a wide range of possibilities, though serious proposals must fall within the range of the mid-second millennium to the early 6th century. Early dating is bounded by the very approximate dates of the oldest hymns of the Ṛgveda; late, by the Achaemenid empire. The basic reason for accepting the Ṛgveda as a limit, vague as its dating is, is that, once one crosses that boundary, one enters a realm of unbridled speculation. The Achaemenid empire sets a limit of a different sort. Since within the entire Avesta not a single Achaemenid king is mentioned, and since the geographical locus of the Avesta is eastern Iran, the inference is drawn that most of its texts were composed outside the temporal and geographical sphere of the empire. The case is even more compelling if Darius I can be regarded as a convert, though, in any event, the calendar reform, probably during the reign of Artaxerxes II (404-358 BCE) (see Boyce, 1982, pp. 243- 46) suggests a prior period of time during which Zoroastrianism gradually became accepted.

Place. There is really nothing in the Gathas which might give a clue where Zoroaster lived or the areas in which he was active. In the Avesta, the geography of the Vendīdād and of the Yašts make it clear that these texts locate themselves in eastern Iran. Even though there are later traditions which place him in Azerbaijan and Media, it is more reasonable to locate Zoroaster somewhere in eastern Iran along with the rest of the Avesta. Further, the two Avestan dialects belong linguistically to eastern Iran (for details, see AVESTAN GEOGRAPHY; Boyce, 1992, pp. 1-51). Inconclusive arguments have been made for Chorasmia (Henning, 1951, pp. 42-45) and Sogdiana (Gershevitch, 1995, whose arguments are based on the slimmest of evidence), while Boyce’s attempt to place him on the Inner Asian steppes of Kazakhstan prior to the migrations onto the Iranian plateau was motivated by misguided ideological considerations (see Malandra, 1994). Perhaps we are safe in placing him somewhere in the northeast, rather than in the southeast in Sistān.

Zoroaster in history and legend. The position taken in this article is that there are really two Zoroasters. The one is a flesh-and- blood historical figure: the author of the Gathas, the great reformer of ancient Iranian religion, and the most skilled poet of pre-Islamic Iran, whose name became identified with the religious movement he founded. The other is a mostly legendary personage celebrated in the Standard Avestan texts and the Pahlavi books, and accorded a certain awe by various Classical authors. However, there have been attempts to situate Zoroaster exclusively in the realm of legend.

In the late 19th century J. Darmesteter (III, 1893, pp. lxxv ff., lxxxv ff.) tried to demonstrate that the Gathas were a creation of the 1st century BCE at the earliest on the grounds that the ideas which they express were inspired by Neo-Platonism. For Darmesteter, Zoroaster was simply a legendary figure whose story is told in the Pahlavi sources and who only provided an ancient authoritative name to the linguistically anachronistic writings. While not denying that Zoroaster may have been an historical figure, Darmesteter relegated him to the domain of legend and thoroughly cut him off from authorship of the Gathas. Although Darmesteter’s ideas were immediately rejected, attempts to separate Zoroaster from the Gathas have resurfaced. In his 1963 voluminous work on ancient Iranian ritual, M. Molé took up the problem of Zoroaster in history, declaring that “Zoroaster the Spitamid remains totally unknown to us” (p. 271). For Molé Zoroaster is entirely the creation of myth and legend. On the one hand, he stated clearly in the Preface to his book that it was “far from us to want to deny the historical reality of the Iranian Prophet and of his entourage; but that reality only appears to us transformed in conformity with a ritual schema” (p. vii). On the other hand, when he denied that the opening words of Y. 46 (“What land to flee to? Where should I go to flee? From my family, from my clan they banish me”) “can in any case be interpreted in the sense of a historical event” (p. 273), one wonders who, in Molé’s mind, composed words like this. Was it Zoroaster creating his own ritual- symbolic fiction? or someone else? A generation later there came the categorical denial of his very existence as the author of the Gathas by Kellens and Pirart (I, 1988). Kellens’ ideas about Zoroaster have been embraced by the prominent scholar P. O. Skjærvø.(1997, p. 105) who wrote in his review: “As far as I am aware no Western scholar since [Bartholomae] has made any attempt to present arguments for the historicity of Zaraθuštra. It is just accepted. When pressed for arguments, at most scholars refer to the “common opinion.” But of course the common opinion is only as good as its foundation, which in this case is nonexistent!” M. Stausberg (2004, p. 203) could write in a general handbook on ancient religions: “It is not clear when Zaraθuštra lived (if there ever was such a person).”

The presuppositions that formed the basis of Darmesteter’s theory about the dating of the Gathas and their fictional relationship to Zoroaster, were so errant that it was easy for scholars to dismiss his theory out of hand. As for Molé, we can say that his work on the legend of Zoroaster was exemplary (see below) and that his speculations on the place of the Gathas within the Yasna were so conceptually flawed that we need not consider them further. For Kellens the crux of the argument against Zoroaster being the author of the Gathas is the occurrence of his own name in the Gathas. The starting point for the argument is Y. 46.14: “O Zaraθuštra, who is thy righteous ally for the great maga?

Or, who wants to be praised?

So, it is he, Kawi

Wištāspa, at the contest.

But those, O Mazdā, whom Thou *settled in (Thy) abode, O Ahura,

I shall invoke with the words of Good Mind.”

Here the reciter of the stanza, speaking in the 1st person singular, poses a question to Zoroaster, and Kellens concludes that “it is perfectly improbable that he poses a question to himself” with his own name in the vocative. As soon as it is granted that Zoroaster cannot be the speaker in 46.14, then in all cases in the Gathas where Zoroaster is in the 3rd person he cannot be the speaker either. How could, for example, the first person plural voice of 28.6 ask Ahura Mazdā to “give... support to Zaraθuštra and to us” if the creator of the stanza were Zoroaster himself? And once these occurrences are eliminated, all the others fall like dominos. The only logical conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that some important person named Zaraθuštra figures in the Gathas, though not as their author. If the author is not Zaraθuštra, then who? “The Gathas do not present themselves as the labor of one man, but as the expression of an entire religious group. They are not the work of one personality, but the emanation of a mentality” (p. 20). This mentality, we are asked to believe, belonged to a sort of priestly guild, whose almost exclusive concern was the proper performance of ritual and which may have deputized one of their number more skilled as a poet than the others to compose some hymns to accompany the ritual.

This argument begins with what appears to be a perfectly logical deduction and concludes in fantasy. To begin with the fantasy, we know absolutely nothing about Indo-Iranian priests crafting sacred poetry in this way. In fact, the evidence of the Rīgveda is that individual poets laboriously fashioned (note the preponderance of the verb takṣ-) their hymns. Further, the subjective experience that most students of the Gathas have had is, despite all the obscurity of these hymns, the passionate expression of an inspired individual in dialogue with God, other divine entities, and his community. It is hard to imagine how the emanation of a mentality could have produced the Gathas, let alone inspire Iranian peoples over many centuries even to the present day.

Be that as it may, many arguments stand or fall on their premises. The basic premise here is that it is “perfectly improbable” that a poet would address himself by name in the third person. Consider evidence from the Rīgveda. There is a series of hymns in the 7th maṇḍala traditionally ascribed to the ṛṣi Vasiṣṭha. These are highly personal compositions in which the poet rehearses his intimate relationship with the high god Varuṇa, who in many ways bears a striking resemblance to Ahura Mazdā (see Boyce, 1975, pp. 31 ff.). In these hymns the voice shifts back and forth among first, second, and third persons, though all the while it is clear that the author remains Vasiṣṭha. RV 7.88 opens with the 2nd sg. imperative: váruṇāya matíṃ vasiṣṭha... bharasva “O Vasiṣṭha, bring a hymn to Varuṇa!” But, immediately in the next verse the voice is 1st person: ánīkaṃ váruṇasya maṃ si “Me thinks it is Varuṇa’s countenance.” Verse 3 shifts to the 1st pers. dual: ā´ yád ruhā ´vaváruṇas-ca nā´vam “when (I) and Varuṇa would mount the boat,” prá yát... īráyāva “when we would go out,” ádhi yád... cárāva “when we would go upon,” īnkhayāvahai “we would rock.” In verse 4 there is another shift to the 3rd person: vásiṣṭham ha váruṇo nāví ā´dhād ṛṣiṃ cakāra... “Varuṇa placed Vasiṣṭha in the boat; he made him a seer.” RV 7.89 is the anguished lament of Vasiṣṭha suffering from dropsy. It begins: mó ṣú varuṇa mṛnmáyam gṛháṃ rājann aháṃ gamam “O King Varuṇa, may I please not go to the House of Clay.” Vv. 2 and 3 continue in the 1st person, but in 4 the poet shifts to the 3rd person: apā´ṃ mádhye tasthivā´ṃ sam tṛṣṇāvidaj jaritā´ram “Thirst found the singer standing in the midst of the waters.” In verses such as these it would make little sense to see the work of some anonymous emanation of a group mentality. The employment of different voices is part of the skillful poet’s craft. Returning to the Gathas, we can be confident, therefore, that when we find Zaraθuštra referred to in the 2nd or 3rd person, it is not some other poet or guild of poets invoking his name; rather, it is Zaraθuštra himself employing traditional poetic conventions which were also the inheritance of the Vedic ṛṣis.

Since Zaraθuštra was the real person who composed the Gathas, we must use these sacred poems as our source for understanding Zaraθuštra and his religious vision. (See especially the comprehensive interpretation of the Gathas already given by H. Humbach under GATHAS i. TEXTS) The Gathas offer scant information about the life of the prophet (see Boyce, 1975, pp. 182-89). He belonged to the Spitāma family. (See Mayhofer, 1979, p. 77 for the correct explanation of the name, “having shining [white] (aggressive) power.” Note that at Y. 51.11 the name should be read with hiatus as spita-amāi, for which compare wīšta-aspa-.) The names of his parents, Pourušaspa and Duγδōwā (see DUGDŌW), are preserved only in later Avestan and Pahlavi sources. Zaraθuštra had several daughters, though only the youngest, Pourucistā, is mentioned. She is identified in the “wedding” hymn (Y. 53) by two family names. The one, haēcaṯ.aspanā “of the H. family,” would be the name of her mother’s family; the other, spitāmī “(girl) of the Spitāma (family),” would be the name of her father’s family. Allied by marriage, the Spitāma and Haēcaṯ.aspa families must have maintained close ties to Zaraθuštra, as he addresses them in the same breath: “O Haēcaṯ.aspids, I shall speak to you, o Spitāmids!” (Y. 46.15). Another important alliance was with the Hwōgwa family. According to the tradition Zaraθuštra’s third wife, Hwōwī, was the daughter of Frašaoštra Hwōgwa (mentioned six times in the Gathas). Frašaoštra’s brother was Jāmāspa, to whom Zaraθuštra may have given his daughter. Together these two men were among Zaraθuštra’s early and influential converts. In addition to Pourucistā, the tradition credits Zaraθuštra with having three sons, Isaṯ.wāstra by the first wife, Urwataṯ.nara and Hwarə.ciθra by the second (for his mythological sons, see below).

In the course of his activities Zaraθuštra made enemies to whom reference is made frequently in the Gathas. Prominent among them were the karpans and kawis. The former were priests who conducted rituals in ways antithetical to Zaraθuštra’s vision. The latter are hard to identify. In the singular the word appears as a princely title (the Kayanids of Iranian legend). With the plural Zaraθuštra cites them as accomplices of the karpans (Y. 32.14; 46.11) who, through their dominion (xšaθra), corrupt the righteous and pervert the sacrificial rites involving the slaughter of the Cow and pledging aid to Dūraoša (who is either Haoma himself or an aspect of his). Vedic kaví means approximately “poet.” From the meager contextual evidence of the Gathas, one may conclude that the karpans and kawis were the elites of society who controlled sacred and temporal power. Although Zaraθuštra condemns them for their misdeeds, it is not because of the inherent evil vested in the titles, but because “they squandered the karpanship and the kawiship” (karapō.tåscā kəwītåscā, Y. 32.15). Apparently, Zaraθuštra’s position within his own society became so precarious that he was forced to flee. Y. 46 contains a résumé of his flight, stanzas 1-2:

What land to flee to?

Where should I go to flee?

From (my) family and from (my) clan they banish me.

The community to which

I belong has not satisfied me, nor have the Drugwant rulers of the country!

How Thee can I satisfy, O Mazdā Ahura?

I know the reason why

I am powerless, O Mazdā: because of my paucity of cattle and that I am few in men.

I lament to Thee.

Take heed of it, O Ahura!

Granting support, as a friend would give a friend,

Look upon the power of Good Mind through Truth!

That satisfaction spoken of in stanza 2 is both the maintenance of the priest by his patrons and the priest’s ability to make the requisite offerings to the god(s). But, in stanzas 13-14 Zaraθuštra identifies his true patron as the one “who bounteously gratified Spitāma Zaraθuštra among men.” And to the question posed to himself, “O Zaraθuštra, who is thy righteous ally?” he responds, “So, (it is) he, Kawi Wištāspa at the contest.” P. O. Skjærvø (1997) has shown how the expression of Zaraθuštra’s complaint is part of a genre shared by the poet/priests of the Rīgveda, yet draws the conclusion that it could have no basis in historical reality because it is a mere literary convention! It is like supposing the sack of Jerusalem in 586 BCE never took place on the grounds that Biblical lamentations draw on an ancient Near Eastern literary tradition of lament for the destruction of a city. Be that as it may, Zaraθuštra regarded securing the patronage and protection of Wištāspa as a pivotal accomplishment.

Before that event Zaraθuštra suffered various wrongs at the hands of his opponents. In Y. 44.18-19 he vents his anger over the withholding of his stipend (mīžda) “ten mares with a stallion and a camel.” Elsewhere, it is their violation of the laws of hospitality. At Y. 51.14:

The karpans are not allies, contrary (as they are) to the laws of pasturage, intolerant of the stranger’s (+arōiš) cow, through their very deeds and proclamations, a proclamation which, in the end, will place them in the House of the Lie

Humbach (1959, II, pp. 90-91) was on the right track in citing RV 10.27.8 (on which, cf. Thieme pp.12-13):

gā´vo yávaṃ práyutā aryó akṣan tā´apaśyaṃ sahagopā´ś cárantīḥ hávā aryó abhítaḥ sám āyan kíyadāsusvápatiś chandayāte

The cows of the stranger ate the cowherd.

I saw them grazing together with their barley.

Shouts of the stranger did, indeed, around.

How long shall the owner (of the field tolerate these (cows)? In this RV passage and Y. 51.14 the problem is either the grazing rights of a stranger or his right of passage. In the RV the cows have trespassed, testing the tolerance of the owner of the field; in 51.14 the Karpans do not tolerate (+asəṇdā) any stranger’s cow in their field, in violation of law.

Beyond that there is little of a biographical nature that one can glean from the Gathas. The gaps are filled in the later tradition. (see below under “Legend”)

One of the most important of Humbach’s contributions has been his attention to the place of the Gathas within the context of the sacrificial ritual (see further under YASNA). The fact that Zaraθuštra identifies himself as a sacrificial priest, zaotar, and makes references to the ritual context of some Gathas puts the matter beyond doubt. However, there are problems with the ritualist approach. It is not at all obvious that some of the Gathas have any ritual context at all. For example, the “Cow’s Lament” (Y. 29) deals with the question of the source of Zaraθuštra’s authority as a poet who can give voice to his Vision (daēnā) which is the source of divine revelation and who can exercise adequate power to advance that Vision. An analogy can be drawn with the Rīgveda. In that massive collections of hymns most are connected in one way or another with the ritual. The hymns of praises to the various deities were certainly composed for recitation in the worship of the specific deity at the sacrifice; yet, most are not linked in any particular way to the ritual performance. Hymns like those of Vasiṣṭha cited above, are personal expressions of the poet’s relationship to the god. The commentator Sāyaṇa, who carefully noted the ritual context of each hymn, for these has gato viniyogaḥ (“gone is the (ritual) application”). The danger is that when the ritual application of the entire collection of Gathas is sought obsessively, one can become deaf to the spiritual and ethical dimensions of the poetry. So, for example, Kellens’ understanding of daēnā in certain contexts as “une abstraction rituelle” (Kellens and Pirart, II, 1990, p. 252) or his translation of šyaoθana as “acte (rituel)” (ibid., p. 323) neatly sidestep these dimensions. Another problem with the ritualist approach, as exemplified in the poorly conceived work of M. Molé (1963), is that the Yasna and its accompanying ritual are the products of developments of the ritual which took place long after Zaraθuštra’s time. We know next to nothing about what rituals Zaraθuštra performed or about how he performed them. We cannot be sure even whether he banned the use of haoma that is so central to the yasna.

Ethics plays a predominant role in Zaraθuštra’s thought. The starting point is the myth of the Twin Spirits (Y. 30.2-6; 45.1-2). For Kellens and Pirart (III, p. 48), Y. 30.4 was a crux for proclaiming “there is no “myth of the two spirits.” Yet they failed to notice that jasaētəm is preterite, rather than injunctive, and ignored S. Insler’s defense (1975, p. 166) of Bartholomae’s positing dazdē as 3rd dual perfect. Compare Y. 29.1 kahmāi mā θβarōždūm “for whom did ye shape [aorist] me” and the answer in 29.6 θβā... θβōrəštā tatašā “the shaper did fashion [perfect] thee” (tr. Insler, p. 31). Moreover, we must recognize Zaraθuštra’s genius in taking a well-known ancient amoral myth about primordial twins, one of whom butchers the other and from his body parts creates the world (see Lincoln), and transforming that myth into a fundamental paradigm about choosing good over evil. The texts are Y. 30:

(2) Hear with (your) ears the best (tidings)!

Regard with a clear mind the two choices subject to discernment

—each man for himself— before the great *contest, being aware to address us!

(3) Now, these are the two original Spirits who, as Twins, have been perceived in a dream.

In both thought and speech, in deed, both the better and bad.

Between these two, the pious, not the impious, will choose rightly.

(4) Furthermore, it was that the two Spirits confronted each other; in the beginning they created for themselves life and non-life.

And as in the end there will be existence, the worst for the Liars, so Best Mind for the Righteous one.

(5) Of these two Spirits the Liar chose the worst course of action.

The most beneficent Spirit (chose) Truth,

(he) who is clothed in the hardest stones, and (those) who propitiate Lord

Mazdā, believingly, with true deeds.

(6) Between the Two they did not choose rightly even the Daiwas, in that delusion came upon them as they were taking council, so that they chose the Worst Mind.

Then, together they ran to Wrath with which mortals infect life.

and Y. 45:

(1) Thus I shall proclaim.

Now hear, now listen, those (of you) who are nearby and those who are seeking from afar!

Now keep ye in mind this, for it is all clear!

“Let not for a second time the one of bad doctrine ruin existence, through (his) evil choice, the Drugwant who has chosen through his tongue!”

(2) Thus I shall proclaim the original two Spirits of existence.

Of the two, the very beneficent would have spoken thus to the evil one:

“Neither our minds not our pronouncements nor our intellects, nor yet our choices nor our words nor yet our deeds, nor our visions nor our souls are in agreement.”

For Zaraθuštra, the effects of what happened in illo tempore permeate the present; and so he exhorts his people, the righteous followers of Truth (ašawans) not to let existence be ruined a second time by the follower(s) of the Lie (drugwants; see DRUJ).

Part and parcel of Zaraθuštra’s ethical vision was the belief in rewards and punishments in the afterlife (see extensively under ESCHATOLOGY). Although it is impossible to know whether or not it was his innovation, Zaraθuštra was the first in recorded human history to articulate a clear theology of a heaven for the righteous and a hell for the wicked. For example, Y. 31.20:

He who shall come to the Ašawan, to him belongs heavenly splendor instead of lamentation.

A long time of darkness, with bad food, the uttering of ‘woe!’, o Drugwants: to this existence

'your daēnā shall lead you on account of your own deeds.”

Here the daēnā (see DĒN) is the personified aggregate of one’s deeds described in the later tradition as a beautiful maiden for the righteous and an ugly hag for the wicked. She conducts the soul (urwan) onto the Cinwat bridge (see CINWAD PUHL), where it will pass on to Paradise, called the Best (Y. 46.10), the House of Good Mind (Y. 32.15), and the House of Song (Garō Dəmāna, Y. 45.8; 50.4, 15; see GARŌDMĀN), or fall into the dark abyss of Hell, “for ever and ever guests in the House of the Lie” (Y. 46.11; also 51.14), also called House of Worst Mind (Y. 32.13).

What is not explicit is whether, beyond individual eschatology, Zaraθuštra had a theology of world history that would terminate with the establishment of a paradisiacal state, which in later Avestan texts is called frašō.kərəti “making marvelous.” As A. Hintze has shown (see FRAŠŌ.KƎRƎTI), Zaraθuštra’s use of fraša- and ākərəti- with ahu- “existence” is not inconsistent with Standard Avestan usage, and, that his vision of existence transformed through the triumph of Truth foresees, at the least, such a transformation within his own life, if not at some time in the more distant future. In any case, passages such as Y. 50.11:

Let the Creator of existence promote through Good Mind the making real what, according to (His) will, is most wonderful (fərašō.təməm)! contain the idea that the end will repeat the primal creation, while Y. 43.5 extends the idea of the end to entail judgment:

Holy (spəntəm), then, Thee do I consider, O Mazdā Ahura in that I see Thee as the first in the birth of life, in that Thou dost assign deeds and also words which entail recompense, the bad (recompense) to the bad, the good reward to the good, through Thy skill at the final turning point of creation

A term used in later texts in connection with the conclusion of history is saošyant. A future active participle, it means “who will bring about benefit, i.e., benefactor.” In two passages (Y. 48.9, 53.2) the saošyant appears to be Zaraθuštra himself. In the somewhat obscure Y. 45.11 the saošyant is a future one (aparō). The three remaining passages (Y. 48.12, 34.13, 46.3) present saošyants (plural) as acting in the future. The only solid conclusion we can draw is that Zaraθuštra considered himself to be saošyant and believed that there would be others in the future. Is this merely the kernel of a concept that developed later? Was Zaraθuštra a monotheist, dualist, or polytheist? These are questions which seem to be as old as the appearance of Zurwanism (on which, see DUALISM and EVIL i.), perhaps already in the Achaemenid period, and remain the subject of lively discussion today among both scholars and Zoroastrians. Labels can be misleading, and depending on what one means all three labels can be made to apply to Zaraθuštra’s theology. There is nothing in the Gathas to suggest that dualism was primordial, as expounded in the orthodox (non-Zurwanite) creation theology of the Bundahišn. Rather, dualism is the outcome of the choices made by the Twin Spirits (see above), who are best understood as themselves creations of Ahura Mazdā. In Y. 44.3-5, Zaraθuštra asks rhetorically:

(3) This I ask Thee, speak to me truly, O Lord!

Who through his generative power is the original father of Truth?

Who fixed the path(s) of the sun and the stars?

Who is it through whom the moon waxes, now wanes?

Even these, O Mazdā, and others I wish to know.

(4) This I ask Thee, speak to me truly, O Lord!

Who supports both the earth below and the heavens from falling down? Who the waters and plants?

Who to the wind and the clouds doth yoke the two steeds?

Who, O Mazdā is the creator of Good Mind?

(5) This I ask Thee, speak to me truly, O Lord!

What artificer created days and nights?

What artificer created sleep and wakefulness?

Who is it through whom dawn, midday and evening (come to pass), which remind the conscientious (man) of his duty?

The strong implication is that Ahura Mazdā is the supreme deity who has created and ordered the cosmos. Yet, it is clear that He is not alone in the universe. The group of divine abstractions or entities (the Aməša Spənta of later Avestan texts)—Aša (Truth), Spənta/Spəništa Mainyu (Holy(est) Spirit), Wohu Manah (Good Mind), Xšaθra (Dominion), Ārmaiti (Right-mindedness), Haurwatāt (Wholeness; see HORDĀD) and Amərətāt (Immortality; see AMURDĀD)—function as autonomous modalities of Ahura Mazdā’s nature which have absorbed functions of a number of the traditional deities. While this can be seen as a step toward monotheism, Ārmaiti, as Ahura Mazdā’s daughter (Y. 45.4), is a thinly veiled member of an older divine household. The Indo-Iranian demiurge, θβōrəštar, appears in the “Cow’s Lament” (Y. 29) as a fully independent deity, as do the collectivity of Ahuras in other passages. Indeed, Zaraθuštra frequently moves back and forth between “Thee” and “you” when addressing either Ahura Mazdā or the deities. In the end, it is pointless to try to assign a label to Zaraθuštra’s theology, for he was an inspired prophet, not a systematic theologian.

Zoroaster in the Avesta outside the Gathas. The Gathas provide no link to any known dateable event, unless one should accept the generally rejected view of Herzfeld that the Wištāspa whom Darius names as his father was the very same person as the kawi Wištāspa named by Zaraθuštra as his royal patron. Even though the Gathas cannot be placed with confidence at any particular point in time, they bear witness to an individual and his community who were flesh-and-blood people. This is in marked contrast with the Zaraθuštra of the Standard Avestan texts.

As noted above, in terms of the world calendar Zaraθuštra’s life straddled two cosmic periods, his conversion of Wištāspa marking the beginning of the first millennium of the 4th age. The previous age began with the first mortal, Gayōmard. The Frawardīn Yašt (Yt. 13.87-94) presupposes this chronology and makes an implicit claim that Zaraθuštra is the second “Adam.” Thus, vs. 87 states: “We worship the frawaši of righteous Gaya Marətan (Gayōmard), who was the first to hear the mind and teachings of Ahura Mazdā, from whom (Ahura Mazdā) fashioned the families of the Aryan peoples, the seed of the Aryan peoples.” This is followed immediately by the worship of Zaraθuštra’s frawaši. In the series of stanzas Zaraθuštra is proclaimed to be the first priest (āθrawan), warrior (raθaēštā), and commoner (wāstryō.fšuyant), a clear indication that, like primordial Gaya Marətan, he too embraced the totality of Aryan society (see AVESTAN PEOPLE); he is also hailed as the first teacher of the Ahuric religion and repudiator of the daēwas. Moreover, at his birth and growth there was a rejuvenation of the cosmos. Yt. 19.81 states that through his correct recitation of the sacred ahuna wairya prayer, he alone drove all the daēwas underground, repeating, one may infer, the first recitation of that mąθra by Ahura Mazdā that caused Ahriman to swoon prior to the material creation (following the cosmogony of the Bundahišn). This is repeated in the Hōm Yašt (Y. 9.14-15), where Zaraθuštra ‘s birth concludes a series beginning with Yima, the first king, and continuing with Thraētaona (Frēdōn) the slayer of Aži Dahāka, and the brothers Urwaxšaya and Kərəsāspa, all well- know characters of myth and legend. The list of supplicants who petition Anāhitā for success in the Abān Yašt begins with Ahura Mazdā asking that he “instigate righteous Zaraθuštra, son of Pourušaspa, to think according to the Religion, to speak according to the Religion, to act according to the religion” (Yt. 5.18). After a series composed of legendary heroes and villains (Yt. 5.21- 83) and an interruption (Yt. 5.84-102), the list resumes with Zaraθuštra asking with the identical formula of Ahura Mazdā, that he instigate Kawi Wištāspa to think according to the Religion, etc.” He is followed by Wištāspa, Zairi.wairi (Zarēr), and the villain Arəjaṯ.aspa (see ARJĀSP), all prominent in the legend of Zaraθuštra. Yt. 5, therefore, is consistent with the idea that Zaraθuštra occupies a place in cosmic time and at the beginning of a new age, which he initiates with a repetition of a divine act.

For the compilers of the Avesta, Zaraθuštra was the conduit of revelation from Ahura Mazdā and other deities. Thus, like Moses in Leviticus, didactic passages, in which laws and ritual instructions are given, are introduced with a common formula: Zaraθuštra asked Ahura Mazdā... Ahura Mazdā said to Zaraθuštra … Of course, these revelations can lay no claim to historical experiences, being as they are simply framed in a fiction that lends ultimate authority to the ruling.

The legend of Zoroaster. The legendary biography of Zardušt/Zaraθuštra is given extensively in the seventh book of the 9th-century Dēnkard, with briefer references in Dk. 5 and the Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg 47. Texts, translations and commentary were published by Molé (1967; in English, the old translation of West). Beyond these texts there is a paucity of references to Zardušt in the Pahlavi Books, and his name is absent from the Sasanid inscriptions, even of Kardēr.

Dk. 7 begins the legend with a genealogy of the revelation and propagation of the Dēn, starting with the Amahrspandān and Yazdān in the spiritual state (mēnōg), then with Gayōmard in the material (gētīg). He is followed by a list of legendary notables, 20 in all including Gayōmard, with Zardušt as last of “historical” figures, himself followed by the three future saviors of his own seed, Ušēdar, Ušēdarmāh and Sōšyans. Noteworthy is the situation of Zardušt within the cosmological calendar. Chap. 2 details the creation (dahišn) of Zardušt out of basic elements of the yasna. His xwarrah (see FARR[AH]) was first created in the mēnōg and subsequently transferred to the gētīg as it passed down through the various celestial stations to the fire in the house of Zōiš and thence into his daughter Dugdōβ, the future mother of Zardušt. His frawahr (frawaši) was fashioned in the mēnōg by the Amahrspandān at the end of the 2nd world age, just prior to the Assault (ēβgad). The frawahr had human form and was in the likeness (hankirbīh) of an Amahrspand. In the transfer to the gētīg, the frawahr was placed in a stalk of hōm (see HAOMA), which was brought to a bird’s nest on Mt. Asnawand 330 years before the end of the 3rd world age. Eventually Purušāsp found the hōm, brought it home, and gave it to his wife, Dugdōβ. Finally, Zardušt’s bodily substance (tan- gōhr) passed to the two Amahrspandān, Amurdād and Hōrdād in a cloud whose rain passed into plants. The plants were eaten by cows which Dugdōβ milked. After combining milk and hōm, she and Purušāsp drank the mixed drink and in this way the xwarrah, frawahr, and tan-gōhr of Zardušt entered his parents. In spite of interventions by the dēws, Zardušt is conceived and born. The stuff of the rest of the story of his life fits within the literary genre of the romance, where miracles and fantastic events abound. While the conversion of Wištāsp and the conflict with Arjāsp occupy a prominent place in the narrative, there is almost nothing of substance beyond some names which might have an historical basis. According to the tradition, Zardušt died at the age of 77, killed by a hostile priest (karb) named *Brādrēs.

Conclusion. It is difficult to apply a label to Zaraθuštra according to a phenomenological typology. For want of a better word I have used “prophet,” though he cannot be equated neatly with the Biblical nābī’. Attempts to portray him as a shaman (Nyberg) or as a political operative (Herzfeld) have been shown to be in error (Henning). Nevertheless, it is inescapable hermeneutically that every exegete will tend to understand Zaraθuštra through a lens of his own life situation. The fascination of a great religious thinker is that each generation will strive to achieve an understanding that may always remain just out of reach.

Bibliography:

The bibliography for Zoroaster is enormous. The reader should consult works listed here for further references, as also entries in the EIr., esp. GATHAS and ZOROASTRIANISM.

M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism I, Leiden and Köln, 1975.

Idem, Zoroastrianism: its Antiquity and Constant Vigour, Costa Mesa, 1992.

A. Christensen, Les Kayanides, Copenhagen, 1932.

J. Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta, 3 vols., Paris 1892-93.

I. Gershevitch, “Approaches to Zoroaster’s Gathas,” Iran 33, 1995, pp. 1-29.

Gh. Gnoli, Zoroaster’s Time and Homeland, Naples, 1980.

W. B. Henning, Zoroaster: Politician or Witch-Doctor, Oxford, 1951. E. Herzfeld, Zoroaster and his World, Princeton, 1947.

S. Insler, The Gāthas of Zarathustra, Tehran and Liège, 1975.

A. V. Williams Jackson, Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran, New York, 1898.

J. Kellens, La quatrième naissance de Zarathushtra, Paris, 2006.

J. Kellens and E. Pirart, Les textes vieil-avestique, 3 vols., Wiesbaden, 1988-91.

H. Lommel, Die Religion Zarathustras, Tübingen, 1930; repr., Hildesheim and New York, 1971.

W. W. Malandra, review of Zoroastrianism by Mary Boyce, JAOS 114, 1994, pp. 498-99.

M. Mayrhofer, Iranisches Personennamenbuch I. Die altiranischen Namen, Vienna, 1979.

M. Molé, Culte, mythe et cosmologie dans l’Iran ancien, Paris, 1963 Idem, La legende de Zoroastre selon les textes pehlevis, Paris, 1967. H. S. Nyberg, Die Religionen des alten Iran, Leipzig et al., 1938; repr. Osnabrück, 1966, with the author’s important added note (“Begleitwort,” pp. vii-xix).

A. Sh. Shahbazi, “The ‘Traditional Date of Zoroaster’ Explained,” BSOAS 40, 1997, pp. 25-35.

P. O. Skjærvø, “The State of Old Avestan Scholarship,” JAOS, 117, 1997, pp. 103-7.

Idem, “Rivals and Bad Poets: the Poet’s Complaint in the Old Avesta,” in M. G. Schmidt and W. Bisang, eds., Philologica et Linguistica. Historia, Pluralitas, Universitas. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach zum 80. Geburtstag am 4. Dezember 2001, Trier, 2001, pp. 351-76.

Idem, “Zarathustra: First Poet-Sacrificer,” in S. Adhami, ed., Paitimāna. Essays in Iranian, Indian, and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt, 2 vols. in one, Costa Mesa, 2003, pp. 157-94.

M. Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathushtras I, Stuttgart, 2002.

Idem, “Iran. Appendix: Zoroastrianism”; “Theology. Iran”; “Sacred Texts and Canonicity: Iran” in S. I. Johnson, ed., Religions of the Ancient World, Cambridge, Mass., 2004, resp. pp. 202-5, 540-41, 632-33. E. W. West, Pahlavi Texts, Pt. IV, SBE XXXVII, Oxford, 1892; repr., Delhi, 1965.

A. V. Williams, ed., The Pahlavi Rivâyat Accompanying the Dâdestân î Dênîg, 2 vols., Copenhagen, 1990.

(W. W. Malandra)

Originally Published: July 20, 2009

______

ZOROASTER iii. ZOROASTER IN THE AVESTA

Zaraθuštra is considered the founder of the Mazdayasnian religion who lived in Eastern Iran during the end of the second millenium BCE.

ZOROASTER

iii. ZOROASTER IN THE AVESTA

Zaraθuštra is considered the founder of the Mazdayasnian religion who lived in Eastern Iran during the end of the second millenium BCE. He can be credited with the authorship of the Gathas and possiby the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. But, generally speaking, both his homeland and his date, and sometimes even his historicity or his authorship of the Gathas, have been questioned. The entry consists of a sketch of Zaraθuštra’s biography according to the Old Avestan texts and the hagiographic development of this biography in the Young Avestan corpus. The current research on Zaraθuštra’s time and homeland and his connection to the Old Avestan texts are reviewed (see also ZOROASTER i).

ZOROASTER’S LIFE ACCORDING TO THE AVESTA

Biographical sketch according to the Old Avesta. Zaraθuštra was born into the clan of the Spitamids, whose ancestor Spitāma is mentioned in the Gathas several times (Y. 46.13, 51.12, 53.1). Zaraθuštra’s name is related to camels (uštra-); therefore we can deduce that he grew up in a pastoral society living on camels and cows. His family is mentioned outside of the Gathas: his father is named as Pourušaspa (Y. 9.13; Yt. 5.18) and his mother Duγδōuuā (FrD. 4; see DUGDŌW). In Y. 46.15 a certain Haēčat̰ .aspa is mentioned, who according to later Zoroastrian tradition was thought to be Zaraθuštra’s great- grandfather. Three sons of Zaraθuštra are mentioned in Yt. 13.98, namely Isat̰.vāstra (cf. Y.23.2, 26.5; N. 31), Uruuatat̰ .nara (cf. Yt. 13.127; Vd. 2.43), and Huuarəčiθra; the names of three daughters are given in Yt.13.139 as Frə̄nī, Θritī, and Pouručištā; usually Y.53.3 is seen as a reference to Pouručistā’s marriage.

We do not know exactly when Zaraθuštra received his formal teaching as a priest; but in Y.33.6 he refers to himself as zaotar “priest” (cf. Yt. 13.94), and on some other occasions he says he is one with “spiritual knowledge” (Y. 28.5, 48.3: vaēdəmna-). Perhaps we can also deduce from the cosmological stanzas in Y. 44 that Zaraθuštra was ordained as a priest, knowledgeable in both ritual and theological speculations. According to Zoroastrian tradition, at the age of 30 Zaraθuštra encountered Ahura Mazdā and chose his most prosperous spirit (cf. Y. 43.16). We can take this as a starting point and as some kind of revelation that leads to Zaraθuštra’s new career, his search for and furthering of “truth” (aṣ̌a). But in the following years his fellow-countrymen paid no attention to his words (Y. 31.1), with his cousin Maidiiōi.māŋha (Yt.13.95; Y. 51.19) being his first— and almost only—follower. Zaraθuštra refers to this situation in Y. 46.2: “I know wherefore I am lacking in vigour, O Wise One. (It is) on account of the scantiness of my cattle stock, and because I am one of few men (only)” (tr. Humbach, 1991, p. 168). As we can deduce from other passages in the Gathas, Zaraθuštra and his followers faced opposition, which was based on, not only theological differences, but also economic ones (cf. Y. 31.15, 32.9-11, 46.5, 49.1). According to some interpretations, names of Zaraθuštra’s adversaries are mentioned in the Gathas: Y. 32.13 f. may refer to a certain Grə̄hma, under whose influence the karapans prefer (ritual) practices that are not shared by Zaraθuštra himself and which are interpreted by Zaraθuštra as a means of destroying existence. Another adversary of Zaraθuštra is Bə̄ṇduua (Y. 49.1 f.), who not only differs from Zaraθuštra in economic wellbeing, but also religiously, as he gives shelter to a deceitful teacher, who leads people astray from truth and life. Apart from such individual persons, Zaraθuštra also faced opposition from the side of the karapans and kauuis. Both are groups of people who obviously perform some religious functions, but—according to the world-view of the Gathas— through their religious practices they yoked the people with evil actions, to destroy their existence. Perhaps some of these karapans and kauuis also could influence the political leaders in Zaraθuštra’s environment, as Y. 48,10 mentions them together with bad rulers (dušəxšaθra-; cf. Y. 48.5, 49.11).

Such kind of opposition between religious authorities or practitioners and Zaraθuštra may have led to separation of Zaraθuštra from his immediate “home-land;” one reminiscence of this situation may be found in Y. 46.1, which asks where Zaraθuštra should graze his cattle, as the mighty of the land do not satisfy him. But it is important from a historical point of view that we do not deduce from this reference that Zaraθuštra did flee far away from his original home, as there are no indications in the Avesta that he ever came to a new environment that differed socially or linguistically in any substantial way from the situation of his early life. Therefore we can assume that Zaraθuštra moved from the patronage of one clan to another one, but the geographical change—we can suppose—was rather limited. In the course of these movements, Zaraθuštra met with his principal patron, Vištāspa (cf. Y. 51.12; Yt. 13.99 f.; see GOŠTĀSP). Generally speaking, one may assume that, without Zaraθuštra’s meeting with Vištāspa, he and his religious efforts might never have been remembered by the following generations. From the Old Avestan texts no further details are known about Zaraθuštra’s teaching and the growing number of his followers. It is assumed that he was able to organize some kind of community and that they practiced some rituals to revere Ahura Mazdā and those deities who were known in the later tradition as the group of seven Aməṣ̌ a Spəntas (cf. Y. 37.4, 39.3). This can be deduced from Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (Y. 35.2-41), which can be taken as the liturgical text of the earliest Zoroastrian community, celebrating the worship of the Zoroastrian gods; the text focuses on the identity of that community by referring always to a group in the first person plural; therefore the text may reflect an early stage of the development of the Mazdayasnian community that originated from Zaraθuštra’s teaching. Aspects of Zaraθuštra’s legendary life according to the Younger Avesta. As in many religions with only limited interest in the historical facts about their founders, Zoroastrian tradition as reflected in the Younger Avesta does not concentrate on the life of the historical Zaraθuštra. The Younger Avesta describes or refers to an ideal Zaraθuštra: He is the person who lived fully according to the will of Ahura Mazdā and practiced the religion he was fostering in a perfect way. Thus the scanty historical facts known from the Old Avesta gave way to a theological biography of Zaraθuštra, leaving behind history. The most important such text is Yt. 13.87-94. In this long passage Zaraθuštra’s Frauuaši (see FRAVAŠI) is worshipped (cf. also Y. 3.2, 4.23, 13.7; Vr. 13.0, 16.2; Yt. 8.2). By the use of the word yaz-, which regularly has either Ahura Mazdā or the Yazatas as object, Zaraθuštra is rendered as no longer a human being; his Frauuaši is elevated to the same level as other spiritual beings. The whole passage can be seen as the first (theological) description of Zaraθuštra’s life; to quote just the beginning:

We now worship Aši and the Frauuaši of righteous Zaraθuštra the Spitamid, the first who has thought the ‘good’, the first who has spoken the ‘good’, the first who has done the ‘good’, the first priest, the first warrior, the first agriculturalist, the first who finds (for others), the first who causes himself to find, the first who has gained (for himself), the first who has gained (for others) the Cow and the Word and Obedience to the Word and Dominion and all the Mazdā-created Good that originates in Truth; who was the first priest, who was the first warrior, who was the first agriculturalist, who first turned (his) face away from the daēwic and human brood; who first of the material world praised Truth, vilified the daēuuas, chose (the religion as) a Mazdā worshipper, a Zoroastrian, an enemy of the daēuuas, a follower of ahuric doctrine. (Yt. 13.87-89; after Malandra, 1983, p. 114)

With Zaraθuštra there came an end to the daēuuas, and the spread of the religion all over the seven regions (see HAFT KEŠVAR) started with him. That is the theological core of interest in the life of Zaraθuštra within the Younger Avestan tradition. Therefore close to the end of Yt. 13 the texts characterizes Zaraθuštra as follows:

We worship Zaraθuštra, the ahu and ratu, and the first teacher of all material existence, of beings the most beneficent, of beings having the best dominion, of beings the most intelligent, of beings having the most glory, of beings the most worthy of worship, of beings the most worthy of praise, of beings the one most to be pleased, of beings the most lauded, a man who is called ‘worshipped’, ‘worthy of worship’, ‘worthy of praise’, just as (he is called) by each of the beings according to Truth which is best. (Yt. 13.152, after Malandra, 1983, p. 116)

Other verses from the Younger Avesta give a comparable interpretation of Zaraθuštra: Y. 70.1 (cf. Vr. 2.3) mentions Zaraθuštra and Ahura Mazdā together as ratus who are worshipped together; in Y 42.2 (cf. Vr.21.2) the community— referring to themselves as “we”—worships Ahura Mazdā and Zaraθuštra side by side. From such lines we can deduce for the Younger Avesta that Zaraθuštra was conceived as no longer on the level of common humans, but close to the yazatas, worthy of praise and worship (cf. Y. 3.21). The abovementioned lines from Yt. 13 do not illuminate Zaraθuštra’s life from a historical point of view but give us a glimpse of a legendary and theologically reformulated life of the founder of the Zoroastrian religion. Thus these lines already faintly reflect the theological Pahlavi texts about Zaraθuštra’s life, and from Dēnkard 8.14 it can be seen that the original Avesta seems to have already incorporated such a theological description (lost in the extant Avesta). The so-called Spand Nask most probably had the following themes: Zaraθuštra’s conception and birth, his youth, his encounter with Ahura Mazdā at the age of 30, his wisdom and miracles, and an outline of his doctrines.

Conclusion. From the Avestan texts we thus can deduce a rough outline of some biographical data of Zaraθuštra, provided that we accept that the Old Avestan texts reflect some (faint) knowledge about a historical person, Zaraθuštra by name (but cf. below). For the Younger Avestan texts it is remarkable that they already present another “Zaraθuštra” to us, namely a quasi- mythological hero who is on par with spiritual beings, but no longer a historical figure. Thus for further considerations about Zaraθuštra’s time and homeland we have to refer primarily to the Old Avestan texts.

ZOROASTER’S TIME AND HOMELAND

The Dating of the historical Zoroaster. Within the Avesta there are no references to any historical situation that can be connected directly with some extra-Avestan data and chronological frame. Therefore any attempt to reach a conclusion about the dating of the historical Zaraθuštra has to rely first on the dates given in Greek and Hellenistic traditions: (For details see especially Kingsley, 1990, pp. 245-65; de Jong, 1997, pp. 317-23; Rose, 2000, pp. 40-41, 49-51.)

(a) The longer chronology may go back to Xanthos of Lydia, who says that Zaraθuštra lived 6,000 years before Xerxes’ crossing of the Hellespont into Europe. The same number of years is also referred to by Alcibiades, Eudoxos of Knidos, or Aristotle. At Plato’s academy a comparable number was known, as Plato’s disciple Hermodoros mentions (quoted by Diogenes Laertius, 1.2.) that Zaraθuštra lived 5,000 years before the Troian war, which was then dated to 1,000 years before Plato. From such numbers we can deduce for our historical interest, that within this branch of Greek tradition in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE it was only known that Zaraθuštra lived during some far remote times.

(b) A second tradition handed down by the Greeks goes back to the Hellenistic era, saying that Zaraθuštra appeared 258 years before the “coming of Alexander.” Most probably, this dating originated with Aristoxenos, who lived at the end of the fourth century BCE and was a disciple of Aristotle. He mentions that Zaraθuštra was the teacher of the Greek philosopher Pythagoras. (On Aristoxenos, whose works are only preserved by quotations by various classical authors, see Kingsley, 1990, pp. 252-53 and Rose, 2000, p. 49.)

During the second century, Apollodoros gave a more precise calculation: in 570 BCE Pythagoras met with Zaraθuštra—for Apollodoros this year marks the “coming of Zaraθuštra” to the Greek world; reckoning according to the Seleucid era that started in 312 BCE, Apollodoros reached the number of “258” years for Zaraθuštra’s advent before Alexander the Great. Of course, Apollodoros’s calculation does not carry any historical credibility and relevance, but this first “precise” date within Zoroastrian history was handled down through the ages, within the Pahlavi literature of the Zoroastrians and in the texts of Islamic historiographers alike. During the nineteenth century, Western scholars also made use of this fictitious date, which resulted in a kind of consensus (e.g., Henning, 1970, pp. 149-58; Hinz, 1961, pp. 23-25; most recently, Gershevitch, 1995, pp. 3-9) that Zaraθuštra was a contemporary of the first Achaemenids and that Vištaspa (Y. 51.12) was to be identified with Hystaspes, the father of Dareios I (r. 522-486; see DARIUS iii).

The two Greek traditions are contradictory and cannot be reconciled. Therefore they do not lead to a definite solution of Zaraθuštra’s time with an absolute date. Judging from the Avestan linguistic and philological evidence, one can only approximately define the most probable chronological frame for Zaraθuštra Taking the Old Avestan language as starting point, we can compare this language with the Vedic language (see IRAN vi), thus reaching a conclusion that leads to the second millenium BCE; further comparison even gives the impression that the Old Avestan language is more archaic than the Vedic language. Judging the time-span according to linguistic criteria between the Old and Young Avestan language, Jean Kellens reckons (2000, p. 37) with about 400 years that separate the Young Avestan texts from the Old Avestan ones, while the Young Avestan language is linguistically older than the Old Persian language. For Old Persian the earliest evidence is comprised in the precisely dateable inscriptions (522 to 521 BCE) of Dareios I. As a result of such linguistic arguments, we can rule out with certainty that Zaraθuštra was a contemporary of the early Achaemenids, because the language of the Avesta does not allow such a late date.

Further argument for an early date of Zaraθuštra is furnished by the slim evidence within the Avesta that allows some historical reconstruction of the early history of Zoroastrianism. The Farwardin Yašt mentions a certain Ahumstut with his son Saēna (Yt. 13.97) and 100 pupils who trained for priesthood. Some descendants of this Saēna are named in Yt. 13.126; altogether there are five generations, so one can reckon a time-span of perhaps 200 years for the spreading of Zaraθuštra’s religion long before the Achaemenid empire came into sight. Further information can be added from external evidence provided by Assyrian cuneiform sources of the ninth-eighth centuries. Igor Diakonoff argued (1985, p. 140) that Iranian onomastic materials from these sources contain hints about the spreading of Zoroastrianism to the Median area in that period. He mentions Iranian words written in Assyrian cuneiform such as masda- (cf. Av. mazdā “wise”), arta (cf. OPers. arta; Av. aṣ̌ a- “truth”), satar or kaštar/kištar (cf. Av. xšaθra- “authority”) and parna/barna (cf. Median *farnah, Av. xᵛarənah “glory”). It is further possible to take the divine name D Assara D Mazaš (from a ninth-eighth century Assyrian source) as the cuneiform adaptation of Zaraθuštra’s god Ahura Mazdā, who is mentioned in a list of gods from Assyria, Urartu, northern Syria, and Elam. From such Iranian words in Assyrian texts, referring geographically to Media, we can deduce that Zoroastrianism was already known in western Iran in the ninth century. But, as western Iran is beyond the scope of the Old Avestan texts, these references can only have originated in a period later than Zaraθuštra’s lifetime.

Horse-drawn chariots are referred to in the Avesta (Yt. 5.50; 19.77; see CHARIOT) with, for example, reference to the “turning post” of the horses in competitions. Already Old Avestan texts refer to such turning posts and races in metaphorical language (Y. 50.6), so we find a terminus post quem for Zaraθuštra’s date. Philological evidence for a terminus ante quem can be seen in the sedentary society depicted in the early Avestan texts, with no hint of the historical migration of Iranian people from Central Asia to within the borders of present-day Iran and Afghanistan (see CENTRAL ASIA iii). That migration started about 1100 BCE (Hutter 1996, p. 25; cf. Boyce, 1975, pp. 15-17). In the Avesta, no impression is given that such long-way migration was already going on.

In summary, the state of the religion shown in the Younger Avesta shows change and development compared with that of the Old Avestan period, as well as the linguistic development from the Old to the Young Avestan language—historical changes that are earlier than our fixed dates from early Achaemenid history. The collected data from Assyrian sources for western Iran in the ninth-eighth centuries BCE reflect the presence of Zoroastrian ideas in Media, but since references to Media are missing in the Old Avestan corpus, these texts must pre-date the ninth century. The most probable conclusion, taking also into account the migration of Iranian people from Central Asia to Iran, is that the most suitable date for Zaraθuštra’s life may be sought in the last centuries of the second millenium BCE, perhaps in the middle of the millennium at earliest (Boyce, 1975, p. 184). An earlier date, such as the “6,000” years in Greek tradition, cannot be upheld with any arguments. But this Greek tradition has a valuable aspect: it makes clear that the Greeks perceived Zaraθuštra as living at some remote time, from their point of view. Thus the idea of Zaraθuštra as a contemporary of the Achaemenids is indirectly excluded, as Greek historiography was fairly well informed about the Achaemenids. The Greek evidence in this way adds to the Avestan arguments, which rule out a late date for Zaraθuštra living in the sixth century.

Zoroaster’s homeland. Avestan geography only refers to eastern Iranian regions, and within the texts there is a clear preference for the land of Airyanəm Vaējah (see ĒRĀN-WĒZ). The list of lands in Vd. 1.3-19 provides the chief evidence for Zaraθuštra’s homeland; it mentions 16 different countries, running from north to south, with Airyanəm Vaējah at the topmost position. Airyanəm Vaējah is considered as the best country in the world, even though its winter lasts as long as ten months and summer only two months. A shorter, but nevertheless useful, list is in Yt. 10.13 f.; the countries it mentions run in a sequence from south to north. Comparison of both lists leads to the conclusion that Airyanəm Vaējah is to be located north of Sogdiana. One can deduce that Airyanəm Vaējah was characterized as the best one, in spite of its harsh climate, because of the Young Avestan remembrance that Zaraθuštra originated historically from that area (cf. also Y. 9.14, Yt. 5.104).

More problematic is the question of the geographic location of this (mythological and symbolic) country. Several scholars, comparing the two lists, came to the conclusion that Airyanəm Vaējah might be identified with ancient Chorasmia in modern Uzbekistan. Mainly Walter Bruno Henning favored such an identification, basing his arguments on linguistic comparisions between Avestan and the (scanty) evidence for the Chorasmian language, but other scholars did not share his arguments; the Zoroastrian tradition itself never refers to Zaraθuštra as an offspring of Chorasmia.

Arguments that put Zaraθuštra’s homeland in the region east of Mashad and in the area of Bactria in Afghanistan (Humbach, 1991, pp. 40-44) have gained greater acceptance. W. Hinz (1961, pp. 22-23) reckons with Zaraθuštra’s origin from Chorasmia or Bactria, before he left his homeland (Y. 46) and went to Kešmar (i.e., modern Kāšmar in Khorasan Province, Iran), where the Šāh- nāma places his activity (see, e.g., Jackson, p. 255 ff.). Another suggestion, favored by Gherardo Gnoli (1980, pp. 23-57), does not base itself on Airyanəm Vaējah: he takes the references to Airyanəm Vaējah only as mythological geography with no historical relevance, but looks to Sistan and Drangiana (cf. Yt. 19) as the actual area of Zaraθuštra’s life and work. Interpretations of Zaraθuštra’s origin in (younger) Zoroastrian tradition refer to Bactria, but also to western Iran, namely Media and Azerbaijan. Zaraθuštra’s place of birth thus is sought in Urmia; in some Zoroastrian traditions the Median city of Raga (present-day Ray south of Tehran) also is mentioned as Zaraθuštra’s home.

Most probably one should uphold the “Airyanəm Vaējah thesis” and place Zaraθuštra’s origin in that area; and one can argue that Airyanəm Vaējah may be situated north of ancient Chorasmia. Perhaps further evidence is furnished by the reference to the “White forest(s)” in Yt. 15.31; this can refer to birch trees, which were famous in the area north of the Jaxartes river (Syr Darya). Additionally, the list of early followers of Zaraθuštra in Yt. 13.143 f. includes people of different ethnic backgrounds, namely Aryans (Airiia-), Turanians (Tūiriia-), Sairima-, Sāinu- and Dāha- (see DAHAE). For the geographical background of Zaraθuštra’s work, this may be an argument that Zaraθuštra lived in an area at the borderlands of Iranian ethnicity, thus meeting with and winning people of other ethnic stocks for his religion. To interpret that fact for the question of Zaraθuštra’s homeland, the best suggestion seems to be to locate it at the border of northeastern Iran, that is, within a vast area covered today by parts of the republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. A more limited demarcation is not possible based on Avestan sources.

ZOROASTER AND THE OLD AVESTAN TEXTS

The sketch of Zaraθuštra’s life given above depends on the conviction that the Gathas and the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, as Old Avestan texts, go back to Zaraθuštra himself. For the Gathas this point of view is held by the Zoroastrian tradition, and in recent years Johanna Narten has given convincing arguments that there are no differences between the Gathas and the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti that necessarily lead to the conclusion that the latter, a prose text, goes back to a different author. Both are ritual texts, and one may take them as the core texts of early Zoroastrian rituals, composed by Zaraθuštra to praise Ahura Mazdā and to provide a liturgical text for his followers, Both tasks can be attributed to Zaraθuštra as priest. This point of view in recent years has been questioned by Jean Kellens (2000, pp. 85-90), who states that all the Gathas refer to Zaraθuštra only in the third person or in the vocative (Y. 46.14). But as at least Y. 43.8 and Y. 49.12 seem to refer to Zaraθuštra in the first person, possibly also Y. 28.6 (cf. Humbach’s translation: “to me Zaraθuštra, and to all of us”; zaraθuštrāi... ahmaibiiācā). According to J. Kellens, therefore, the Old Avestan texts do not offer any information about the historical Zaraθuštra, either for his time or for his origin, as the Old Avestan language cannot be inserted into the historical linguistic framework for the Old Iranian languages and dialects. Kellens even goes one step further, questioning the individuality of any author of the Gathas, taking them as the result of the religious ideas of a group of people. Thus Kellens rules out the existence of a founder-personality for Zoroastrianism. The best one can get from the Gathas may be the idea that Vištāspa was the composer of these texts—taking kauui- not as “ruler,” but as a “poet” who knows how to arrange mantras and ritual spells. He concludes that we cannot say anything about a historical Zaraθuštra, but only about a mythological Zaraθuštra who only is known as the focus of identity for the Zoroastrian community. (cf. the related discussion of Zaraθuštra and Vištāspa as possibly mythological figures in Skjærvø, 1996; see now idem, 2003.)

The present writer stills holds the view that although they are ritual texts, and not selections of Zaraθuštra’s teaching or sermons that propagate some of Zaraθuštra’s dogmas, we can deduce from the Old Avestan texts an outline of Zaraθuštra’s life. But it is important for the picture of “Zaraθuštra in the Avesta,” that the Younger Avestan texts have no interest in historical recollection, but already present an idealized Zaraθuštra—the first person who lived according to Ahura Mazdā’s religion, which he propagated.

Bibliography:

M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 1: The Early Period, Leiden, 1975.

I. M. Diakonoff, “Media,” in I. Gershevitch, ed., Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, Cambridge, 1985, pp. 36-148.

I. Gershevitch, “Approaches to Zoroaster’s Gathas,” Iran 33, 1995, pp. 1-29.

Gh. Gnoli, Zoroaster’s Time and Homeland, Naples, 1980.

Idem, De Zoroastre à Mani, Paris, 1985.

W. B. Henning, “Zoroaster,” in B. Schlerath, ed., Zarathustra, Darmstadt, 1970, pp. 118-64 [abbreviated German translation of W. B. Henning, Zoroaster. Politician or Witch-Doctor? London, 1951].

W. Hinz, Zarathustra, Stuttgart, 1961.

H. Humbach, “About Gōpatšāh, His Country, and the Khwārezmian Hypothesis,” in Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, Acta Iranica 24, Leiden, 1985, pp. 327-34.

Idem, The Gāθās of Zarathushtra and the Other Old Avestan Texts. In Collaboration with Josef Elfenbein and Prods O. Skjærvø. Part 1: Introduction – Text and Translation, Heidelberg, 1991. M. Hutter, Religionen in der Umwelt des Alten Testaments I: Babylonier, Syrer, Perser, Stuttgart, 1996.

Idem, “Avesta,” in U. Tworuschka, ed., Heilige Schriften, Darmstadt, 2000, pp. 131-43.

A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroastrian Studies, New York, 1928.

A. de Jong, Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, Leiden, 1997.

J. Kellens, Essays on Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism, tr. and ed. P. O. Skjærvø, Costa Mesa, 2000.

J. Kellens and E. Pirart, Les textes vieil-avestiques, 3 vols., Wiesbaden, 1988-91.

P. Kingsley, “The Greek Origin of the Sixth-Century Dating of Zoroaster,” BSOAS 53, 1990, pp. 245-65.

W. W. Malandra, An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion. Readings from the Avesta and the Achaemenid Inscriptions, Minneapolis, 1983.

M. Mayrhofer, Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Vol. 1. Die altiranischen Namen, Wien, 1979. J. Narten, Der Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, Wiesbaden, 1986.

J. Rose, The Image of Zoroaster. The Persian Mage Through European Eyes, Persian Studies Series 21, New York, 2000.

P. O. Skjærvø, “Zarathustra in the Avesta and in Manicheism. Irano-Manichaica III.,” in La Persia e l’Asia centrale da Alessandro al X secolo... (Roma, 9-12 novembre 1994), Rome, 1996 [1997], pp. 597-628.

Idem, “Zarathustra: First Poet-Sacrificer,” in Paitimāna. Essays in Iranian, Indian, and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Hanns- Peter Schmidt, 2 vols. in one, ed. S. Adhami, Costa Mesa, 2003, pp. 157-94.

M. Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathushtras. Geschichte – Gegenwart – Rituale, Bd. 1, Stuttgart, 2002, pp. 21-68.

(Manfred Hutter)

Originally Published: July 20, 2009

______-

ZOROASTER iv. In the Pahlavi Books

ZOROASTER

iv. In the Pahlavi Books

Zardušt is the name of the Zoroastrian prophet in the Pahlavi literature of the Sasanian and early Islamic period. On the form of the name in Book Pahlavi, zltw(h)št Zar(a)du(x)št, see ZOROASTER i. THE NAME. For discussions of scholarly controversy over the dating and historicity or otherwise of Zoroaster, see ZOROASTER ii. GENERAL SURVEY.

Although Pahlavi was spoken as long ago as the 3rd century BCE, most of the written works that survive were compiled from older Zoroastrian material in the period after the Muslim conquest up to the 10th century CE. These works are in many cases priestly texts, in terms of their religious content and didactic style: as the first and archetypal Zoroastrian priest, Zardušt naturally figures in such Pahlavi texts. He is the central identity marker of the religious community, who distinguishes it from the surrounding Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and other communities. He is also the hallmark of the veracity and authenticity of the Zoroastrian tradition, lending authority to what is said in his name. The several texts that recount the legends of the biography of Zardušt function as paradigms of perfect behavior (as in the stories of the life of, for example, Buddha, Jesus and Moḥammad) and as narratives of theological, cosmological, and ritual lore. The main role of Zardušt is the articulation of Zoroastrian teaching, including doctrinal, ethical, philosophical, ritual, and theological traditions. For the modern scholar wishing to reconstruct a historical Zoroaster, however, the evidence of the Pahlavi texts about Zardušt must be used with great circumspection. Nevertheless, for our understanding of the Zoroastrian religion of the Sasanian and early Islamic period, they are of considerable importance. In short, rather than being a historical personage, the Zardušt of the Pahlavi books is a theological and religious figure, whose being, life and teachings are exemplary and definitive for the communities that held him as their figurehead. Even so, as has been pointed out (see ZOROASTER ii), there is a paucity of reference to Zardušt in many of the Pahlavi books and his name is absent from the Sasanian inscriptions.

E. W. West brought together translations of the Pahlavi sources on the life of Zardušt, principal of which are the Dēnkard book VII.1-11 (see DĒNKARD; tr. West, 1897; text, tr., and comm. Molé, 1967) and chaps. 12-24 of the Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram (see ZĀDSPRAM; tr. West, 1897, pp. 134-70) based on the Pahlavi version of the lost Spend and Čihrdād nasks of the Avesta (see ČIHRDĀD NASK). These are supplemented by the shorter text of the Dēnkard book V.1-4 (tr. West, 1897; text, tr., and comm. Molé, 1967), which summarizes and repeats the account of Dēnkard VII except for a few extra details. M. Molé (1967) also includes a section of the text Wizīrgard ī Dēnīg, with a genealogy and account of the life of Zardušt, but this text is, according to M. Boyce (1975, 182, n. 3), “known to be a fabrication made in India in the 19th century A.C.” See also Boyce’s footnote on Molé’s work on the legends (ibid., p. 182, n. 4). As West says, “These three narratives appear to be the only connected statements of the Zoroastrian legend that remain extant in Pahlavi” (1897, p. xv). West is confident that the original of the Pahlavi versions was translated from an Avestan text (ibid., p. xviii). He gives details of the passages in other Pahlavi and Pazand texts that deal with the legends of Zardušt (ibid., pp. xviii-xix) with the exception of the (then) unedited Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, chap. 47, on the episode of Zardušt’s conversion of King Wištāsp (text, tr., and comm. Molé, 1967 and Williams, 1990). West helpfully lists all references to the Zoroastrian legends in the extant Avesta (ibid., pp. xix-xx) and concludes that they present a fairly complete view of the Zoroastrian legends current in Sasanian times. After reflecting on the contents of the later, Persian Zartušt-nāma, West spends the remaining 21 pages of his Introduction (ibid., pp. xxvii-xlvii) compiling a chronology of Zoroastrianism and dating of Zoroaster based on the millennial system of the Bundahišn, and incorporating the information gleaned from the texts on the life of Zardušt mentioned above, though he himself seems to remain sceptical to the end on how historically useful it may be.

For a summary and discussion of texts containing the legends of Zardušt, see also the work of West’s contemporary, A. V. W. Jackson, who set out to create a narrative of the life of the prophet based on all available sources (1898). This narrative forms the first part of the book, some 140 pages intended for the general reader; the second part, which is slightly longer, comprises seven appendices, most of which are scholarly essays on the name, date, chronology, and geographical location of Zoroaster. Appendix V is a collection of all the Classical Greek and Latin passages mentioning Zoroaster’s name (compiled with L. H. Gray). The works of K. Barr (1952), Molé (1963, pp. 271-83, 348-85; and also 1967, passim), and Boyce (1975, chaps. 7 and 11) display a modern scepticism with regard to the historical use of such “legendary” material. J. Rose (2000, pp. 24-31) succinctly summarizes the debates that have ensued in modern scholarship.

One of the most interesting of modern treatments of the legend is that of H. S. Nyberg (1955/1975): it forms the basis of the following résumé of the Dēnkard VII account. As the only continuous biography of Zardušt that exists, Dēnkard VII must be considered as an independent and unitary text, composed according to a determined principle (Nyberg, 1975, p. 506). It begins with a prehistory going from primordial man and the first king, Gayōmard (see GAYŌMART), to the protector of Zardušt, Wištāsp. This account is entirely theological and, apart from some inserted details, is devoid of all epic movement; it contains the “natural theology” of Zoroastrianism, the history of the revelation before the full revelation effected by Zardušt. Only then does the “Life of Zardušt,” the messenger of the Mazdean religion, begin.

The first section of this “Life” (Dk. VII.2) is entitled “Miracles which were produced before he, the most glorious of creatures, was born of his mother.” Zardušt had a complicated pre-history before coming into the world. His person is composed of three celestial elements: his xwarrah “celestial glory,” his frawahr “individual spirit,” and his tan-gōhr “corporeal substance.” His xwarrah (see FARR[AH]) is supposed to have arisen during the initial divine creative act; his frawahr (see FRAVAŠI) was created 3,000 years before the attack of the evil force against the creation of Ohrmazd; and his tan-gōhr was created last. His xwarrah was sent down here across the celestial spheres: from the endless light to the sun, the moon, and the stars, down to the hearth fire of the house of Frahim.rvānān Zōiš, and transferred to his wife, the maternal grandmother of Zardušt, at the moment she gave birth to a daughter who would become the mother of Zardušt; to her was then transmitted Zardušt’s xwarrah. From this newborn girl came a great radiance, which illuminated everything between the sky and the earth.

Nyberg associates this celestial light with non-Iranian influence: “in all probability the life of Zardušt depends here on the legend of the Buddha” (1975, p. 507). Rose (2000, p. 25) has noticed similarities with several traditions, “Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish and Christian traditions in particular,” and notes that, decades earlier, E. W. Burlingame (1920) was claiming that certain elements of the Zoroastrian tradition are “obviously derived from the Buddhist legend” and that the other miracles “bear witness of the Buddhist original.” Rose refutes this, referring to the fact that the first miracle in the Zoroastrian account was known to the Greeks long before the first record of the Buddhist legend in the late 3rd century CE (2000, p. 35, n. 85). The account continues to relate that the girl’s radiance also struck the eyes of the demons and the priests who are the adversaries of Zardušt in the Gāthic hymns; they then sent three afflictions to where she lived and incited the inhabitants of the country to rise up against her parents. To save their daughter, they sent her to the village of the Spitāmān clan, where she was brought up in the house of Purušāsp, the man she subsequently married. Then the xwarrah passed to Purušāsp.

Ohrmazd thus decided, in council with the supreme circle of amahraspands (see AMƎŠA SPƎNTA), to have Zardušt born in ordinary human fashion, instead of sending him to earth as a uniquely divine being. Zardušt’s frawahr, which had lain dormant in the world of the amahraspands, was transported onto the earth and set within a stem of hōm, protected by an encircling wall (Dk. VII.2.23). The amahraspands Wahman and Ardwahišt charged two birds with carrying the hōm with the frawahr of Zardušt to a tree. Purušāsp, on a sign from Wahman and Ardwahišt, went to look for the hōm and entrusted it to his wife Dugdhōv (see DUGDŌW) to keep. Only then did Ohrmazd fashion the tan-gōhr of Zardušt and entrust it to Hordād and Amurdād, and to the cloud, which sent it to the earth in the form of rain “quite fresh, drop by drop, perfect and warm, to the delight of cattle and men” (Dk. VII.2.38), whence it passed into the grass. Purušāsp herded six white cows with yellow ears on to the grass and had Dugdhōv milk two calfless cows (awēšān gāwān dō azādagān) into whose milk the tan-gōhr of Zardušt had entered from the grass. She added water to the milk. The miracle is said to be that they produced milk, but the heifers’ own intact state is also highly symbolic. The hōm containing the frawahr was pounded and mixed in with the milk, and so the three elements of Zardušt were reunited in the house of Purušāsp.

The demons were now alerted to the danger. They launched a powerful assault against the village and destroyed it; but Purušāsp and Dugdhōv, the future parents of Zardušt, survived and together drank of the milk of the hōm. Their procreative union was strongly opposed by the demons, but after three attempts they accomplished it, and so the xwarrah, frawahr, and tan-gōhr of Zardušt were reunited in the body of Dugdhōv, and he was born. Thus, prior to his birth, Zardušt’s xwarrah originates from the primeval creative act of Ohrmazd and descends through the levels of existence and all the elements of creation. The symbolism of the story of Zardušt’s creation bears a theological code, but it also alludes to the ritual of the Zoroastrian liturgy. Furthermore, it has been suggested that, through the coalescence of the three elements of his being, Zardušt received his ordination as priest, warrior, and herdsman (Boyce, 1975, p. 278, citing Barr, 1952, alluding to Yt. 13.89 and quoting Zādspram XI.1-2: “Pourušasp said to Zardušt: ‘I thought that I had begot a son who was priest, warrior, and herdsman …,’ to which Zardušt replied: ‘I who am your son am priest, warrior, and herdsman …’”).

During Dugdhōv’s pregnancy, the demons had made the greatest efforts to do injury to her through illnesses. A voice came from Ohrmazd and the amahraspands on high commanding her not to resort to sorcerers’ remedies, but to wash her hands and make offerings of meat and butter to the fire for her unborn child (Dk. VII.2.54). And so she recovered. Immediately before Zardušt’s birth, such a great light came from his mother that the midwives thought that the house was on fire. News of his birth was spread in the language of the animals so that they too would witness his prophetic mission (waxšwarīh). After the story of the birth, the genealogy of Zardušt is given, from the clan Spitāmān through Yam and Hōšang back through 45 generations to Gayōmard, the first man: what has been encoded symbolically is now announced literally.

The following section (Dk. VII.3) treats of the miracles produced in the period from Zardušt’s birth until the conversation with Ohrmazd (ohrmazd hampursagīh). The first thing that Zardušt did at birth was to laugh. Zādspram (ed. Anklesaria, 1964, VIII.14; tr. West, 1897, p. 142) reports that Zardušt laughed because Wahman had entered and mingled with his mind. This provoked the astonishment of his nurses and of his parents, and disquiet in the karb Dūrāsrav (see KARAPAN, DŪRĀSRAW), foremost of the sorcerers against whom the Gāthic hymns directed their most violent attacks. Both he and another karb, Brātrōkrēš, became arch-enemies of the child Zardušt. Dūrāsrav succeeded in inspiring fear in Purušāsp, to the extent that he wished to kill his child, but all endeavors proved abortive, thanks to divine intervention, which thwarted such attempts. The last story of miraculous rescue tells of the child being thrown into a lair inhabited by a she-wolf and her cubs (Dk. VII.3.15-17); the wolf- cubs had previously been slaughtered so that the she-wolf would attack the child with all the more fury. But Wahman and Srōš enable Zardušt to smite the she-wolf, and they send a ewe into the lair to suckle the child. When Dugdhōv approaches the lair, the ewe disappears, and the mother, who mistakes the sheep for the she-wolf, thinks that the child has been harmed. Her anguish disappears when she finds Zardušt alive, and she pledges never more to lose sight of him. The same story in Zādspram (ed. Anklesaria, 1964, X.9-14; tr. West, 1897, p. 146) also replaces the wolf with a ewe. Nyberg (1975, p. 509) comments that this is an Iranian variation of a widespread legendary motif concerning the founders of a dynasty and great prophets, reminiscent of the fate of Romulus and Remus in Livy. Boyce (1975, p. 279, n. 9) concurs, suggesting that the awkwardness of this legend, that required a ewe to suckle Zardušt rather than the daēvic wolf, makes it probable that it evolved under the influence of the legend of Romulus and Remus in late Parthian or Sasanian times.

One day, as the child Zardušt plays with other children, Dūrāsrav and Brātrōkrēš seek to terrify them; the playmates run away from Zardušt, who quietly stands up to his enemies. Then, in a banquet that Purušāsp held in the presence of the two karbs, he asks Dūrāsrav to consecrate the meal on his behalf. The infant Zardušt is violently opposed to this and desires to conduct the ceremony himself. Purušāsp refuses, but in the end the child prevails over Dūrāsrav, even though the latter curses him, and, after repeated fainting fits, Dūrāsrav is smitten by the divinity and dies a most unpleasant death that ends his line of progeny forever.

After that, the book recites, as if in a hymn, all the perfections with which Zardušt was endowed when he was going to receive the divine revelation. The passage is amplified by a fuller account in Zādspram (Anklesaria, 1964, XX-XXI; tr. West, 1897, pp. 155-57). When Zardušt is 30 years old, Wahman comes to him on behalf of Ohrmazd, near to the sacred river Dāitī (see DĀITYĀ), to call him into conversation with Ohrmazd. As Nyberg says (1975, 510) the scene seduces, with its starchy style, solemn, hieratic. In three single bounds Wahman traverses the distance between the celestial world and the river Dāitī, where Zardušt is engaged in drawing water infused with hōm. In Dk. VIII.3.52 Zardušt sees an extremely beautiful man (pēš kirb kū pad tan čašmtar būd) approaching from the south, perfect in all respects (pēš nēk kū pad harw čiš pēš būd). The fourth bound sets Wahman near Zardušt at the moment when he is putting on his clothes, having taken his right foot from the river. They engage in a conversation (3.56-9): The words of Wahman: “Who are you? from whom are you?” The answer of Zardušt: “I am Spitāmān Zardušt.” The words of Wahman: “For what do you suffer … for what do you struggle and for what is your desire?” Zardušt says: “My suffering is for righteousness (ahlāwīh), and my struggle for is righteousness, and my desire is for righteousness.” Wahman enjoins him to cast off his robe (body?), as it is necessary to go without it before Ohrmazd. They go together to the meeting with Ohrmazd, Zardušt following Wahman. In Zādspram (Anklesaria, 1964, XXI.8-22.10) there is a description of Zardušt proceeding to an assembly of the seven amahraspands (i.e., including Ohrmazd), in Iran, on the banks of the Dāitī. Having offered praise to Ohrmazd and the amahraspands, he sits in the seat of the inquirers and asks Ohrmazd a series of questions, which Ohrmazd answers directly. The format of this hampursagīh scene is often repeated in didactic passages of the Pahlavi books. The chapter continues “on the same day,” with a series of revelations of Ohrmazd’s omniscient wisdom. It is the focal point of the portrait of Zardušt in Dk. VII. In the Zādspram account, Zardušt’s cousin Medyōmāh, who was to become his first convert, features significantly in the story of Zardušt’s encounter with Ohrmazd, but his name is never mentioned in Dk. VII.

The following section (Dk. VII.4) tells of the first apparition of Zardušt in the world of men after he has conversed with Ohrmazd and proceeds towards the conversion of Wištāsp. As authorized prophet, he presents himself to the world to ask men to praise the amahraspands and to dishonor the demons. But he asks them also to practice xwēdōdah, that is, the union between near relations (see Williams, 1990, II, p. 10 and II, p. 137, n. 137 for references to parallel passages; see MARRIAGE ii. NEXT OF KIN MARRIAGE IN ZOROASTRIANISM), and he meets bitter resistance. He then turns towards the strong men of Tūrān, led by Urvāitādēng, and he is severely rebuffed by them, such that he calls down upon them the anger and chastisement of Ohrmazd. He seeks in vain to win over other wealthy patrons, and the assault of evil powers breaks out in full force. The evil spirit, Ahriman himself, sends demons to destroy Zardušt, but they fall without force on the ground and injure Ahriman. Zardušt chases him, throwing at him a stone as big as a house. In the episode following the struggle, Zardušt crushes the physical appearance of the demons, with the result that they can no longer circulate around the earth in visible form to play their foul tricks. He achieves this through the most sacred of the prayers, the yathā ahū vairyō, and a hymn to Zardušt is interwoven with a eulogy of his feat. This act is reminiscent of Ohrmazd’s own chanting of the same prayer in Bundahišn I.29- 32 that rendered the Evil Spirit unconscious for 3,000 years before the spiritual creation.

Next, Ohrmazd seems to require from Zardušt some explanation of the guilty dealings of men with the demons. The prophet is represented here as a reporter from the human world: the omniscience of Ohrmazd does not seem absolute, at least in so far as evil is concerned. Now, however, Zardušt is himself presented with temptation. He is on the bank of the Dāitī beside the clothes he had discarded before meeting Ohrmazd: a demon (druj) approaches him in the form of a beautiful woman in a bodice of gold. She proposes union and collaboration; she says: “I am Spandarmad.” But Zardušt replies: “I saw Spandarmad in the full light of day and I saw that she was beautiful from the front and back. Turn around, so that I know if you are Spandarmad.” Then the woman replies: “Spitāmān Zardušt, we are of the species that is beautiful from the front but ugly from the back,” and she refuses to do as he asked. But after three requests, she obeys and, as she turns towards Zardušt, he sees a swarm of ahrimanic monsters on her inner thighs, of serpents, lizards, toads, and frogs. Then he pronounces the prayer formula yathā ahū vairyō, and the demon disappears.

There are many instances in the foregoing of the standard formulae “thus it is revealed” and “as the religion says” which reflect translation from an Avestan original further back in time. In his edition Molé indicated such passages by transcribing them in italic font, whereas the passages of a theological character are drafted in a formal, dry prose. Nyberg (1975, p. 512) noted an epic art in the accounts of Zardušt’s childhood and the dangers to which he was exposed: “an intuitive description with repetition of formulary figures, in the manner of epic.” The absence of rhythmic form prevented it from being apparent, and if it had been there at some time, it was effaced in the extant abridgement. Nyberg thought that the episodes of Zardušt’s childhood and also, par excellence, the episode of Wištāsp’s conversion (Dk. VII.4.75-90) retained something of the epic style.

The second great turn in the life of the Zardušt is his meeting with Wištāsp. At first he suffers a series of persecutions by the kayags, karbs, and sorcerers of Wištāsp’s court; they incite Wištāsp to torment him with 31 heavy chastisements, chains and shackles, hunger and thirst, all of which he overcame. This section is cited according to the “words of Zardušt” (gōwišn ī zarduxšt), not as normally by formulae introducing a citation from the canon. Wištāsp publicly gives a decision in favor of Zardušt after the miracle when he performed on the horse of Wištāsp. Zardušt is said to have received permission to preach his doctrine, and he overcame the astrologers of Babel with his power, where Dahāg played his evil tricks as chief of the sorcerers. All this is composed in prose.

With the description of the conversion of Wištasp, Nyberg thought that we enter grand epic poetry, though he admitted he could not discern rhythmic units which coincide with the rhythm of the contents. He provisionally considered these texts as “relatively rhythmic translations of Avestan texts, more especially in that Avestisms are found in great number.” Nyberg sets out the translation of this as if it is poetry (1975, pp. 513-15), an excerpt from which suffices to illustrate (ibid., p. 513):

Then to them Ahuramazda the creator says,

to Vohumanah, Ašavahišta and to Fire, Ahuramazda’s holy son,

Come down, Amešaspentas, to the house of Lord Wištāspa

of many cattle, famed throughout the world,

so that he may accept this religion

and that he responds to the righteous Spitama Zarathuštra.

When they had heard these words,

the Amešaspentas went to the house of Wištāspa

of many cattle, famed throughout the world.

Nyberg refers to the whole scene as a purely religious epic, which he contrasts with the next chapter, a résumé in theological prose of the miracles revealed from Wištāsp’s conversion until Zardušt’s departure for the Best Existence. It may also be compared with the account in the Pahlavi Rivāyat chap. 47 (ed. and tr. Molé, 1967, pp. 116-12; comm., pp. 238-51; Williams, 1990, ed., I, pp. 168-73, tr., II, pp. 76-79, comm., II, pp. 212-26). Suffice it to say here that, though the Pahlavi Rivāyat account of the conversion of Wištāsp is formulaic and repetitive, and scarcely poetic in style, it contains, as Molé says, “definitely ancient elements that are lacking in the seventh book (of the Dēnkard) and whose appearance cannot be due to its influence” (Molé, 1963, p. 276). Such “elements” may derive ultimately from the lost Avestan Wištāsp Sāst or from another, unknown Avestan source (see further Williams, 1990, II, p. 214). Molé’s commentary on this text also includes a transcription and translation of a Pahlavi version of an Avestan text on the conversion of Wištāsp, included in the Zand i Khūrtak Avistāk (ed. Dhabhar, 1927, pp. 181-84; ed. and tr. Molé, 1967, pp. 239- 41). This is a lengthy blessing and eulogy of Zardušt upon Wištāsp, and Molé’s comment is insightful:

The object of the eulogy … [is] to wish for the king that his activity be as universal as possible, that it transcend and embody all the aspects of life. Wištāsp will be this ideal king and he will remain so in all Mazdean tradition. … However, the sense of the [Pahlavi] Rivāyat chapter is original, as it is not a matter of a eulogy pure and simple, nor of a benediction, but of an essential element of the apostleship, of an argument used by the Prophet to lead to the conversion of the king” (Molé, 1967, pp. 241-42).

Dk. VII.5 is a short chapter, covering in a few lines all the rest of Zardušt’s earthly life (said to be 35 years). There is no mention at all of his decease in Dk. VII: he simply disappears from the text in chap. 5.8, in a summary of his medical knowledge and healing. Zādspram (Anklesaria, 1964, XXV.5; tr. West, 1897, p. 165) mentions only that “in the 47th year (i.e., since his meeting Ohrmazd) Zardušt, who is 77 years and 40 days, passes away” (pad 47 sālag[īh] widerēd zardušt ke bawēd 77 sālag 40 rōz). The tradition that he was assassinated by the karb Brātrōkrēš is alluded to in a brief notice in Dk V.3.2 and the Pahlavi Rivāyat (Molé, 1975, 120-21; Williams, 1990, chap. 47.23). Nyberg (1975, p. 516) speculates that it is possible that the old tradition simply spoke of an ascension of Zardušt. In any case, what is apparent from the lack of reference in these sources to the mode of his demise is that the older tradition was less interested in his physical death than in his life and spiritual significance.

The rest of the Dēnkard VII account is concerned with the events before and after Wištasp’s death until the coming of the unnamed non-Iranian invaders who put an end to the Sasanian dynasty, which also ends the millennium of Zardušt (i.e., the 10th). The text also accounts for the 11th and 12th millennia and the eschatological roles of Zardušt’s three miraculously begotten future sons (see ASTVAT̰ .ƎRƎTA) who lead the faithful into the renovation and future existence. This eschatological after-life of Zardušt is the subject of several Pahlavi texts, including chapters 33 and 34 of the Bundahišn, chapter 9 of the Zand ī Wahman Yasn (Cereti, 1995), and chapter 48 of the Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg (Williams, 1990, and see Commentary, II, pp. 226-38; see also ESCHATOLOGY i).

Nyberg saw Christian and other influences in the Pahlavi accounts of Zardušt’s life in the Dēnkard VII such that he announced (1975, p. 517): “Then it is easy to admit that the Life of Zardušt in the Dēnkard constitutes a replica of the Gospel, to whose strong power of attraction and the missionary virtue forced the Zoroastrians to react.” If this is actually unprovable, then he could be correct in seeing a parallel in “the harmonizing tradition that is represented in the Diatessaron of Tatian and which was for a long time, in the Sasanian epoch, spread in the Syrian church.” There is, as Nyberg admits, an ancient Zoroastrian stratum to these legends, and texts other than the Dēnkard can be shown to have direct connection with Avestan texts that pre-date Christian influence. It may be said, however, that legendary stories appear to have a universally common function, to transmit robust, religiously charged, larger-than-life traditions of their protagonists, to provide exemplars of perfection and embodiments of theological and cosmological narrative for the religious community of the day.

There are hundreds of instances in the Pahlavi texts that refer to the few central, well-known narratives such as have been discussed above, each alluding to, amplifying and even extending aspects of Zardušt’s life that are accepted as more or less canonical. He is also, by association, symbolically united with past and future perfect men, such as Gayōmard, Hušēdar, Hušēdarmāh and Sōšāns (see, e.g., the Dādestān ī Dēnīg and Dēnkard books VIII and IX). Dialogue (hampursagīh) between Ohrmazd and Zardušt, based on those of the well-known stories, is a genre all of its own. Sometimes Zardušt asks the questions of Ohrmazd on spiritual, cosmological, and ritual matters (e.g., in Pahlavi Rivāyat chaps. 1-3, 6, etc.), and the precedent for this is the original meeting of Zardušt with Ohrmazd, referred to above. Sometimes such a dialogue is to extol a practice or explain an idea, for instance, truthfulness and charity, wisdom and omniscience, or the fate of the soul after death (ibid., chaps. 10, 22, 23). Ohrmazd’s explanation of the absolute need for man to be mortal in this world is a fine example of the creative use of Zardušt’s life, in the Zand ī Wahman Yasn (Cereti, 1995, chap. 3) and the Pahlavi Rivāyat (Williams, 1990, chap. 36), also summed up in the aphorisms of Dk. VI.B5 and B6 (Shaked, 1979, pp. 134- 35). Again, sometimes a monologue is addressed to Zardušt, as in, for instance, Dk. IX.204-7 (West, 1892, pp. 210-11). The dialogue has sometimes a disarming intimacy, such as when Zardušt asks Ohrmazd “Did you ever make an offering?” and Ohrmazd says “I did so, for when I created the world then I made an offering; when I gave the soul to Gayōmard, then I made an offering; when you, Zoroaster, were born from your mother, then I made an offering. When you received the religion from me, then I made an offering” (Pahlavi Rivāyat, chap. 16; see also ibid., 8a2-3).

Of all the instances of Zardušt appearing in the Pahlavi texts, one would expect to find those most apparently independent of the legendary tradition in the philosophically and theologically oriented Dēnkard book III (ed. de Menasce, 1973). Yet most instances in this book are directly linked to this tradition. For example, Dk. III, chap. 184 directly alludes to the story of the conversion of Wištāsp (cf. chap. 420). Dk. III, chap. 343 lists the best and worst of men, naming Yam as the best of kings, and Zardušt as the best of priests, and Tūr ī Brātrōkrēš, the karb “who made the body of Zardušt perish,” as the worst of heretics. The principle of the collaboration of best sovereign governance and best priesthood is several times summed up in Yam and Zardušt (chaps. 129, 227). He is rarely referred to in the aphorisms of Dēnkard book VI, however, though there are exceptions at VI.163, 295 and B5-6. In terms of theological characterizations of Zardušt, Dk. III, chap. 195 is paradigmatic, wherein Zardušt’s ten supreme counsels are presented; in chap. 196 they are contrasted with the ten blasphemies of the sorcerer Axt, which are sacriligious inversions of Zardušt’s counsels. A similar contrast occurs between the righteous Sēn and the heretic Rašn Rēš (chaps. 197 and 198) and the righteous Adurbād ī Mahraspandān and “the accursed” Mani (chaps. 199 and 200).

In conclusion, it may be said that the categories “legend” and “history” are each unsatisfactory in themselves to describe a prophetic and religiously dynamic icon such as the Zardušt of the Pahlavi books. His legendary stories nearly always have a didactic, not merely informative, purpose. Elements are incorporated as a conscious attempt of the tradition to exalt the prophet in the eyes of those faithful who might be tempted to turn to other religions. Like the Sira of the prophet Moḥammad, or the life of Jesus or Buddha, Zardušt is the main artery of the salvation history of the religion that claims him as inspiration. His legends are not merely hagiographical or romanticized in the sense historians sometimes dismiss them. Certainly, they are heroicized histories, played out on a stage of cosmic, not mundane, time. There is evidence of influence and development in the stories that make up his religious persona, but nonetheless, Zardušt emerges from the Pahlavi texts as a fully formed prophet, who embodies the ancient wisdom first known in the Gāthās. His life is a paradigm of Zoroastrian religious teaching, from his celestially originating conception, through his struggle against demonic forces in life, to his future eschatological role through his miraculously conceived future “sons” and the faithful he inspires to triumph over evil. He is not himself an object of worship or veneration, but the example to his followers of heroic virtue and uncompromising struggle against injustice and oppression.

Bibliography: B. T. Anklesaria, Zand-Akāsīh, Iranian or Greater Bundahišhn, Bombay 1956.

Idem, Vichitakiha i Zatsparam, Bombay, 1964.

K. Barr, “Irans Profet som Τἔλειος Ἂνθρωπος,” in Festschrift til L.L. Hammerich, Copenhagen, 1952, pp. 26-36.

M. Boyce, “Some Remarks on the Transmission of the Kayanian Heroic Cycle,” in Serta Cantabrigensia, 23rd International Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge, 1954, pp. 45-52.

Idem, A History of Zoroastrianism, vol. I. The Early Period, HO I.1.2.2A, Leiden, 1975; 3d corr. repr., 1996.

E. W. Burlingame, “Buddhist-Zoroastrian Legend of Seven Marvels,” in Studies in Honour of Maurice Bloomfield, New Haven and London, 1920, pp. 105-16.

C. Cereti, The Zand ī Wahman Yasn, a Zoroastrian Apocalypse, Rome, 1995.

B. N. Dhabhar, Zand i Khūrtak Avistāk, Bombay, 1927.

A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroaster the Prophet of Ancient Iran, New York,1898; repr., 1965. J. de Menasce, Le troisième livre du Dēnkart, Paris, 1973.

M. Molé, Culte, mythe et cosmologie dans l’Iran ancien, Paris, 1963.

Idem, La legende de Zoroastre selon les textes pehlevis, Paris, 1967.

H. S. Nyberg, “Zaratustrabiografien in Dēnkart. Presesföredrag vid Nathan Söderblom-Sällskapets årshögtid den 15/1 1955,” Religion och bibel, 14, 1955, pp. 3-19; reprinted in French as “La biographie de Zarathuštra dans le Dēnkart. Discours presidentiel prononcé a la Société Nathan Söderblom en la séance anniversaire du 15 janvier 1955,” in Monumentum H.S. Nyberg IV, Tehran and Liège, 1975, pp. 503-19.

J. Rose, The Image of Zoroaster the Persian Mage through European Eyes, New York, 2000.

S. Shaked, The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages (Dēnkard VI), Boulder, Colorado, 1979.

E. W. West, Pahlavi Texts Part V. Marvels of Zoroastrianism, Oxford, 1897.

A. V. Williams, ed., The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, 2 vols., Copenhagen, 1990.

(A. V. Williams)

______

ZOROASTER v. AS PERCEIVED BY THE GREEKS

ZOROASTER

v. AS PERCEIVED BY THE GREEKS

The Greek constructions of Zoroaster relate to the historical Zoroaster and to the Zoroaster of the Zoroastrian faith in one respect only. The Greeks knew that Zoroaster was the “prophet,” in the sense of the human founder, of the national Persian religion of their times. That, of course, is a cardinal fact, but it is one fact only. For the rest, the Greek Zoroasters — for there were many — were fantasies of their own imaginations. Since the Greeks were a curious and inventive people, these multiple Zoroasters are interesting creations in their own right. Of more importance, they are elements in the “West’s” construction — or misconstruction — of a major “oriental” religion.

The Greeks constructed two different types of Zoroaster: (1) Zoroaster the prophet or magus, and (2) Zoroaster the philosophical and astrological author. Before we examine these two types, we should look first at the difficulties faced by the Greeks in reconstructing an historical Zoroaster in any form, and also at the Greek conventions for reconstructing remote persons as founts of religious or philosophical wisdom. In the latter undertaking, the Greeks permitted themselves far greater license than do we today.

Even if the Greeks had wished to reconstruct a historically accurate Zoroaster, the task would have been impossible. The distance in space, time, and language between Zoroaster and them was simply too great. Furthermore, the only possible intermediaries, Iranian magi, were themselves historically distanced from Zoroaster; and, at least after Alexander and the Greeks had humiliated their religion by bringing down their empire, they were not particularly interested in educating the Greeks about that religion or its founder. Culturally and politically, circumstances did not favor the easy communication of religion, as they did, for example, in Hellenistic Egypt.

In any case, dry historical accuracy was of no more interest to the Greeks than to the Iranians. The Greeks had two goals for the reconstruction of prophets and wise men. The first was that the reconstructed persona be appropriate in imputed character and biography to the tradition he founded (never “she,” except in the case of the exotic alchemical tradition). The second, much more insidious, goal was that the sage be a convincing peg on which to hang home-grown Greek philosophy or other forms of learning and so give it a patina (to change the metaphor) of authority derived from the far away and the long ago. The Greeks considered the best wisdom to be exoticwisdom or — to use the title of Arnaldo Momigliano’s masterly study of the phenomenon — “alien wisdom.” What better and more convenient authority than the distant — temporally and geographically — Zoroaster?

Coldly stated, these two goals and the methods of construction necessary to attain them seem flagrantly dishonest. To the Greeks of those times they would have appeared less so. On the charge of fictitious biography, was it not reasonable that a prophet should be made to exemplify the religion he founded? And if data were scarce, why not fill out the portrait with touches from the picture of the generic sage? The false attribution of learned texts was a graver charge. However, the intent, it must be allowed, was seldom to deceive. What was misattributed to Zoroaster, as will be discussed below, were for the most part not original compositions, but compilations of pre-existing material for which the compilers sought a persuasive author. Their decisions to attribute their compilations to Zoroaster — because Zoroaster might have written it, might he not? — says more about their poor taste in philosophical literature than about their deceitfulness.

We shall start our explorations with Zoroaster the prophet of Persian religion. First, however, we should dispose of a third type of Zoroaster: Zoroaster the magician. This Zoroaster is obviously generated out of the pejorative use of the term “magus” to mean “magician.” Thoughtful Greeks knew very well that the original magi were Persian priests; but their language, and subsequently Latin too, soon overwhelmed that original meaning. Furthermore, together with the new denotation “magician,” the “magic” of the “magi” usually carried sinister connotations, up to and including necromancy, i.e. conjuring with the spirits of the dead.

Logic would seem to dictate that, once the magi were associated with magic in the Greek imagination, their prophet Zoroaster would necessarily metamorphose into a magician too. And so it was: the encyclopedic naturalist Pliny the elder (first cent. CE) names Zoroaster as the inventor of magic (Natural History 30.2.3). However, a principle of the division of labor appears to have spared Zoroaster most of the responsibility for introducing the dark arts to the Greek and Roman worlds. That dubious honor went to another fabulous magus, Ostanes, to whom most of the pseudepigraphic magical literature was attributed. For Zoroaster, as we shall see, was reserved the astrological literature. Magical works specifically attributed to Zoroaster are few and very late; and although Pliny calls him the inventor of magic, he develops no accompanying magician’s persona for him.

Zoroaster as the prophet of Persian religion. Albert de Jong (pp. 76-250) has isolated five principal passages from Greek authors in which substantial information (some accurate, some not) is transmitted concerning Persian religion: Herodotus 1.131-2, Strabo 15.3.13-15, Plutarch On Isis and Osiris 46-7, Diogenes Laertius 1.6-9, and Agathias 2.23-5. The last three of these passages refer to Zoroaster in his foundational role. (1) Plutarch (first to second cent. CE), discussing dualistic theologies, states: “Others call the better of these a god and his rival a daemon, as, for example, Zoroaster the Magus, who lived, so they record, five thousand years before the siege of Troy. He used to call the one Horomazes and the other Areimanius” (trans. de Jong). (2) Diogenes Laertius (early third cent. CE?), discussing the religion of the magi in very favorable terms, acquits them of the charge of sinister magic and adduces as evidence the Greek etymology of their prophet’s name: Zoroaster = astrothútēs = star-worshipper (literally. “one who sacrifices to the stars”). Interestingly, the friendly re- characterization is as groundless as the hostile portrait of the evil magician. (3) Agathias (sixth cent. CE), condemning certain “innovations” in Persian religion (“innovations” which are in fact genuine earlier features of Mazdaism), states: “But the Persians of today ... have adopted new ways ... seduced by the teachings of Zoroaster the son of Horomasdes. When this Zoroaster or Zarades ... first flourished and made his laws is impossible to discover with certainty. The Persians of today say that he was born in the time of Hystaspes, without further qualification, so that it is ... impossible to tell whether this Hystaspes was the father of Darius or someone else.... [Zoroaster] was their teacher and guide in the rites of the magi; he replaced their original worship by complex and elaborate doctrines” (trans. de Jong). Other than the basic fact that Zoroaster “established the laws” of Mazdaism then current, the only nugget of biographical fact here is the link to Hystaspes, certainly not “the father of Darius” but “someone else,” namely Zoroaster’s authentic royal patron Vištāspa.

The first and the third passages suggest hugely different dates for when Zoroaster lived and instituted the faith, and this sharp divergence is echoed in many other Greek and Latin sources. At one extreme Zoroaster’s remoteness is measured in millennia, at the other in mere centuries, and Zoroaster is made the contemporary and teacher of historical Greek sages, notably Pythagoras. In two important articles, Peter Kingsley has shown that the late dating is no more grounded in fact than the earlier. The earlier datings (six thousand years before Xerxes or Plato, as well as Plutarch’s five thousand before the Trojan War) reflect in one way or another Zoroastrian ideas of world ages and historic turning points (Kingsley 1995), while the later, in particular that to 570 B.C.E, stems from the attempt of Aristoxenus (fourth cent. B.C.E) to co-opt Pythagoras, and through Pythagoras Zoroaster, into a philosophical confrontation with Platonism (Kingsley 1990). Kingsley’s invalidation of the sixth-century date has repercussions beyond just the Greek perception of Zoroaster, for that date entered the Iranian Zoroastrian tradition too.

The “biographical” data on the fictitious Zoroaster in Greek and Latin sources were gathered and analysed in the fundamental two-volume study of the “Hellenized magi” by Joseph Bidez and Franz Cumont (data on the life of “Zoroaster,” vol. II, pp. 7-62; essay on the life, vol. I, pp. 5-55). It would be impossible here to track through all the data, so a single brief narrative, that found in Dio Cocceianus (Oration 36.40 f. — seeEIr. VII, Fasc. 4, p. 421), will be given by way of example. Dio’s portrait story is highly favorable, not merely because he puts it in Iranian mouths, but also because the Greeks, commendably, held Zoroaster and other founders of alien wisdom in high regard. “For the Persians say that Zoroaster, because of a passion for wisdom and justice, deserted his fellows and dwelt by himself on a certain mountain; and they say that thereupon the mountain caught fire, a mighty flame descending from the sky above, and that it burned unceasingly. So then the king and the most distinguished of his Persians drew near for the purpose of praying to the god; and Zoroaster came forth from the fire unscathed, and, showing himself gracious towards them, bade them to be of good cheer and to offer certain sacrifices in recognition of the god’s having come to that place. And thereafter, so they say, Zoroaster has associated, not with them all, but only with such as are best endowed with regard to truth, and are best able to understand the god, men whom the Persians have named Magi, that is to say, people who know how to cultivate the divine power, and not like the Greeks, who in their ignorance use the term to denote wizards” (trans. H. Lamar Crosby).

Zoroaster was also co-opted into Graeco-Roman religion as the founder of one of the mystery cults, Mithraism. Why this was so can be demonstrated almost syllogistically. To the Greek way of thinking, all religions have their founders; Zoroaster was the founder of Persian religion; the Mithras cult by self-definition was “the mysteries of the Persians”; therefore Mithraism must have been founded by Zoroaster. Whether Mithraism really was a Graeco-Roman continuation of Persian religion (though an interesting question in its own right) is here irrelevant. Porphyry, a third-century CE Neoplatonist, paints an elegant portrait of this fanciful Zoroaster instituting Mithras-worship in the archetypal mithraeum: “... Zoroaster was the first to dedicate a natural cave in honor of Mithras, the creator and father of all; it was located in the mountains near Persia and had flowers and springs. This cave bore for him the image of the cosmos which Mithras had created and the things which the cave contained, by their proportionate arrangement, provided him with symbols of the elements and climates of the cosmos. After Zoroaster others adopted the custom of performing their rites of initiation in caves and grottoes which were either natural or artificial” (De antro nympharum 6, trans. Arethusa edition).

Zoroaster as the author of astrological literature. The extant fragments of, and testimonies about, the writings falsely attributed to Zoroaster are collected in Vol. II of Bidez and Cumont, pp. 137-263; they are discussed in Vol. I, pp. 85-163. They are also the subject of a full analysis by the present author: Beck, pp. 521-53 (including a discussion of the “Zoroaster” of Dio Coccianus’ magian hymns (see EIr. VII, Fasc. 4, p. 421) and of the Gnostic Tractate Zostrianos which was discovered subsequent to Bidez and Cumont).

The present author, while recognizing that Bidez and Cumont both laid secure foundations for the interpretation of the Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha and built much of the necessary superstructure, challenged their claim that the literature was in large part the product of the “Hellenized magi” of the Iranian diaspora in Anatolia and hence reflects the blending of a genuinely Iranian/Zoroastrian tradition (via a Chaldean astrological tradition) with a Greek tradition. To the contrary, he argues (Beck, pp. 492-521) that the Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha are almost entirely Greek products, not even superficially Iranized. The authorial name “Zoroaster” is little more than a label intended to impress and to legitimate.

The literary corpus of this fictitious Zoroaster was immense. Hermippus, a Greek scholar working in Alexandria in about 200 BCE, was said (by Pliny, Natural History 30.2.4) to have edited and commented on two million lines of it. That would amount to about eight hundred volumes or papyrus rolls. The titles and the nature of the contents of two major works are known. One was entirely astrological, the Apotelesmatika or Asteroskopika (i.e. “[horoscopal] outcomes” and “star watchings,” respectively). The other, On Nature (Peri physeōs), was more general, but astrology seems to have preponderated in its contents too. A reason why astrological material would have gravitated to Zoroaster has already been given — etymology. As well as “star- sacrificer” Zoroaster’s name was interpreted, via its initial syllable, as Zōo-, to mean “living star.”

It remains to mention the only instance where Zoroaster’s postulated authorship was contentious. His work On Nature opens with the words: “These things I wrote, I, Zoroaster son of Armenios, a Pamphylian by race, who died in war, whatever I learnt from the gods, while I was in Hades” (for sources, etc., Beck, pp. 518 f., 528-30). This looks like, and probably is, a case of outrageous plagiarism; for the opening words are the same as Plato’s at the start of the great “Myth of Er” which concludes the Republic — with the substitution of Zoroaster’s name for Er’s. Certainly, the plagiarist was not Plato. However, in pseudo- Zoroaster’s defence, it is not impossible that Plato, who is quite credibly said to have had connections with the magi (Kingsley, 1995, pp. 199-207), may in turn have drawn on an earlier Iranian story of an other-worldly journey undertaken by Zoroaster or some other magus (Bivar, pp. 86 f.).

Bibliography:

R. Beck, “Thus Spake Not Zarathustra: Zoroastrian Pseudepigrapha of the Greco-Roman World,” in Boyce and Grenet, Zoroastrianism III, pp. 491-565.

J. Bidez and F. Cumont, Les Mages hellénisés, 2 vols, Paris, 1938, repr. 1973. A.D.H. Bivar, The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature, Biennial Yarshater Lecture Series 1, New York, 1998.

M. Boyce and F. Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism III, Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.8.1.2.2. Leiden, 1991, pp. 361-490.

A. de Jong, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 133, Leiden, 1997.

P. Kingsley, “The Greek Origin of the Sixth-Century Dating of Zoroaster,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 53, 1990, pp. 245-65.

P. Kingsley, “Meetings with Magi: Iranian Themes among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Plato’s Academy,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 5 (Ser. 3), 1995, pp. 173-209.

A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization, Cambridge, 1971, repr. 1990.

(Roger Beck)

Originally Published: July 20, 2002

______

OROASTER vi. AS PERCEIVED IN WESTERN EUROPE

ZOROASTER

vi. AS PERCEIVED IN WESTERN EUROPE AFTER ANTIQUITY

There is a continuous tradition of reports about Zoroaster among early and later medieval Christian historians, chroniclers, and annalists. The most prominent authors include Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260-265 to 339/340), St. Jerome (ca. 347-419/420), St. Augustine (354-430), Gregory of Tours (538/539 594/495), Isidore of Seville (560-636), Rabanus Maurus (ca. 780-856), Hugo [Hugh] of Saint-Victor (1094-1141), Petrus Comestor (ca. 1100- ca. 1179), Roger Bacon (ca. 1220-92) and Vincent of Beauvais (ca. 1190-1264) (On these and other authors see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 439-63). In slightly modified form, this tradition continues through the early modern periods stretching from Humanism to Enlightenment. Prominent authors from these periods include Sir Walter Raleigh (ca. 1554-1618), Samuel Bochart (1599-1667), Athanasius Kircher (1601-80), Olaus Rudbeck (1630-1702), and Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) (On these and other authors see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 463-501). All these authors in one way or another made use of a selection of a maximum of eleven motifs that can be combined and recombined for different purposes.

According to the set of information that was inherited from antiquity (see Bidez and Cumont), Zoroaster was identified with a descendent of Noah—the usual candidates are Ham, Mizraim, Kush, and Nimrod—and he was regarded as a Bactrian king who had fought a war against Ninus and had lost his life during this war. Zoroaster was held to have composed two million verses and to have written down the seven liberal arts (artes liberales) on two columns. It was assumed that Zoroaster had wanted to present himself as a god. In order to achieve that aim it was reported that he had excessively consulted a demon, who would eventually cause Zoroaster’s death. The presumed fact that he had laughed when he was born—a motif that can also be found in the Pahlavi legends—would foreshadow his demonic nature. Moreover, he was held to have invented the cult of fire and, worst of all, magic.

Magic, indeed, is one of the main topics connected to Zoroaster in European intellectual history. Again we are dealing with a motif that is first attested in antiquity and goes all the way to modern esotericism and the contemporary scene of middle- class magic and witchcraft. Most prominent European scholars of magic of the early modern period devoted at least one brief passage to the supposed inventor of that discipline. Here, it may suffice to mention the names of authors such as Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim (1486-1535), Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Giambattista Della Porta (ca. 1535-1615), Jean Bodin (1530-96), Gabriel Naudé (1600-53), and Eliphas Lévi (1810-75). Contrary to the authors mentioned in the previous section, most of these authors (on whom and others see Stausberg 1998a, pp. 503-69) were in favor of a ‘pure’, or ‘natural’, version of magic that was carefully distinguished from its ‘demonic’ branch. Correspondingly, Zoroaster came to be regarded as a wise man, who would know about the secrets of nature and heaven.

The distinction between two sorts of magic gained prominence during the Renaissance, and that period witnessed a powerful revival of the figure of Zoroaster. The most important author in this respect is the Florentine Neo-Platonist Marsilio Ficino (1433- 99), who is also famous as the translator of some writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistos (on Ficino and Zoroaster, see Stausberg 1998a, pp. 93-228). Zoroaster appears in many of Ficino’s writings, where he is consistently referred to as a figure of authority. Starting with his commentary to the Platonic dialogue Philebos, Ficino mentions Zoroaster as the first of a series of six “ancient theologians” also comprising Hermes Trismegistos, Orpheus, Aglaophamos, Pythagoras, and Plato. The last is held by Ficino to have incorporated the wisdom of his predecessors in his writings, which in turn were revived and commented upon by Ficino. In this way, Zoroaster came to be regarded as the fountainhead of the entire Platonic tradition. Ficino, and many after him, argued in favor of a substantial congruency between, on the one hand, the ancient tradition which culminated in Platonism and, on the other, Christian revelation. For Ficino, and for some other Christian Platonists such as Agostino Steuco (1497/1498-1548), Francesco Patrizi da Cherso (1529-97), and Philippe de Mornay (1549-1623), this congruency was considered as an apologetic ‘proof’ of the truth- claims of Christianity. However, such Zoroastrian-Platonic Christianity to a considerable extent transformed the idea of what Christianity was all about. Platonic notions of the cosmos, ontology, interpretation of the object of understanding, language, and epistemology competed with Aristotelian notions, and the latter would triumph in the age of the Counter- reformation. In the course of that process, a major work of Patrizi, in which he strongly drew on the evidence of Zoroaster, was placed on the index of prohibited books (On Patrizi and Zoroaster, see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 291-393.) One stimulus emerging from Ficino’s Neo-Platonism that was turned into a Christian dogma, however, was the idea of the immortality of the soul. Significantly, Ficino had argued in favor of that idea by referring to the authority of, among others, Zoroaster.

Prior to Ficino, within the confines of the Byzantine empire, the Platonist revival was inaugurated by the philosopher Georgios Gemistos Plethon (ca. 1355-1360 to 1454). At least according to his adversaries, Plethon’s Platonism was part of his anti- Christian campaign culminating in his attempt to create a new law and compose a new confession of faith. In this project, Plethon referred to Zoroaster, the foremost of the ancient lawgivers and sages (Alexandre, p. 30), as his prime authority. In that way, Plato’s supposed teacher Zoroaster substitutes for Moses as the prime lawgiver, and the creed that Plethon has written is entitled Summary of the Teachings of Zoroaster and Plato (text in Alexandre, pp. 262-69). Zoroaster is the champion of Plethon’s program of religious revival and nativism (On Plethon and Zoroaster, see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 35-44, 57-82; 2001a; Tardieu suggests that Plethon’s (presumed) mentor, the Jew Elisha, was an adherent of Sohrawardi’s [d. 1191] illuminationism. While these ideas were soon forgotten, Plethon made a lasting impact on Zoroaster’s place in later Western history in that he attributed a collection of obscure fragments, possibly of Middle Platonist origin, the so-called Chaldean Oracles (see Majercik) to Zoroaster. Thus, like Hermes Trismegistos, with whom Zoroaster finds himself on common ground throughout much of the early modern period (witness Ficino and Patrizi, but also later alchemical writings, on which see Stausberg, 1998, pp. 947-48), Zoroaster acquired a ‘scripture’ and could from then on be ‘quoted’ and commented upon. Throughout the 17th century, in connection with the rise of antiquarianism and philological scholarship, the Zoroastrian origin of these texts was doubted and eventually replaced by ‘authentic’ Zoroastrian sources such as the Sad dar (tr. by Hyde in 1700) and later the Avestan texts (tr. by Anquetil in 1771). This development, however, was not irrevocable, for within the later Platonic and some esoteric traditions both Zoroaster and the Chaldean Oracles retained much of their charm.

While Zoroaster appeared as a figure of highest repute in the Neo-Platonist discourse and its corresponding hermeneutics, mostly in Italy, for many learned scholars from the northern Protestant countries such as Gerhard Johann Voss (1577-1649), Johann Heinrich Ursin (1608-67), and Theophile Gale (1628-78), Zoroaster was, rather, connected to negative ideas such as idolatry and the teaching of two principles (see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 604-51; 2001b). If anything of worth was to be found in Zoroaster, then it was only insofar as he originally was identical with Moses as claimed by Pierre-Daniel Huet (1630- 1721; see Stausberg 1998a, pp. 654-70). In nascent Orientalism, the image of Zoroaster was not positive either, for Islamic stereotypes came to be mixed with European traditions. The results of that process can be seen in the writings of Barthélmi d’Herbelot (1625-95; see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 671-79).

In his Historia religionis veterum persarum (History of the religion of the ancient Persians, 1700; 2nd ed., 1760), the Oxford orientalist Thomas Hyde (1636-1703) presents an ingenious combination of all the relevant source materials available at the end of the 17th century. According to Hyde, originally the religion of ancient Persia was “orthodox.” However, it had fallen into decay and was subsequently reformed by Abraham. Afterwards, it degenerated again, and Zoroaster took upon himself the task of again reforming it. Zoroaster was just the right person to achieve that aim, because in his youth he had been the servant of a Jewish prophet, and he was responsible for transferring the knowledge that he had gained in this way to Persia and the Persians. According to Hyde, Zoroaster had acquired so deep an insight into the mysteries of revelation that he was able to make a valid prediction of the birth of the Messiah. (On Hyde, see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 680-712; 2001b.)

In his Natural History of Religion (1757), sec. 7, David Hume refers to Hyde’s ideas about the ‘monotheism’ of the Persians (see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 718-23). In turn, Hyde’s thesis of the basic ‘orthodoxy’ (in Protestant Christian terms) of the ancient Persians and their main ‘sect’ was in part a response to the challenge resulting from an intellectual experiment made by Pierre Bayle (1647-1706). In his famous Dictionary, Bayle had sketched a debate between the philosopher Melissos (the spokesman of the monistic position) and Zoroaster. whom Bayle casts in the role of spokesman for a dualistic position and as a forerunner of Mani (see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 724-35; 2000). The stage was set for a debate which would continue throughout the 18th century, and the question if Zoroastrianism is a ‘monotheistic’ or a ‘dualistic’ religion has still been a hot topic in 20th-century scholarly debate.

The idea that Zoroaster’s biography had a Jewish side was not unknown; in an alchemical treatise published in 1738 (on which see Stausberg, 1998, pp. 948-52), Zoroaster was even referred to as a “famous Jew and Rabbi.” This gave Hyde the opportunity to assign an important role to him in the history of humanity, but a number of later authors used this information to drag Zoroaster through the mud. Most influential in this regard was Humphrey Prideaux (1648-1724), who considered Zoroaster to be the greatest impostor who had ever lived on earth (Stausberg. 1998a, pp. 740-56). In part, this polemic against Zoroaster was actually directed against deism and the idea of ‘natural religion’.

As a matter of fact, Zoraster was a key figure in Enlightenment discourse focusing on these issues. In 1751, Zoroaster, as the perfect enlightened king appeared as the hero of a philosophical novel; its author, Guillaume Alexandre de Méhégan (1725-66) soon found himself in the Bastille (see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 884-94). References to Zoroaster can be found in the works of almost all major French Enlightenment thinkers (for references, see Stausberg, 1998a, index), most prominently perhaps in the several writings of Voltaire (1694-1778) in which Zoroaster played different and often contrasting or even contradictory roles, ranging from the champion of reason to the incarnation of nonsense (on Voltaire and Zoroaster, see Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 901-46). Voltaire refers to Zoroaster in novels, letters, dictionaries, historical texts, etc.; and this may be regarded as typical for the 18th century, where we find Zoroaster in a broad range or discursive practices and contexts (for references see Stausberg, 1998a), such as letters, novels, prophecies, tragedies, astrological drama (idem, 1998a, pp. 966-67), fictive reviews (pp. 963-65), Kabala (pp. 965-66), political propaganda (idem, 1998c), and on the stage of the opera (idem, 1998a, pp. 869-84; Handel’s [1685-1759] Orlando is to be added; on Mozart’s [1756-91] The Magic Flute,see Rose, pp. 120-47; there are later adaptations!). Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron (1731-1805) published his Zend-Avesta some years after his return from India, where he had entertained an intense, albeit problematic, working relation with two Zoroastrian priests (Stausberg 1998b). Among the many materials contained in this set of three volumes, there is a biography of Zoroaster (Vie de Zoroastre), which was partly based on New Persian (Zoroastrian) materials. Contrary to Hyde, Prideaux, and others, Anquetil no longer places Zoroaster in the parameters provided by Biblical history, but he tries to elucidate Zoroaster’s contribution to the history of human civilization. According to Anquetil, Zoroaster lived in the 6th century BCE (589-512), which he considers to be a revolutionary period in the history of human thought, for it was in this century that Pherecydes founded Greek philosophy and taught the immortality of the soul, that Confucius reestablished moral purity and simplified the cult of the first Being, and that Zoroaster propagated the idea of time without limits, i.e., eternity. (Some years later, de Pastoret published a comparison of Zoroaster, Confucius, and Moḥammad.) Despite his lasting achievements, however, according to Anquetil Zoroaster ultimately failed because of his weak character: his “enthusiasm” and his arrogance led to imposture and the eruption of war (Stausberg, 1998a, pp. 790-809). Reactions to Anquetil’s work were mixed (and his character doubted). While scholars (such as William Jones) severely criticized Anquetil, others (such as Johann Gottfried Herder in Germany) were electrified. Several English Romantics received part of their inspiration from Anquetil’s Zend-Avesta. While references to ancient Persia or Zoroastrianism abound in English Romanticism (Rose, pp. 155-67), with the exception of Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) Zoroaster is rarely directly mentioned. In Shelley’s Prometheus Unbound (1819) the Earth states (Act I): “Ere Babylon was dust, / The Magus Zoroaster, my dead child, / Met his own image walking in the garden. / That apparition, sole of men, he saw.” Later in the 19th century, (Francis) Marion Crawford (1854-1909), an American novelist living in Italy, published Zoroaster (1894),a historical novel set at the court of Darius. The novel recounts Zoroaster’s unhappy love story with a Jewish princess and his prophetic mission that, in Crawford’s report, in part was inspired by his teacher Daniel.

In the history of the Western perceptions of Zoroaster nothing remained the same after Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) published the four parts of his Also sprach Zarathustra (Thus spoke Zarathustra)from 1883 to 1885 (a compiled edition was first edited and published in 1892). As Jenny Rose has pointed out, within those years “more than thirty books relating to Zoroastrian texts were published in German” (Rose, p. 178), and Nietzsche did in fact, in a transformational mode, draw back on a number of Zoroastrian traits in these books. However, it seems that Heraclitus (see HERACLEITUS OF EPHESUS) had first been the candidate for the hero of the book (Wohlfart). In a later poem (“Sils-Maria”), one of the 14 Lieder des Prinzen Vogelfrei (Nietzsche, III, p. 648),Nietzsche recounts his first encounter with Zarathustra (Zoroaster), and in Ecce homo (1889) he complains that nobody had ever asked him what the name Zarathustra did actually mean to him, “the first immoralist.” According to the explanation given here, the unique significance of the historical Zarathustra in the history of humanity consisted in his metaphysical interpretation of morality, in his idea that the fight between good and evil was the real force in the order of things (Nietzsche, VI, p. 367). As “that Persian” was responsible for this “fatal error,” Nietzsche argues that Zarathustra, who, he feels, was “more veracious than any other thinker,” was also the first who had realized his error; and hence he was the right choice to become the spokesman of the opposite position that overcomes his initial error (ibid.). Just as Nietzsche’s Zarathustra was not intended to be a faithful copy of the historical Zarathushtra, so Nietzsche did not simply identify with his hero who announces that “God is dead.”

Nietzsches enigmatic, yet powerful prose stimulated the composer Richard Strauss to a famous tone poem (used by Stanley Kubrick as film music for 2001: A Space Odyssey), and it attracted many readers, few of whom, however, will ever have read the entire volume. (It is reported that many soldiers during World War I carried a copy of the book in their luggage.) Nietzsche’s unique style also stimulated others to follow suit and continue Nietzsche’s Zarathustra (for five examples, see Stausberg, 2002, p. 1 [with n. 2]). This process continued all the way down to Osho, formerly known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (1931-90; see bibliography).

Apart from Osho, some other new religious movements refer to Zoroaster. For instance, this is the case with OHASPE, theosophy (which, in turn, made quite an impact on the Parsis [see Stausberg, 2002b, pp. 112-18]), anthroposophy, the Grail Movement of Abd-ru-shin (Oskar Ernst Bernhardt, 1875-1941), and, most significantly, Mazdaznan (on this movement see Stausberg, 2002b, pp. 378-400). Otoman Zar Adusht Hanish (1844[?]-1936), the ‘master’ of the movement, was by his adherents regarded as a reincarnation of Zoroaster (Stausberg, 2002b, pp. 392-94). Throughout the 20th century, as in the 18th century, one finds references to Zoroaster in a wide range of source materials and textual genres, stretching from astrology (see idem 1998a, p. 968) to novels (Gore Vidal, Creation, 1981), and fantasy (Herbert W. Franke, Zarathustra kehrt zurück [Zarathustra returns],1977). Apart from literary sources, since the 15th century (but possibly already the 11th) the Western perception of Zoroaster has also materialized in the form of paintings. In a rather bizarre manner, he is represented in a Florentine picture-chronicle (Stausberg, 1998d, pp. 342-45 with illus. 42). Possibly, he is presented in Raphael’s "School of Athens” (idem, 1998d, pp. 345-50 with illus. 44-46). Moreover, we find him in illustrated chronicles (idem, 1998d, pp. 345-46 with illus. 43), in an illuminated MS from the southern Netherlands (idem, 1998d, pp. 350-51 with ill. 47), and in emblematical books (idem 1998d, pp. 350-52 with illus. 48). A painting by Eduard J. F. Bendemann (1811-89) that was part of the composition of the throne room at the royal palace at Dresden, Saxony (idem, 1998d, pp. 351-54 with illus. 49) was very influential in that it in some way was disseminated in India, where it is still popular among the Parsis.

Last but not least, it should not be forgotten that modern scholarly discourse is equally involved in the history sketched above. Iranologists and historians of religion have certainly had an impact on the public perception of Zoroaster, if only by providing new ‘biographical’ materials. On the other hand, the perception of Zoroaster by students of Zoroastrianism needs to be critically reflected upon. Zoroaster the shaman, the politician, the pious prophet, or the sacrificial priest: All these images at the same time continue older traditions of perception and stimulate scholarly imagination—and do so to an extent that goes clearly beyond the scanty evidence provided by the primary sources. Moreover, the history of Western perceptions of Zoroaster has evidently influenced modern Iranian and Zoroastrian discourses. In this way, ‘Zoroaster’ is an important node in the tight web of several intercultural relations.

Bibliography:

C. Alexandre, Pléthon. Traité des lois, Paris, 1859. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Zarathustra the Laughing Prophet. Talks on Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus spoke Zarathustra, Cologne and Boulder, Colo., 1987.

Idem, Zarathustra. A God that Can Dance, Cologne and Boulder, Colo., 1997.

J. Bidez and F. Cumont, Les mages hellénisés, 2 vols, Paris, 1938; repr.,, 1973.

Thomas Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum, Oxford, 1700; repr. as Veterum persarum et parthorum et medorum religionis historia. Editio secunda, Oxford, 1760.

R. Majercik, The Chaldean Oracles. Text, Translation and Commentary, Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 5, Leiden, 1989.

F. Nietzsche, Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe, ed. G. Colli and M. Monatanri, Munich and Berlin, 1980. J. Rose. The Image of Zoroaster. The Persian Mage through European Eyes, Persian Studies Series 21, New York, 2000.

M. Stausberg. Faszination Zarathushtra. Zoroaster und die europäische Religionsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 42, 2 vols, Berlin and New York, 1998a.

Idem, “The Revolutions of an Island (1776): Zoroaster und die politische Opposition in England,” in Begegnung von Religionen und Kulturen, ed. D. Lüddeckens, Dettelbach, 1998b, pp. 157-69.

Idem, “‘Mais je passai outre’ oder: Zur Frühgeschichte des Orientalismus: Abraham-Hyacinthe Anquetil Duperron und die Zoroastrier in Surat (1758-1760),” Temenos 34, 1998c, pp. 221- 50.

Idem, “Über religionsgeschichtliche Entwicklungen zarathuštrischer Ikonographien in Antike und Gegenwart, Ost und West,” in P. Schalk and M. Stausberg, eds., ‘Being Religious and Living through the Eyes’. Studies in Religious Iconography and Iconology. A Celebratory Publication in Honour of Professor Jan Bergman, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Historia Religionum 14, Uppsala, 1998d, pp. 329-60.

Idem, “Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) und die Erfindung des europäischen Neomanichäismus,” in R. E. Emmerick, W. Sundermann, and P. Zieme, eds., Studia Manichaica IV. Internationaler Kongreß zum Manichäismus, Berlin, 14.-18. Juli 1997, Berichte und Abhandlungen der Berlin- Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sonderband 4, Berlin, 2000, pp. 582-90.

Idem, “Neo-Zoroastrian Hellenism in the 15th-Century Byzantine Empire: The Case of Georgios Gemistos Plethon,” in K. R. Cama Oriental Institute. Third International Congress Proceedings, January 2000, Mumbai, 2001a, pp. 81-88.

Idem, “Von den Chaldäischen Orakeln zu den Hundert Pforten und darüber hinaus: Das 17. Jahrhundert als rezeptionsgeschichtliche Schwelle,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 3, 2001b, pp. 257-72.

Idem, Die Religion Zarathushtras. Ges chichte—Gegenwart— Rituale, 2 vols., I, Stuttgart, 2002a; II, Stuttgart, 2002b.

M. Tardieu, “Pléthon lecteur des oracles,” Metis 2, 1987, pp. 141- 64.

G. Wohlfart, “Also sprach Herakleitos,” in Heraklits Fragment B 52 und Nietzsches Heraklit-Rezeption, Freiburg im Breisgau and Munich, 1991.

August 29, 2005 (Michael Stausberg)

Originally Published: July 20, 2005

______

ZOROASTER vii. AS PERCEIVED BY LATER ZOROASTRIANS

This entry treats the development of the concept and image of Zoroaster among the Zoroastrians of Persia and India after the Islamic conquest (10th century onwards).

ZOROASTER

vii. AS PERCEIVED BY LATER ZOROASTRIANS

This entry treats the development of the concept and image of Zoroaster among the Zoroastrians of Persia and India after the Islamic conquest (10th century onwards). The name “Zoroaster” is derived from the Greek, not the Iranian, tradition (see ZOROASTER i. THE NAME). Nowadays, most Zoroastrians prefer the Iranian form, Zarathuštra, and refer to themselves as “Zarathušti” or “Zardušti.” Since this article is about the Zoroastrian perception, the form Zarathuštra has been used.

Introduction. The period immediately following the Islamic conquest of Iran was referred to over a thousand years later by a Parsi priest as “a period of decadence” for the Zoroastrian community, about which information is sparse, and comes mostly from Muslim writers (Dhalla, 1938, p. 322).

For a couple of centuries after the downfall of the Sasanids, both priesthood and laity continued to write and read Middle Persian and would have had access to Middle Persian works concerning the life of Zarathuštra, such as the Dēnkard (see particularly bk. 7), Būndahišn, Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram, and the mantic text Zand ī Wahman Yašt (see Boyce, 1988, p. 49). Such works reflect a legendary, rather than historical, representation of Zarathuštra (Dhalla, 1938, p. 310). The late 9th- or early 10th-century The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg refers to Zarathuštra anachronistically as Mobadān Mobad (high priest), the most senior ecclesiastical office in late Sasanid times (47.21; Williams, II, pp. 79, 226). This text and the earlier Pahlavi books celebrate such qualities of Zarathuštra as “wisdom,” “compassion,” and “the performance of good deeds.” He is perceived as one who advocated moderation—paymān “the right measure”—in all things, emphasizing justice and morality, rather than extremist revolutionary or ascetic behavior (62.18; Williams, II, p. 108; I, p. 17).

New Persian. From the 10th century onwards, Iranian Zoroastrians wrote mostly in New Persian, using Arabic script, but relying on Pahlavi writings, particularly instructional or devotional materials. The transcription of the late Sasanian Xwadāy Nāmag “Book of kings” (see HISTORIOGRAPHY ii) from Pahlavi into Arabic, subsequently rendered into Persian prose, became the basis for Ferdowsi’s Šāh-nāma. The dynasties, events, and chronology of the Šāh-nāma are placed within a Zoroastrian framework (Boyce, 1988, p. 58). The section narrating the story of Zarathuštra, composed largely by the poet Daqiqi (d. ca. 976), was instrumental in setting his role as messenger of the faith and mentor to King Goštāsp (Av. Vištaspa) in the struggle between the forces of good and evil. Zarathuštra is described as the one “who slew Ahriman the maleficent” and who advocated wisdom and the religion of goodness, without which kingship is worthless (Ferdowsi, Šāh- nāma, tr. R. Levy, pp. 191 f.).

The Zardošt-nāma, a 13th-century New Persian work in verse from within the Zoroastrian community, was also based on a Pahlavi book containing hagiographic materials consistent with Dēnkard and Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram and including some additional legends (de Blois, p. 174). Zardošt-nāma has endured as the principal source of information and inspiration for Zoroastrians concerning the birth, childhood, and early mission work of Zarathuštra, culminating with the conversion of Goštāsp. It provides significant testimony to the divine mission of the prophet, incorporating the concept that Ohrmazd pre- ordained his birth as a means of releasing the world from the grip of Ahriman (see AHREMAN; Rosenberg, ed. and tr., pp. 4 f.). In Zardošt-nāma, Zarathuštra’s biography is perceived as beginning long before his actual birth; issuing from the “glorious stock” of King Faridun, he inherits the farr (“divine fortune or glory”) through his mother, Dugdōw, and is thus portrayed as a hero of equal standing with his legendary precursor, although his agency is spiritual rather than feats of arms (Geiger, II, p. 190 f.).

The Zardošt-nāma, while including much of the material found in the earlier texts, incorporates additional legends relating to the birth of Zarathuštra (Rosenberg, pp. 5 f.) and places particular emphasis on the miracles he performed, both as a child and as an adult. The narrative elaborates on the account of Zarathuštra’s cure of Goštasp’s favorite black horse, indicating that this incident was a crucial factor in persuading the king to convert (see Molé, pp. 374 ff.).

The fact that the Zardošt-nāma was written in Persian meant that it remained accessible to Zoroastrian laity in both Iran and India at a time when the Middle Persian texts were no longer available to them. Several groups of Zoroastrians had emigrated to India in the 10th century, settling mostly in Gujarat. Under the influence of Muslim rule in the 15th century, New Persian became the literary and theological language of the Parsis. In the intervening centuries, there had been no new writings alluding to Zarathuštra, but the Zardošt-nāma, with its focus on the miraculous nature of Zarathuštra’s life and early actions, continued to inform Zoroastrians’ understanding of his person. Oral transmission of religious knowledge from generation to generation also continued to keep much of the tradition alive, particularly stories about Zarathuštra as an embodiment of actions and teachings which prescribe beliefs and practices.

The New Persian Rivāyats, collections of questions and answers on practical and ritual observances exchanged between the Iranian priesthood and the Parsi community from the 15th to the 18th centuries, provide some insight into the theological beliefs of both communities. It appears that the Parsis, although uncertain on some religious matters, remained convinced that the “one path of righteousness” revealed by Ahura Mazdā to Zarathuštra, was the only way to salvation (Persian Rivayats, tr. Dhabhar, pp. 277 f.). Zarathuštra’s fravaši (“protective or guardian spirit”) was venerated on a daily basis through the liturgy, and each year, the whole community commemorated the anniversary of his death (Persian Rivayats, tr. Dhabhar, p. 423). One belief gleaned from the Rivāyats was that yasna offerings in the name of Zarathuštra or “other sainted, dead persons” could counter the evil plots of enemies, rout demons (divs; see DĒW) and fairies (peris), oppose tyrannical rulers, withstand famine and disease, prevent the evil consequences of bad dreams, and secure various other advantages (see Dhalla, 1914, p. 308).

European accounts. Alongside the later Rivāyats are 17th- and 18th-century reports by Europeans who lived among Zoroastrians in both India and Iran. Jean Baptiste Tavernier (1605-89) recorded miraculous stories about the prophet that he had heard from the Zoroastrians, including well-informed priests, in Kerman. Many elements in his account of Zarathuštra’s life correspond to earlier Middle Persian texts, such as the Dēnkard (Firby, p. 42): his mother glowed “with a celestial light” during her pregnancy; he laughed at his birth; he healed Goštāsp’s horse prior to the king’s acceptance of the faith; his three miraculously conceived sons would continue his mission and bring about the final overthrow of evil (Rose, p. 90).

Such European accounts were influenced by their own, often deistic, view of theology, emphasizing “reason,” natural theology, and morality (Firby, p. 174). This approach may later have influenced the way Zoroastrians perceived their own tradition, but contemporary European reports make it clear that it was the life of the prophet and the stories of his miracles, rather than the spiritual philosophy of the Gathas, which was the focus of popular religion (see Hinnells, 1978, p. 22; Dhalla, 1914, p. 308). This perspective was remarked upon by A. H. Anquetil- Duperron (1731-1805), whose encounters with Parsi priests and his reading of Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram, Zardošt-nāma, and Šāh- nāma revealed the emphasis the prophet’s followers placed on “the miraculous aspect,” concerning the mission of Zarathuštra (Anquetil-Duperron, p. 62).

During this period, Parsi mystics composed several treatises in Persian, asserting that Zarathuštra had couched his teachings in figurative and enigmatic language, which hid the deeper truths of the religion from the ignorant, but were understood by the adept (Dhalla, 1914, pp. 314 f.; this notion was continued by Parsi theosophists). The 17th-century Dābestān-e maḏāheb (see also ĀẔAR KAYVĀN) summarizes such mystical teachings. The Desātir, another “Parsi” mystical text (now generally considered to be inauthentic; see Boyce, 1979, p. 197), alleges that Zarathuštra was preceded by fourteen prophets named Mahabad (Dhalla, 1914, p. 311) and that, in the Avesta, he had taught using allegorical references.

The missionary challenge. In the mid-19th century, the Parsi community was galvanized into examining its own beliefs and practices through the influence of Christian missionaries, particularly the insidious attack by Rev. John Wilson, a Church of Scotland missionary, who was also president of the Bombay branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. In his book The Parsi Religion (1843), Wilson repudiated the authority of Zarathuštra, challenging Parsis to prove “that Zoroaster had a divine commission and that his doctrines were in every respect pure and holy” (p. 40) and to seek for certain evidence for the miraculous works associated with Zoroaster. The Parsis themselves did not always know the textual sources for their information about Zarathuštra, reporting to Wilson that they had heard it from their parents or read about him “in books” (ibid., p. 65). By that time only a few Parsi priests could read and understand Avestan and Pahlavi, and the community was, therefore, generally unable to counter the translations and exegeses of the texts utilized by Wilson. Instead, concerned Parsis quoted from Zardošt-nāma, and Šāh-nāma, as well as Dabestān and Desātir, in a bid to prove the miracles and mission of Zarathuštra (see Wilson, p. 408; an early 19th-century Gujarati translation of Zardošt-nāma was accessible to the Parsis, and Wilson included Eastwick’s English verse rendition at the end of Parsi Religion).

Such missionary attacks on the person and teaching of Zarathuštra (particularly on the concept of dualism) pushed many Parsis towards an approach to their religion that was more consonant with Christianity (Henning, p. 47). They claimed that the miracles of Zarathuštra were as authenticated as those of Christ (Wilson, p. 70), and could conceive of Zarathuštra as the first “prophetic revolutionary” to reveal the way to paradise, beginning the millennium that ended with the advent of Jesus (see Dhalla, 1938, pp. 25, 150, 166).

Beginning in the 19th century, iconography of Zarathuštra resembles Victorian Sunday school portraits of Christ, depicting him with a beard, flowing robe, and halo (FIGURE 1). But he is also often garlanded like a respected Hindu swami, or coroneted with a rayed nimbus. Sir John Malcolm records that Zarduštis in both India and Iran informed him that the majority of paintings or sculptures depicting Zoroaster distinguish him by a crown of rays, or glory (Malcolm, p. 545). The particular image shown in FIGURE 2 is a late 19th-century portrait, taken from a rock relief at Ṭāq-e Bostān (although the original carving is now thought to depict Mithra; see ART IN IRAN v, p. 588; for an analysis of this and other imagery of Zarathuštra at the turn of the century, see Jackson, p. 289).

Eastwick described the prophet’s appearance in Zardošt-nāma, “with dazzling wand” and “lustrous glory” around the head (Wilson, p. 481). This image, with variations, is still frequently replicated. The front of the recent Legacy of Zarathushtra (see Rivetna, ed.,) shows a stained-glass depiction, in which Zarathuštra wears similar clothing and carries a metallic staff; his right index finger points upwards in an ancient gesture of salutation (for historical antecedents and significance of this gesture, see Shahbazi, pp. 166 f.).

A significant response to the missionary challenge was the development of a Gujarati Catechism, initially translated into English by Dadabhai Naoroji, then D. C. E. Pavry (1901), and J. J. Modi (1911). The emphasis is on worship of Ahura Mazdā, and on “Zarathuštra Spitama of the Immortal Soul” as the great prophet who taught the Mazdayasnan (Mazdā-worshipping) religion to the people of ancient Iran (Modi, p. 4). In the Catechism, Zarathuštra is presented as a wise man, admitted into the presence of the divine, but not himself divine in any way. The reference to followers of the religion as “Zoroastrians” is not because Zarathuštra was perceived as the son of Ahura Mazdā, or as a savior (since “every man is his own savior” through his own deeds; Modi, p. 15), but because belief in Mazdā accords with Zarathuštra’s teaching (Modi, p. 4).

A Gujarati Khordeh Avesta of 1880 includes a monajat (religious hymn) “in praise of the holy prophet Zartosht.” The later English translation declares Zarathuštra “a true prophet, whose religion is brighter than the Sun, [who] is the best among the Saints of God and the most perfect amongst all the prophets and the indicator of the path of religion to all deviating people. [He] removed from the world all pollution and made the world brilliant like the sun” (Khordeh Avesta, ed. and tr. Kanga, pp. 416 f.).

The “Gatha-only” school and the reformers. In the mid-19th century, philological research by European scholars brought other startling ideas to the Parsis, who, until then, had attributed all Avestan compositions to Zarathuštra (Dhalla, 1914, p. 336). The elevation of the Gathas to a position of theological, as well as ritual, prominence was influenced by Martin Haug, who maintained that Zarathuštra’s doctrines “untouched by the speculations of later ages,” were to be learned only from the older Yasna, primarily the Gathas (Haug, p. 300). Some Parsi scholars now claimed that the Gathas alone contained the true teachings of Zarathuštra, and that later texts distorted the purity of his words, attributing doctrines and rituals that the prophet never taught (Dhalla, 1914, p. 336). This “Gatha-only” school was resented by many priests and laity alike, who admitted the significance of other scriptures in the canon.

The most extreme reformists (sometimes termed “Parsi Protestants;” Dhalla, 1914, p. 350) maintained that, in the Gathas, Zarathuštra had preached a simple monotheism with few rituals, and that modern Zoroastrians should return to this approach, which was worthy of respect in the modern world. They felt that, in order for Zarathuštra’s teachings to continue to be meaningful for the modern community, prayers should be recited in the vernacular, rather than Avestan, which was by then an unintelligible, dead language. In contrast, traditionalists maintained that Avestan was the sacred language through which Zarathuštra had taught the religion, and that, as such, it possessed “inherent magical efficacy” (Dhalla, 1914, p. 345). This approach was supported by the occultists (see Boyce, 1979, p. 206).

Towards the end of the century, disparagement of the religion, by outsiders and from within, led to a determined educational drive amongst the Parsis. Several, such as M. N. Dhalla (later high priest in Karachi), went to study abroad. Dhalla pursued Ancient Iranian Studies under A. V. W. Jackson at Columbia University, New York City. There, he had access to the most recent philological scholarship, which he was concerned to make accessible to his co-religionists. He subsequently wrote several books, including Zoroastrian Theology (1914) and History of Zoroastrianism (1938), combining some of the prevalent ideas of Western academia with his own blend of ritual reform and traditional beliefs.

In both texts, Dhalla traces the person of Zarathuštra from the Gathic period down to “the revival” of the 19th century, maintaining that, although the prophet’s mission and teaching remained the same, aspects of his life were expanded upon or introduced as time progressed; in the Pahlavi works the historical author of the Gathas has been transformed into a myth, and his personality magnified by miracles and extravagant legends (Dhalla, 1938, p. 322; 1914, p. 195). Although Dhalla himself continued to venerate the yazatas (“beings worthy of worship”), he refers to Zarathuštra as the earliest revolutionary prophet, who introduced a new spiritual order based on monotheism (Dhalla, 1938, pp. 26, 150). Modern Zoroastrian perceptions. In the late 1920s, translations of the Gathas and Yašts into Persian by an Iranian (Muslim) patriot, Ibrahim Pour-Davoud (Ebrāhim Purdāwud; see HISTORIOGRAPHY ix) were printed in Bombay (see IRAN LEAGUE). Pour-Davoud presented Zarathuštra as the bearer of “a grand message to humanity”—that of adhering to the principle of good thoughts, good words, and good deeds (see Boyce, 1979, p. 220; see also Pour-Davoud). In promoting the image of Zarathuštra as one of the brave and just ancestors of Iran as part of his attempt to regenerate the glory and greatness of ancient Persia, Pour-Davoud engendered an increased respect amongst liberal Irani Zoroastrians for their own religion, and a renewed interest in the words of Zarathuštra.

Individual Zoroastrians, influenced since the 1860s by European attempts to understand the language and religious expression of the Avesta, have sought to voice their own understanding of the Gathas and of the intention of Zarathuštra. In The Divine Songs of Zarathushtra (1951), Irach Taraporewala produced a literal translation (based largely on the work of his mentor, the German lexicographer Chr. Bartholomae), followed by a free interpretation inspired by his position of faith. This approach has been adopted by other Zoroastrians, with the assumption that the words of the Gathas were spoken by the historical Zarathuštra.

Dhalla’s perception of Zarathuštra (1938, p. 13 ff.) as a “paragon of reason” and a “practical common-sense thinker” clothed in divine wisdom, who was his own teacher, learning through observation and thinking, is echoed in the writings and understanding of many modern Zoroastrians, who seek to emulate those qualities. They regard Zarathuštra as a great religious teacher, whose ideas “do not belong to any single period and to any single people, but to all ages and to all peoples” (Dhalla, 1914, p. 369), and whose legacy of beliefs and practices have influenced “the religious and philosophical precepts and paradigms of the larger world” (Rivetna, ed., p. 10).

The Zoroastrian conception of Zarathuštra incorporates multiple identifications, and debate continues as to his person. Some view Zarathuštra as an enlightened philosopher and scholar, but clearly mortal. Those of a more mystical persuasion claim that Zarathuštra is an incarnate Amesha Spenta (see AMƎŠA SPƎNTA) possessing thaumaturgical, supernatural abilities. These conflicting perceptions were evident in the reactions to the 1986 film about the history of the religion, On Wings of Fire (for an account of the ensuing debate, see Luhrmann, pp. 73-76). There are now many children’s and adult books by Zoroastrian authors about the person and teaching of Zarathuštra. He is generally depicted as special even before birth, growing up to be a “fine and clever young man” and going off by himself to find the answers to his questions (see, for example, Mehta).

There also remains a diversity of opinion amongst Zoroastrians as to what their prophet originally taught. Present-day “reformists” in both India and Iran tend to accept the teachings of Zarathuštra based exclusively on the Gathas. They focus on the metaphysical message of the prophet, maintaining that he was a monotheist who eschewed ritual (see Hinnells, 1996, p. 242). “Traditionalists” view Zarathuštra as the priestly authority for many of the religion’s rites, and therefore recognize the continuing power of ritual (see Mistree, pp. 60 ff., 65). Both groups accept that the prophet was an ethical dualist (that is, that he urged humans to make the right choice between that which is good and that which is evil), but individuals differ as to their understanding of his teaching on cosmic dualism (see Rivetna, ed., pp. 15 ff.).

Despite internal differences, there has never been any question amongst Zoroastrians as to whether Zarathuštra actually existed or not. Recently, however, some Zoroastrians have expressed concern about a trend amongst non-Zoroastrian scholars to challenge the view that a historical individual named Zarathuštra composed the Gathas. This approach was first suggested in the 1960s by the young French scholar Marijan Molé, and has subsequently been developed by Jean Kellens and P. O. Skjærvø. The Zoroastrian community, alarmed by this departure from its own understanding of the authenticity of Zarathuštra, staunchly maintains its allegiance to him as the founder of the world’s oldest revealed religion, and to his innovative vision for the transformation of the world. The name “Zarathuštra” is still often translated as “He of the Golden Light,” indicating the concept that his spiritual and moral vision was a turning point in history, which continues to illuminate the way towards the renovation (see FRAŠŌ.KƎRƎTI) of creation. Modern adherents recognize that Zarathuštra’s teachings and philosophy are ideal in addressing the discontent, restlessness and suffering of today (see Nadjmi, p. 23). For Zoroastrians, Zarathuštra remains a powerful, central figure, whose image as a determined force for Aša (“order,” “right,” “truth”) presents the ultimate role model.

Bibliography:

A. H. Anquetil-Duperron, Zend-Avesta, Ouvrage de Zoroastre, 3 vols., I, Paris, 1771. F. de Blois, Persian Literature: A Bibliographic Survey V: Ninth to Eleventh Century, London, 1992.

M. Boyce, Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, Boston, and Henley, 1979.

Idem, “Middle Persian Literature,” HO 1.4.2.1, Leiden, 1988.

Idem, Zoroastrianism: Its Antiquity and Constant Vigour, Costa Mesa, Calif., 1992.

M. N. Dhalla, Zoroastrian Theology from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, New York, 1914; repr., 1972.

Idem, Our Perfecting World: Zarathushtra’s Way of Life, New York, 1930.

Idem, History of Zoroastrianism, New York, 1938.

Ferdowsi, Šāh-nāma, tr. R. Levy, The Epic of the Kings: Shah- Nama the National Epic of Persia by Ferdowsi, London, 1967; repr., Costa Mesa, Calif., 1996.

N. K. Firby, European Travellers and Their Perceptions of Zoroastrians in the 17th and 18th Centuries, Berlin, 1988. W. Geiger, Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in Ancient Times, 2 vols., tr. D. P. Sanjana, I, London, 1886.

M. Haug, Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsis, 2nd ed., E. W. West, rev., Boston, 1878.

W. B. Henning, Zoroaster: Politician or Witch Doctor? London, 1951.

J. R. Hinnells, “British Accounts of Parsi Religion 1619- 1843,”Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute [Bombay; henceforth JKRCOI] 46, 1978, pp. 20-39.

Idem, Zoroastrians in Britain, Oxford, 1996.

A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroaster: The Prophet of Ancient Iran, New York, 1898; repr., 1926.

D. F. Karaka, History of the Parsis, 2 vols., London, 1884; repr., New Delhi, 1999.

Khordeh Avesta, Comprising Ashem, Yatha, the Five Neyayeshes, the Five Gahs, Vispa Humata, Namsetayeshne, Patet Pashemanee, all the Nirangs, Bajs, and Namaskars, and Sixteen Yashts, ed. and tr. M. F. Kanga, Bombay, 1993. T. M. Luhrmann, The Good Parsi: The Fate of a Colonial Elite in a Postcolonial Society, Cambridge, Mass,, 1996.

Sir. J. Malcolm, The History of Persia, 2 vols., new rev. ed., I, London, 1829.

A. Mehta, The Story of Our Religion, Bombay, 1988.

K. P. Mistree, Zoroastrianism: An Ethnic Perspective, Bombay, 1982.

J. J. Modi, A Catechism of the Zoroastrian Religion, Bombay, 1911.

M. Molé, Culte, mythe et cosmologie dans l’Iran ancien, Paris, 1963. B. Nadjmi, “Zarathushtra in the Past, Present and Future,” FEZANA Journal, Summer 2002, p. 23.

The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others, tr. B. N. Dhabhar, Bombay, 1932.

I. Pour-Davoud, “The Age of Zarathushtra,” JKRCOI 28, 1935, pp. 46-81. R. Rivetna, ed., The Legacy of Zarathushtra: An Introduction to the Religion, History and Culture of Zarathushtis (Zoroastrians), Hinsdale, Ill., 2002.

J. Rose, The Image of Zoroaster: The Persian Mage Through European Eyes, New York, 2000.

F. Rosenberg, ed. and tr., Le Livre de Zoroastre (Zaratusht Nama) de Zartusht-i Bahram Pajdu, St. Petersburg, 1904.

A. S. Shahbazi, “Iranian Notes 7-13,” AMI 19, 1986, pp. 163-70.

I. J. S. Taraporewala, The Religion of Zarathushtra, Adyar, India, 1926; repr., Bombay, 1979.

A. V. Williams, The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, 2 vols, Copenhagen, 1990.

J. Wilson, The Parsi Religion as contained in the Zand-Avasta and propounded and defended by the Zoroastrians of India and Persia, unfolded, refuted, and contrasted with Christianity, Bombay, 1843.

(Jenny Rose)

Originally Published: July 20, 2009

______ZARINAIA legendary Saka queen during the reign of the likewise legendary Median king Astibaras.

ZARINAIA (Gk. Zarinaíā), legendary Saka queen during the reign of the likewise legendary Median king Astibaras. The original Greek form of her name certainly is Zarinaía and not Zarína (as previously had been read in Diodorus 2.34.3; cf. Schmitt, 2006, p. 240; 2011, p. 192); and in all probability this Greek form goes back to a two-stem hypocoristic name with the suffix OIran. *- aya- based on a compound name containing OIran. *zari- “golden” (see Schmitt, 2006, pp. 240-42).

All sources of her story found in Greek (i.e., Diodorus 2.34.3; Nicolaus Damascenus, frag. 5; the work by an Anonymus entitled “Courageous women knowing about the art of warfare,” par. 2 [see Gera, pp. 84–100]; and a short papyrus fragment [P. Oxy. 2330]) clearly go back to Ctesias (frags. 5, 7, 8a, and 8c), who in this case seems to have recounted a genuinely Iranian tale that he had heard at the Persian court (cf. Gardiner-Garden, p. 14). Zarinaia, a strikingly beautiful woman, stood out as both warrior and ruler; her achievements included the foundation of many towns (thus Diodorus). She is said to have been the sister and wife of the Saka king Kydraios, after whose death she married the Parthian king Marmárēs/Mérmeros (thus the Anonymus). We are told by the anonymous writer that, during war with the Medes (presumably that which was occasioned by the Parthians’ rejection of Astibaras’s rule and their submission to the Sakas [Diodorus]), she was wounded in battle and pursued by the Median Stryangaios (Astibaras’s son-in-law), who at her plea spared her life. When Stryangaios later was captured by Marmarēs, she rescued him, killed her husband, and handed over her land to the Medes. Nicolaus describes some details of Stryangaios’s secret love for her and relates that she rejected his courtship and admonished him to marital fidelity. Before taking his own life, the unhappy Stryangaios wrote her a farewell letter, which is preserved in part in the papyrus fragment. When Zarinaia died, according to Diodorus, she was honored with a huge pyramidal tomb by her people (i.e., the Sakas).

The old name of this famous queen was artificially revived in modern times among the Ossetes in the woman’s name Oss. Zærinæ.

Bibliography:

J. R. Gardiner-Garden, Ktesias on Early Central Asian History and Ethnography, Bloomington, Ind., 1987, pp. 12–17.

D. Gera, Warrior Women: The Anonymous Tractatus de Mulieribus, Leiden, 1997, pp. 84–100.

R. Schmitt, Iranische Anthroponyme in den erhaltenen Resten von Ktesias’ Werk, Iranica Graeca Vetustiora 3, Vienna, 2006, pp. 239–42. Idem, Iranische Personennamen in der griechischen Literatur vor Alexander d. Gr., Iranisches Personennamenbuch V/5A, Vienna, 2011, pp. 192-93, no. 153.

(Rüdiger Schmitt)

______

ZARIRI, ʿAbbās

ZARIRI, Moršed ʿAbbās (b. Isfahan 1909; d. Isfahan 1971), noted storyteller (naqqāl). He was orphaned at early childhood and grew up in poverty in the troubled years of World War I. Lonely and helpless, he joined the rank of itinerary dervishes in his early youth and traveled with them to many towns and villages, as well as, some neighboring countries, such as Iraq and Oman, singing the praises of the Shiʿite Imams. To make a living in these years, he was involved in different professions like bookbinding, traditional medicine, as well as, making instruments, such as the compass and Qeblanamā (a device that points the direction to Mecca) Zariri was deeply interested in story telling since his childhood, and mastered the techniques by attending performances of distinguished eulogists of his time in Isfahan, Tehran and other cities. (Zariri, Introduction p. xxvi). He was trained by masters like Hājj Moršed ʿAbbās Eṣfahāni, the outstanding dervish of the late Qajar period (Homāʾi, p. 39). After years of traveling, Zariri settled in Isfahan, and performed for over three decades in the most popular coffee houses of the city, such as Golestān in Čahār-bāḡ. The audience were mesmerized by his charismatic and strong voice. He often managed to further augment the impact of his performance upon his audience by resorting to dramatic feats.

Zariri like most other eulogists of his era, was functionally illiterate. He memorized and recited whatever he heard from other storytellers and scroll-writers. However, he became literate towards the end of his life, embarked upon collecting scrolls and recording the recitations of his predecessors, and added what he himself had reconstructed during his performances (Zariri, Introduction, p. xxviii). He managed to compile a manuscript of approximately 1,000 pages (27 × 18 cm) starting with the tale of Kayumarṱ (See GAYOMART) and concluding with the story of Eskandar (See ALEXANDER THE GREAT and ESKANDARNAMA).

Zariri’s account of Iranian heroic (pahlavāni) tales, although different in many ways, occasionally approximated Ferdowsi’s narration in Shah-nāma (Book of Kings). Zariri’s omnibus is more a blend of different epic narrations, such as Garšāsbnāma (The Book of Garshasb), Sāmnāma, (The Book of Sam) Farāmarz-nāma (The Book of Faramarz), Bānou-Gošasbnāma (The Book of Lady Goshasb), and Borzu-nāma (The Book of Borzou),with additions and embellishments introduced by himself or his predecessors. Ferdowsi’s lines of poetry, and passages from other Persian epic poetry are quoted intermittently, interspersed with accounts or sayings from the Prophet or his companions already incorporated into Shiʿite theology and jurisprudence. Finally, lyrical poetry from great masters of Persian poetry is also included. The language, exposition and synthesis in Zariri’s narration is quite distinguished from other conventional literally works of prose (Zariri, p. 49). Zariri’s compilation is only comparable to Haft- laškar (Seven Legions), the popular anonymous naqqāli manuscript written during Nāṣer-al-Din Shah era. Zariri calls his manuscript Ketāb-e mostaṭāb-e naṭr-e šāhnāma (The outstanding account of Book of Kings in prose) on the cover and Zariri-nāma (Book of Zariri) on the back page (Zariri, p. 31).

The story of Rostam o Sohrāb, published in one volume, is among a few short extracts from Zariri’s manuscript that has already been published in literary magazines, while a complete edited version will be available soon. Furthermore, an audiocassette recorded from one of the performances of Rostam o Sohrāb by Moršed ʿAbbās is available and is to be reproduced as a compact disk (CD) to accompany the book. Finally, the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Art (vezārat-e farhang va honar) commissioned Šāhroḵ Golestān to produce a film from the same performance.

Bibliography:

Jalal-al-Din Homāʾi, “Šāhnāma-ye Ferdowsi, šāhkār-e soḵanvari va soḵandāni,” in Ferdowsi va adabiyyāt-e ḥamāsi, Majmuʿa-ye soḵanrāni-hā-ye noḵostin jašn-e tous, Tehran, 1974, pp. 17-43. Moršed ʿAbbās Zariri. Dāstān-e rostam o sohrāb, ed. Jalil-e Doostkhah, Tous Publishers, Tehran, 1990.

See also Jalil Doostkhah, “Taḥlili az dāstān-e kāva-ye āhangar be ravāyat-e naqqālān dar dastnevešt-e Zariri” Iran-nāmeh, 10:1, 1991, pp. 122-144; republished in Hamāsa-ye Iran, yādmāni az farāsu-ye hazāra-hā, 2nd Ed., Agah, Tehran, 2000, pp. 235-251.

Idem, “Taḥlili az baḵši az dāstān-e garšāsp be ravāyat-e naqqālān dar dastnevešt-e Zariri" Jong-e Isfahan, 5, 1967; pp. 99-106.

Idem, “Šāhnāma-ye naqqālān: degardisa-i az ḫamāsa-ye Iran yā sāḵtāri jodāgāna", in Hamāsa-ye Iran, yādmāni az farāsu-ye hazāra-hā, pp. 151-165.

idem, "Naqqāli, honar-e dāstāsarā-ye melli" in Jong-e Isfahan, No. 3, 1966; pp. 73-78.

Idem, “Shahnameh and the Oral Epic Traditions,” in Iran & the Caucasus V, pp. 157-62, Tehran, 2001.

Anonymous manuscript, Haft laškar:Ṭumār-e jāmeʿ naqqālān az Kiomars tā Bahman , ed. by Mehrān Afšāri and Mehdi Madāyeni, Pažuhesgāh-e ʿolum-e ensāni va moṱāleʾāt-e farhangi, Tehran, 1998. (JALIL DOOSTKHAH)

2 December 2003

(Jalil Doostkhah)

Originally Published: July 20, 2003

______

ŻARRĀBI, MOLUK the stage name of Moluk Faršforuš Kāšāni (b. Kāšān, ca 1289 Š./1910; d. Tehran, 1378 Š./1999), Persian singer and actress. Moluk was born into a musically inclined family.

ŻARRĀBI, Moluk, the stage name of Moluk Faršforuš Kāšāni (b. Kāšān, ca 1289 Š./1910; d. Tehran, 1378 Š./1999), Persian singer and actress. Moluk was born into a musically inclined family. Her grandfather Ḥāji Jaʿfar was known as a singer at the court of Nāṣer-al-Din Shah Qājār, who bestowed upon him the honorary name of “Bolol” (Nightingale); thereafter, he was known as Ḥāji Jaʿfar Bolbol. Her father Ḥāji Ḥosayn Faršforuš also had a local reputation for his good voice. She inherited the family’s vocal talent and precociously exhibited it at the age of seven. Her early desire to sing entailed familial discontentment and social ostracism at school as it nearly did for every musically gifted girl of her time. In spite of all the difficulties, Moluk was found to be singing at social gathering in Kāšān at the age of thirteen in 1923 (Māleki, pp. 196-97).

Initial recognition and musical training. Moluk Kāšānĭ credited singer Sayyed Ḥosayn T ṟāherzādawith discovering her potential as a singer at the home of the patron of music ʿEyn-al-Solṭān and for offering her two years of vocal lessons. She also cited one-headed drum (tombak/żarb) player Ḥāji Khan ʿEyn-al-Dawlaʾi to have tutored her for a year in rhythmic patterns of metered Persian songs (Ḥāddādi, p. 380; Māleki, p. 196). Her alto voice with its limited one-octave range was suited to singing rhythmic, through-composed songs (tasÂnif-e zarbi), in distinction to the unmetered āvāz, the prominent Persian modal chants. In time, she became so widely identified with such rhythmic songs that she was given the stage name Żarrābi, which derives from her mastery of taṣnif-e żarbi. She also received vocal lessons from the singer Abu’l-Ḥasan Eqbāl Āḏar and was considered to be one of his students (Ḥāddādi, p. 42; Sepantā, p. 212). She also attentively listened to recordings of Persian music available to her, particularly those of master singer Qamar-al-Moluk Waziri.

Musical and stage career. Żarrābi’s professional career as a singer began with two public performances in Tehran at Firuz Bahrām High School and with master setār player Aḥmad ʿEbādi at The Grand Hotel in 1924. Later, she joined tār player Esmāʿil Mehrtāš’s music-theater group Jāmeʿa-ye Bārbod that had been established in 1926. Her collaboration with the pioneering Bārbod orchestra resulted in her performances in such plays as ʿAdālat (Justice), and musicals and recordings such as Ḵosrow o Širin and Layli o Majnun. These performances ensured Żarrābi a place on the roster of prominent singers and the actresses of the first half of the 20th century Persian theater and cinema. Soon after the establishment of Radio Tehran in 1940, Żarrābi was invited to sing with various broadcast ensembles. For these radio programs, she associated with such well-known musicians as violinist Abu’l-Ḥasan Ṣabā and Ḥosayn Yāḥaqqi, pianist Mortażā Maḥjubi, santur player Ḥabib Samāʿi, and tombak player Ḥosayn Tehrāni. Lyricist Ḥasan Sālek provided the lyrics and Ḥosayn Yāḥaqqi composed the song "Kisti” (Who are you?) for Żarrābi’s inaugural radio performance. About 1957, Żarrābi was chosen as the honorary member of Radio Tehran Orchestra Number Seven or Orkestr-e viža (Special orchestra) under the direction of violinist ʿAbd-Allāh Jahān-panāh (Māleki, pp. 196- 97).

Recordings and songs. In 1938, Żarrābi traveled with musicians Esmāʿil Mehrtāš, Abu’l-Ḥasan Ṣabā, Ḥosaynqoli Ṭāṭāʾi and singers Jawād Badiʿzāda, Tāj Eṣfahāni, Maleka Ḥekmat-šeʿār (laer Maleka Honar), and Adib Ḵᵛānsari to Syria and Lebanon to make recordings (Behruzi, p. 166; Mašḥun, p. 601). Żarrābi’s recordings include ʿĀšeq-am man (I am in love) for the recording company Odeon, the operetta Ḵosrow o Širin and Ḵod-setāʾi-e Širin (Širin’s song of self-praise), which she performed with Mehrtāš’s Bārbod orchestra (Sepantā, p. 178). Among her well- known recorded songs are "Sargašta deldār o ḡām-e hejrān" (The confused beloved and the sorrow of separation), "ʿArus-e golaz bād-e ṣabā" (Flower bride, floating on a gentle breeze), “Doḵtarān-e Sirus” (Cyrus’s daughters), "To rafti o ʿahd-e ḵod šekasti” (You left and broke your promise), "Ey šuḵ, eynegārā” (Oh, playful beloved!), and "Mawsem-e gol" (Flower season; Behruzi, p. 514; Māleki, pp. 197-99; Sepantā, pp. 116, 178).

Bibliography:

Šāpur Behruzi, Čehrahā-ye musiqi-e irāni I, Tehran, 1993.

Noṣrat-Allāh Ḥāddādi, Farhang-e musiqi-e Irān, Tehran, 1997, pp. 42, 380.

Tukā Māleki, Zanān-e musiqi-e Irān, az osṭura tā emruz, Tehran, 2001.

Ḥasan Mašḥun, Tāriḵ-e musiqi-e Irān, 2 vols., Tehran, 2001.

Sāsān Sepantā, Čašmandāz-e musiqi-e Irān, Tehran, 1990, pp. 116, 178.

(Erik Naḵjavāni)

Originally Published: July 20, 2004

______

ZARUDNIĬ, NIKOLAĬ ALEKSEEVICH

ZARUDNIĬ (Zarudny), NIKOLAĬ ALEKSEEVICH (b. Gryakovo, Kharkovsky, Ukraine, 13 September 1859; d. Tashkent, 17 March 1919), prominent zoologist and explorer of fauna in Iran (FIGURE 1). At the age of 11 he entered a military school in St. Petersburg, and in 1879 he was appointed a teacher of natural history at the Orenburg military school. He subsequently occupied the same position at military schools in Pskov (1892- 1906) and in Tashkent (1906-19).

He published his first book, Ornithological Fauna of the Orenburg Oblast, in 1888, followed in 1896 by Ornithological Fauna of the Caspian Region, covering the results of five expeditions. Between 1884 and 1892, Zarudny conducted five long field trips in the Caspian region, northern Persia, the plains of Bukhara, as well as the Khiva (Ḵiva) oasis. He was the first zoologist researcher of western Central Asia, an area not visited by any zoologist before him (see also BIRDS IN IRAN, EIr. IV, esp. p. 267).

Zarudny conducted four more expeditions to Persia (1896, 1898, 1900-01, 1903-04), with the support of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Geographic Society, and the St. Petersburg Zoological Institute. During his first and second trips he surveyed the mountainous district of Birjand in southeast Khorasan and the surrounding sandy deserts, as well as the Sistān depression (an important site of hibernation for birds originating from Central Asia). In 1900, he organized his third trip to eastern Persia, a route of 4,500 km in length along the Iranian plateau in Khorasan and Persian Baluchistan, to Makran on the coast of the Indian Ocean. His team collected 3,140 specimens of birds, and about 50,000 specimens of insects (Bobrinsky, 1940).

For his study of the Persian fauna, the Russian Geographical Society twice awarded him the prestigious Przhevalsky Prize and the small gold medal. He also received the silver Przhevalsky medal for his research in Russia proper and in adjacent parts of Asia.

From 1906 onwards, he focused in Tashkent on the study of the ornithofauna of Central Asia and began systematic research in the ornithofauna of the central part of Russian Turkestan. From 1906 to 1912, Zarudny traveled in the vicinity of Tashkent, in the Tien Shan mountains, the Ferghana (Farḡāna) valley, and in the Bukhara/Syr Darya basin from Chinaz to Perovsk (Kyzyl-Orda), in the center of the Kyzyl Kum (Qezel Qom) desert. In 1914, he noted the changes that had taken place in the configuration of the banks and islands of the Aral Sea since the expedition of L. S. Berg in 1902. During the last years of his life, Zarudny worked on a long-term project, which he intended to publish under the title of “Ornithological Fauna of the Turkestan Region,” but his death prevented its completion.

Zarudny’s collections enrich the museums of Russia and some foreign institutions, such as the Rothschild Natural History Museum in Tring, England. His tremendous collections include hundreds of thousands of items gathered in Persia, the Orenburg Oblast, Central Asia, and the Ukraine. At present, the main part of his collection is kept in the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Some specimens are stored in Tashkent University. In 1918, he conducted a series of lectures at Tashkent University and organized the Turkestan Public Museum. More than 130 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, arthropods, and mollusks were named after this prominent naturalist, field researcher, and zoologist. He died from accidental poisoning in Tashkent at the age of sixty. His publications, including monographs, total 218.

Bibliography:

On Zarudny’s life.

L. M. Balan, “N. A. Zarudny,” Uzbek. zoologicheskiĭ zhurnal 2, 1959, pp. 75-78 (on the 40th anniversary of his death).

N. A. Bobrinsky, N. A. Zarudny (1859-1919): Zoologist and Traveler, Moscow Soc. Nat. Expl. Ser. Histor. (72 p.), Moscow, 1940.

Z. N. Donzova, “N. A. Zarudny,” Izvestiya Uzbekskogo filiala Geograficheskogo obshchestva SSSR 1 (22), 1955, pp. 181-83.

Zarudny’s works. “Oiseaux de la contrée Trans-Caspienne,” Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc., 1885, pp. 262-332.

“Ornithological Fauna of the Orenburg Oblast,” Mem. Acad. Sc., 1888, Suppl. 1, pp. l-333.

“Recherches zoologiques dans la contrée Trans-Caspienne,” Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 1889, no. 1, pp. 128-60.

“Recherches zoologiques dans la contrée Trans-Caspienne,” Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 1889, no. 4, pp. 740-842.

“Recherches zoologiques dans la contrée Trans-Caspienne,” Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc., 1890, no. 2, pp. 288-315.

“Ornithological Fauna of the Caspian Region (Northern Persia, Transcaspian Province, Khiva khanate and Bukhara,” in Materialy k poznaniyu flory i fauny Rossiĭskoĭ imperii II, Moscow, 1896, pp. 1-555.

“Note on Reptiles and Amphibians from Northeastern Persia,” Ann. Rep. Acad. Sci. St. Petersburg 2, 1897, pp. 349-61.

“Zametki po faune mlekopitayushchikh Orenburgskogo kraya” (Notes of the mammal fauna of Orenburg Oblast), in Materialy k poznaniyu flory i fauny Rossiĭskoĭ imperii III, Moscow, 1897. “Route of Zarudny in Eastern Persia in 1898,” Ann. Rep. Acad. Sci. St.Petersburg 3, 1898, pp. V-XII.

“On Amphibians, Reptiles and Fishes of Eastern Persia: Herpetological and Ichthyological Results of the Excursion in Eastern Persia in 1898,” Transact. Geol. Soc. 36/3, 1904, pp. 1- 42.

“Excursion in Eastern Persia and Birds of this Country,” Ann. Rep. Acad. Sci. St. Petersburg, 1900, pp. 1-262.

“Excursion in Eastern Persia,” Notes Geogr. Soc. 36/1, 1901, pp. 1-362 (with map).

“Route of the Expedition of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society under Zarudny’s Leadership in Eastern Persia,” Ann. Rep. Acad. Sci. St. Petersburg, 1902, pp. I-IX.

“Birds of Eastern Persia. Ornithological Results of the Excursion in Eastern Persia in 1903,” Transact. Russ. Geogr. Soc. 36/2, 1903, pp. 1-467.

With Harald Baron Loudon, “Einige neue Subspecies aus Persien und dem Transcaspischen Gebiet,” Ornithologisches Jahrbuch 15/5-6, 1904, pp. 221-27.

“Verzeichnis der Vögel Persiens,” Journal für Ornithologie 59, 1911, pp. 185-241.

“On the Ornithofauna of the Transcaspian Province and Adjacent Parts of Persia,” Ornithologicheskiĭ vestnik, 1913, pp. 20-33.

With M. Härms, “Bemerkungen über einige Vögel Persiens. T. IV,” Journal für Ornithologie, 1926, pp. 1-52.

April 7, 2008

(Natalia Ananjeva)

Originally Published: April 7, 2008

______

ZĀYANDARUD newspaper weekly newspaper published in Isfahan by ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Mo ʿin-al-Eslām Ḵᵛānsāri from 1 RabiʿI 1327 to 22 Ḏu’l-ḥejja 1333 (23 March 1909 to 31 October 1915).

ZĀYANDARUD, weekly newspaper published in Isfahan by ʿAbd- al-Ḥosayn Moʿin-al-Eslām Ḵᵛānsāri from 1 RabiʿI 1327 to 22 Ḏu’l- ḥejja 1333 (23 March 1909 to 31 October 1915). Moʿin-al-Eslām, a cleric and an active supporter of the Constitutional Revolution, became Isfahan’s district attorney and held other judicial positions after the establishment of the constitutional government and the defeat of the Moḥammad-ʿAli Shah’s coup d’état of 1908. He later chose Zāyandarud as his family name. From the fourth year, Moḥammad-Ṣādeq Adib Ḵorāsāni, the future publisher of the paper Ṣobḥ-e omid in Isfahan, was introduced as director in charge, since Moʿin-al-Eslām’s judicial position caused a conflict of interest.

Zāyandarud was a political publication that supported the Democrat Party after its establishment and advocated democracy. The paper was banned in April 1910, and the publisher was jailed for a brief period due to a complaint filed by the governor of Isfahan. It was banned again in the autumn of the following year, because it had welcomed the arrival of Ḥaydar Khan ʿAmu-Oḡli, the well-known revolutionary (Eṣfahān 5,no. 57, 4 Ḏu’l-ḥejja 1329/25 November 1911).

Zāyandarud was lithographed for about eighteen months at Farhang printing house, in eight double-column pages of 35 x 21 cm, and then at Ḥabl-al-Matin printers. In the last three years of publication, its format changed to four-column pages of 31 x 45 cm. The last page was devoted to caricatures illustrating current events. The subscription rate for the first two years was 16 krans in Isfahan, which was later increased to 30 krans.

Incomplete sets of Zāyandarud are kept at the Central Library of the University of Tehran, Moʾssassa-ye moṭālaʿāt-e tāriḵ-e moʿāṣer-e Irān, Ebn Meskuya Public Library in Isfahan, the Public Library of Tabriz, the Library Republic of Azarbaijan’s Academy of Science in Baku, Cambridge University Library, and Princeton University Library.

Bibliography:

Touraj Atabaki and Salmaz Rustamova-Towhidi, Baku Documents: Union Catalogue of Persian, Azerbaijani, Ottoman Turkish and Arabic Serials and Newspapers in the Libraries of the Republic of Azerbaijan, London and New York, 1995, no. 1016.

Kāva Bayāt and Masʿud Kuhestāni-nažād, eds., Asnād-e maṭbuʿāt, 1286-1320 H. Š., 2 vols., Tehran, 1993, II, p. 578.

Lucien Bouvat, “Perse: la marche sur Téhéran,” RMM 8, 1909, pp. 482-83.

Idem, “Presse persanne,” RMM 15, 1911, p. 154.

Irān-e now 3/15, 14 March 1911. Irānšahr, Berlin, no. 9, 21 May 1924.

Guʾel Kohan, Tāriḵ-e sānsur dar maṭbuʿāt-e Irān, 2 vols., Tehran, 1984, pp. 515, 545. Jaʿfar Ḵomāmizāda, Ruz-nāmahā-ye Irān az āḡāz tā sāl-e1329 H.Q., 1993, pp. 162-63.

Foruḡ-al-Zamān Nuri Eṣfahāni, Rāhnemā-ye maṭbuʿāt:fehrest-e našriyāt-e mawjuddar ketāb-ḵāna-ye ʿomumi-e Ebn Meskuya-ye Eṣfahān, Isfahan, 2001, p. 162.

H. L. Rabino, Ṣurat-e jarāyed-e Irān wa jarāyed-i ke dar ḵārej az Irān ba zabān-e fārsi ṭabʿ šoda ast, Rašt, 1911, no, 118.

Ṣadr Hāšemi, Jarāʾed o majallāt III, pp. 1-4.

Ursula Sims-Williams, Union Catalogue of Persian Serials and Newspapers in British Libraries, London, 1985, no. 638.

Giti Šokri, “Fehrest-e ruz-nāmahā wa majallahā-ye fārsi dar Moʾassasa-ye āsiāʾi-e Dānešgāh-e Širāz,” FIZ 27, 1987, p. 374.

Mortażā Solṭāni, Fehrest-e ruz-nāmahā-yefārsi dar majmuʿa-ye Ketāb-ḵāna-ye markazi wa markaz-e asnād-e Dānešgāh-e Tehrān... 1267 qamari tā 1320 šamsi, Tehran, 1975, no. 193.

(Nassereddin Parvin) Originally Published: August 15, 2006

______

ZĀYČA

Middle Persian term meaning "birth chart, horoscope."

ZĀYČA (zāyčag), written zʾyc(k), Middle Persian term meaning “birth chart, horoscope.” The etymology of the term is not certain, but there is definitely no connection with the MPers. term zīg, which denotes both the bonds that tie the planets to the Sun and the Moon and the astronomical tables that were drawn up in Sasanian Iran (on the doctrine of the planetary bonds in Sasanian Iran, cf. Panaino, 1998, in particular pp. 43-50, 145-60 dealing with the etymology of the form zīg; on the astronomical tables, see also ASTROLOGY AND ASTRONOMY i). The hypothesis that would seem to be the most likely one, namely that zāyč derives from the theme zāy- “to be born,” is controversial, as no other formations in -č from the present stem are attested in Middle Persian(cf. MacKenzie, in Panaino, 1998, p. 158 and especially 49-50, in whose opinion this word is connected with the verbal root zan- “to bear”).

“Horoscope” is also a meaning of the form spihr (cf. Bd. 6 F.1 and Zād. 2.20, and especially Bd. 36.34, where the expressions nēk spihr and wad spihr “with a good / bad horoscope” occur).

The only passage in a Pahlavi text containing the description of a horoscope is § 2 of Bd. 5 (a chapter that is included only in the Iranian redaction of the Bundahišn); it refers to the astral situation at the very first moment of the material life (gētīg) of the world, at the beginning of the seventh millennium of Zoroastrian cosmography (the title of this chapter is Abar zāyč ī gēhān kū čiyōn jast “On the horoscope of the world, how it was”; for the horoscopes in texts deriving from Middle Persian, of which the originals are lost, see HOROSCOPE).

The description of this horoscope mentions the twelve zodiacal signs and the “houses” that begin in them, and gives several details: the Ascendent, which is the starting point of the first house and of the horoscope, is at 19° of Cancer, in the lunar mansion Azarag; in this sector are situated the celestial bodies Tištar (= Sirius) and Ohrmazd (= Jupiter); Kēwān (= Saturn) is situated in Libra; the Tail of Gōzihr (= the descendant lunar node) is in Sagittarius; Wahrām (= Mars) is in Capricorn; Anāhīd (= Venus) and Tīr (= Mercury) are in Pisces; Mihr (= the Sun) is in Aries, in the lunar mansion Pēšparwēz (this name is not given in the manuscripts, but the reference to it can be deduced from textual evidence); Māh (= the Moon) is in Taurus, and the Head of Gōzihr (= the ascendant lunar node) is in Gemini.

In the manuscripts, the description of the horoscope is illustrated by an astrological diagram. This diagram is drawn following the typical banner-style structure of ancient horoscope diagrams: it only gives the names of the planets and the zodiacal signs, without mentioning the houses or giving the degree of the ascendant or of any planet (there are many spelling errors in the names given in the diagram; for a detailed analysis, see Raffaelli, 1999). In the text each house is called by a name referring to the main department of human life on which it was thought to bear influence in the astrological tradition (with the exception of the name of the tenth house, which refers to its position in the horoscope); on the house system and its meaning, see Bouché- Leclercq, 1899, pp. 276-88; cf. also MacKenzie, 1964, pp. 526-28; ASTROLOGY AND ASTRONOMY IN IRAN ii, p. 867, col. 1; HOROSCOPE).

On the lunar mansions (xwurdag), of which the text only mentions the two that have their starting point in the two most important houses of the horoscope, the first and the tenth, see Henning, 1942, pp. 240-46; ASTROLOGY AND ASTRONOMY i. HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY IN IRAN, p. 859.

A few remarks must be made about the structure of the birth chart: there are some elements in the description indicating that it is divided into twelve sectors of 30° each, beginning with the starting-point of the horoscope, viz. at 19° Cancer (which would make each house begin at 19° of azodiacal sign), while other elements indicate that the houses coincide with the zodiacal signs (that is to say, each house goes from 0° to 30° of a sign). The fact that these two ways of dividing the chart are quite incompatible, probably due to two different interpretations of it, does not seem to have occurred to the person who composed the text, in all likelihood because he was not acquainted with astrological skills.

As for the celestial bodies that are named in the text, it should be remarked first of all that the mention of Tištar (see TIŠTRYA), the only fixed star in the chart, is due to the importance of this star in Zoroastrian uranography (the position of this star in the sign of Cancer is consistent with traditional aspects of Zoroastrianism, as well as having parallels in classical texts). The mention of the two lunar nodes (the Head and the Tail of Gōzihr) is also interesting: this implies that the lunar nodes were considered as planetary bodies, which is an innovation that was made in India. In the Indian texts the ascendant node is called Rahu and the descendant one Ketu; Pingree (1997, p. 40; 2004, p. 541) dates this innovation to the late 4th or the 5th century and takes this date as the terminus post quem for the drawing up of the chart (on Gōzihr, see also GŌZIHR; Hartner, 1968). But the most interesting aspect of the zāyč ī gēhān concerns the position of the planets: all of them (with the exception of Mercury) are situated in the sign in which the astrological tradition placed their “exaltation” (MP bālist). The exaltation was the degree of the zodiac in which a planet was believed to exert an especially strong influence: it is obvious, then, that the intent of the text is not so much to describe the actual position of the stars at the moment when the material life of the world began as to depict an ideal, particularly favorable, situation, in which the planetary bodies are in a position of especially great strength (on exaltation, see Bouché-Leclercq, 1899, pp. 192-99; cf. also MacKenzie 1964: 523-524). Although the exact position of the planets is not specified, it can be logically assumed that they are situated in the degree of exaltation. This positioning is borne out by evidence in the text itself, as well as by remarks made in other Pahlavi texts referring to the astral situation at the beginning of the world’s life, and especially in Islamic texts deriving from Middle Persian texts that describe the horoscope of the world (see below), specifying the position of the planets. It should be pointed that the mention of the lunar nodes in this context seems to indicate that the idea of the exaltation of these celestial bodies originated in Sasanian Iran (the degree of their exaltation, as specified by Islamic sources, is 3° Gemini and 3° Sagittarius). It is quite likely that the concept of “horoscope of the world” came to Iran from the West: as a matter of fact, several classical sources speak of a horoscope of the world, attributing its origin to the Egyptians (see especially Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis 3.1.1 and Macrobius, Somnium Scipionis 1.21, 24). In the horoscope that these sources speak of, however, the planets are not in exaltation but in the sign of their “domicile,” another particularly favorable position.

The difference between the zāyč ī gēhān and the classical sources can be understood if it is taken into account that the former coincides with the natal chart of Gayōmard, the first man according to the Zoroastrian tradition (whose earthly life began, like the life of the cosmos, at the beginning of the seventh millennium of Zoroastrian cosmography). The horoscope of Gayōmard is dealt with in Bd. 6 F. 1-5 and Zād. 2.20-21, which mention the positions in the chart of the planets Ohrmazd and Kēwān (in these passages, and in Bd.6 F.6 and Zād. 2.22, the duration of Gayōmard’s life for thirty years is explained on the grounds of the reciprocal position of the two planets). The horoscope of Gayōmard reflects a doctrine that had been elaborated in India, according to which the characteristic feature of the horoscope of an exceptional person is that, at the time of his birth, all the planets are in exaltation. This doctrine is first attested in the 4th-century CE Sanskrit text Yavanajātaka 8, 3-5 e 9, 2. In all likelihood, once this doctrine had been taken over in Iran, it was applied to the horoscope of Gayōmard, and subsequently to the world (possibly changing the structure of its horoscope).

The astral chart of the Iranian world was handed down to later Zoroastrian tradition (it is found, in fact, in the New Persian astrological Rivāyat of the Dastur Bazru) and to other cultural traditions. The first person to take it into account may have been Stephanus Philosophus, an 8th-century Byzantine author. A description of the world horoscope that is practically identical to the one in the Bundahišn was perhaps taken from one of his texts: it is contained in a work by Abū Maʿšar (which has survived only in the Greek translation, entitled Μυστήρια). The Iranian horoscope of the world became remarkably widespread in Islamic circles: first and foremost are the descriptions that occur in the Chronology of Ḥamza al-Eṣfahānī, and in the anonymous Ketāb asrār kalām Hormos, both in Arabic, as well as in the New Persian text Taʿrīḵ-e Ṭabari by Balʿami. Furthermore, the horoscope of the Iranian world was transmitted to the West through translations of Arabic texts: particularly worth mentioning is its presence in a Byzantine text (of uncertain date) where it is presented as being the exposition of the astronomical doctrine of the “Chaldeans.” This text of indirect Iranian descent backed up Bouché-Leclercq’s opinion that the chart with the planets in exaltation had a “Chaldean” origin, unlike the horoscope with the planets in their domicile, which would be of Egyptian origin (see Bouché-Leclercq, 1899, pp. 185-88; 192, n. 1). This interpretation was taken up again by MacKenzie in his 1964 article on chapters 5, 5 A, 5 B e, 6 F of the Bundahišn). Attention should also be drawn to a mention of this horoscope in the Ketāb al-bariʿ by ‘Ali b. Abe’l-Rejāl, a text that was translated into Latin. It is possible that, through the translation of these texts, a doctrine that had set out from the West in the first place returned there in a modified form.

Bibliography:

G. Bezza, “Sulla tradizione del thema mundi,” in A. Panaino and G. Pellegrini, eds., Giovanni Schiaparelli: storico dell'astronomia e uomo di cultura, Milan, 1999, pp. 169-85.

A. Bouché-Leclercq, L’astrologie grecque, Paris, 1899.

W. Hartner, Oriens-Occidens. Ausgewälte Schriften zur Wissenschaft- und Kulturgeschichte. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag I, Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York, 1968.

W. B. Henning, “An Astronomical Chapter of the Bundahišn,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1942, pp. 229-48.

D. N. MacKenzie, “Zoroastrian Astrology in the Bundahišn,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 27, 1964, pp. 511-29.

A. Panaino, Tessere il cielo, Rome, 1998.

G. Pellegrini, “Le configurazioni planetarie e la nascita di Rāma: una comunicazione di G. V. Schiaparelli ad A. Weber,” in A. Panaino and G. Pellegrini, eds., Giovanni Schiaparelli: storico dell'astronomia e uomo di cultura…, Milan, pp. 151-67. D. Pingree, “Indian Influences on Sasanian and Early Islamic Astronomy and Astrology,” in V. Raghavan, ed., Journal of Oriental Research, 34-35 (1964-65/1965-66), Special Volume dedicated to H.H. Sri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati, Madras, 1973, pp. 118-26.

Idem, From Astral Omens to Astrology, from Babylon to Bīkāner, Rome, 1997.

Idem, “Sassanian Astrology in Byzantium,” in La Persia e Bisanzio: convegno internazionale, Roma, 14-18 ottobre 2002, Rome, 2004, pp. 539-53.

E. G. Raffaelli, “The Diagrams of the Zāyč ī gēhān,” East and West, 49, 1999, pp. 285-91.

Idem, L’oroscopo del mondo, Milan, 2001.

(Enrico G. Raffaelli)

______

ZAYN AL-AḴBĀR a history written in 11th century by Gardizi. See GARDIZI.

(Cross-Reference) Originally Published: January 12, 2011

GARDĪZĪ, ABŪ SAʿĪD ʿABD-al-ḤAYY b. Żaḥḥāk b. Maḥmūd, Persian historian of the early 5th/11th century. He was clearly connected with the Ghaznavid court and administration and close to the sultans.

GARDĪZĪ, ABŪ SAʿĪD ʿABD-al-ḤAYY b. Żaḥḥāk b. Maḥmūd, Persian historian of the early 5th/11th century whose exact dates of birth and death are unknown.

His life is almost wholly obscure, although his nesba implies a connection with Gardīz (q.v.) in eastern Afghanistan, and the name Zahāk/Żaḥḥāk seems to have been a popular one in the surrounding region of Zābolestān. He was clearly connected with the Ghaznavid court and administration and close to the sultans, although it is rather strange that Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqī (q.v.) does not mention him in his history (or, at least, not in the extant part). Gardīzī dedicated his history, Zayn al-aḵbar, to Sultan ʿAbd-al-Rašīd b. Maḥmūd (q.v.; 440-43/1049-52), probably when he was an old man.

The Zayn al-aḵbār is written in a concise, in parts even skeletal, form but is only partially extant in two fairly late manuscripts, those of King’s College, Cambridge, and of Oxford, the latter seemingly copied from the former. What we possess of it comprises firstly, a purely historical section dealing with the ancient kings of Persia until the end of the Sasanians; the Prophet Moḥammad (very sketchy); the caliphs up to the ʿAbbasid al-Qāʾem (422-67/1031-75, also very summary); and the various governors and dynasties controlling Khorasan, i.e., eastern Persia, Transoxania, and Afghanistan. The narrative becomes much more detailed once the author reaches the Samanids, and is especially detailed on the disintegration of the Samanid amirate. The origins of Ghaznavid rule, from Alptigin to Sebüktigin (qq.v.), are treated only sketchily, and the connected account of the dynasty only begins with Maḥmūd’s investiture as governor of Khorasan by the caliph al-Qāder in 391/999. From then onwards, however, the narrative is quite detailed, up to the triumph of the Saljuqs and the end of Masʿūd’s reign (421- 32/1030-41), and with a fair number of dates, although the treatment is dry and lacks the liveliness, the analyses of motive, and the critical comments which characterize Bayhaqī’s approach. The story breaks off with the events in the Ghaznavid sultanate of 432/1041, when Mawdūd b. Masʿūd avenged his father’s murder at the hands of an army coup which had temporarily placed Moḥammad b. Maḥmūd on the throne. Since the break is an abrupt one, the history very probably continued up to ʿAbd-al-Rašīd’s own time some ten years later. There then follows what might be called a cultural-historical section: on the eras and festivals of various peoples, including the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Hindus; on the Turkish tribes and other peoples, including the Rūs and Alans, of the Eurasian steppes; and on the ancient Greeks from Alexander to the Ptolemys.

Despite its conciseness, Gardīzī’s work is of the highest value for the Islamic history of eastern Persia. He supplies valuable details on the rise of the Saffarids in Sīstān and on the history in Khorasan and Transoxania of the Samanids. His source here was almost certainly the lost Taʾrīḵ wolāt Ḵorāsān of the shadowy Samanid author Abū ʿAlī Ḥosayn b. Aḥmad Sallāmī Bayhaqī, a protégé of the Chaghanids, whose material seems to go up to 344/955; after this point, Gardīzī’s source for later Samanid history was probably the continuation of Sallāmī’s work (also lost), the Mazīd al-tārīḵ fī aḵbār Ḵorāsān of Abū Ḥasan Moḥammad b. Solaymān. For early Ghaznavid history, he must have used contemporary material plus his own direct experience of events; for his account of the Ghaznavid Sultan Maḥmūd’s sultanate, he avers that he witnessed the greater part of events personally, at the amir’s side (ed. Nazim, pp. 61-62, ed. Ḥabībī, pp. 173-74).

The cultural-historical section contains equally valuable information. That on the Turkish and other peoples of Inner Asia and eastern Europe was used by Barthold (who first published extracts, with translations, on the Turks and on the history of Central Asia from the Zayn al-aḵbār in Zapiski Imp. Akad. Nauk po Ist. Phil. Otd., ser. 8, 1/4, 1897, pp. 78-128, and then in the volume of texts accompanying his Turkestan, I, St. Petersburg, 1900, pp. 1-18) in his Turkestan, etc., and by Marquart (pp. 89-93, 97 ff.). Gardīzī’s source here was probably the Samanid vizier Abū ʿAbd-Allāh Moḥammad b. Aḥmad Jayhānī, to whose (lost) work he refers in his narrative of Samanid history as Jayhānī’s Ketāb-e tawārīḵ; Gardīzī further refers in glowing terms to the vizier’s skill and learning, stating that he allegedly sent for information on administrative practices in all parts of the world, from China to Byzantium and the land of the Zanj, and then adopted the best of them for use in the Samanid chancery at Bokhara (ed. Nazim, pp. 25-26, ed. Ḥabībī, p. 150). Minorsky pointed out (pp. 626-27) that Gardīzī also probably used Jayhānī for his section on the beliefs, sects, and castes of the Indians; furthermore, the historian knew Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī (q.v.) personally, and his section on the festivals of the Indians is demonstrably based on Bīrūnī’s India (loc. cit.). Gardīzī’s approach to contemporary history is dispassionate for his time; thus he is neither adulatory of Sultan Maḥmūd nor savagely condemnatory of the incoming Saljuqs. His Persian style is usually simple, what Bahār called a “mature and flowing” one, and he connects it with the oldest period of Persian prose- writing, with stylistic affinities to the Samanid vizier Balʿamī’s translation of Ṭabarī’s history (Sabk-šenāsī II, pp. 50-52; cf. Lazard, pp. 71-74).

Bibliography:

Editions. Barthold was the first to publish extracts from the Zayn al-aḵbār. An edition of the historical section covering the Taherids to the Ghaznavids was made by Muhammad Nazim, Kitab Zainu’l-Akhbar, E. G. Browne Memorial Series 1. Berlin- Stieglitz, 1928; this was used as the basis for subsequent Tehran prints, e.g., 1315 Š./1936. The whole surviving text was not published until the critical edition of ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī, Tehran, 1347 Š./1968.

Studies. W. Barthold, “Gardīzī,” in EI2 II, pp. 978.

C. E. Bosworth, “Early Sources for the History of the First Four Ghaznavid Sultans (977-1041),” IQ 9, 1965, pp. 8-10; repr. in The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, London, 1977. ʿA.-Ḥ. Ḥabībī, “Mowarreḵ-e waṭan ʿAbd-al-Ḥayy Gardīzī,” ʿErfān 30, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 67 ff. G.Lazard, La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane, Paris, 1963.

Marquart, “Über das Volkstum der Komanen” in W. Bang and J. Marquart, Osttürkische Dialektstudien, Berlin, 1914.

V. Minorsky, “Gardīzī on India,” BSOAS 12, 1948, pp. 625-40; repr. in Bīst maqāla/Iranica: Twenty Articles, Tehran, 1964, pp. 200–215.

M. Qazvīnī, “Moqaddama-ye Ketāb-e zayn al-aḵbār,” in M. Qazvīnī, Bīst maqāla-ye Qazvīnī, 2 vols., Tehran, 1332 Š./1953, II, pp. 257-63.

Storey, I, pp. 65-66, 1229. Storey-Bregel, I, pp. 288-91.

(C. Edmund Bosworth)

Originally Published: December 15, 2000

Last Updated: February 2, 2012

______ZEFRA mountainous district and village northeast of Isfahan, best known for its dialect. This article is divided into two sections: i. The district ii. The dialect

ZEFRA, mountainous district and village northeast of Isfahan, best known for its dialect. This article is divided into two sections:

i. The district

ii. The dialect

(Multiple Authors)

______

ZEFRA i. The District mountainous district and village northeast of Isfahan. Historical documents have little mention of Zefra. Nevertheless the village is embellished with a fine congregational mosque from the Saljuq era with subsequent renovations; the mosque’s antique gate and pulpit are dated 790/1388 and 791/1389, respectively.

ZEFRA i. The District

Located 70 km northeast of Isfahan (lat 32°54′ N, long 52°7′ E) at an elevation of 2,070 m above sea level, Zefra is the administrative center of Zefra sub-district (dehestān) in Kuhpāya district (baḵš), Isfahan sub-province (šahrestān), Isfahan Province (ostān). (There is another village by the name of Zefra/Jefra on the Zāyandarud River in Lenjān district.) The district of Zefra lies in a meander valley on the southern foothills of the Karkas/Kargas range, which separates Zefra from Ardestān. The district has some thirty hamlets, including Lušun Darra, Čāh Sorḵ, Randavān, Bāḡ-e Gol, Lāvāni, Kiči, Surča, Pesāb/Pisāb-e Bālā, Pesāb-e Pāʾin, Ussāči, Vādār, Šastpā, Alakči, Ābegarm, Dizi, Lādura, Ḥini, Qalʿa Kohna, Āb Gonješk, and Fešārk-e Kohna. The levelness of Zefra's population over three decades (1,848 in 1966 and 1,747 in 1996; Markaz-e āmār-e Irān, 1966; idem, 1996) indicates that massive emigration counteracted high natural population growth. In 2013, Zefra had a permanent population of roughly 2,000 individuals, with an influx of about 1,000 over the weekends by the younger people, who drove from Isfahan to visit their families (author’s field notes).

Located in a mountainous setting with Nečaft or Māršnān as the highest peak, Zefra belongs to the cold climate (sardsir) and has rich pastureland (Figure 1). A stream cuts across the village, and there are four natural hot springs in the district. Its flora includes čubak (used as laundry detergent), wild rue, broom (jāz), barberry (zerešk), and thorny shrubs (ḵār) (Rajāʾi Zefraʾi, 1995). Zefra was famous for its tragacanth (katirā), a natural gum obtained from the dried sap of tragantgummi (buta-ye katirā, gavan), a species of Middle Eastern legumes (idem, 1994e). Wild animals of the district are wolf, fox, jackal, rabbit, sable (musula), porcupine (taši), and hedgehog (jujatiḡi), but leopards have vanished since the 1970s. The birds include sparrow, partridge (kabk), see-see partridge (teyhu), pigeon, ringdove (puḵtär; Pers. fāḵta), kākoli, sangḵᵛārak, domsanja, crow, magpie (lašgarak), owl, falcon (bāz), hawk (šāhin), vulture (karkas), hoopoe (hodhod), and woodpecker (see also Rajāʾi Zefraʾi, 1974b; idem, 1974c).

Historical documents have little mention of Zefra. Nevertheless the village is embellished with a fine congregational mosque from the Saljuq era with subsequent renovations; the mosque’s antique gate and pulpit are dated 790/1388 and 791/1389, respectively (Figure 3, Figure 4). The façade of the mosque looks entirely modern (Figure 2); the inside is rustic plain, with thick walls, vaults, and columns (Figure 5). Within the mosque’s structure, Maxime Siroux distinguished a core construction, roughly square in shape, supplemented by later additions (Siroux, 1971, tr., p. 42; idem, 1973) The gravestones of the village’s cemetery bear some old dates, but none earlier than ca. 1000/1591. An early reference to Zefra might be the “Govra” on the 1747 map drawn by Emanuel Bowen. Valentine Zhukovskiĭ describes Zefra as a large, picturesque village administered by Kupā (see KUHPĀYA). He states that the villagers were very poor and utilized the most rudimentary agricultural tools, household utensils, and arms. The great famine of 1870-72 (see FAMINES IN PERSIA) resulted in a notable drop in Zefra’s population of 400 households (Zhukovskiĭ, p. vii).

The traditional economy of Zefra and its hamlets was based on the system of small holders (ḵorda mālek), in which the villagers were peasant proprietors. The chief economic infrastructure was four chains of subterranean channels (kāriz)—called Nečaft, Mazraʿa Qāder, Mazraʿa Tāza, and Zefra—which were linearly configured (Rajāʾi Zefraʾi, 1999a). The irrigation water, divided into 24 tāqs, each consisting of 35 habbas, was allocated until World War II by means of runa (Pers. tās o ṭaštak), a simple water clock (see CLOCKS). Each tāq was administrated by a water distributor (abwāb-jamʿ or ṣāḥeb tāq), who was rewarded with one habba of the water (sarek; Rajāʾi Zefraʾi, 1983b; idem, 1984). The native measure of land is also called habba, equivalent to 366.4 square meters; a habba is divided into 20 gerā, measuring 18.32 square meters. Weight was measured by a local maund called man-e kohna (4.8 kg), which was also used in the rest of Kuhpāya district with slight variation in the magnitude (Rajāʾi Zefraʾi, 2009). However, Zefraʾi peasants would use the royal maund (man-e šāh = 6 kg) to sell their goods in Isfahan; these included tragacanth and almonds, as well as wool, soft wool (kork), and ghee, which constituted the major products of Zefra animal husbandry (idem, 1996) that were exported to Isfahan by local muleteers (idem, 1985a; idem, 1997c; idem, 1998).

Chief agricultural products are wheat, almonds, mulberries, and especially a local species of corn (ḏorrat-e safid-e ḵuša-ʿaṣāʾi), the cultivation of which had a sharp decline in the late 20th century (Rajāʾi Zefraʾi, 1983e). Also important are alfalfa, barley, walnuts, and fruits. The village used to have five water mills (Bālā, Miāna, Pāʾin, Sarčašma, Gelčāla), which were replaced by modern mills during the period 1960s-1980s. Most of the population is engaged in farming, animal husbandry, and gardening and horticulture (bāḡ-dāri). A good number of village men go to the wastelands in the summer to collect tragacanth (idem, 1994d). Weaving carpets, carrying the Nāʾin (q.v.) design, was particular to women (idem, 2006), who were also engaged in other cottage industries (idem, 2003). A distinguished local industry during the 1930s-1950s was making cotton shoes (see GIVA), the sole of which was crafted by men and the top by women (idem, 1997a).

Zefra began to be equipped with modern administrative and educational infrastructure under Reżā Shah Pahlavi (r. 1924-41). The number of shops of Zefra dwindled from about thirty-five in the 1940s (Razmārā, p. 104) to fifteen in the first decade of the 21st century (field notes). A modern source of employment for the villagers has been Isfahan Steel Mill (see ISFAHAN xiv. Modern Economy And Industries (1) Modern Economy of the Province). In spite of its administrative affiliation with Kuhpāya, Zefra has been economically and communicationally connected primarily to the city of Isfahan, where Zefraʾis have built a ḥosayniya of their own (Ḥosayniya-ye Zefraʾihā).

Bibliography:

Emanuel Bowen, A New and Accurate Map of Persia, with the Adjacent Countries, London, 1747; facs. ed. by Sahab Geographic and Drafting Institute, Tehran, 1972.

Markaz-e āmār-e Irān, Village Gazetteer: farhang-e ābādihā-ye kešvar VII: Ostān-e Eṣfahān, Tehran, 1969. Idem, Sāzmān-e barnāma wa budja: amār-nāma-ye ostān-e Eṣfahān, annually as of 1971; substituted by Sāl-nāma-ye āmāri- e ostān-e Eṣfahān, per annum since 1995.

Moḥammad-Ḥasan Rajāʾi Zefraʾi, “Yārgiri [a children’s game in Zefra],” Payām-e navin 10/5, 1973, p. 64.

Idem, “Baʿż-i az abzārhā-ye kešāvarzi o maḥalli-e lahja-ye mardom-e Zefra,” Huḵt 25/10, 1974a, pp. 25 ff.

Idem, “Parandagān o bāvarhā-ye ʿāmmiyāna,” Šekār o ṭabiʿat, no. 170, Dey 1352 Š./1974b, pp. 38-39.

Idem “Jānevar dar farhang-e āmmiiāna-ye Zefra,” Šekār o ṭabiʿat, no. 172, Esfand 1352 Š./1974c, p. 43.

Idem, “Farhang-e mardom: tut dare ābādi-e Zefra,” Irān honar 5, Dey 1359 Š./ 1980, pp. 25, 43.

Idem, “Fehrest-e nosḵahā-ye ḵaṭṭi-e marbuṭ ba ābādi-e Zefra,” Ketāb-dāri 9, 1983a, pp. 234-41.

Idem, “Paḵš-e āb ba raveš-e sonnati [dar] rustā-ye Zefra-ye Kuhpāya-ye Eṣfahān,” Foruhar 18, 1983b, pp. 398-402.

Idem, “Vāža-nāma-ye čupāni-e ābādi-e zefra,” Foruhar 18, 1983c, pp. 503-11.

Idem, “Nowruz dar Zefra, Kuhpāya-ye Eṣfahān,” Foruhar 18, 1983d, pp. 897-901.

Idem, “Ḏorrat-e safid dar ābādi-e Zefra ...,” Kešāvarz 4, no. 47, Ābān 1362 Š./1983e, pp. 76, 78.

Idem, “Taqsim-e āb-e kešāvarzi bā raveš-e sonnati dar ābādi-e Zefra,” Kešāvarz, no. 50, Bahman 1362 Š./1984, pp. 70-71.

Idem, “Vāžahā wa farhang-e marbuṭ ba čārvādāri dar ābādi-e Zefra-ye Kuhpāya-ye Eṣfahān,” Rāh o bār, no. 5, Dey 1363 Š./1985a, pp. 656-60.

Idem, “Vāža-nāma-ye kešāvarzi-e rustā-ye Zefra,” Kešāvarz, no. 66, Khordād 1364 Š./1985b, p. 45; nos. 76-77, Farvardin- Ordibehešt 1365 Š./1986a, p. 91.

Idem, “ʿId-e Borā: Nowruz dar ābādi-e Zefra,” Čistā 3, 1986b, pp. 495-500.

Idem, “Tut-takāni dar rustā-ye Zefra,” Čistā 4, 1986c, pp. 299-301.

Idem, “Barrasi-e yak qabāla-ye ezdewāj dar ābādi-e Zefra,” in Fereydun Jonaydi, ed., Nāma-ye farhang-e Irān II, Tehran, 1986d, pp. 89-94.

Idem, “Sang-zani,” Farhang-e Irānzamin 26, 1986e, pp. 371-77.

Idem, “Zefra,” Čistā 5, 1366-67 Š./1988, pp. 236-38.

Idem, “Marāsem o guyeš-e mardom-e Zefra,” in Dar zamina-ye Irān-šenāsi, Tehran, 1989, pp. 87-92.

Idem, “Farhang-e mardom-e Zefra,” Simorḡ (Tehran) 1/2, 1368 Š./1990, pp. 44-45.

Idem, “Vāža-nāma-ye ḵerman-kubi ba raveš-e sonnati dar ābādi- e Zefra,” Irān-šenāsi (Tehran) 1/2, 1991, pp. 24-26.

Idem. “Ḡeḏāhā-ye mahalli,” Ḵabar-e jonub (Shiraz) 14, no. 3338, 15 Ordibehešt 1372/1993, p. 13.

Idem, “Farhang-e mardom, ādāb o rosum-e šekār: dehestāne Zefra,” Majalla-ye šekār o dustdārān-e ṭabiʿat, no. 12, Bahman- Esfand 1371 Š./1993a, pp. 18-19.

Idem, “Sang-zani dar markaz-e dehestān-e Zefra,” Ḵabar-e jonub, no. 3421, 27 Mordād 1372 Š./1993b, p. 13. Idem, “Zefra-ye Kuhpāya-ye Eṣfahān,” Ḵabar-e jonub 14, no. 3444, 24 Šahrivar 1372 Š./1993c, p. 13.

Idem, “Dallāk, Zefra-ye Kuhpāya,” Ḵabar-e jonub 15, no. 3505, 3 Āḏar 1372 Š./1993d, p. 13.

Idem, “Zemestān,” Ḵabar-e jonub 15, no. 3534, 8 Dey 1372/1994a, p. 13.

Idem, “Māh-e Ramażān dar ābādi-e Zefra” Ḵabar-e jonub 15, no. 3587, 11 Esfand 1372 Š./1994b, p. 13; no. 3593, 18 Esfand 1372 Š./1994c, p. 13.

Idem, “Nowruz dar Zefra,” Ruzegār-e waṣl 1/3-4, Esfand 1372– Farvardin 1373 Š./1994d, p. 17.

Idem, “Katirā-zani dar Zefra,” Ḵabar-e jonub 15, no. 3728, 9 Šahrivar 1373 Š./1994e, p. 13.

Idem, “Deraḵtčahā, butahā, ʿalafhā,” Ḵabar-e jonub 17, no. 4061, 26 Mehr 1374 Š./1995, p. 9.

Idem, “Dām-dāri ba raveš-e sonnati dar dehestān-e Zefra ...,” Ḵabar-e jonub 17, no. 4136, 27 Dey 1374 Š./1996, p. 9.; no. 4159, 25 Bahman 1374 Š./1996, p. 9; no. 4213, 25 Ordibehešt 1375 Š./1996, p. 9. Idem, “Giva: taḵt-kaši, giva-bāfi [dar] Zefra,” Ḵabar-e jonub, no. 4564, 18 Tir 1376 Š./1997a, p. 6.

Idem, “Farhang-e mardom-e dehestān-e Zefra ...,” Ḵabar-e jonub, no. 4647, 23 Mehr 1376 Š./1997b, p. 6.

Idem, “Čārvādāri,” Ḵabar-e jonub 19, no. 4700, 26 Āḏar 1376 Š./1997c, p. 6; no. 4706, 3 Dey 1376 Š./1998, p. 6.

Idem, “Qanāt,” ʿAṣr (Shiraz) 4, no. 878, 31 Farvardin 1378 Š./1999a.

Idem, “Sang-zani,” Faṣl-nāma-ye teʾātr, nos. 18-19, 1378 Š./1999b, pp. 189-206.

Idem, “Bayāż-e taʿzia,” Faṣl-nāma-ye teʾātr, nos. 29-30, 2002, pp. 177-210.

Idem, “Humuni, Ḡarbi wa ḵik: honarhā-ye dasti-e zanān-e Zefra” Faṣl-nāma-ye farhang-e mardom, nos. 6-7, 2003, pp. 69-71.

Idem, “Morur-i bar āyin-e sugvāri dar rustā-ye Zefra, Eṣfahān,” Farhang-e mardom-e Irān, nos. 3-4, 2004, pp. 119-34.

Idem, “Bāfandagi,” in M.-ʿA. Ebrāhimi, ed., Ba bahāna-ye noḵostin hamāyeš-e sarāsari-e guyešhā-ye maḥalli o mardom- šenāsi: Anārak, Isfahan, 2006, pp. 181-83.

Idem, “Andāza-giri dar rustā,” in Iraj Afšār, ed., Pažuhešhā-ye irān-šenāsi 18, 2009, pp. 247-57.

Idem, “Šāl-ba-galu kardan viža-ye 28 Safar dar Zefra,” Aṣr-e mardom (Shiraz), no. 3977, 15 Bahman 1388 Š./2010, p. 7.

Ḥosayn-ʿAli Razmārā, ed., Farhang-e joḡrāfiāʾi-e Irān (ābādihā) X, Tehran, 1950, p. 104.

Maxime Siroux, Anciennes voies et monuments routiers de la région d’Isfahan, Cairo, 1971; tr. Mehdi Mašāyeḵi, as Rāhhā-ye bāstāni-e nāḥia-ye Eṣfahān o banāhā-ye vābasta badānhā, Tehran, 1978.

Idem, “L’évolution des antiques mosquées rurales de la région d’Ispahan,” Arts asiatiques 26, 1973, pp. 65-112.

Masʿud Mirzā Ẓell-al-Solṭān, Tāriḵ-e sargoẕašt-e maʿudi (Ẓell-al- Solṭān), n.p., 1325/1907, p. 187.

Valentin A. Zhukovskiĭ, Materialy dlya izucheniya persidskikh narechiĭ I: Dialekty polosy goroda Kashana: Vonishun, Kokhrud, Keshe, Zefre (Materials for studying Iranian dialects I. Dialects of the outskirts of Kashan: Vānišān, Qohrud, Keša, Zefra), St. Petersburg, 1888. (Mohammad-Hasan Raja’i Zefra’i and Habib Borjian)

______

ZEǏMAL’, Evegeniǐ Vladislavovich

(1932-1998), Russian numismatist and historian of ancient Iran and Central Asia.

ZEǏMAL’, Evegeniǐ Vladislavovich (b. Moscow, 10 March 1932; d. St. Petersburg, 6 May 1998), Russian numismatist and historian of ancient Iran and Central Asia. His father, Vladislav Ivanovich Zeǐmal’, a Latvian, and his mother, Ol’ga Iosifovna, were repressed by Stalin’s regime in 1937, and Evgeniǐ was brought up by his aunt in Leningrad. In 1950 Zeǐmal’ became a student of the Oriental Faculty of the Leningrad (at present St. Petersburg) University, specializing in Turkology, but in 1953 he transferred to the Faculty of History. After graduating, he moved to Dushanbe (at that time, Stalinabad) in Tajikistan. At first he worked in the Tajik archeological expedition and later was employed by the Tajik Republican Radio broadcasting system. From 1956 to 1959 he acted as the director of the Department of History of the Dushanbe Museum. By that time, a circle of young intellectuals had formed in Dushanbe, who later became the elite of Russian Oriental studies, among them B. A. Litvinskiǐ, V. A. Livshits, I. M. Oranskiǐ (1923-1977), B. I. Marshak (1933-2006), and E. A. Davidovich. They grouped around the so-called Avestan Seminar directed by V. A. Livshits.

In 1956-57 Zeǐmal’ joined the Tajik archeological expedition again, at that time directed by A. M. Belenitskiǐ (b. 1904), and later he headed his own archeological team which carried out excavations in the Gissar (see HEṢĀR) valley in Tajikistan. Zeǐmal’ studied ancient coins in local museums and investigated the circumstances of the discovery of the famous Oxus Treasure, suggesting that it had come from the site of Tahti Kubad (Taḵt-e Qobād) in southern Tajikistan. His first article on the Oxus Treasure appeared in 1962. In 1959 he returned to Leningrad to become a post-graduate student at the Hermitage Museum. Professor Kamilla Trever (1892-1974) became the supervisor of his doctorate thesis which was devoted to the study of coins of the Kushan kingdom. Zeǐmal’ also participated in Trever’s seminar on art and culture of the Hellenistic period.

Kushan chronology was, and still is, one of the principal problems in the history of Central Asia. Zeǐmal’ wrote several works on the subject. The first publication appeared as abstracts in 1964; his book Kushan Chronology came out in 1968; and his last paper on the matter was delivered in 1996 at the Kushan conference in Vienna. The relatively late date (278 C.E.) suggested for the initial year of Kanishka’s reign probably resulted from Zeǐmal’s critical attitude towards the tendency to “antiquate” certain cultures by the scholars who studied them. His book Kushan Chronology became a starting point for polemics centered on this problem, urging many specialists all over the world to prove their own points of view. Zeǐmal’ did much to inspire the last conference on Kushan chronology held in Vienna in April 1996.

Zeǐmal’s archeological investigations were always connected with numismatics. When working in Tajikistan, he started to assemble materials for his monograph Ancient Coins of Tajikistan (published in 1983, written together with E. A. Davidovich). He published coins found at many sites in Central Asia, viewing them in connection with the stratigraphy of the sites and also within the general context of other finds. Zeǐmal’s scholarly interests included history and culture of Hellenistic civilization and of the Parthian kingdom in different periods of its history, pre-Islamic Central Asia, Chinese Turkestan, archeology, numismatics, Oriental metalwork, theoretical problems connected with monetary circulation, and the minting of the “barbaric imitations” of Hellenistic, Parthian, and Sasanian coins.

Among the works he translated into Russian are The Heritage of Persia by Richard Frye and The Golden Peaches of Samarqand by Edward Schafer (translated together with V. A. Livshits, edited by M. A. Dandamaev). Zeǐmal’ also prepared for publication some of the Russian versions of the numerous scholarly works by V. V. Barthold (1869-1930). In the very last days of his life Zeǐmal’ was working on the publication of Ya. I. Smirnov’s book Oriental Silverware. Under the invitation of the British Museum, Zeǐmal’ worked together with John Curtis on a new publication of the catalogue of the Oxus Treasure, one of the favorite subjects of his studies.

For the last twelve years of his life Zeǐmal’ was the head of the Ancient East section of the Oriental Department of the Hermitage Museum. He devoted all his energy and knowledge to the development and promotion of Oriental studies. His scholarly heritage includes over 150 publications. Several international conferences and exhibitions of Oriental art and archeology took place due to his efforts. Bibliography:

Selected works of E. V. Zeǐmal’: “Klad rimskikh denariev iz Tadzhikistana” (A Hoard of Roman Denarii from Tajikistan), Numizmatika i èpigrafika 3, Moscow, 1962, pp. 141-46.

“Esche raz o meste nakhodki Amudar’inskogo klada” (Once again about the place of finding the Oxus Treasure), Izvestiya Otdeleniya Obshchestvennykh nauk AN Tadzhikskoǐ SSR 1(28), 1962, pp. 40-45 (together with T. I. Zeǐmal’).

“Shiva na monetakh Velikikh Kushan” (Shiva on the Coins of the Great Kushans),” Tezisy dokladov nauchnoǐ sessii, posvyaschennoǐ itogam raboty Gosudarstvennogo E`rmitazha za 1962 god, Leningrad, 1964, pp. 40-41.

“Monety Velikikh Kushan v Gosudarstvennom E`rmitazhe” (Coins of the Great Kushans in the State Hermitage Museum), Trudy Gosudarstvennogo E`rmitazha 9, Leningrad, 1967, pp. 55- 86.

Kushanskaya khronologiya (materialy po probleme), (Kushan Chronology: materials for the subject), Moscow, 1968.

R. N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia, New York, 1963; tr.

V. A. Livshits and E. V. Zeǐmal’, ed. M. A. Dandamaev as Nasledie Irana, Moscow, 1972a.

“Tali-barzinskiǐ klad monet s izobrazheniem luchnika” (The Tali- Barzu hoard of coins with the image of an archer), Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo E`rmitazha 34, 1972b, pp. 70- 75.

“Rannesogdiǐskie monety s izobrazheniem Zevsa i Gerakla” (Early Sogdian coins with representations of Zeus and Heracles), Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo E`rmitazha 37, 1973, pp. 68-73.

“Monety Zapadnykh Kshatrapov v kollektsii Gosudarstvennogo E`rmitazha” (Coins of the Western Kshatrapas in the collection of the State Hermitage Museum), in Kul’tura i iskusstvo Indii i stran Dal’nego Vostoka (Culture and art of India and of the countries of the Far East), ed. E. I. Lubo-Lesnichenko, Leningrad, 1975, pp. 4-20.

“Politicheskaya istoriya drevneǐ Transoksiany po numizmaticheskim dannym” (Political history of ancient Transoxania on the basis of numismatic data), Kul’tura Vostoka. Drevnost’ i rannee srednevekov’e, ed. V. G. Lukonin, Leningrad, 1978, pp. 192-214.

Amudar’inskiǐ klad. Katalog vystavki (The Oxus Treasure: Exhibition catalogue), ed. E. V. Zeǐmal’, Leningrad, 1979. E. H. Shafer, The Golden Peaches of Samarkand: a Study of T’ang Exotics, Berkeley, Calif., 1963, repr. 1985; tr.

E. V. Zeǐmal’ as Zolotye persiki Samarkanda: kniga o chuzhezemnykh dikovinakh v imperii Tan, Moscow, 1981.

“Parfyanskiǐ luchnik i ego proiskhozhdenie” (The Parthian archer and his origin), Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo E`rmitazha 47, 1982, pp. 46-49.

Drevnie monety Tadzhikistana (Ancient coins of Tajikistan), Dushanbe, 1983a (together with E. A. Davidovich).

“The Political History of Transoxiana,” The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3 (1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge, 1983b, pp. 232-62.

“Problèmes de circulation monétaire dans la Bactriane hellénistique,” Actes du Colloque franco-soviétique. L’archéologie de la Bactriane ancienne, Dushanbe (U.R.S.S.), 27 octobre - 3 novembre 1982, Paris, 1985, pp. 273-79.

Drevnosti Pal’miry. Katalog vystavki (Antiquities of Palmyra: Exhibition catalogue), ed. E. V. Zeǐmal’, Leningrad, 1986.

“Pravitel’ Parfii Andragor i ego monety” (The ruler of Parthia, Andragoras, and his coins), VDI, 1988, no. 4, pp. 4-19 (together with I. M. Diakonoff).

“The Circulation of Coins in Central Asia During the Early Medieval Period (Fifth-Eighth Centuries A.D.),” Bulletin of the Asia Institute, N.S. 8, 1994, pp. 245-67.

“Denezhnoe obrashchenie v Vostochnom Turkestane” (Money circulation in Eastern Turkestan), in Vostochnyǐ Turkestan v drevnosti i rannem srednevekov’e. Khozyaǐstvo, material’naya kul’tura, ed. B. A. Litvinskiǐ, Moscow, 1995, pp. 430-73, 478-80.

“The Kidarite Kingdom in Central Asia,” in History of civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750, ed. B. A. Litvinsky, Zhang Guang- da, and R. Shabani Samghabadi, Paris, 1996, pp. 119-33.

“The Coins from the Excavations of Takht-i Sangin (1976-1991),” in Studies in Silk Road Coins Art and Culture. Papers in Honour of Professor Ikuo Hirayama on his 65th Birthday, ed. K. Tanabe, J. Cribb, and H. Wang, Kamakura, 1997a, pp. 89-110.

“Visha-Shiva in the Kushan Pantheon,” in Gandharan Art in Context: East-West Exchanges at the Crossroads of Asia, ed. F. R. Allchin et al., New Delhi, 1997b, pp. 245-66.

(Alexander Nikitin)

______ZEKRAWAYH B. MEHRAWAYH

10th-century Ismaʿili missionary in Iraq.

ZEKRAWAYH B. MEHRAWAYH (actually: Zakaroya b. Mehroya; b. unknown; d. Wādi Ḏi Qār, 294/907), one of the first Ismaʿili missionaries (dāʿi) in Iraq. He came from the village of Maysāniya near the town Ṣawʾar on the Ḥadd canal, southwest of Kufa, four miles to the west of Qādesiya, on the western edge of the Mesopotamian cultivated “black land” (sawād). His father, Mehrawayh, had been one of the first followers of the dāʿi ʿAbdān, the brother-in-law of Ḥamdān Qarmaṭ, the leader of the Qarmati movement around Kufa and an early convert to Ismaʿilism. ʿAbdān had appointed the young Zekawayh as dāʿi of his home district of Ṣaylaḥin, where he had success in proselytizing the Bedouin clan of Tamim, of the tribe of Kolayb. Probably on the order of the supreme chief of the Ismaʿili movement, who at that time lived clandestinely in Salamiya in Syria, Zekrawayh, in the year 286/899, arranged for the assassination of his master ʿAbdān, in order to get the leadership of the Iraqi Ismaʿili communities into his own hands. But, unmasked as the instigator of the murder, he was forced to flee for his life from the seekers of vengeance and to remain underground for a year; then, in the year 287/900, he resurfaced and “tried to lead astray those Bedouin of the Asad, Ṭayyeʾ, Tamim, and other tribes who lived (as nomads) in the neighborhood of Kufa, proselytizing among them for his doctrine” (Ṭabari, iii, IV, p. 2217).

His efforts among the Bedouins having failed, Zekrawayh looked for a new field of his mission. He himself remained in his hiding place in Iraq and in 288/901 sent his son Ḥosayn into the Samāwa desert in Syria to the great tribal confederation of the Kalb, who controlled the Syrian desert between Kufa and Damascus via Palmyra, transporting couriers and commercial wares on their dromedaries. Ḥosayn b. Zekrawayh was successful in proselytizing two clans, the Banu’l-ʿOllays and the Banu’l-Aṣbaḡ, making propaganda for an imam from among the descendants of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil b. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq. This “imam” evidently was the subsequent first Fatemid caliph al- Mahdi, then living in Salamiya, on whose behalf Zekrawayh and his sons were acting. In the autumn of 289/902, Zekrawayh sent a nephew and then his second son Yaḥyā into the Palmyrene. The latter gained great prestige among the Bedouins, who called him the shaikh and “the man with the she-camel” (ṣāḥeb al- nāqa), because he rode an unbridled she-camel, which was guided only by God’s decree. His followers called themselves “Fatemids” (Fāṭemiyun or Fawāṭem; Ṭabari, iii, IV, p. 2219; Nowayri, XXV, p. 247; Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, p. 68).

The activities of Zekrawayh’s sons, Yaḥyā Ṣāḥeb-al-Nāqa and Ḥosayn Ṣāḥeb al- Šāma (also called Ṣāḥeb-al-Ḵāl, the man with the birthmark) in Syria during the years 288-90/901-3 without doubt were in conformity with the intentions of their father, who again had hid himself, but they seem to have acted without and even against the orders from the Ismaʿili headquarters in Salamiya. They evidently tried to accelerate the appearance of the promised Mahdi (see ISLAM IN IRAN vi. THE CONCEPT OF MAHDI IN SUNNI ISLAM), and, thinking that they were acting in accordance with the Mahdi’s intentions, they hoped to lead him in triumph into Damascus, thereby giving the signal for a general uprising against the caliphate of Baghdad. But the precipitate enterprise failed; Yaḥyā was killed by an arrow (290/903) during his siege of Damascus (December 902-July 903). His brother, who conquered Ḥāma, Ḥemṣ, Maʿarrat al- Noʿmān, and Afāmiya in the Orontes valley and Baʿalbak, now had the Mahdi’s rule proclaimed, mentioning the Fatemid al- Mahdi, namely, ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi, in the Friday prayer and placing it on the coinage, but in vain he implored him (who had fled to Ramla in Palestine) to manifest himself. On 6 Moḥarram 291/29 November 903, the Bedouin bands of the Ṣāḥeb-al-Šāma Ḥosayn were defeated by the Abbasid minister (kāteb divān al- jayš) Moḥammad b. Solaymān near the village of Tamnaʿ, east of Maʿarrat al-Noʿmān; in Rabiʿ I 291/February 904, Ḥosayn, the Man with the Birthmark (Ṣāḥeb-al-Ḵāl), and more than 300 of his followers were executed in Baghdad. For ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi, the Fatemid al-Mahdi, the outcome of the venture proved to be disastrous; he had to flee clandestinely with his family from Palestine, first to Egypt and then to the distant Maḡreb. The later Fatemid sources therefore disavow the venture of the sons of Zekrawayh as a treacherous rebellion (Daftary, pp. 123-28).

As for Zekrawayh himself, the ruin of his sons seems not to have discouraged him. In 293/906 one of his missionaries, Abu Ḡānem Naṣr, with a band of Kalbite Bedouins, looted Boṣrā, Derʿa, the villages of the Ḥowrān, and Tiberias (Ṭabariya) and in vain menaced Damascus and Hit on the Euphrates. On 10 ḏu’l- Ḥejja 293/2 October 906, 800 Fatemid horsemen fell upon the Kufans, who had just returned from the feast of the sacrifice outside the city, and looted them, but were not able to conquer the city. Now Zekrawayh, after seven years of concealment, came out of his hiding-place in his home town Ṣawʾar and took the lead of his followers, who in mid-October won a brilliant victory over the Abbasid troops sent from Baghdad. He then lurked in ambush, some 25 km south of Qādesiya, waiting for the pilgrim caravans returning from Mecca. After having looted the second of the three caravans, on 22 Rabiʿ I 294/10 January 907, Zekrawayh’s bands were overcome and scattered by government troops near the oasis of Fayd (in present-day northern Saudi Arabia). Zekrawayh was fatally wounded. With his death the Fatemid daʿwa among the Bedouin tribes of the Syrian desert came to an end, but in Iraq the rumor still lingered for some time that Zekrawayh was not dead and that soon he would reappear. The interrogation of his brother-in-law provided the Baghdad authorities (and the chronicler Ṭabari) with their first reliable information concerning the clandestine Ismaʿili daʿwa organization (Ṭabari, iii, IV, pp. 2277-78.

Bibliography:

ʿArib b. Saʿd, Tabarî Continuatus, ed. Michael J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1965, pp. 9-18, 36.

Farhad Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs: Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 122-24.

Ebn al-Dawādāri, Kanz al-dorar wa jāmeʿ al-ḡorar VI, Cairo, 1961, pp. 47-89.

Heinz Halm, “Zakarawayh,” in EI2 XI, 2002, p. 405.

Idem, “Die Söhne Zikrawaihs und des erste Fatimidische Kalifat (290/903),” Die Welt des Orients 10, 1979, pp. 30-53.

Idem, The Empire of the Mahdi: The Rise of the Fatimids, Leiden 1996, pp. 64-88, 183-190. Aḥmad Naysāburi, Estetār al-emām, ed. Vladimir Ivanow, in Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Cairo 1936, pp. 97-102.

Šehāb-al-Din Aḥmad Nowayri, Nehāyat al-arab fi fonun al-adab XXV, Cairo, 1984, pp. 246-48, 273 ff.; XXVI, Cairo, 985, pp. 265-65.

Ṭabari, Annales iii, IV, pp. 2127, 2130, 2217-49, 2255-78.

(Heinz Halm)

Originally Published: January 27, 2015

______

ẒELLI, REZĀQOLI MIRZĀ

ẒELLI, Reżāqoli Mirzā (b. Tehran, 1906; d. Tehran, 1945), singer. Ẓelli lost his father, Aḥmad Mirzā, in childhood and was brought up by his elder brother. He got a job in the telephone company after finishing middle school. He become a teacher later and was finally employed by Bank Melli Iran. He studied the repertoire (radif) of Persian music with Āref Qazvini for a while and then with the famous singer of the time Eqbāl Āḏar (Purmandān, p. 144; Behruzi, p. 449). He was, however, diagnosed with tuberculosis in his early youth and was, therefore, prescribed to live in a cool area with clean air and also quit singing. He moved to the mountainous area of Hamadān in 1941, but, disregarding his doctor’s prescription, continued to sing. Hīasan Mašḥun (II, p. 668) mentions a memorable evening when Ẓelli and another singer, Sayyed Reżā Aṭṭār, kept singing until dawn. Ẓelli succumbed to the illness at the age of 38.

Ẓelli had a clear voice with wide range, which his distinct, beautiful yodeling (taḥrir; see ĀVĀZ) made especially enchanting. Ẓelli’s singing was influenced by the piano music of Hīabib-Allāh Mošir Homāyun, and is an exemplary of the Tehran singing school. A selection of his singing, accompanied by the piano of Mošir Homāyun, were published on phonograph records in 1933. These singings are in the modes of Čahār Gāh, Bayāt-e Tork, Bayāt-e Eṣfahān, Homāyun, Afšāri, and Abu ʿAṭā, and they are considered among the most beautiful samples of Persian singing. He also left two more recordings in the modes of Šur and Segāh, accompanied by Arsalān Dargāhi’s setār and Abu’l-Ḥasan Ṣabā’s violin, respectively (Behruzi, pp. 254, 451).

Bibliography:

Šapur Behruzi, Čehra-ha-ye musiqi-ye Irān, Tehran, 1993, pp. 449-51. Ḥasan Mašḥun, Tāriḵ-e musiqi-ye Irān, 2 vols., Tehran, 1994.

Mehrān Purmandān, Dāʾerat-al-maʿāref-e musiqi-e kohan-e Irān, Tehran, 2000.

(Morteżā Ḥoseyni Dehkordi)

Originally Published: July 20, 2009

______

ZEMESTĀN-E 62

(Winter of 62, 1987), a novel published by the well-known and prolific Persian novelist Esmāʿil Fasih.

ZEMESTĀN-E 62 (Winter of 62), a novel published in 1987 by the well-known and prolific Persian novelist Esma’il Fasih

This title of the novel refers to the winter of 1362 Š. (1984), the third year of the Iran-Iraq war. The story is narrated by one of the familiar protagonists of Fasih’s novels, Jalal Arian (Jalāl Āriān), who is also the narrator of the majority of his novels and many of his short stories (Badiʿ, p. 14; Mirʿābedini, p. 928; Yarshater, p. 272).

Jalal Arian makes three trips to the war-torn city of Ahvaz in that winter. On the first trip, he and his incidental companion, Dr. Manṣur Farjām, drive from Tehran to Ahvaz; Arian in search of Edris Āl-e Maṭrud, the war-maimed son of his ex-gardener Maṭrud Āl-e Maṭrud, and Farjām, a thirty-year old engineer who had returned from the United States after an absence of eleven years to develop a computer science center for the National Iranian Oil Company (Šerkat-e melli-e naft-e Iran), and to give himself a respite to overcome the memory of the tragic death of his fiancée.

Farjām’s computer center project never takes off. Instead, he becomes increasingly intrigued by the ordinary people’s willingness to sacrifice their lives for the cause of the “sacred defense” (defāʿ-e moqaddas) of their homeland. Meanwhile he becomes acquainted with Lāleh Jahānšāhi, who reminds Farjām of his lost fiancée, and he finds himself irresistibly drawn to her. She is, however, deeply in love with Faršad Kiānzād. Much to the young lovers’ grief, Faršād is drafted for military service. Arian has to return to Tehran before finding Edris, while provisionally teaching at Abadan Institute of Technology, a college affiliated to the Oil Company.

On his second trip to Ahvaz to fulfill his teaching consignment, Arian realizes that Frajām’s love for Lāleh has intensified, and that, with his project going nowhere, he is spending agonizing nights with his eyes glued to the war footage on the television, having placed a single tulip (Lāleh) in a small crystal vase on the set. In his search for Edris, Arian comes into contact with Maryam Jazāyeri, a middle-aged widow whose husband was executed by hanging in the early days of the Islamic Revolution, probably as a counter-revolutionary. She is banned from leaving the country. Later in the story, Arian agrees to assist her in her plan to leave the country and is finally forced to consent to a paper marriage with her so that she can acquire a passport. Arian’s attempts to locate Edris eventually pays off, and he finds out that the young man, who has lost an arm and a leg, has voluntarily returned to the battlefield.

After a short trip to Tehran, Arian returns for the third time to Ahvaz. Lāleh’s mother dies of cancer. Her mother’s death and Faršād’s posting to the killing fields of Majnun Island drive Lāleh to the point of suicide. Here, Arian intervenes and sends her along with Maryam to Tehran, so that the two of them can fly to Europe later. Meanwhile, Farjām’s mental anguish grows, as does his love for Lāleh, and, in the same proportion, his identification with the ordinary people, who look the war squarely in the face. The story reaches its momentum when Farjām, who bears some resemblance with Faršād, exchanges his passport, his permanent U.S. residency card, and an air ticket for Faršād’s uniform and military pass. Faršād joins Lāleh and Maryam in Tehran, and Farjām goes to the front, where he is killed a few days later. As his body, charred beyond recognition, is placed in the tomb as that of Faršād, Arian knowingly looks at his watch as the hour heralds the flight of Maryam Jazāyeri, Lāleh Jahānšāhi, Faršād Kiānzād and, ironically, Manṣur Farjām, to freedom. Shortly afterwards, Jalal Arian takes the road from Ahvaz to Tehran with the maimed Edris in tow.

There is little ambiguity in the symbolic significance of the names in Zemestān-e 62 (Ferdowsi, p. 25, Badiʿ, 15-16). Jalal Arian (Aryan Splendor; see ARYA and FARR[AH]) is widely recognized as including a somewhat ironic, yet sympathetic, allusion to the splendor of ancient Iranian culture and civilization (Ferdowsi, p. 30, ff. 12; Mohājerāni, p. 245). Manṣur Farjām’s name and death in a military operation with its inherent pun on Majnun (lit. madman, lunatic), is reminiscent of that of his namesake, Manṣur-e Ḥallāj and his ultimate end at the scaffolds. Other names; e.g. Āl-e Maṭrud (Clan of the Outcasts), and Lāleh, the symbolic flower of martyrdom in contemporary Persian literature, also acquire rich metaphoric implications within the novel’s context.

While dismissive comments (Ḵorramšāhi, p. 249) are rare exceptions the reviews of the novel have been mostly favorable. In his multifaceted review on Fasih’s literary trajectory, Ehsan Yarshater, noting a number of idiosyncratic aspects of the use of language in Fasih’s works, praises the Winter of 62 as an outstanding post-revolutionary fiction (Yarshater, p. 272: see also FICTION ii/b. THE NOVEL).

The novel has also drawn wide critical interest as a distinct type of war literature, unprecedented in modern Persian fiction (Yarshater, p. 273). Zemestān-e 62 does not opt to glorify the military heroism in the battlefields. It recounts, instead, the tale of a panoply of displaced characters of different classes and political convictions, all grappling with the death of loved ones or contemplating the possibility of their own death (Yavari, 1999, p. 588), and mourns the human condition in a world thrown into turbulence by war (Yarshater, p. 271; Haag-Higuchi, pp. 257-61).

The existential, sociological, and autobiographical aspects of the novel have also been studied by several critics (Farmānārā, p. 224). The Winter of 62, like most of Fasih’s stories is inspired by or linked to the interrelated tales of the members of a single family, most probably his own (Yavari, 1990, p. 62). The existential transformation of the same fictional characters, particularly Jalal Arian, from Šarāb-e ḵām (The raw wine, 1968), with which Fasih begins his literary debut (Fasih, 1994, p. 211), to Zemetān-e 62 highlights the landmarks of the Fasih’s journey from a chronicler of the tragic outcomes of love, drug abuse and murder, to a novelist with deep commitment to his people in their turbulent condition (Yarshater, p. 274). Several of characters mentioned in the novel are based on the tragic lives of his friends, as well as his students at the Abadan Institute of Technology.

Pulling various strands of reading, one may see in Jalal Arian’s character a merger of Fasih’s usual protagonist with the author himself. “I know what made me write Zemaestān-e 62. It was the loss of my life in Abadan…, the life of Abadan, and the life of children of Abadan...They are my own children.” (Fasih, p. 218) In other words, the literary, the autobiographical, the historical and the existential unify in the identity of Jalal Arian. The unity informs all of Fasih’s creative work and establishes him as a major chronicler of the present predicaments of his nation.

Bibliography:

ʿEmād Badiʿ, Aṣl-e Āṯār-e Faṣiḥ, Tehran, 2000.

R. Haag-Higuchi, “The Theme of War in Esma’il Fasih’s Novel Zemestān-e šaṣt-o-do,”Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies, Bamberg, 30th September-4th October, 1991, eds., B. G. Fragner, G. Gnoli, R. Haag-Higuchi, M. Maggi and P. Orsatti, 1995, pp. 255-62. Bāhaʾ-al-Din Ḵorramšāhi, “Bāda-ye kohan,” Kelk 55-56, pp. 249- 53.

Aṭā-Allāh Mohājerāni, “Vaqti Ṯorayya midaraḵšad,” Kelk 55-56, pp. 243-48.

Esmāʿil Faṣiḥ, Zemestān-e 62, Tehran, 1987.

Idem, Ṯorayyā dar eḡmā, 1983; tr. by the author, as Sorayya in a Coma, London, 1985.

Idem, “Goft-o-gu bā Esmāʿil Faṣiḥ,” Kelk 55-56, 1994, pp. 208-41.

ʿAli Ferdowsi, “Āšiāni dar tufān: padida-šenāsi-e ejtemāʿi-e yek matn” Barresi-e ketāb, 3rd. Series, 1, 1990, pp. 5-30. (Abridged versions of the article are reprinted inĀdina 43-44, 1990, pp. 90- 93, and Kelk 55-56, 1994, pp. 254-267).

Ehsan Yarshater “Šarāb-e ḵām va bāda-ye kohan,” Irānšenāsi, repr., Kelk 55-56, 1994, pp. 268-76.

Houra Yavari, “FICTION ii (b). THE NOVEL,” in EIr. IX/6, 1999, pp. 580-92.

Idem, “Tāriḵ dar dāstān,” Kankāš 6, Spring 1990, p. 65. (ʿAli Ferdowsi)

Originally Published: July 15, 2009

______

ZENDA BE GUR

“ZENDA BE GUR” (1930, translated by Brian Spooner as “Buried Alive,” 1979), a short story by the prominent 20th-century writer, Sadeq Hedayat (HEDAYAT, SADEQ, 1903-1951); it first appeared in a collection of the same title (Figure 1). The subtitle of the story reads, “from the jottings of a mad man.”

“Zenda be gur” is a first-person narrative featuring the notes of a young writer in his sickbed in Paris; his unfortunate existence; his disgust and despondency; his horrible nightmares; his desire to end his life; his plots for a “successful suicide,” and how he tortures himself throughout in his failure to attain his goal. At times he celebrates existence and contemplates starting anew, going to Siberia, living among the pine trees in a wooden hut under the grey sky, or to India under the blazing sun, in endless jungles where no one would know him or understand his language, before conceding that he “wasn’t made the right way for this” (“Buried Alive,” p. 155).

He wavers throughout, between reliving the experiences he has had, and his feelings that it is all entirely pointless. Sometimes he feels that he has even been rejected by death. Finally he comes to terms with his condition: “No, I am neither living nor asleep. I don’t like anything, I don’t hate anything … I don’t envy the dead any more. I must be considered belonging to their world. I am with them. I am buried alive.” (“Buried Alive,” p. 162).

But the narrator is, nonetheless, sensitive to the judgements of others, to the point where he is worried about how his death will be viewed. He tries to pass his death off as natural, attempting to feign gradual deterioration, before finally ingesting opium. In keeping with his concern for appearances, he puts on new under-wear, and sprays his bed with eau de cologne.

Having unsuccessfully poisoned himself with cyanide, he ingests a large amount of opium, which fails to provide an immediate effect, but which gradually seems to incapacitate him. In the final sentences we are informed of his death. “He had forgotten to breathe,” (“Buried Alive,” p. 162) is the explanation provided at the end of the story.

In his depiction of the simultaneously suicidal and invulnerable self exposed in this soul-searching and self-interrogating narrative, Hedayat captures the mood of a society in transition (Yarshater, p. vii). Like the Iran of Hedayat’s era, it is haunted by memory and forgetting (Tavakoli-Targhi, p. 107). His skillful employment of interior monologue as a modern literary technique throughout the narrative sheds light on the landscape of the narrator’s dreams and hallucination. Flashbacks, as with the girl in the cinema or the opium seller and descriptions of inanimate objects interplay in exploring the character’s sense of alienation, and in turn, create a work of art from a very simple and ordinary premise. “[T]he wallpaper has [a] red and pink paisley design, and at regular intervals two blackbirds are sitting on a branch facing each other. This pattern drives me mad” (“Buried Alive,” p. 145).

“Buried Alive,” unlike most of Hedayat’s stories of social realism, is devoid of colloquial phrases and idioms and often acquires a lyrical overtone (Bahārlu, pp. 27-28). It is written in plain, short sentences with precision and economy of words (Zarrinkub, p. 766), and is placed alongside “Bonbast” (Dead End), Tarik-ḵāna (“Dark Room”), and “Sag-e velgard” (Stray Dog) among Hedayat’s works in which realistic techniques are employed in psychologically-oriented stories or psycho-fictions (Katouzian, p. 123-24). The protagonist in “Buried Alive,” reminiscent of the central characters of “Āyena-ye šekasta” (“The Broken Mirror”), and “ʿArusak-e pošt-e parda” (“The Mannequin behind the Curtain”), is “unable or unwilling to participate in a normal romantic relationship,” and like the narrator of “Three Drops of Blood” is “caught between his consciousness of the meaninglessness and futility of life and his impulse to impart meaning through creative communication” (Hillmann, p. 127; see also Milani, p. 98), He can “find a little solace only through painting” (“Buried Alive,” p. 149), as does the narrator of The Blind Owl. Hedayat’s exercise in transcending existential agonies through creativity, as noted by critics, culminated in the creation of his masterpiece The Blind Owl in 1937 (Golširi, 1999, I, p. 281; Mirʿābedini, I, p. 99; Maḥmudiān, pp. 378-86; Etteḥād, pp. 165- 67). The narrator’s life, not too far from Mirza Ḥosayn-ʿAli in “Mardi ke nafsaš rā košt” (“The Man Who Killed His Self”), and Mirza Aḥmad in “Se qaṭra ḵun” (“Three Drops of Blood”), is laden with a pressing dread of death, and like Hedayat himself who “lived an unhappy life, and died a tragic death,” (Katouzian, p. 127) ends his life in suicide.

Critics have also traced affinities between “Buried Alive,” and “Diary of a Mad Man,” by Nicolai Gogol (1809-1952), which centers on the life of a minor civil servant and his descent into insanity (Ḥosayni, p. 17-29). Although Hedayat’s introduction to the Persian translation of Franz Kafka’s (1883-1924) Penal Colony (“Payām-e Kafka,” Goruh-e maḥkumin, Qāʾemiān, Tehran, 1948), and his translation of Kafka’s Metamorphosis (Masḵ, Tehran 1950), were published long after the publication of his stories, his fascination with the writer, and his conviction in Kafka’s masterful depiction of “humanity’s despicable plight in a world without God,” (“Payām-e Kafka,” p. 31), has inspired some critics to comment that he tried his hand in employing Kafka’s signature literary techniques in treating the theme of alienation in some of his stories (Āriyanpur, III, pp. 333-429; Milani, p. 97; Bahārlu, pp. 27-32).

“Zenda ba-gur” has been translated into English by Brian Spooner, as “Buried Alive,”(Sadeq Hedayat: An Anthology, Modern Persian Literature Series 2, Ehsan Yarshater, ed., USA, 1979, pp. 145-62), and also by Carter Bryant, (Tehran, 2005); into Armenian by Khachik Khacher (Tehran 2005) and into French by Derayeh Derakhshesh (Enterré vivant, Paris, 1986). A bilingual collection of Hedayat’s short stories, translated in Korean by Gyoseob Shin, is published in two volumes. The first volume of the collection includes “Zanda be gur” and several other short stories.

Bibliography:

Yaḥyā Ārianpur, Tāriḵ-e adab-e Fārsi-e moʿāṣer III: az Nimā tā ruzgār-e mā, Tehran, 1995, pp. 333-429.

Moḥammad Bahārlu, “Mardi ke sang-e gur-e ḵodaš bud,” in idem, ed., Majmuʿa-i as aṯār-e Ṣādeq Ḥedāyat, Tehran, 1993.

ʿAli Dehbāši, ed., Yād-e Ṣādeq Hedāyat, Tehran, 2001.

Hušang Etteḥād, Pažuhešgarān-e moʿāṣer-e Irān VI, Tehran, 2003, p. 165-68.

Hušang Golširi, Bāḡ dar bāḡ, 2 vols., Tehran, 2008.

Michael Craig Hillmann, “HEDAYAT ii: THEMES, PLOTS, AND TECHNIQUE IN HEDAYAT’S FICTION,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica XII, pp. 127-30. Homa Katouzian & EIR “HEDAYAT i: LIFE & WORK,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica XII, pp.121-27.

Moḥammad Rafiʿ Maḥmudiān, “Jāygāh-e marg dar āṯār-e Ḥedāyat,” in Šahrām Bahārluʾiān and Fatḥ-Allāh Esmāʿili, eds., Šenāḵt-nāma-ye Ṣādeq Hedāyat, Tehran, 2000, pp. 378-86.

Abbas Milani, “Hedayat and the Tragic Vision,” in idem, Lost Wisdom: Rethinking Modernity in Iran, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 93-100.

Ḥassan Mirʿābedini, Ṣad sāl dāstān-nevisi-e Irān, 3 vols., Tehran, 1998.

Brian Spooner, “Buried Alive,” in Ehsan Yarshater, ed., Sadeq Hedayat: An Anthology, Modern Persian Literature Series 2, Costa Mesa, 1979, pp. 145-62.

Mohammad Tavakoli-Targhi, “Narrative Identity in the Works of Hedayat and his Contemporaries,” Sadeq Hedayat: His Work and the Wondrous World, ed. Homa Katouzian, London and New York, 2008, pp. 107-23.

Ehsan Yarshater, “Introduction,” in idem, ed., Sadeq Hedayat: An Anthology, Modern Persian Literature Series 2, Costa Mesa, 1979, pp. vii-xiv; repr., as “Ṣādeq Hedāyat: An Appraisal,” in Ehsan Yarshater, ed., Persian Literature, Albany, New York, 1988, pp. 318-23.

Ḥamid Zarrinkub, “Zabān-e dāstān dar āṯār-e Ṣādeq Hedāyat,” in ʿAli Dehbāši, ed., Yād-e Ṣādeq Hedāyat, Tehran, 2001, pp. 756- 67.

(SOHILA SAREMI)

______

ZHUKOVSKIĬ, Valentin Alekseevich

ZHUKOVSKIĬ, Valentin Alekseevich (b. Voronezh, 17 May [5 May Old Style] 1858; d. Petrograd, 17 January [4 January Old style] 1918), one of the most prominent representatives of Russian, namely St. Petersburg, Oriental studies (FIGURE 1). He was the pupil of such outstanding scholars as Carl Salemann (1849- 1916), Baron Victor Rosen (1849-1908), and I. N. Berezin (1818- 1896). Among his pupils were Yu. N. Marr (1893-1935), I. A. Orbeli (1887-1961), I. Yu. Krachkovskiĭ (1883-1951), E. É. Bertel’s (1890-1957), I. I. Zarubin (1887-1964), and I. I. Umnyakov (1890- 1976). His secondary education Zhukovskiĭ started in Moscow at the Kreimann pansion and continued in the Voronezh gymnasium. In 1880 Zhukovskiĭ finished the Imperial St. Petersburg University, where he had studied at the Faculty of Oriental Languages, in the Arabic-Persian-Turkish-Tatar Department, after which he was offered to stay at the Faculty and prepare himself for taking the position of the lecturer in Persian. In 1886 after he returned to St Petersburg from his long trips to Persia he started lecturing at the rank of Privat Dozent. In 1889 he was appointed as extraordinary Professor, and in 1890 was promoted to the full professor (ordinarnyi professor). In 1899 Zhukovskiy was elected a correspondent member of the Russian Academy.

While a student, Zhukovskiĭ became interested in Turkish literature. His first important work was dedicated to the treatise Konh al-aḵbārby the Ottoman author of the 16th century ʿAli Čelebi; it contained a translation of the treatise accompanied by detailed commentaries and mainly focused on the information related to the Slavic peoples. That was one of the earliest studies in comparative historiography, in which Zhukovskiĭ tried to give the entire picture of the geographical, political, agricultural, and cultural aspects reflected in the Konh al-aḵbār, as well as in other contemporary sources. For this research Zhukovskiĭ was awarded the Gold Medal of the University.

Zhukovskiĭ wrote his M.A. thesis about the poems of Anwari. It was published several years later (1883), and still remains one of the major works on Anwari’s poetry. Thanks to Wilhelm Pertsch (p. 368) and E.G. Browne (1902-24, II, pp. 368-91) his study became known to the Western scholars in the field. Zhukovskiĭ regarded Baron Victor Rosen (1849-1908), who was of Arabic and the Dean of the Oriental Faculty, his main teacher, and Rosen showed much respect to his former student either. According to Zhukovskiĭ’s son Sergeĭ, Zhukovskiĭ’s friendship with Rosen lasted for more than twenty years (letters of Zhukovskiĭ to Rosen, RAS archive,file 2, 777, 162); every Monday, Rosen would visit Zhukovskiĭ for tea in his University flat, discussing with his favorite pupil their plans and ideas (S. V. Zhukovskiĭ, p. 62).

The scholarly interests of Zhukovskiĭ were extremely wide, covering the whole range of subjects from dialectology and folklore to archaeology and religious studies, and he did his studies with rare thoroughness. His archives (in RAS and IOS) contain papers on many different subjects; some of them still await publication (for the survey of Zhukovskiĭ’s IOS archive see Borschevskiĭ, pp. 42-44). One can presume that it was due to his superfluous self-criticism that many of Zhukovskiĭ’s works remained unpublished during his lifetime (Barthold, p. 400).

According to Zhukovskiĭ’s students, his lectures were as interesting as they were useful (Shapshal, Ocherki, p. 131). Thanks to two trips to Iran in 1883-86 and in summer of 1899, Zhukovskiĭ’s knowledge of the language was excellent, of which he was very proud. Sometimes, even with his European colleagues he preferred to correspond in Persian rather than in any other foreign language (Zhukovskiĭ’s personal archive, RAS (files 2, 4, 68, 87, 100, 101, 148, 208, 777, 820, 909) and IOS (letter to E. G. Browne from 3 November 1899, file 17, transferred from RAS). His report to the Faculty about his stay in Persia from March 1884 and his letters to his colleagues and friends, mainly to Baron Rosen, as well as publications by Yu. E. Borschevskiĭ and P. P. Bushev, are the sources which shed light on his work and travels in Persia (IOS Archive, vol. 17, 1, no. 10-a/427; Borschevskiĭ, p. 7; Bushev, pp. 115-24).

According to Zhukovskiĭ’s proposal submitted to the Faculty board, his first trip to Persia had three main aims: to improve his Persian; to collect necessary materials for his ‘Habilitation’ dissertation on different dialects of Persia; and to buy books and manuscripts for the library of the Faculty of Oriental Studies. However, neither his colleagues, nor even he himself believed that it would be possible to add something new to what had been published on the subject already by I.N. Berezin (1818- 1896), B.A. Dorn (1805-1881), A. Zhaba, P.A. Lerch, S. Mel’gunov, A.E. Chodzko (1804-1891), and others. In his letter to Rosen dated 15 April 1886, Zhukovskiĭ mentioned that it would be very unlikely for him to get any new material on his way, which coincided with the old and popular caravan route Tehran- Isfahan-Shiraz (RAS archive, file 2, 777, 162-168; Bogolyubov, p. 46). Perhaps, that is why Zhukovskiĭ also became interested in Persian folk literature and folk culture even before going to Persia, and, while staying there, he started to collect materials on these two subjects as well, with equal enthusiasm.

His first trip to Persia played an enormous role in shaping Zhukovskiĭ ’s research interests (Bushev, pp. 115-24) and can be divided into three periods, which he spent in Tehran (15 months), Isfahan (18 months) and Shiraz (one and a half months). He and his wife Varvara Aleksandrovna, to whom he married two years earlier, left Russia from Voronezh on 16 May (4 May Old Style) 1883 and arrived in Tehran on 9 June 1883 after a rather adventurous trip (letter from 7 June 1883 to Baron Rosen, Archive of the RAS, file 2, 777, 162). From October on, he started taking regular lessons of Persian with several private teachers, the best of whom he considered Mollā Ebrāhim Māzandarāni. They would spend together 3-5 hours a day talking, reading the poetry of Rumi, ʿAṭṭār, Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow, Ḵayyām, and discussing works on different subjects, from theology to Arabic grammar. Zhukovskiĭ was satisfied with his progress, and during the Nowruz reception of 1884 at the Shah’s palace he could speak with Nāṣer-al-Din Shah (r. 1848-96) without any assistance of A.Grigorovich, the interpreter at the Russian Embassy (letter to Baron Rosen from 4 December 1883, Archive of the RAS, file 2, 777, 162).

Despite the support of the Russian diplomatic mission in Persia and his own constant attempts to make contacts among local booksellers and owners of private libraries in Tehran, Zhukovskiĭ had difficulties in getting necessary literature for his research and for the University library. However, he managed to bring to St. Petersburg lists of the manuscripts, lithographs, and printed books in several libraries in Tehran, as well as several very important manuscripts and many printed texts, which are now in the collection of the St. Petersburg University library (Salemann and Rosen, Index) and the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts (Mikluho-Maclay, Description).

Zhukovskiĭ’s three main interests in Persian dialectology, folk tradition, and Sufi poetry supplemented each other. For example, while working on the translation of 1,000 Bakhtiari verses, he mentioned in the letter to Rosen dated 5 January 1885 that this “would be enough to get the full impression of the Bakhtiyari language and folklore” (IOS Archive, vol. 777, 2, no. 164, fol. 1). In his review of Huart’s Les Quatrains de Bābā Tāher ʿUryān of 1888 (Materialy, pp. V-VI, reference 4), he was writing that Mazandaranis, Kurds, Bakhtiyaris, or Sedeyi consider him (Bābā Ṭāher) their national poet, reading his poetry in their own way each (Borschevskiĭ, p. 31). Zhukovskiĭ’s archive contains his manuscript with 57 robāʿis of Bābā Ṭāher written in Luri dialect (IOS Archive, vol. 17, 1, no. 2/436-18).

Zhukovskiĭ as linguist and folklorist. During his three-year stay in Persia (1883-1886), Zhukovskiĭ collected rich linguistic materials, whose value can hardly be overestimated by dialectologists and folklorists (Marzolph, pp. 71, 75). The amount of the information was really enormous, and the plan was to have it published in five volumes. However, even the first volume on Persian dialects (Zhukovskiĭ, 1888) brought the author much respect of his colleagues and the Doctorate degree. The second book, on Persian folklore (Zhukovskiĭ, 1902), was published after Zhukovskiĭ’s second trip to Persia in the summer of 1899 and was awarded the Big Gold Medal of the Russian Geographical Society. Some of the materials he collected during his trips to Persia were published by his pupil A. Romaskewicz after Zhukovskiĭ’s death (Zhukovskiĭ, 1922). Zhukovskiĭ realized that compared to the best works on Persian folklore of those days, like Alexander Chodzko’s study of samples of folk poetry from northern Persia (1842) which contained English translations only, his contribution was more important due to inclusion of the original texts representing various dialects.

The publication of both books, and especially the Materialy (Zhukovskiĭ, 1888 and 1922), was very important. Zhukovskiĭ was one of the first European scholars who attracted the interest of his colleagues towards the existing vernacular Iranian languages and dialects and who emphasized the necessity to describe them all properly. What made Zhukovskiĭ an outstanding linguist even by modern standards is that not only did he fix the linguistic phenomena he was coming across, but he also provided theoretical analysis of the language in general. His Materialy (1888) has a supplement entitled “The survey of grammar forms,” and his Obraztsy (1902) contains a glossary.

As a linguist, Zhukovskiĭ understood the development of the Persian language in its chronological and geographical aspects. Working on both the dialectology of modern Persian and classical Persian literature, he realized the vital necessity of compiling a comprehensive grammar of the New Persian language, which he published together with Carl Salemann (1849-1916), first in German in 1889 and then in Russian in 1890. This grammar makes emphasize on the language of the earliest representatives of Persian literature, like Rudaki and Ferdowsi. Besides, it contains a very useful list of various poetical meters. These methods were applied by the later generations of scholars, like O. Mann, A. Christensen, A. Romaskewicz, W. Ivanov, V. Minorskiy, Yu. Marr, H. Bailey, A. Lambton, and others (Bogolyubov, Ocherki, p. 46).

Being an active and enthusiastic member of the Imperial Geographical and Archaeological Societies of Russia, Zhukovskiĭ often gave lectures on different subjects, connected with various aspects of every-day life of Persia. The most attractive feature of his talks was that they were based on the results of his own fieldwork and on the most recent materials sent to him by his former students who served in Persia as diplomats. His lectures touched upon various subjects from ethnology (On the Persian lullaby songs, Persian wedding songs, 1888), to politically focused works (On the contemporary bazaar poetic tradition, 1893; On the last days of Shah Nāṣer al- Din, 1901).

Many of the materials Zhukovskiĭ collected during his stay in Persia are still unpublished; some of them are dedicated to specific historical events, like, for example, his notes on mosaddases and maṯnawis about the famine in Kashan, Isfahan, Yazd, Kerman, Tehran, and Qom in 1871-73, and in Shiraz in 1867-68, describing incredible sufferings of people (IOS Archive, file 17, 1, no. 7/427, fols. 67-97).

Zhukovskiĭ benefited greatly from the fact that in Persia he stayed together with his wife, Varvara Alexandrovna, who not only accompanied him in all his trips but also helped in collecting folk material, especially in situations when only a woman could do so, like in the cases of collecting data from female informants. This was an invaluable contribution to scholarship, since such specifically female genres like songs and fairy tales for children, lullabies and wedding songs had otherwise been inaccessible.

Besides the invaluable Materialy and Obrazsty, which have been published, a significant body of material on Persian folklore is still awaiting its publication. This includes the collection of 104 Persian romances (taṣnif), which was brought from Persia by the Russian diplomat and Iranist Nikolaĭ Khanykov (1819-1878), and which is now preserved in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg. Zhukovskiĭ was preparing the collection for publication; his archive contains two copies of his draft transcribed by hand. The songs are of different provenance: Ardalan (1), Azerbaijan (1), Baghdad (1), Behbahān (1), Borujerd (3), Jahrom (1), Dizful (2), Herat (1), Gilān (1), Zanjān (1), Yazd (1), Isfahan (3), Kabul (1), Qazvin (1), Kāšān (2), Kerman (3), Kermanshah (1), Kurdistan (1), Luristan (1), Māzandarān (1), Mashad (1), Tabriz (2), Tehran (19), Urmia (1), Hamadan (2), Hešt (1), Ḵorramābād (1), Shiraz (26), Šuštar (4), unknown provenance (4); besides Persian, some of them are written in Laki (1), Arabic (1), and Hindi (1). He was also one of the first scholars who studied the Jewish Tati language (Jewish encyclopaedia, v. 7, p. 613).

Zhukovskiĭ as a specialist in literature. Zhukovskiĭ is famous most of all for his particular interest in mystical poetry. His favorite authors were Abu Saʿid Meyheni (Zhukovskiĭ, 1899), ʿAbd-Allāh Anṣāri (Zhukovskiĭ, 1895b; translated into English by L. Bogdanov), Abu’l-Ḥasan Ḵaraqāni, Bābā Ṭāher Hamadāni, Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow, and Bābā Kuhi Širāzi. Reynold Nicholson (1868-1945) was aware of Zhukovskiĭ’s work on a critical edition of Jollābi Hojwiri’s Kašf al-maḥjub, which was published post- mortem in 1926 and whose introduction was translated into English as “Persian Sufism” (BSOAS 5, 1930, pp. 475-88). After Zhukovskiĭ’s text was published, Nicholson prepared another edition of his English translation, as both scholars were using manuscripts from different collections (Nicholson, 1911). Zhukovskiĭ’s publication of the text (reprint, Teheran, 1993) was superseded only recently by M. ʿĀbedi’s edition (M.‘Abidi, Teheran, 1992).

Zhukovskiĭ became well known internationally due to his work on the wandering quatrains of ʿOmar Ḵayyām (Zhukovskiĭ, 1897). Discovered in 1856 by the Europeans thanks to the scholarly and poetic efforts of Edward FitzGerald, by the end of the 19th century Ḵayyām became extremely popular in Europe as a poet. In his speech to the assembly of St. Petersburg University in 1895, Zhukovskiĭ was the first to discuss the origin of the robāʿis, ascribed to several authors including Ḵayyām. Later this speech was published in Russian (Zhukovskiĭ, 1897), translated into English (Zhukovskiĭ, 1895a; partial translation in Ross, 1898, pp. 350-66), and warmly welcomed by his colleagues (Browne, 1895, pp. 773-825; Idem, 1969, pp. 248-68).

In his obituary of Zhukovskiĭ, Vasiliĭ Barthold (1869-1930) mentions that only a small part of what the scholar had been writing about was published. Many of the drafts of articles or papers Zhukovskiĭ presented on different occasions but never published can be found in his archive, like, for example, fragments of the monograph on ʿAbd-Allāh Anṣāri (1006-88) with notes about his poetry, including 124 quatrains and monājāt, which had already been mentioned in the Pesni Geratskogo startsa (Zhukovskiĭ, 1895, pp. 79-113). There is also a biography of Abu’l-Ḥasan Ḵaraqāni, Anṣāri’s shaykh, who had the title Nur- al-ʿOlum (IOS Archive, vol. 17, 1, no. 17/754-208), which Zhukovskiĭ was preparing for publication and which was published by Evgeniĭ Bertel’s (1890-1957; see BERTHELS) post- mortem (Bertel’s, 1929, pp. 155-224; Idem, 1965, pp. 225-78).

For many years Zhukovskiĭ was collecting various types of materials (handwritten, published, and, during his field work, oral) in several dialects on Bābā Ṭāher. As a result, Zhukovskiĭ collected 279 robāʾis ascribed to Bābā Ṭāher, 262 of which he translated, each on a separate card, with notes and commentaries (IOS Archive, vol. 17, 1, no. 2/426-41).

Until the last minute of his life Zhukovskiĭ was working on the translation of the divan of Bābā Kuhi Širāzi (11th century; see BĀBĀ KUHI), where he included 284 robā‘is (Tagirdzhanov, pp. 59-62; Bertel’s, 1965, pp. 279-81). It appears that this work, which was almost ready for publication, perished during the siege of Leningrad during World War II together with the whole archive of his pupil, Aleksandr Romaskewicz (1885-1942), who was preparing Zhukovskiĭ’s work for publication but did not survive the siege himself.

Zhukovskiĭ was not trained as a professional archaeologist and never considered himself an archeologist (Smirnova, p. 51); however his book about the history and culture of ancient Merv (Zhukovskiĭ, 1894) was called by V.V. Barthold such an “excellent” archaeological survey, which did not exist for any other Central Asian and Persian town (Barthold, 1911, p. 151). His opinion was repeated in 1951 by a professional archeologist M.E. Masson, who spent most of his life, excavating in Central Asia (Masson, p.93). As a result of the military success of Russia in Central Asia in the 1880s, a part of historical Iran (Central Asia and Turkmenistan) became accessible to Russian scholars to pursue their fieldwork, started by P.I.Lerch in 1867. Financed by the Archaeological Commission, Zhukovskiĭ was one of those who went there first, in 1890, and then again in 1896. His aim was to produce a detailed description of the remains of one of the most important centers of the pre-Mongol Iranian Muslim culture—the city of Merv. Based on the results of his fieldwork with deep knowledge of surviving written sources, supplied with two detailed maps of the archeological sites his book about Merv was acknowledged the best book of the year and was awarded the Gold Medal of the National annual prize for the best research. Until now this book is one of the main reference studies of the historical topography. Zhukovskiĭ and his Merv survey challenged the interest of several generations of archeologists, like M. Masson, B. Marshak (Tales and Fables, 2002), F. Grenet who made extraordinary discoveries in the area.

During the summer of 1890 Zhukovskiĭ continued his journey to Khurasan, visiting Mašhad and Tus. In this regard, special mention should be made of his article dedicated to the tomb of Ferdowsi (Zhukovskiĭ, 1892), in which Zhukovskiĭ described the impressions of his journey, illustrating his article with now very rare photographs. In this article he expressed his disappointment at the state of the tomb, which by that time was completely neglected, compared with the burial places of other Persian poets, saints, rulers, famous intellectuals, and religious leaders. His later archaeological expeditions (1896) were to the ancient Nisa and its outskirts Abivard and Meyhena. Zhukovskiĭ gave a detailed report on it at the Royal Archeological commission meeting, however this material has never been published.

Zhukovskiĭ as a specialist on contemporary religious and political studies. Zhukovskiĭ lived and worked in two countries (Russia and Persia), which both went through one of the most difficult and decisive periods in their modern history; both were at the peak of their revolutionary situation when Zhukovskiĭ had been already not only a prominent specialist but also a high- rank administrator (Director of the Teaching Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, see below). This made him being interested not only in medieval poetry, but also in the contemporary political events in both Persia and Russia, and in their relations. A significant part of Zhukovskiĭ’s archive is his correspondence with his former students, who were appointed to various diplomatic posts in different parts of Persia. This regular and frequent correspondence shows that he was constantly aware about the events of the Great Game, and in many cases he guided the Russian diplomats in some particular fields and situations. Zhukovskiĭ was sending out concrete recommendations and requests on what he wished to receive (manuscripts and publications on Babi movement [see BABISM], pamphlets on famines and uprisings, satires on different political and religious leaders); his correspondents, most of whom were working in the Russian mission and consulates in Iran—among them A. R. Baranovskiĭ, G. D. Batyushkov, D. D. Belyaev, N. Z. Bravin, M. M. Girs, N. Dubrovin, A. Ya. Miller, and V. P. Nikitin—were providing him with the latest information and recently published materials, describing the political, economical, and religious situation in their regions and explaining the meaning of colloquial words used in the pamphlets. For example, on 26 October 1902 A. Baranovskiĭ sent a satire from Isfahan, where all the political and religious leaders were mentioned in the most severe manner, with his own comments on each of them. M. Girs from Mašhad sent an article from the newspaper Ḥabl al-matin and two brochures describing the uprising at the end of April 1903 against the ruler of Khorasan Nayer-al-Dowla, who owned the whole of Nishapur and its vicinities. In a letter dated 17 May 1905, the Russian consul in Kerman, A. Miller, described the religious situation in the city, the influence of the Neʿmatallāhi order, the Babis, and other sects, as well as the appearance of a new S haykh Aḥmad. Such fresh and valuable materials allowed Zhukovskiĭ to prepare important and up-to-date presentations, like the one he made on 20 November 1903 in the Oriental Department of the Russian Archaeological Society, which was dedicated to the modern situation of Persia and contemporary literary works (O chertah, 1904).

The impact of the scholar on religious studies is reflected in his interest on the ‘living’ Islam, which was practiced by the Iranians during his stay in the country. His interests, which embraced the history and the peculiar features of different Muslim movements, such as Babism and Ahl-e Ḥaqq, are still of special interest for historians and the historians of religions and religious art (Shapshal, pp. 131-34).

In 1960 Yu. Borshchevskiĭ published Zhukovskiĭ’s translation of what purported to be a fragment from the Tāriḵ-e moḵtaṣar-e ṣaḥiḥ-e bidoruḡ of ʿAli Khan Qājār Ṣafāʾ-ʿAli Shah (1864-1926), who was ešiq-āqāsi-bāši (master of ceremony) at the court of Nāṣer-al-Din Shah (r. 1848-96) and Moẓaffar-al-Din Shah (r. 1896- 1907) and the head of the Neʿmat-Allāhi Sufi order (Borschevskiĭ, 1960, pp. 63-114). Borshchevskiĭ provided the translation of Zhukovskiĭ with a preface and commentaries. For the latter, Borshchevskiĭ used the diaries of General V. A. Kosogovskiĭ (Commander of the Cossack Brigade in Persia, see COSSACK BRIGADE), which are preserved in Zhukovskiĭ’s archive and which describe the last days of Nāṣer-al-Din Shah’s life and depict his assassin, Mirzā Rezµā, and the motives of the assassination.

Zhukovskiĭ as administrator. Being an outstanding scholar and a talented teacher, Zhukovskiĭ also became a perfect administrator, which happens very rarely. From 1892 he started to fulfill his duties as the Secretary of the Faculty of Oriental Languages, and in 1902 he was elected the Dean of the Faculty. Some of his colleagues, for example V. Barthold, expressed their bitter regret that, as he put it, Zhukovskiĭ sacrificed the scholar within him to administrative career (Barthold, 1918, p. 12 and 1921, p. 410). It is true that administration, and especially re- organization of the Faculty and the Teaching Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, took a lot of his time and passion, and one can be sure that Zhukovskiĭ would have published much more during his rather short scholarly life if he concentrated on his research only. On the other hand, it was rather unfair that it was Barthold who was asked to write an obituary for Zhukovskiĭ, as they were not even on speaking terms (correspondence with V. V. Barthold, RAS Archive, file 68, 1, N 243, 244, 311). That is why after some time it was Sergeĭ Ol’denburg (1863-1934) who wrote a much more favorable and detailed account of Zhukovskiĭ’s life and works (Oldenburg, pp. 2039-68).

Zhukovskiĭ was an extraordinarily gifted and curious person, who used to do everything with true passion. Being the Dean of the Oriental Faculty for nine years (1902-11), he was asked several times to represent the Rector of the St. Petersburg University. From 1906 he became the head of the Teaching Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Soon after that he initiated the project for an educational reform in the Ministry, through which the future diplomats to the countries of the Near, Middle, and the Far East would paid much more attention to studying relevant Oriental languages.

To create such educational programs, Zhukovskiĭ collected information about many similar programs that existed at that time in different related Institutions, like the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages in Moscow, the Oriental Institute in Vladivistok, the Practical Military Institute in St. Petersburg, and the École des Langues Orientales in Paris. This program, first of all, presumed that twice as many students were admitted than it had been before. Secondly, the number of professors and their fields of interests had to be extended. Among the new subjects to be offered were the languages of the Far East, political economy, historical geography, Consular and trade law. One of the most important innovations was organization of summer trips for students and professors for practical work in the East. The general term for the whole course remained the same as before, two years, but it had to be more intensified. At the end of the course, the students were to get their certificates after passing several obligatory final examinations. Unfortunately, this project, prepared by Zhukovskiĭ and confirmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was not approved by the State Duma (Russian Parliament) due to the opposition of the head of the Practical Oriental Academy, General Shvedov.

Zhukovskiĭ as artist. Besides his University activities, Zhukovskiĭ was also famous in the artistic circles of St. Petersburg. Friends knew him as a talented painter and a musician, but his favorite hobby was theatre. In 1910 he participated in putting the play Bab on the stage in the Suvorin Theatre in St Petersburg. This play was written on the basis of the news coming to Russia about the appearance of the new religious movement of Babism, which was proclaimed by Sayyed ʿAli-Moḥammad Širāzi (1819-50, see BĀB, SAYYED ʿALI MOḤAMMAD ŠIRĀZI) in Persia in 1844. The play was written by Izabella Grinevskaya (1854-1944), a poetess and playwright from St. Petersburg, who constantly consulted Zhukovskiĭ during her work on the play. Among Zhukovskui’s closest friends were such famous Russian men of letters as Nikolaĭ Leskov (1831-95) and Vsevolod Solovyov (1849-1903). Under Zhukovskiĭ’s influence, poet and writer Vasiliĭ Velichko (1860-1903) created a whole cycle of poems entitled Vostochnye motivy (Oriental Motifs, published in 1890).

Zhukovskiĭ died 4 January 1918, almost exactly four months before his 60th anniversary. It seems that it was the events and the results of the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 which caused his early passing away. An experienced and gifted administrator, he had to leave his post of the head of the Faculty and to stop many of his teaching courses. His post- revolutionary activities were restricted to pure research work. Finally, he could not easily survive the demand to leave his professorial University apartment where he had lived with his family for many years. Death came to him when he was working on his translation of the divan of Bābā Kuhi, which he had been studying for years, preparing for publication in Russian translation. The last beyt (distich) on which his hand stopped was: “Until what time will you, like a donkey, stay in this repulsive puddle of the world? Strive upwards like ʿIsā!”

On 5-6 May 1958 the Research Committees of the Leningrad (St. Petersburg) University and the Leningrad (St. Petersburg) Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences held a conference dedicated to the centenary of Zhukovskiĭ’s birth. The proceedings of this conference were published in 1960, and they include the contributors of Yu. E. Borshchevskiĭ (unpublished archives of Zhukovskiĭ), M. N. Bogolyubov (Zhukovskiĭ as a linguist), O. I. Smirnova (Zhukovskiĭ’s archeological survey of ancient Marv), A. T. Tagirdzhanov (Zhukovskiĭ’s contribution to the study of Persian Sufi literature, and specifically his work on the divan of Bābā Kuhi), P. P. Bushev (Zhukovskiĭ’s first trip to Persia), S. V. Zhukovskiĭ (the son of Zhukovskiĭ, memoirs about his father), S. M. Shapshal (his correspondence with Zhukovskiĭ from the time when Shapshal worked in Persia on Zhukovskiĭ’s recommendation and his interest in ‘Muslim icons,’ šamāʾel), I. I. Umnyakov (Zhukovskiĭ’s interest in Persian manuscripts and the Babi movement in Bukhara, where Umnyakov was appointed in 1916 as the representative of the Russian government), and A. M. Muginov (he expanded on Zhukovskiĭ’s article about the use of the verb dāštan in Persian folk tradition).

Bibliography:

Abbreviations:

IAN — Izvestiya Akademii Nauk (Newsletter of the [Russian] Academy of Sciences).

IOS — Institute of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg Branch Russian Academy of Sciences.

Jewish Encyclopaedia – Evreyskaya entsiklopediya, svod znaniy o evreystve i ego culture v proshlom i nastoyaschem, eds. L.Catznelson and Baron D.G. Gin()sburg, St Petersburg.

Materialy — Materialy dlya izucheniya persidskikh narechiĭ, chast’ I. Dialekty polosy goroda Kashana: Vonishun, Kokhrud, Keshe, Zefre (Materials for Studying Persian Dialects, pt. I: Dialects of the Outskirts of Kashan: Vonishun, Kohrud, Keshe, and Zefre), St. Petersburg, 1888.

Obraztsy — Obraztsy narodnogo tvorchestva. Pesni pevtsov- muzykantov, pesni svadebnye, pesni kolybel’nye, zagadki, obraztsy raznogo soderzhaniya (Samples of [Persian] Folklore: Songs of Singers-Musicians, Wedding Songs, Lullabies, Riddles, Samples of Various Content), St. Petersburg, 1902. Ocherki — Ocherki po istorii russkogo vostokovedniya (Surveys on the History of Russian Oriental Studies) 5, Moscow, 1960.

RAS – Russian Academy of Sciences.

ZVO(I)RAO — Zapiski Vostochnogo otdeleniya (Imperatorskogo) Rossiĭskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva (Proceedings of the Oriental Department of the [Imperial] Russian Archeological Society).

Major works by Zhukovskiĭ.

A list of Zhukovskiĭ’s publications was compiled by his pupil, A. A. Romaskewicz, who was working on Zhukovskiĭ’s archives after the latter’s death in 1918. A part of the archives did not survive the siege of Leningrad (1941-44) during World War II, when Romaskewicz himself died from starvation. A revised list of Zhukovskiĭ’s works was published by P. P. Bushev in Ocherki (pp. 140-45). Besides the studies mentioned in the bibliography below, the revised list contains 31 articles, 8 book reviews, and 20 papers presented at the meetings of the Russian Imperial Archaeological Society. The abstracts were published in ZVORAO.

‘Ali Auhadeddin Enveri, Materialy dlya ego biografii i kharakteristiki (ʿAli Owḥad-al-Din Anwari, Materials for His Biography and Characterization), St. Petersburg, 1883. “Obrazchik persidskogo yumora (A specimen of Persian humour)”, ZVORAO, v. 1, 4, 1887, pp. 316-8.

“Sekta “Lyudey istiny” v Persii (People of Truth sect in Persia)– Ahl al-Haqq”, ZVORAO,, v. 2, 1-2, 1887, pp. 1-24. Materialy dlya izucheniya persidskikh narechiĭ, chast’ I: Dialekty polosy goroda Kashana: Vonishun, Kokhrud, Keshe, Zefre (Materials for Studying Persian Dialects, pt. I: Dialects of the Outskirts of Kashan: Vonishun, Kohrud, Zefre), St. Petersburg, 1888.

“Tolkovanie pritchi o satire Firdousi (Interpretation of the legend of the satire of Firdousi)”, ZVORAO, v. 2, 3-4, 1888, pp. 263-6.

“Osobennoe znachenie glagola dashtan v persidskom razgovornom yazyke (special meaning of the verb Dashtan in the conversational Persian language), ZVORAO, v. 3, 4, 1889, pp. 376-126.

“Kolybelnye pesni i prichitaniya osedlogo i kochevogo naseleniya Persii (Lullabies and short folk songs of settled and nomadic population of Persia)”, Journal of the Ministry of the Public education, part 261, January 1889, pp. 93-126.

“Persidskiy shah Nasr-eddin - pisatel (Persian Shah Nasir ad-Din the writer)”, Novoe vremya, SPb., 1889, No 4741.

“Yumor persidko-indiyskiy (Persian Indian humour)”, ZVORAO, v. 5, 1, 1890, pp. 111-2.

“Pesn’ Nasira Khosrova (The Song of Nasir Khusraw)”, ZVORAO, v. 4, 3-4, 1890, pp. 386-93.

“Persidkie letopistsy o smerti Griboedova (Persian chroniclers on Griboedov’s death) ”, Novoe vremya, SPb., 1890, No 5068.

Musulmanstvo Rustama Dastanovicha (Rustam son of Dastan as a Muslim), Zhivaya starina 4, SPb., 1891, No 99.

“Persidskie versii “Shemyakina suda” (Persian versions of Shemyakin’s court)”, ZVORAO, v. 5, 2-4, 1891, pp. 157-78.

“Mogila Firdousi. Iz poezdki v Khorasan letom 1890 goda” (The Tomb of Ferdowsi. Travel Notes of the Journey to Khorasan in the Summer of 1890), ZVOIRAO, v. 6, 1892, pp. 308-14.

Nedavnie kazni babidov v Yezde (“Recent executions of Babids in Yazd)”, ZVOIRAO 6, 1892, pp. 321-27.

“Razyasnenie k zametke “Nedavnie kazni v gorode Yezde” (Notes on the article “Recent executions in the town of Yezd”)”, ZVORAO, 7, 1-4, 1893, pp. 327.

“Legenda ob Isuuse i cherepe v persidskom stihotvornom skaze Attara (Legend of Jesus and skull in the Persian poem by ‘Attar)”, ZVORAO, v. 7, 1-4, 1893, pp. 63-72.

Drevnosti Zakaspiĭskogo kraya. Razvaliny Starogo Merva (Antiquities of the Region Beyond the Caspian Sea. Ruins of the Old Merv), St. Petersburg, 1894. “Chelovek i poznanie u persidskikh mistikov. Rech’, chitannaya na godichnom akte Imperatorskogo S-Peterburgskogo universiteta 8-go fevralya 1895 goda (Human Being and Cognition as Seen by Persian Mystics. Speech Given at the Annual Meeting of the Board of the Imperial St. Petersburg University on 8 February), 1895a, 32 pp.; tr. L. Bogdanov as “The Idea of Man and Knowledge in the Conception of Persian Mystics,” BSOAS 6/1, 1930, pp. 151-77. “Pesni Geratskogo startsa,” Vostochnye zametki, St. Petersburg, 1895b, pp. 79-113; tr. by L. Bogdanov as “The Songs of the Elder of Herat,” Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1939, pp. 205-55.

“Omar Khayyam i stranstvuyushchie chetverostishiya” (Omar Khayyam and Wandering Quatrains), Al-Muzaffariya (Festschrift for Baron V. Rosen), St. Petersburg, 1897.

“Muhammed Hasan-Khan (I‘timad al-Saltane)”, ZVORAO, v. 10, 1-4, 1897, pp. 187-191.

“Kultura opiya v Persii (Culture of opium in Persia)”, St Peterburgskie vedomosti, 1898, No 56.

“Zhivoy tsar, Legenda (Live King, A Legend)”, Literary supplement to the Niva magazine, SPb., May, June, July, August of 1898.

“Perehod 120 armyan v musulmanstvo (Convertion of 120 Armenians to Islam)”, St Peterburgskie vedomosti, 1898, No 89.

Taĭny edineniya s Bogom v podvigakh startsa Abu Saida. Zhizn’ i rechi startsa Abu Sa‘ida Meĭkheneĭskogo (Secrets of the Unity with God in the Deeds of the Elder Abu Said. Life and Sayings of Abu Saʿid from Meyhene), Persian text, St. Petersburg, 1899.

“Solovey i muravey (Nightingale and Ant)”, ZVORAO, v. 11, 1-4, 1899, pp. 304-7.

“K istorii persidskoy literatury pri Samanidah, (on the history of the Persian literature during the Samanids)”, ZVORAO, v. 12, 1, 1899, pp. 4-7.

“Koe-chto o Baba-Tahire Golyshe (Some notes on Baba Tahir the naked)”, ZVORAO, v. 13, 4, 1901, pp. 104-8.

Obraztsy narodnogo tvorchestva. Pesni pevtsov-muzykantov, pesni svadebnye, pesni kolybel’nye, zagadki, obraztsy raznogo soderzhaniya (Samples of [Persian] Folklore: Songs of Singers- Musicians, Wedding Songs, Lullabies, Riddles, Samples of Various Content), St. Petersburg, 1902. “Russkiy konsul F.A. Bakulin v istorii izucheniya babizma (Russian consul F.A. Bakulin in the history of the studying of Babism)”, ZVORAO, v. 24, 1917, pp. 33-90.

Materialy dlya izucheniya persidskikh narechiĭ (Materials for Studying Persian Dialects), pts. 2-3, ed. A. A. Romaskewicz, Petrograd, 1922.

Raskrytie skrytogo za zavesoĭ. Kashf al-Makhjub (Revelation of the Hidden behind the Curtain: Kašf al-Maḥjub) , Leningrad, 1926; introduction tr. into English as “Persian Sufism,” BSOAS 5, 1930, pp. 475-88.

“‘Ali Khan Qajar Zahir ad-Dawla Safi ‘Ali Shah. History of the assassination of Nasir Ad-Din Shah”. Translation by V.A. Zhukovskiĭ, commentaries by Yu. E. Borschevskiĭ on the material of the diaries of V.A. Kosogovskiy (Archives of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts), Ocherki, Moscow, 1960, pp. 75-114.

Grammar and textbooks.

Skazki popugaya. Spor chashki s kal’yanom (Tales of the Parrot. Dispute of the Cup and the Water-Pipe), selections and vocabulary by V. Zhukovskiĭ, St. Petersburg, 1887, repr. 1901.

O chertah sovremennogo polozheniya v Persii i ee literaturnyh proizvedeniyah (on the peculiarities of the modern situation in Persia and its literary works), ZVOIRAO 16, 1, 1904, p. XI-XVIII.

C. Salemann and V. Zhukovski, Persische Grammatik mit literature Chrestomathie und Glossar, Berlin, 1889.

K. G. Salemann and V. A. Zhukovskiĭ, Kratkaya grammatika novopersidskogo yazyka s prilozheniem metriki i bibliografii (A Short Grammar of the New Persian Language, with a Supplement on Prosody and Bibliography), St. Petersburg, 1890.

Studies.

V. V. Barthold, History of studying of the East in Europe and Russia. Lecture course given at the University of St Petersburg, SPb., 1911.

E. É. Bertel’s, “Nur al-‘Olum. Zhizneopisanie shaĭkha Abu-l- Hasana Kharaqani” (Nur al-ʿolum, the Life Story of the Shaykh Abu’l-Ḥasan Ḵaraqāni), Iran 3, Leningrad, 1929, pp. 155-224.

Idem, Sufizm i sufiĭskaya literature (Sufusm and Sufi Literature), Moscow, 1965; tr. into Persian by Sirus Izadi as Tasawwof wa adabiāt-e tasawwof, Tehran, 1977.

M. N. Bogolyubov, “V. A. Zhukovskiĭ kak yazykoved” (V. A. Zhukovskiĭ as Linguist), Ocherki, pp. 45-9. Yu. E. Borschevskiĭ, “K kharakteristike rukopisnogo naslediya V. A. Zhukovskogo” (Characteristics of the Handwritten Heritage of V. A. Zhukovsky), Ocherki, pp. 5-44. Yu. E. Borschevskiĭ, “Tarikh-i mukhtasar-i sahih-i bi-durug by ‘Ali Khan Qajar Zahir ad-Dawla Safi ‘Ali Shah,” Ocherki, Moscow, 1960, pp. 63-74.

E. G. Browne, “Some Notes on the Poetry of the Persian Dialects,” JRAS, 1895, pp. 773-825 (784).

Idem, A Literary History of Persia, 4 vols., London, 1902-24; repr. Cambridge, 1951-53 and 1964-69; Bethesda, Md. (with new introduction by J. T. P. de Brujn), 1997; New Delhi, 1997; Lahore, 2003.

P. P. Bushev, “K voprosu o pervoĭ poezdke V. A. Zhukovskogo v Iran (1883-86) (To the Question of the First Trip of V. A. Zhukovskiĭ to Iran), Ocherki, pp. 115-24.

A. Chodzko, Specimens of the Popular Poetry of Persia: As Found in the Adventures and Improvisations of Kuroglou, the Bandit-Minstrel of Northern Persia, and in the Songs of the People Inhabiting the Shores of the Caspian Sea, London, 1842.

A. Christensen, “Recherches sur les Ruba‘iyat de Omar Khayyam,” MGSLVO (Heft 3), Heidelberg, 1905.

C. Huart, “Les quatrains de Baba Tahir ‘Uryan en pehlevi musulman,” JA, 8e ser, 6, 1885, pp. 502-45. B. Marshak, Legends, Tales and Fables in the Art of Sogdiana, New York, 2002.

U. Marzolph, “Folklore Studies i. Of Persia,” EIr X/1, 1999, pp. 71- 75.

M. E. Masson, “Novye dannye po drevneĭ istorii Merva (New Data on Ancient History of Merv),” Vestnik Drevney Istorii 4, 1951, pp. 89-100.

N. D. Mikluho-Maclay, Description of the Tajik and Persian manuscripts of the Institute of the Peoples of Asia (Opisanie tajikskih i persidskih rukopisey Instituta narodov Azii), eds. I. A. Orbeli and V. I. Belyaev, 2 vols., Moscow, 1955 and 1961.

R. A. Nicholson, The Kashf al-Mahjúb: the Oldest Persian treatise on Súfism by ‘Alí b. ‘Uthmán al-Jullábí al-Hudjwírí, translated from the text of the Lahore edition, compared with mss. in the India Office and British Museum, Leiden and London, 1911; repr. London, 1936; new ed. London, 1959; repr. London, 1970.

Ocherki po istorii russkogo vostokovedeniya. Sbornik, posvyashchennyĭ pamyati Valentina Alekseevicha Zhukovskogo (Surveys on the History of Russian Oriental Studies. Volume Dedicated to the Memory of Valentin Alekseevich Zhukovskiĭ), ed. I. Orbeli, Moscow, 1960. W. Pertsch, Literatur-Blatt für Orientalische Philologie, 4 vols., II, Leipzig, 1884-85.

A. Romaskewicz, “V. A. Zhukovskiĭ i persidskaya narodnaya poèziya” (V. A. Zhukovskiĭ and Persian Folk Poetry), ZVORAO 25, 1921, pp. 415-22.

D. Ross, “Fresh Light on Omar Khayyam,” JRAS, 1898, pp. 350- 66.

C. Salemann and V. Rosen, Index alphabetici codicum manuscriptorum persicorum, turcicorum, arabicorum qui in bibliotheca Imperialis literarum universitatis Petropolitanae adservantur confecerunt, St. Petersburg, 1888.

S. M. Shapshal, “Valentin Alekseevich Zhukovskiĭ,” Ocherki, pp. 131-34.

Skazki popugaya, facsimil’noe izdanie persidskogo teksta V. A. Zhukovskogo s predisloviem F. I. Abdullaevoĭ (Tales of Parrot: Facsimile Edition of Zhukovskiĭ’s Text with Introduction by F. I. Abdullaeva), St. Petersburg, 2006.

O. I. Smirnova, “Mesto truda Zhukovskogo ‘Drevnosti’” (The Place of Zhukovskiĭ’s Work “Drevnosti),” Ocherki, pp. 50-9. A. T. Tagirdzhanov, “Divan Baba Kuhi v issledovaniyakh V. A. Zhukovskogo” (Divan of Bābā Kuhi in the Studies of V. A. Zhukovskiĭ), Ocherki, pp. 59-62.

S. V. Zhukovskiĭ, “Moĭ otets” (My Father), Ocherki, pp. 125-31.

Obituaries. V. V. Barthold, “Pamyati Zhukovskogo” (In Memory of Zhukovskiĭ), ZVORAO 25, 1918-21, pp. 399-414.

S. F. Oldenburg, “Valentin Alekseevich Zhukovskiĭ (1858-1918). Popytka kharakterististiki deyatel’nosti uchenogo” (Valentin Alekseevich Zhukovskiĭ [1858-1918]. An Attempt to Characterize the Activities of the Scholar), Izvestiya Akademii Nauk, 1918 (1919), pp. 2039-68.

(Firuza Abdullaeva)

Originally Published: August 15, 2009

______

ŻIĀʾ-AL-SALṬANA

, Šāh Begom (1799-1873), seventh daughter of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah Qajar (r. 1797-1834), private secretary to him, calligrapher and poet.

ŻIĀʾ-AL-SALṬANA, Šāh Begom (1799-1873), seventh daughter of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah Qajar (r. 1797-1834), private secretary to him, calligrapher and poet. Her mother, Maryam Khanom, the shah’s thirty-ninth wife, was of Jewish origin and had previously been married to Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qajar (Lesān-al-Molk, I, p. 555; Ḵāvari, II, p. 986; Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 33; Bāmdād, IV, p. 51). Żiāʾ- al-Salṭana had one full sister, Solṭān Begom, and four full brothers, Maḥmud Mirzā, Homāyun Mirzā, Aḥmad-ʿAli Mirzā and Jahānšāh Mirzā (see MARYAM KHANOM and FATH-ʿALI SHAH). Of Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana’s four full brothers, the eldest, Maḥmud Mirzā (1799-1835), was the most accomplished.

Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah doted on his seventh daughter, Šāh Begom. He paid particular attention to her education, gave her the title Żiāʾ- al-Salṭana, ‘light of the realm’ and had her raised by his mother, Āsia Khanom, the Mahd-e ‘Olyāʾ (Ḵāvari, II, p. 1012; Ażod-al- Dawla, p. 33). When Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah’s mother died, all her valuables, jewellery and cosmetics were given to Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana (Ḵāvari, II, p. 1012; Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 33). Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana acted as her father’s personal secretary, or Monši-al-mamālek-i andarun, and all his private letters were written in her hand (Ażod-al- Dawla, pp. 33 and 175; Lesān-al-Molk, I, p. 547; Ḵāvari, II, pp. 932 and 1012; Mošir Salimi, p. 308). She also controlled the signing and sealing of the royal decrees of the harem (farāmin-e andarun (Ḵāvari, II, p.1012; Mošir Salimi, p. 308; see also HAREM ii; ANDARUN; FARMĀN). She was intimately involved in the financial running of the harem and the distribution of monies to younger princes, and worked closely with the meticulous Golbadan Bāji Khanom, Ḵāzen-al-Dawla and her assistants, Ḵayr-al-Nesāʾ Khanom and Mirzā Maryam, in monitoring withdrawals of gold and jewelry from the royal treasury (Mošir Salimi, p. 308; Masʿud Anṣāri, pp. 23-24; Ażod-al-Dawla, pp. 31- 32). Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana was often to be found in her father’s presence, whether in Tehran or when traveling outside of the capital (Ḵāvari, II, pp. 1011-12; Ażod-al-Dawla, p.34; Masʿud Anṣāri, p. 22). Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah decreed that Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana be given separate living quarters beyond the confines of the harem, with her own stables and farrāšḵāna, and her own ‘vizier’, Šaʿbān-ʿAli Khan (Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 33; Mošir Salimi, I, pp. 307- 308). As the shah’s favorite daughter, every year Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana organized the festivities in the royal palace to celebrate her father’s birthday (Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 34). Just as she was trusted by her father, so Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana was respected by her brothers and sisters who were aware of the influence she had with the shah (Ḵāvari, II, p. 1013).

It was Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana who recited poems composed in praise of the shah sent to the court by contemporary poets, and it was she who recorded many of her father’s poems in writing (Ḵāvari, II, p. 1012; Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 34; Mošir Salimi, p. 308). Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah and ʿAbbās Mirzā both composed short poems in praise of Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana, who was an accomplished poet in her own right (Ażod-al-Dawla, pp. 34 and 124; Mošir Salimi, pp. 306-10; Bāmdād, IV, p. 78). Maḥmud Mirzā authored a number of significant anthologies of early Qajar poetry, including a lesser known work, Noql-e majles, an anthology of contemporary Qajar women’s poetry, which Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana asked him to write (Maḥmud, I, introd.; Golčin-e Maʿāni, Taḏkerahā., I, pp. 137-49, 728-36; II, pp. 392-93; for printed extracts from the Noql-e majles, see Mošir Salimi, pp. 257, 307-308).

Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana was also a skilled painter, musician and embroiderer, but it was as a calligrapher that Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana excelled (Ḵāvari, II, p. 1012; Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 33; Mošir Salimi, p. 308; Masʿud Anṣāri, p. 22). She was taught initially by her brother Maḥmud Mirzā, but was later tutored by Mirzā ʿAbbās Nuri (d. 1839, father of Mirzā Ḥosayn-ʿAli, B ahāʾ-Allāh) surnamed Mirzā Bozorg by the shah (Nuri, p. 207). It has been suggested that Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana married Mirzā ʿAbbās Nuri and then divorced him in a plot with Ḥāji Mirzā ʿAbbās Āqāsi to ruin him financially, although there is not sufficient evidence to support this claim (Nuri, pp. 207-208; Balyuzi 1980, pp. 14-18). Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana wrote a number of Qurʾans. One Qurʾan is now kept in the Qom Holy Shrine Museum (A żod-al-Dawla, p. 33; Mošir Salimi, p. 308; Bāmdād, IV, p. 76).

Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana had numerous suitors from among the Qajar nobility, and although she did not marry during her father’s lifetime, she was engaged briefly to her paternal cousin, Ḥosaynqoli Khan (see ḤOSAYNQOLI KHAN SARDĀR-E IRAVĀNI), son of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah’s brother of the same name (Ḵāvari, II, pp. 1012-13 and 1158; Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 34; Eʿteẓād- al-Salṭana, p. 441). Upon her father’s death, she pleaded with her nephew, M oḥammad Shah, to be allowed to live out her days in celibacy, in her own quarters. The shah did not agree and instead forced her (by threat of execution) to marry (Masʿud Anṣāri, p. 24; Bāmdād, IV, p. 77). He suggested to his aunt she marry the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mirzā Masʿud Anṣāri Garmrudi (1790-1848), this she did in 1835 at the advanced age of thirty-seven (Ḵāvari, II, p. 1013; Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 34). As a sign of respect, Moḥammad Shah visited his aunt on the night of her wedding and all the princes accompanied her from the palace to Mirzā Masʿud’s house (Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 34). Ḥājji Mirzā Āqāsi and Mir Moḥammad Mahdi, Tehran’s emām-e jomʿa presided over the marriage, and negotiated a dowry of some 50,000 tomans (Ażod-al-Dawla, pp. 34-35; Masʿud Anṣāri, pp. 25- 26). Mirzā Masʿud, son of Mirzā ʿAbd-al-Raḥim Anṣāri and cousin of Mirzā Saʿid Khan, Moʾtamen-al-Molk, was first appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs by Moḥammad Shah in 1835, a position he held until 1838 and once again from 1845 to 1848 (Eʿteẓād-al-Saltana, p. 441). He was the first Iranian official to master French, a distinction that gained him entry into the entourage of ʿAbbās Mirzā (Bāmdād, IV, pp. 75-76). Masʿud acted as translator and personal secretary to ʿAbbās Mirzā, and was an important member of the delegation headed by Ḵosrow Mirzā which was sent to Russia following the murder of the Russian Ambassador, Alexander Griboedov in Tehran in 1829. Mirzā Masʿud wrote a history of the life of ʿAbbās Mirzā, part of which was published together with Bahāʾ-al-Molk’s Safar-nāma-ye Ḵosrow Mirzā (pp. 1-3; see also Masʿud Anṣāri, pp. 12-15; Bāmdād, IV, p. 75; Amanat, pp. 76, 97, 100). Mirzā Masʿud died in 1848 and was buried in Najaf.

Mirzā Masʿud and Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana had four children, two daughters and two sons (Ḵāvari,. II, pp. 1150-51). Their elder son, Mirzā Ḥasan Khan, Nāyeb-al-Wezāra (1839-1906), worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran and was later appointed consul at Astrakhan and Erzurum (Momtaḥen-al- Dawla, p. 96; Masʿud Anṣāri, p. 2). His son, ʿAliqoli Khan, Mošāwer-al-Mamālek (1868-1940), was first appointed Persia’s Foreign Minister in 1916 (see ʿALI-QOLI KHAN). Mirzā Ḥasan’s younger brother, Mirzā Ḥosayn Khan, Meṣbāh-al-Salṭana (b. 1843), also worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran and was later posted to Bombay (Momtaḥen-al-Dawla, pp. 96-97).

Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana’s eldest daughter, Šahanšāh Begom, known as Āḡā Jān (ca. 1836-1917), married Mirzā Moḥammad Hāšem Qāẓi Ṭabāṭabāʾi (d. 1864) (Torābi Ṭáabāṭabāʾi, pp. 186-89, 202-207 and 411). Of their three daughters, the eldest, Āḡā Šahzāda (1850-ca. 1910), married Sayyed ʿAbd-Allāh Enteẓām-al-Salṭana (d. 1892), son of Mirzā Musā Wazir (1783-1865) and younger brother of Mirzā ʿIsā Wazir (d. 1892) (Bāmdād, II, p. 514; IV, p. 164). A few months prior to his death, Enteẓām-al-Salṭana was appointed Tehran’s chief of police (Bāmdād, II, pp. 282-3). Enteẓām-al- Salṭana’s grandsons, ʿAbd-Allāh (1895-1983) and Naṣr-Allāh (1899-1980) Enteẓām, rose high in the service of the Pahlavi state (see ENTEẒĀM, and NAṢR-ALLAH). Both Enteẓām-al- Salṭana and Āḡā Šahzāda were prominent members of the Tehran Bahāʾi community, and they succeeded in converting Šahanšāh Begom and her youngest daughter, ʿAḏrāʾ Khanom, known as Żiāʾ-al-Ḥajjiya (1861-1924), to the new religion (Balyuzi 1985, p. 173; Aṣdaq, p. 36; Brookshaw, pp. 21-22). Both Āḡā Šahzāda and her sister received numerous tablets (alwāḥ) from Bahāʾ-Allāh and his son, ʿAbd-al-Bahāʾ (Bahāʾ-Allāh, pp. 235- 300; Aṣdaq, pp. 13, 20, 36; Brookshaw, passim). Soon after converting (ca. 1884), Żiāʾ-al-Ḥājjiya married the prominent Bahāʾi (see BAHAI FAITH) teacher (moballeḡ) Ebn Aṣdaq (1850- 1928).

After the birth of her children, Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana performed the pilgrimage to Mecca (ḥajj) and went on pilgrimage to the shrines of the Imams in Najaf, Karbalāʾ and Mashad (Ḵāvari, II, p. 1013; Ażod-al-Dawla, p. 195). During the reign of Moḥammad Shah, Żiāʾ-al-Salṭana appears to have retained some of her influence in the running of the royal treasury and was one of the shah’s few paternal aunts allowed to sit in his presence (Ażod-al-Dawla, pp. 192 and 248-49; Masʿud Anṣāri, p. 24). She died in 1873 aged 76 and was buried in a room of the house she owned in Karbalāʾ.

Bibliography: ʿAbd al-Ḥosayn Masʿud Anṣāri, Zendagāni-ye man wa negāhi beh tāriḵ-e moʿāṣer-e Irān wa jahān, 6 vols., Tehran, 1970, vol. 1.

Ruḥā Aṣdaq, Yek ʿomr, yek ḵāṭera,Copenhagen, 1987.

Ażod-al-Dawla [Solṭān Aḥmad Mirzā], Tāriḵ-e ażodi, ed. ʿAbd-al- Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Tehran, 1997.

Bahāʾ-Allāh [Mirzā Ḥosayn-ʿAli Nuri], Majmuʿa-ye āṯār-e qalam-e aʿlā,INBA (Iranian National Baha’i Archives), 105 vols.; vol. 26, Tehran, 1976.

Bahā’-al-Molk [Mirzā Moṣṭafā Afšār) and Mirzā Masʿud Anšāri, Safar-nāma-ye Ḵosrow Mirzā wa tāriḵ-e zendegāni-ye ʿAbbās Mirzā, Nāyeb-al-Salṭana, ed. Moḥammad Golbon, Tehran, 1970.

Hasan Balyuzi, Bahá’u’lláh the King of Glory, Oxford, 1980.

Idem, Eminent Bahá’ís in the Time of Bahá’u’lláh, Oxford, 1985.

Mahdi Bāmdād, Tāriḵ-e rejāl-e Irān, 6 vols.; vols. I, II and IV, Tehran, 1968; vol. VI, Tehran, 1972.

Dominic Parviz Brookshaw, “Letters to Bahaʾi Princesses: Tablets Revealed in Honour of the women of Ibn-i Asdaq’s Household,” Lights of ʿIrfan 5, 2004, pp. 19-41. Eʿteżād-al-Salṭana [ʿAli-Qoli Khan Mirzā], Eksir al-Tawāriḵ, ed. Jamšid Kiānfar, Tehran, 2001.

Golčin-e Maʿāni, Taḏkerahā. Ḵāvari [Mirzā Fażl-Allāh Širāzi], Tāriḵ-e Ḏu ʾl-Qarnayn, 2 vols., ed. Nāṣer Afšārfar, Tehran, 2001.

Lesān-al-Molk [Moḥammad-Taqi Sepehr], Nāseḵ al-tawāriḵ, 3 vols. in 2, ed. Jamšid Kiānfar, Tehran, 1998.

Maḥmud Mirzā Qājār, Safinat al-maḥmud, 2 vols., ed. ʿAbd-al- Rasul Ḵayyāmpur, Tabriz, 1968.

Moḥammad-ʿAli Malek Ḵosravi Nuri, Eqlim-e nur, Tehran, 1958.

Momtaḥen-al-Dawla [Mirzā Mahdi Khan] and Mirzā Hāšem Khan, Rejāl-e wezārat-e ḵāreja dar ʿahd-e nāṣeri wa moẓaffari, ed. Iraj Afšār, Tehran, 1986.

ʿAli-Akbar Mošir Salimi, Zanān-e soḵanvar, 3 vols., Tehran, 1956- 57 (especially vol. 1).

Jamāl Torābi Ṭabāṭābāʾi, Nasab-nāma: šāḵaʾi az Ṭabāṭābāʾihā-ye Tabriz, Tabriz, 1997. (Dominic Parviz Brookshaw)

Originally Published: August 15, 2006

______

ZIGGURAT

ZIGGURAT (Akkadian ziqqurratu “temple-tower”), a tower consisting of several stages, on whose uppermost platform existed in all probability a high temple (Roaf, pp. 104-105). According to Wilfrid Allinger-Csollich (p. 319), the high temple is not separate from the ziggurat, and the entire ziggurat should be understood as a raised temple. In Iran there are ziggurats as well as monumental buildings which exhibit similar functions, but it is unclear whether the ziggurats influenced the development of the monumental buildings, or vice versa. The monumental buildings have terraces or platforms, which possibly served as foundations for a ziggurat or a similar high temple (Akkadian gigunû, kukunnû). At sites such as Ulug Depe (Turkmenistan) there are also terrace-like substructures which supported large representative buildings. Since current research suggests that the representative buildings had absolutely no religious function, these sub-structures will not be discussed in this entry.

The history of the monumental buildings in Iran can be divided into two phases. The first phase of ziggurat-like structures und platforms dates to the Early and Middle Bronze Age (between the end of the 4th millennium and the 3rd millennium BCE ). Slightly smaller monumental platforms which possibly served as substructures for high temples were erected in the Iron Age (between the end of the 2nd and the first half of the 1st millennium BCE), and constitute their second phase.

In Iran, buildings considered ziggurats or high temples can be distinguished from Mesopotamian ziggurats by their means of access. External flights of steps are always missing from monumental buildings in Iran, yet they are at all times present in Mesopotamia (for Babylonia, see Ur, Babylon, and Dur Kurigalzu; for Assyria, see Assur, Nimrud, Tall ar-Rimah and Khorsabad). In Iran, monumental buildings, with the exception of Choga Zanbil whose construction sets it apart, were accessible by ramps.

Tepe Sialk. Roman Ghirshman (1939, II, pp. 23-25), the first archeologist to excavate the southern mound, dated the site to the Early Iron Age, and considered the monument a “grande construction.” Based on new excavations in the early 2000s, S. M. Shahmirzadi (2004, 2005) has proposed to consider this site (Figure 1) a ziggurat dating to the Proto-Elamite Layer IV. But his date is based on pottery uncovered exclusively in the debris surrounding the monument (Pfälzner, p. 422 n. 75), and his interpretation has been widely rejected as pure speculation (Azarnoush and Helwing, p. 226 n. 172). Neither the reconstruction of this monument as a ziggurat nor its dating to the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE is accepted in the archeological literature.

Choga Zanbil (Čoḡā Zanbil, Tchogha Zanbil) is nowadays the most famous ziggurat in Iran, and in 1979 it was added to the UNESCO's World Heritage List. The town (lat 32°00′30.4″ N, long 48°31′19.0″ E) lies on the river Dez in the Khuzestan region, and was discovered in 1936. In the 1950s Ghirshman oversaw a French team excavating the site, and since 1997 the German team of Behzad Mofidi Nasrabadi has conducted further investigations of Choga Zanbil.

The urban settlement was founded by the Elamite ruler Untaš- Napiriša (r. ca. 1340-1300 BCE; elsewhere dated ca. 1275-40 BCE), and the ziggurat was dedicated to Inšušinak and Napiriša, the principal deities of the town and the Elamites, respectively. The ziggurat is separated from the town by a temenos wall, and with a lateral length of 105.20 m it is the largest known ziggurat (Figure 2). The structure is unique, since the chronological sequences of the building phases, that have been recognised, differ fundamentally from that of other known ziggurats in Mesopotamia (Figure 3). At the beginning (Figure 4), a brick formwork (Heinrich, p. 104), which served as a protection against rain water, was set up around a slightly sunken brick floor with stairways to the temples for Inšušinak and Napiriša. Within this mantle (Figure 5), the ziggurat was built up through the construction of a square core (stage IV) with two enclosing shells (stages II and III). The area between the casing and stage II was steadily filled in and, together with the outer shell, formed the ziggurat's stage I, while stage V would have been the high temple of which no traces have remained. Ghirshman (1966, p. 37) could identify this construction method because his team excavated a tunnel which lead into the ziggurat's center. It is likely that a terrace served as the foundation for the above- ground ziggurat, and on all four sides, interior staircases led to stage I. But traces of a staircase to stage II were only found on the south-west side of stage I. In the entire brickwork, in each 11th layer, all bricks are stamped. Decorative wall nails, of which many have been recovered, originally adorned the ziggurat's exterior façade. On each side of stage I, five channels served as a constructional measure for rainwater drainage. Additional channels protected the entire building as well as the temple of Inšušinak, as they allowed for the disposal of water and liquids (Mofidi Nasrabadi, 2007). The absence of monumental flights of stairs furthermore distinguishes this ziggurat from the known stepped towers in Mesopotamia (Kleiss).

Tureng Tepe. A raised terrace, which dates to approximately 2000 BCE, was exposed in Layer III C1, where it forms the core of the main mound. To the south, two stages and a ramp, providing a way up to stage I, could still be identified, and the structure is similar to a ziggurat in its construction. Since decorative pillars similar to those known from Altyn-Depe (Altin Tepe) were found on the terrace, the entire structure has been compared with the approximately contemporaneous raised terraces in Altyn-Depe and Mundigak (Deshayes, 1975, 1977).

Mundigak. Jean-Marie Casal referred to a large building that was found in Layer IV of Mound C and which dates to the first half of the 3rd millennium BCE as “temple.” Its exterior façade was decorated with triangular pillars. In Mound A, a large building with a structured façade (“monument massif”) in Layer V had been erected atop a building (“palais”) in Layer IV.

Nad-i Ali (Nād-e ʿAli). The monumental platform of this site in Sistān in today's Afghanistan is approimately dated to the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE. Even now, the structure of solid mud brick rises more than 35 m above the ground. Ghirshman (1942) distinguished two phases, which he dated to the Achaemenid period (Phase I) and the 9th and 8th centuries BCE (Phase II). During Phase II the platform was square (ca. 50 x 50 m), and Ghirshman compared it with the structure in Tepe Sialk. George F. Dales cut a trial trench (Operation B) and a tunnel (Operation D) on the platform, and conjectured a main occupation phase in the Median-Achaemenid period and a reoccupation in the Arsacid or Kushan period possibly up to the Sasanian period. Yet Roland Besenval and Henri-Paul Francfort reclassified the monumental structure, arguing that the rectangular size of the bricks, used for the platform construction during Phase II, and a large storage vessel, already excavated by Ghirshman, placed the building in the period between 2500 and 1700 BCE.

Shahr-i Sokhta (Šahr-e Soḵta). On the site there is a monumental structure with a platform (9.6 x 9.8 m, called Building 1, that was built atop of one of the highest points of the entire north-west area, approximately 13 m above the plain (Mariani 1989). It seems possible that this structure is the substructure of a raised structure, since a small room on the platform's east side could be interpreted as a stairwell or stairway.

Susa. The remains of a raised structure on Susa's acropolis (lat 32°11′20.43″ N, long 48°14′55.07″ E) was first noticed by Roland de Mecquenem (p. 65). Although de Mecquenem had already identified an artificial platform (Niveau 10), the secure identification of the remains only occurred after 1965 on the basis of systematic stratigraphic excavations (Steve and Gasche, p. 41). Today this monumental structure, which possibly corresponds to an early type of ziggurats, is approximately dated to the end of the 4th millennium BCE (Figure 6). Only the southern side of the structure has been excavated. While stage I is definitely preserved (Steve and Gasche, p. 41), an identification of the possible remains of a stage II for a structure of 88 x 72 m has been suggested (Canal, 1978a; 1978b). The exterior wall of the above-ground building was decorated with clay nails, which have survived in great numbers. The remains of a second platform (“massif funéraire”) have been identified south of the high terrace in Niveau 11 (Canal, 1978a; 1978b), and the two platforms were built in related settlement phases (Niveaux 10B and 10A, Strata 40 and 38). Inscriptional evidence for the ziggurats in Susa dates to the Neo- Assyrian period. In the Rassam Cylinder (Streck, II, p. 53), Aššurbanipal (r. 666-625 BCE) boasted that he had destroyed the ziggurat of Susa, built from lapis-lazuli bricks, and broken off its horns of gleaming bronze.

Choga Mish (Čoḡā Miš). Only a few traces of a terrace have remained in the area between trenches VI and IX (squares J- K14). The structure is dated to the 4th millennium BCE, and its polygonal platform had been built with very hard mud bricks (Kantor and Delougaz, p. 32). No traces of superstructures have survived.

Jiroft. Two superimposed platforms are located on the mound Konar Sandal North (Madjidzadeh, 2008, pp. 88-89). The upper structure measured 150 x 150 m and the lower 300 x 300 m, so that this monumental structure covered almost the whole mound. While these platforms form a stepped massif which recalls the ziggurats of Mesopotamia, Youssef Madjidzadeh (2008, p. 89) warned against interpreting this monumental structure as a ziggurat as its function is not known.

Haft Tepe (Figure 7). The site’s two large structures are known as Terrace Complex I and II. They were presumably erected under the Elamite king Tepti-ahar. Terrace Complex I is almost square, and had a lateral length of more than 100 m. In the southern area a bit of excavation has been conducted. Northeast of of the first structure, archeologists found a cluster of rooms and a large hall separated from each other by a courtyard. The orientation of Terrace Complex II deviates about 15 degrees from that of Terrace Complex I. As Terrace Complex II is higher than the first structure (Negahban, p. 19), it presumably belongs to a later building phase (Mofidi Nasrabadi, 2003-04, p. 236). Both terraces might have served as platforms for temples. They are located on the east and south corners of a large courtyard, on whose north and west corners two smaller terraces could have been erected (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2004, p. 300).

Altyn-depe (Altin Tepe). In 1968, excavations revealed a stepped construction on this site in modern Turkmenistan. As its shape is reminiscent of the ziggurats in Mesopotamia (Masson, 1981; 1988), it is commonly referred to as a terraced structure. For this monumental structure of the Namazga V type, three building phases can be distinguished. Phase I comprised four stages each of which reached a height of 6 m. The exterior of the second stage was decorated with pilasters, which themselves were designed as three stages. During phase II a platform (2 m height) and a second stage (2.5-4 m height) were built. The platform, with a north-south orientation, had a lateral length of 45 m, and served as this phase's foundation. As in phase I, three-stage pilasters served as the decoration of the second stage. Moreover, a tower, whose structure indicated the structural remains of the early ziggurat, was erected south of the ziggurat during phase II. The ziggurat's total height during phase II is estimated to have been 12 m. Phase III was characterized by a gradual deterioration which in turn was followed by individual restorations. During the last phase, a building, that is now known as the “Corner House,” was erected on the ziggurat's south side.

Koktepe. On this site in modern Uzbekistan, two monumental platforms D and E of mud brick are identified in the Iron Age layer IIIa. They had either religious or political functions (Rapin, p. 36). The eastern platform E is a two-stage construction, and measured 11,000 m3; Claude Rapin (p. 38) considers this platform a reduced ziggurat.

Representations. On a vase discovered in a grave at Susa, André Parrot (p. 39, fig. 6) considered three of the represented objects as reminiscent of a stepped tower and interpreted them as ziggurats. One of these is a two-stage ziggurat, and the other two are three-stage ziggurats; people are sitting atop of all three architectural structures.

A late-Uruk-period seal rolling from Susa shows a large monumental building that either stands on a platform or is surrounded by a wall. A similar image has been preserved in a rolling from Choga Mish. But on the Susa rolling there are three horns on each side of the building, and it is unresolved whether this rolling depicts an early representation of a ziggurat or that of a fortified building (Amiet). In both rollings, however, the monumental building appears within a scene of military conflict. In the rolling from Choga Mish the stepped building of the rolling from Choga Mish, there are people atop the steppeed building, throwing objects (stones?) at attackers, seemingly to defend themselves. In another late-Uruk-period seal rolling (Louvre AO 29389), people seem also to have assembled atop a stepped building for defensive reasons.

Architectural representations have been preserved on several stone vessels made from steatite (for the differences between chlorite and steatite, see CHLORITE). On a vessel ascribed to Jiroft (Madjidzadeh, 2003; see Figure 8; cf. JIROFT iv. Iconography of Chlorite Artifacts, fig. 10) and on two fragmented stone weights from Tepe Yahya and the Kerman province, the architectural representations are referred to as ziggurats because of their step-like construction.

A Neo-Assyrian relief in Niniveh, which is today in the British Museum, shows a stepped monumental building. As the relief is dated to the time of Aššurbanipal, it raises the question of what the ziggurat of Susa looked like in the 1st millennium BCE. While Walter Andrae (p. 38) questioned that this relief shows a ziggurat at all, Theodor Dombart (1926, 1929) considered it a representation of the ziggurat of Susa, since the stepped monumental building supports a high temple with horns, such as those mentioned in the inscription of the Rassam Cylinder. A bronze model with the three-dimensional respresentation of a cult scene (see ELAM vi. Elamite Religion) was discovered in the northern area of the so-called Ninhursag temple on the acropolis in Susa between 1904 and 1905. Because of the extant inscription of Šilhak-Inšušinak, the model is known as sit-šamši (lit. “sunrise”), and dated to the 12th century BCE. In its center two naked, shaven men sit opposite each other. They are flanked by two square, stepped objects. While the taller object has three steps and some kind of staircase leading up to the second stage, the other object has only two steps and its sidewalls are decorated with incisions reminiscent of gated entrances. This three-dimensional representation of a cult scene is unique within the Near East, and the interpretations of the stepped objects range from altar (Grillot, p. 12) to ziggurat (Parrot, pp. 42-43).

Bibliography:

W. Allinger-Csollich, “Birs Nimrud II: 'Tieftempel' – 'Hochtempel' (Vergleichende Studien: Borsippa - Babylon),” Baghader Mitteilungen 29, 1998, pp. 95-330.

P. Amiet, “Temple sur terrasse ou fortresse?” Revue archéologique 81, 1987, pp. 99-104.

W. Andrae, “Altmesopotamische Ziggurrat-Darstellungen,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 64, 1926, pp. 32-54.

M. Azarnous and B. Helwing, “Recent Archaeological Research in Iran: Prehistory to Iron Age,” AMIT 37, 2005, pp. 189-246.

R. Besenval and H.-P. Francfort, “The Nad-i Ali 'Surkh Dagh': A Bronze Age Monumental Platform in Central Asia?” in From Sumer to Meluhha: Contributions to the Archaeology of South and West Asia in Memory of George F. Dales, Jr., eds. J. M. Kenoyer and R. Meadow, Madison, Wisc., 1994, 3-14.

D. Canal, “La terrace de l'Acropole de Suse,” in Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran (DAFI) 9, 1978a, pp. 11-55.

Idem, “La haute terrasse de l'acropole de Suse,” Paléorient 4, 1978b, pp. 169-76.

J.-M. Casal, Fouilles de Mundigak, Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 17, 2 vols., Paris, 1961.

G. F. Dales, New Excavations at Nad-i Ali (Sorkh Dagh), Afghanistan, Berkeley, Calif., 1977.

J. Deshayes, “Les fouilles recentes de Tureng Tepe: La terrasse haute de la fin du 3e millenaire,” Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions, 1975, pp. 522-30. Idem, “A propos des terrasses hautes de la fin du IIIe millénaire en Iran et en Asie Centrale,” in Le Plateau Iranien et l'Asie Centrale des origines à la conquête islamique: Leur relations à la lumiere des documents archéologiques, ed. J. Deshayes, Paris, 1977, pp. 95-111.

Th. Dombart, “Die Ziggurrat-Darstellung aus Ninive,” Archiv für Orientforschung 3, 1926, pp. 177-81.

Idem, “Das Ziggurratrelief aus Kujundschik: Seine Geschichte, genaue Einreihung und Deutung,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 38, 1929, pp. 39-64.

R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Sialk près de Kashan, 1933, 1934, 1937, 2 vols., Paris, 1938-39.

Idem, “Recherches préhistoriques en Afghanistan. Fouilles de Nad-i Ali dans le Seistan Afghan,” Revue des Arts Asiatiques 13, 1942, pp. 10-22.

Idem, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash): I - La ziggurat, Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran 39, Paris, 1966.

F. Grillot, “Le 'shuter' royal de Suse,” Iranica Antiqua 18, 1983, pp. 1-24. A. Hakemi, “Kerman: The Original Place of Production of Chlorite Stone Objects in the 3rd Millennium B.C. ,” East and West 47, 1997, pp. 11-40.

Prudence O. Harper et al., The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992.

E. Heinrich, Review of Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash): I - La ziggurat by R. Ghirshman, Archiv für Orientforschung 23, 1970, pp. 104-7.

H. Kantor and P. Delougaz, Chogha Mish: I - The First Five Seasons, 1961-1971,Oriental Institute Publication 101, Chicago, 1996.

W. Kleiss, “Bemerkungen zur Zikkurrat von Choga Zanbil,” AMIT 31, 1999, pp. 143-48.

Y. Madjidzadeh, Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civilization, Tehran, 2003.

Idem, “Excavations at Konar Sandal in the Region of Jiroft in the Halil Basin: First Preliminary Report (2002-2008) with a Contribution on Glyptic Art by Holly Pittman,” Iran 46, 2008, pp. 69-104.

L. Mariani, “The Monumental Area of Shahr-i Sokhta: Notes from a Surface Reconnaissance,” in South Asian Archaeology 1985, eds. K. Frifelt and P. Sorensen, London, 1989, pp. 114-36.

V. M. Masson, “Urban Centers and Early Class Society,” in The Bronze Age Civilization of Central Asia: Recent Soviet Discoveries, ed. P. L. Kohl, Armonk, N.Y., 1981, pp. 135-48.

Idem, Altyn-Depe, tr. H. N. Michael, University Museum Monograph 55, Philadelphia, 1988.

R. de Mecquenem, “Constructions élamites du tell de l’Acropole de Suse,” Mémoires de la Délégation française en Perse 12, 1911, pp. 65-78.

B. Mofidi Nasrabadi, “Archäologische Untersuchungen in Haft Tape (Iran),” AMIT 35-36, 2003-2004, pp. 225-39.

Idem, “Elam: Archäologie und Geschichte,” in Persiens Antike Pracht, eds. Th. Stöllner et al., Bochum, 2004, pp. 294-309.

Idem, Archäologische Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in Coga Zanbil, Münster, 2007.

E. O. Negahban, Excavations at Haft Tepe, Iran, University Museum Monograph 70, Philadelphia, 1991. A. Parrot, Ziggurats et tour de Babel, Paris, 1949.

P. Pfälzner, “Das Tempeloval von Urkeš: Betrachtungen zur Typologie und Entwicklungsgeschichte der mesopotamischen Ziqqurrat im 3. Jt. v. Chr.,” Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 1, 2008, pp. 396-433.

C. Rapin, “Nomads and the Shaping of Central Asia: From the Early Iron Age to the Kushan Period,” in After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam, eds. J. Cribb and G. Herrmann, Proceedings of the British Academy 133, Oxford, 2007, pp. 29-72.

M. Roaf, Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East, Oxford, 1990.

S. M. Shahmirzadi, The Ziggurat of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration Project, Report No. 1, Tehran, 2004.

Idem, “Additional Remarks and a New Reconstruction of the Ziggurat of Sialk,” in The Fishermen of Sialk, ed. S. M. Shahmirzadi, Archaeological Report Monograph Series 7, Tehran, 2005, pp. 103-12.

M.-J. Steve and H. Gasche, L'Acropole des Suse: Nouvelles fouilles - Rapport préliminaire, Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran 66, Leiden, 1971. T. Stöllner et al., Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie: Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau- Museums Bochum vom 28. November 2004 bis 29. Mai 2005, 2 vols., Bochum, 2004.

M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Ninivehs, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1916.

F. Vallat, “L’origine orientale de la ziggurate,” Dossiers d’Archéologie,no. 287, 2003, pp. 92-95.

(Michael Herles)

______

ZIYARIDS

(Āl-e Ziār), a minor Islamic dynasty of the Caspian coastlands (931-ca. 1090). They ruled first in northern Iran, and then in Ṭabarestān and Gorgān.

ZIYARIDS (Āl-e Ziār), a minor Islamic dynasty of the Caspian coastlands (931-ca. 1090). They ruled first in northern Iran, and then in Ṭabarestān and Gorgān.

The Ziyarids belonged to hitherto submerged mountain peoples, notably the Deylamites, Gilites (Gelae; see GILĀN iv, EIr X/6, p. 634), and Kurds, whose rise to power constitutes the “Daylami intermezzo” of Iranian history (Minorsky). After the decline of direct caliphal authority in northwestern Iran and the demise of local powers like the Sājid governors of Azerbaijan (esp. EIr III/4, p. 227), many mountain chiefs became soldiers of fortune and contenders for authority in this power vacuum; the most successful of all these were the three Deylamite Buyids.

The founder of the Ziyarid dynasty Mardāvij b. Ziār (r. 931-35) claimed to stem from the pre-Islamic royal family of Gilān. He first served the Ḥasanids of Ṭabarestān and then the Gilite commander Asfār b. Širuya. In 931, Asfār’s excesses in northern Iran enabled Mardāvij to defeat and kill him. Mardāvij obtained control of an extensive dominion comprising Ray and Qazvin and extending to Hamadan, Dinavar, and Isfahan, and by 934 his troops even penetrated into Ahvāz. The Buyid brothers began their careers as condottieri in Mardāvij’s service. Mardāvij seems to have had grandiose dreams of marching on Baghdad, overthrowing the ʿAbbasids (q.v.) and reconstituting the ancient Persian empire and faith, but these ambitions were cut short by his death at the hands of his Turkish military slaves (ḡolām; see BARDA and BARDADĀRI) in 935 (Masʿudi, pars. 3587-3602; Ebn Esfandiār, pp. 216-17; Ebn al-Aṯir, VIII, pp. 298- 302).

His brother Ẓahir al-Dowla Vošmgir (r. 935-967; vošmgir lit. quail catcher, see Masʿudi, par. 3603; Justi, p. 359) was hailed as his successor at Ray, and his skill and circumspection allowed for a long reign despite constant conflicts. At first he was able to hold on to Mardāvij’s conquests in northern and western Iran, but about 940 the vigorously expanding Buyids challenged his rule. Vošmgir allied with Mākān b. Kāki (d. 940), another Deylamite contender for power. Mākān had renounced his allegiance to the Samanids of Transoxania, the other great power which was hoping to extend westwards into northern Iran under their commander (amir) Naṣr b. Aḥmad. In 940, in a battle near Dāmḡān, the Samanid commander Abu ʿAli Aḥmad Moḥtāji (see ĀL-e MOḤTĀJ) defeated the troops of Mākān and Vošmgir. Mākān was killed and Vošmgir abandoned Ray to retire to Āmol in Ṭabarestān (Meskavayh, Tajāreb al-omam, II, pp. 3-8, tr. Margoliouth, V, pp. 3-8; Ebn Esfandiār, tr. pp. 218-19; Ebn al-Aṯir, VIII, p. 359; Miles, 1938, pp. 149-53). After this defeat the Ziyarids’ political and military power was limited to the Caspian coastlands (see CASPIAN SEA), and Vošmgir became effectively a vassal of the Samanids. He was involved in complex struggles to retain his power against such enemies as Ḥasan b. Firuzān , the Deylamite governor of Sāri, and the Buyid Rokn al-Dowla Ḥasan (r. 947-77), while anxiously securing Ṭabarestān and Gorgān, with the backing of the Samanids, as a buffer between themselves and the Buyids (Stern, pp. 122-24). Yet these two provinces changed hands several times until in 955 Rokn al- Dowla and the Samanid ʿAbd al-Malek b. Nuḥ (r. 954-61) reached a general peace agreement, according to which Vošmgir’s control of Ṭ˘abarestān was no longer challenged by the Buyid. In 958 Vošmgir briefly occupied Ray, the Rokn al-Dowla’s capital, and in the last years of his life, he participated in various Samanid attempts to retake Ray. But the city remained the capital of the northern Buyid emirate until the conquest of the Ghaznavid sultan Maḥmud (r. 998-1030; see GHAZNAVIDS) in 1029. Rokn al-Dowla in turn occupied Ṭabarestān and Gorgān during the next two or three years, after 958, on one, possibly two, occasions. At the end of 967, Vošmgir was killed by a wild boar, when he was about to command a joint attack with a Samanid army under Moḥammad b. Ebrāhim Simjuri on Rokn al- Dowla (Meskavayh, II, p. 233, tr. V, p. 247; Ebn Esfandiār, p. 225; Ebn al-Aṯir, VIII, pp. 577-79).

After Vošmgir’s death, his eldest son Bisotun (r. 967-78), who had been governor of Ṭabarestān, successfully claimed the throne, though his brother Qābus (r. 978-81 and 997-1012), who enjoyed the support of the Samanids, challenged his succession. But Bisotun was backed by the Buyids and established himself in Ṭabarestān and Gorgān. This alliance was sealed by his marriage to a daughter of ʿAżod al-Dowla Fanā-Ḵosrow b. Rokn al-Dowla (r. 949-83; q.v.), and in 971 the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Moṭiʿ (r. 946-74) granted Bisotun the honorific (laqab) of Ẓahir al-Dowla. With this Buyid support Bisotun retained his power until his death in 978 (Ebn Esfandiār, p. 225.)

Qābus gained the throne by elbowing aside Bisotun’s young son, the candidate of the Gilite Dobāj b. Bāni, Bisotun’s father- in-law. This seems to have been a temporal reversal of alliances, since Qābus had gained the support of ʿAżod al- Dowla, whom he in fact acknowledged on his first coins (Ebn Esfandiār, pp. 225-26; Ebn al-Aṯir, VIII, pp. 687-88). Between 978 and 979, the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Ṭāʾeʿ (r. 974-991) granted Qābus the honorific title of Šams al-Maʿāli. But Qābus gave refuge to Faḵr al-Dowla ʿAli (r. 983-97), the brother of the Buyid emir as well as Qābus’ brother-in-law. The Buyid ruler in Jebāl was at odds with his brother, and Qābus’ relations with ʿAżod al-Dowla very soon deteriorated. In 980 and 981 Qābus lost first Ṭabarestān to ʿAżod al-Dowla and then Gorgān to ʿAzod al- Dowla’s brother Moʾayyed al-Dowla (d. 984). After their defeat at Astarābād, Qābus and Faḵr al-Dowla took refuge with Ḥosām al- Dowla Tāš, the Samanid governor in Nishapur, and the two exiles had no hope of returning to their ancestral lands as long as ʿAżod al-Dowla and Mo’ayyed al-Dowla were alive. In 984 Ṣāḥeb Ebn ʿAbbād (d. 995), the great Buyid vizier, supported that Faḵr al-Dowla resumed power in Ray and Jebāl, but he did not permit Qābus to return to the Caspian provinces. Only in 997, when Faḵr al-Dowla’s son Majd al-Dowla Rostam (d. 1029) claimed the throne under the tutelage of his mother Sayyeda, could Qābus return home, after seventeen years of absence, at the invitation of the people of Gorgān (Ebn Esfandiār, p. 226; Ebn al-Aṯir, IX, pp. 139-41.

The events of the second part of Qābus’s reign are less well documented in the sources. During these years he had correct rather than amicable relations with Maḥmud. In 999 the Ghaznavid sultan Maḥmud had wrested the control of Khorasan from the Samanids and promised Qābus help in regaining his principality, yet the terms were unacceptable to the Ziyarid ruler (Nāẓim, pp. 77-78). Nevertheless Qābus held on to his power without acknowledging any outside suzerain. The historians relate that Qābus’s cruelty and bloodthirsty rule, in connection with a particular animosity towards those who did not share his strongly held Sunni tenets, aroused much resentment amongst his subjects. His arbitrary government culminated in the execution of the governor of Astarābād for his alleged Moʿtazelite beliefs. A revolt of his troops cost him the control of his capital Gorgān City, and the rebels raised to the throne his son Manučehr (r. 1012-29), while Qābus was pursued to Besṭām on the Ray-Khorasan road. Although Qābus had abdicated his power, the insurgents still feared him and in 1012 contrived to kill him by exposure to the freezing winter conditions in (ʿOtbi, pp. 363-67; Ebn Esfandiār, pp. 232 -33; Ebn al-Aṯir, IX, p. 238-40).

Qābus is the most famous of Ziyarid rulers because of his cultural and literary significance (Bosworth, 1978). His military achievements were mediocre, while his rule proved in fact tyrannical. But Qābus was a fine scholar in both Arabic and Persian, a skilful poet in both languages, and famed for his command of the epistolary style (see CORRESPONDENCE ii; ENŠA); a collection of his Arabic writings (rasāʾel) is extant (Brockelmann, GAL, S I, p. 154). He also had a reputation as an expert calligrapher (see CALLIGRAPHY) and as an authority on astrology (see ASTROLOGY and ASTRONOMY iii). His prolonged exile amongst the Samanids brought him into contact with some of the brightest luminaries of Bukhara and Nishapur, and the Samanid connection surely established Qābus’ fame. Ṯaʿālebi (d. 1037-8) praises him as an outstanding littérateur and scholar, as well as a Maecenas (IV, pp. 59-61). Biruni (973-after 1050) visited the Ziyarid court soon after Qābus’ restoration to the throne in 998, and composed around1000 the Al-Āṯār al- bāqiya which he dedicated to his patron (EIr IV/3, p. 275). When in 1013 Ebn Sinā (980?-1037; see AVICENNA) left his native Khwarazm (see CHORASMIA) for Gorgān, he was seeking the Ziyarid’s patronage, yet Qābus had just died (EIr III/1, p. 69). Outside Gorgān City stands his mausoleum, the Gonbad-e Qābus. Qābus himself supervised its construction between 1006 and 1007, and the tall cylindrical brick tower is one of the most renowned monuments of Iranian architecture.

Qābus’s successor Manučehr received from the ʿAbbasid caliph Qāder (r. 991-1031) the honorific of Falak al-Maʿāli. But Ghaznavids controlled Khorasan, and their power extended now into the Caspian region. Sultan Maḥmud espoused the cause of Manučehr’s brother Dārā b. Qābus (r. 1035-49) who had been a fugitive at the court of Ḡazni during their father’s lifetime. Maḥmud threatened to support Dārā’s claim to the throne with sending him an army. Manučehr bought himself off by promising the Ghaznavids an annual tribute of 50,000 dinar, and sealed the arrangement with marrying one of Maḥmud’s daughters (ʿOtbi, pp. 367-75; Bayhaqi, p. 264; Ebn Esfandiār, p. 234). Thereafter, the Ziyarid ruler was no longer an independent ruler. Manučehr had, in fact, become a Ghaznavid governor (wali), and occasionally sent troop contingents for Maḥmud’s military campaigns (ʿOtbi, pp. 378-79). But in 1029, shortly before the death of both Manučehr and Maḥmud, the Ziyarid felt again threatened when the Ghaznavids conquered Ray from the Buyid Majd al-Dowla, and he paid the sultan a heavy indemnity to prevent a possible Ghaznavid invasion (Nāẓim, pp. 78-79). It is unknown whether Manučehr shared his father’s cultural interests and continued with the patronage of scholarship and the arts. There is, however, no supporting evidence for the assertion that the Ghaznavid poet Manučehri (fl. 1031-1041) derived his penname (taḵallos) from a stay at the Ziyarid court (Browne, pp. 104, 156; Clinton).

Manučehr’s young son Anušervān (r. 1029-35) had been in 1029 confirmed by Maḥmud as his father’s successor, with the stipulation of continued tribute to the Ghaznavids. But from 1032 until 1040 this youth was excluded from power by a maternal relative, Abu Kālijār b. Vayhān (for the exact relationship, see Bosworth, 1964, pp. 28-31). When in 1035 Abu Kālijār fell behind with his tribute payments, Masʿud b. Maḥmud (r. 1031-1040) mounted a large-scale invasion of Gorgān and Ṭabarestān and savagely sacked Āmol. Abu Kālijār agreed to resume the tribute payments (Gardizi, pp. 198-99; Bayhaqi, pp. 583-609), while Anušervān seems to have recovered his princely power, though the end of Ghaznavid suzerainty was near. Between 1041 and 1042 the Saljuq sultan Ṭoghril Beg (r. 1043-63) first wrested Khorasan from Masʿud and then invaded the Caspian lands, so that the Ziyarids became tributaries of the Great Saljuqs (Ebn al-Aṯir, IX, pp. 496-97).

The last decades of the Ziyarid rule are very obscure, and apparently Manučehr was the last Ziyarid to issue his own coinage. Both Anušervān and Abu Kālijār seem to have died between 1049 and 1050 (Ebn Esfandiār, p. 235). The last firmly attested Ziyarid is ʿOnṣor al-Maʿāli Kaykāvus b. Eskandar b. Qābus (d. ca. 1087; see KAYKĀVUS), the celebrated author of the Qābus-nāma which was named after his well-known grandfather. Statements in the Qābus-nāma (pp. 24-25, 135-37; tr. pp. 35-37, 230-31, 234-35) suggest that Kaykāvus spent much of his early life away from the Caspian region, first in Ḡazni in the service of the Ghaznavid Mawdud b. Masʿud (r. 1041-48) and then in Arrān in that of the Shaddadid Abu‘l-Aswār Šāvor b. Fażl (r. 1049-67). Kaykāvus is said to have been succeeded by his son Gilānšāh (r. ca.1087-ca. 1090). But he is a completely shadowy figure, and may have been overthrown by the Ismaʿilis (see ISMAʿILISM ii) of the Alborz region who brought the Ziyarid dynasty to its end in ca. 1090 (Bosworth, 1964, p. 33).

Bibliography.

Sources.

Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqi, Tāriḵ-e Masʿudi, ed. ʿA.-A. Fayyāż, Mashad, 1971.

Ebn al-Aṯir, Al-Kamel fi ’l-taʾriḵ, ed. by C. J. Tornberg, repr., 13 vols., Beirut, 1965-67, vols. VIII-X.

Ebn Esfandiār, Tāriḵ-e Ṭabarestān, tr. as An Abridged History of the History of Ṭabaristān, by E. G. Browne, Leiden and London, 1905. Abu Saʿid ʿAbd-al-Ḥayy Gardizi, Zayn al-aḵbār, ed. A.-Ḥ. Ḥabibi, Tehran, 1968.

Kay Kāvus b. Eskandar, Qābus-nāma, ed. R. Levy, GMS NS 18, London, 1951; tr. as A Mirror for Princes, by R. Levy, London, 1951.

Masʿudi, Moruj al-ḏahab wa-maʿāden al-jawhar, ed. C. Barbier de Meynard and A. Pavet de Courteille, rev. Ch. Pellat, 7 vols., Beirut, 1966-79; tr. as Les prairies d’or, by C. Barbier de Meynard and A. Pavet de Courteille, rev. Ch. Pellat, vol. 1-, Paris, 1962-.

Abu ʿAli Aḥmad b. Meskavayh, Tajāreb al-omam: The Eclipse of the ʿAbbasid Caliphate – Original Chronicles of the Fourth Islamic Century, ed. and tr. D. S. Margoliouth and H. F. Amedroz, 7 vols., Oxford, 1920-21, vols. I-II (Ar. text) and IV-V (Eng. tr.).

ʿOtbi, Al-Yamini fi šarḥ aḵbār al-sulṭān Yamin-al-Dawla wa-Amin- al-Milla Maḥmud al-Ḡaznawi, ed. E. Ḏ. al-Ṯāmeri, Beirut, 2004.

ʿAbd-al-Malek b. Moḥammad Ṯaʿālebi, Yatimat al-dahr fi maḥāsen ahl al-ʿaṣr, ed. M. M. ʿAbd al-Ḥamid, 5 vols., Cairo, 1957-68.

Studies. C. E. Bosworth, “On the Chronology of the Ziyārids in Gurgān and Ṭabaristān,” Der Islam 40, 1964, pp. 25-34.

Idem, “Ḳābūs b. Wushmagīr b. Ziyār,” EI², IV, 1978, pp. 357-58.

Idem, “The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World,” Camb. Hist. Iran, V, pp. 1–202, esp. pp. 25-26.

Idem, The New Islamic Dynasties, Edinburgh, 1996, pp. 166-67 no. 81.

Idem, “Ziyārids,” EI², XI, 2002, pp. 539-540.

E. G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia: II – From Firdawsí to Saʿdí, Cambridge, 1928.

J. W. Clinton, “Manūčihrī,” EI², VI, 1991, p. 453.

Cl. Huart, “Les Ziyârides,” Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions & belles-lettres 42, 1922, pp. 357-436.

F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg, 1895; repr., Hildesheim, 1963.

W. Madelung, “The Minor Dynasties of Northern Iran,” Camb. Hist. Iran, IV, pp. 198-249, esp. pp. 212-16.

G. C. Miles, The Numismatic History of Rayy, Numismatic Studies 2, New York, 1938, pp. 145-60.

Idem, “The Coinage of the Ziyārid Dynasty in Gurgan and Tabaristan,” ANS Museum Notes 18, 1972, pp. 119-37, pls. 25-26.

V. Minorsky, La domination des Daïlamites, Paris, 1932.

M. Nāẓim, The Life and Times of Sultan Maḥmūd of Ghazna, Cambridge, 1931.

E. Denison Ross, “On three Muhammadan Dynasties in Northern Persia in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” Asia Major 2, 1925, pp. 205-225, esp. pp. 209-11, 221.

S. M. Stern, “The Coins of Āmul,” Numismatic Chronicle 7th ser., 6, 1967, pp. 205-278, pls. 17-18, esp. pp. 220-25.

(C. Edmund Bosworth)

Originally Published: October 1, 2010

______ZODIAC

ZODIAC, a circle, oblique with respect to the equator, represented on the celestial sphere and divided into twelve equal parts, conventionally of 30° each (Pahlavi dwʾcdhʾn dwāzdahān “the twelve ones;” Sogd. Man. ʾ(n)xrwzn/Buddh. ʾnγrwzn; Mod. Pers. menṭaqato’l-boruj, lit. “the region of the Zodiacal signs,”; Gk. Dōdekatēmória, etc. [see below]). These more or less correspond to the twelve “zodiacal” constellations, called in Greek Zōdia, from which comes the name “Zodiac” (see also zōdiakós kúklos “the zodiacal circle”). We can distinguish (van der Waerden, 1952-53, p. 216) between a zodiacal belt some 12° in width, where the sun, the moon, and the five planets known in antiquity move, and the ecliptic, i.e., a line in the middle of the zodiacal belt (the place where lunar and solar eclipses occur) corresponding to the sun’s orbit.

The origin and development of the idea of a zodiacal circle have been much debated, but now there is a general consensus that a kind of zodiacal belt must have been defined by Babylonian astronomers as early as 700 BCE. In this period the “path” supposed to have been followed by the planets, the sun, and the moon was divided into 15 constellations. An earlier proto-zodiac with 18 or 17 ecliptical constellations, named “the path of the Moon,” was also known (Florisoone, 1950, pp. 257-59; 1951, pp. 168-69; van der Waerden, 1968, pp. 77-78; Rochberg-Halton, 1984, pp. 121-25; Hunger and Pingree, 1989, pp. 144-45; 1999, p. 71). The standard scheme of the 12 constellations was clearly introduced in about the 5th century and developed during the Seleucid period. The Greek elaboration of the Zodiac no doubt followed, with small changes in the mythological representation of a few constellations, the Babylonian pattern (see Cumont, 1969; van der Waerden, 1952-53; Florisone, 1950; 1951; Pettinato, 1998, pp. 96-99, 123-26). Although no Old Persian or Avestan source directly refers to the concept of the Zodiac, it is not farfetched to suppose that, at least in western Iran, where the Babylonian schools of astronomy were very active and progressing in their own mathematical techniques during the Achaemenid domination, the idea of the Zodiac was already developed in its basic model, probably in connection with some calendrical problems (such as intercalations of a month and eventual modifications and/or reforms of the calendar; see CALENDARS; see also Panaino, 2002). It is in fact highly improbable that only the Greeks and the Indians should have been able to take advantage of the results of the Mesopotamian astronomical notions, while the Iranians remained completely inactive in this field; the introduction of at least two calendrical reforms under the Achaemenids confirms direct knowledge of astronomical data which must have been mastered also by the Persian rulers. (Likewise, the attribution of divine names to the planets, based on an earlier Babylonian pattern, surely happened before the demonization of those entities occurred) Thus, the history of the Iranian calendars, as well as the pattern lying behind the basic Mazdean scheme of the great cosmic (and mythological) period of 12,000 years (see COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY), presuppose a certain crude (but early, because it is indirectly assumed also by Xanthos of Miletus; cf. Gnoli, 2000, pp. 43-94) acquaintance with the simple scheme of the 12 Zodiacal constellations, which were originally linked with the 12 months of the year (Panaino, 1998a, pp. 163-65); the astrological power (chronochratoria) exerted by the 12 signs over the 12 millennia of the cosmic year was probably introduced later with the basic corpus of the Hellenistic astrology.

According to the spherical model assumed in Sasanian Iran under the impact of Greek and Indian astral sciences, the inferior sphere was called the spihr ī gumēzišnīg “sphere of mixture;” it comprised the twelve constellations (Pahl. 12- axtarān) which were subjected to the “mixture” with the demoniac and evil forces (planets, falling stars, comets, etc.); this sphere, of course, included the Zodiacal belt (see Ir. Bd., II, 8-9; cf. Henning, 1942, pp. 232-33, 240; Belardi, 1977, pp. 125-26) with its 12 constellations (Gignoux, 1988); here a most important battle between astral demons and divine star beings takes place, according to the Pahlavi sources. In the framework of the fight between stars and planetary demons, the Zodiacal constellation were considered as bayān, in its early meaning of “givers” of a good lot in opposition to the planets, who are “bandits” (gēg) and robbers of the human fortune (cf. also New Pers. dahandagān “the [12 constellations] as givers”; Zaehner, 1972, pp. 417, n. r, 477; Panaino, 2005). According to the Mazdakite tradition, as reported by Šahrastāni (1986, pp. 663-66), the seven ministers of the heavens turn and move among the twelve spiritual beings, which can be nothing but the 12 zodiacal signs (cf. Sundermann, 1993, p. 316). This tradition is distinctive in that the planets do not belong to the demoniac army, as is the case in the Zoroastrian orthodox pattern.

The standard name of the Zodiac in Pahlavi was dwazdahān (dw’cdh’n) “the twelve ones” (Nyberg, 1974, p. 69; MacKenzie, 1971, p. 29), but there is also the denomination 12-axtarān (see Nyberg, 1974, p. 39); in Modern Persian the standard denomination is menṭaqato’l-boruj “the region of the Zodiacal signs” (“Zodiacal sign” being the Arabic loanword borj, pl. boruj, meaning also “tower” and “month of the solar calendar”), but also borj-e āsmān “the Zodiac,” borjhā-ye (or boruj-e) davāzdahgāna “the twelve signs” (Tajik burj-iduvozdah), davāzdah borj-e falak “the twelve signs of the heaven” (Tajik duvozdah burj-i falak); in Kurdish we find birc and birce feleke.

As far as we know, a well-developed knowledge of mathematical and spherical astronomy was mastered in Iran only in the Sasanian period (224-651 CE), although we may imagine a certain astronomical activity earlier, in the Arsacid period, but mostly mastered in non-Iranian languages. During the Sasanian period the traditional astral lore (mostly of Avestan origin) and the local background culture were greatly enhanced, thanks to Greek, Egyptian, and also Indian astronomical and astrological doctrines (see Pingree, 1963a; 1973; 1987; 1993; 1997, pp. 39-50; Henning, 1942; MacKenzie, 1964; Brunner, 1987; Panaino, 1998a with additional bibliography; Raffaelli, 2001). The Zodiac is well attested in the Pahlavi texts and the names of the Zodiacal constellations listed, e.g., in Ir.Bd., II, 1-2 (Henning, 1943, pp. 230-31), basically follow the Greek forms (see TABLE 1)

The initial point of the Zodiac (and then of the year) was already fixed at 0° Aries (see Brunner, 1987, p. 866). The essential importance of the Zodiac was fully recognized in Sasanian astrology, as patently shown from the “world horoscope” (zāyč ī gēhān) of Ir. Bd. V and in the birth horoscope of Gayōmart in Ir. Bd. VI F, which was very similar to the Indian horoscope of the mahāpuruṣa (attested in the Yavanajātaka of Spujidhvaja; see Pingree, 1973, p. 123; cf. MacKenzie, 1964 and Raffaelli, 2001). In this very thema mundi the planets and the luminaries (sun and moon) are placed in their own exaltations with the exception of Mercury. This text also confirms a remarkable knowledge of the Greek astrological system of the 12 “houses” (or “places”; cf. Pahl. gyāg and Gr. dōdekátopos). Probably we can also see in Šahristānīhā ī Ērān 24 (Markwart, 1931, p. 14) a reference to the so-called oktō´topos (i.e., the “eight place” of the genitura—the thema or birth horoscope—as in Manilius and Firmicus): mārīg ī... haštom bahrag “the decrees (lit. “words”) of the... eighth part” (MacKenzie, 1964, p. 524; cf. Bouché-Leclercq, 1899, p. 276-80).

The astral diagram was arranged with a subdivision of the Zodiac into 12 houses, starting from the rising point (i.e., the “true” horoscope), corresponding to the first house, while the second house was placed 30 degrees under the horizon, and so on. These 12 houses are mentioned in Ir. Bd. V and VI F (see MacKenzie, 1964, p. 526; for the interpretation of IV, pidištān or, perhaps better, its emendation to +pidarān, see Raffaelli, 2001, p. 89); their sequence is presented in TABLE 2.

The most important of these places were the four called Gk. kéntra (Pahl. mēx), Lat. cardines: (1) the “horoscope” (in the strict sense) or ascendant, in the first house; (2) the Imum caeli or nadir, in the fourth house; (3) the Occidens or descendant in the seventh house; and (4) the Medium caeli or zenith in the tenth house. Four other places were considered “favorable,” because they were in trigone aspect (places V and IX) and sextile aspect (III and IX) with the horoscope. The remaining four were “negative” (places II, VI, VIII, XII; see Bouché-Leclerq, 1899, p. 281). In general, the system of the 12 houses does not correspond to the 12 Zodiacal signs, because the first place (Lat. cuspis) starts from the actual horoscope. However, in the (two) “World horoscopes” of the Bundahišn (see FIGURE 1, FIGURE 2, FIGURE 3; Raffaelli, 2001, pp. 84, 137-39) there are some attempts to identify signs and houses by overlapping them (see also Zādspram, 2.21; Gignoux and Tafazzoli, 1993, pp. 38-39). In these texts the houses correspond to 12 sections of the ecliptic; each of them passes through the meridian (cf. Bouché-Leclerq, 1899, pp. 280-88; Henning, 1946, p. 727). A number of Arabic astrological works translated from Pahlavi originals confirm the existence of various other subdivision of the Zodiacal circle, such as that of the “lots”: dwāzdah bahr (= Gk. dōdekatēmórion) > Ar. dwāzdah bahrī (cf. Dorotheus, Carmen Astrologicum, V 5, 5; V 35, 6; V 41, 1.2; Pingree, 1976, p. XVI; Bouché-Leclercq, 1899, pp. 299-303; cf. also the Ketāb al-melal wa’l-dowal “The Book of Religions and Dynasties” by Abu Maʿšar, ed. Yamamoto and Burnett with the Latin version).

Other astrological phenomena in the horoscope were strictly connected with the Zodiac. In particular we mention the aphétēs “he who throws (the vital movement)” or “prorogator,” Pahl. hilāg, Ar. haylāj, and Lat. alhileg (Panaino, 1993, p. 426; Pingree, 1997, p. 49, Burnett and Pingree, 1997, p. 126), and the oikodespótēs Pahl. kadag-xwadāy, Pers. kad-xodā lit. “lord of the house” (MacKenzie, 1964, p. 528, n. 76; Burnett and Pingree, 1997, p. 126); in astrological terminology, the latter is “lord of the domicile,” the place where the planet becomes more powerful. Any planet had two domicilia, a diurnal one and a nocturnal one. The word kadag (ī axtarān) “the house (of the stars)” occurring in Ir.Bd. V A, 9 and corresponding to Gr. oikos confirms the existence of this pattern (Raffaelli, 2001, pp. 111- 13). About the existence of the 12 “great” houses of the astrological cycle of night and day (nuchthē´meron) among Iranian Buddhists in Sogdiana, see below.

In addition to the 12 Zodiacal constellations Sasanian astrologers also used the originally Egyptian series of the decans; each Zodiacal constellation (= 30°) was divided into 3 decans, each of 10°, for a total number of 36. The Pahlavi name for “decan,” dahīg, directly renders Gr. dekanós, while the New Persian and Arabic forms (darēgān > darījān) are based on Sanskrit drīkāna-, drekkānīa- (MacKenzie, 1964, p. 516, n. 33; Panaino, 1987, p. 131). That there was knowledge of division of the decans into two hemidecans is documented through a peculiar representation on a coin of the Turkish khagan Jēb Šāhānšāh (about 625 CE; see Harmatta, 1982). The sphaera barbarica (i.e., non-Greek mappings of the heavens)—in particular representations of the decans, whose iconography was transformed through Indian mediation—was transferred to Sasanian Iran; thence it entered Arabic astrological texts. Greek descriptions of the paranàtellonta toîs dekanoîs, that is, the constellations rising on the horizon together with a particular decan, were made by Teucer the Babylonian, an astrologer to be placed between the 1st century BCE and the first century CE. (There are later attributions to a Pseudo-Teucer: fragments apud Boll, 1903, pp. 16-21, 41-52; Boll, 1904, in CCAG V, I, 1904, pp. 156-70.) These representations were known to Sasanian astronomers at the time of Khosrow I (von Gutschmid, 1861, p. 88; Boll, 1903, pp. 412-39; Pingree, 1963b; Panaino, 1987) and thus to the Arabs (Nallino, 1922, pp. 356-63 = 1948, pp. 296-302; Sezgin, 1979, pp. 71-73; cf. Pingree, 1963b, p. 242; 1978, II, pp. 442-43).

Many descriptions of the astral iconography were translated into Latin, particularly from the works of Abu Mašʿar, which were partly based on Middle Persian material. In this way they entered Europe between the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance. Thanks to the AstrolabiumPlanum by Pietro d’Abano (d. ca. 1316), based on the Introductorium maius of Abu Maʿšar (Dyroff apud Boll, 1903, pp. 482-539; Sezgin, 1979, pp. 139-51), many Indian (derived from Varāhamihira, 6th cent. CE, but originally from the Yavanajātaka; see Pingree 1963b; 1978) and Iranian representations of the decans and of the constellations had a significant impact on Italian art (Warburg, 1980, pp. 253-57; Saxl, 1925-26; 1985, p. 283; cf. Pingree, 1989c). Notable examples are the pictorial cycles of the Palazzo Schifanoia in Ferrara dating to 1470 (Warburg, 1980, pp. 249-72) and the famous Salone dei Mesi at the Palazzo della Ragione in Padua, 1306 (Saxl, 1985, pp. 280-91; see also Pingree, 1963b, p. 223; 1987; Burnett and Pingree, 1997).

The Indian system of the nakṣatras (Pahl. xwurdag) with 27 and 28 “asterisms” is well attested in the Iranian sources. In Ir. Bd. II, 2 we find a list (in Pāzand) of 27 xwurdag (see Henning, 1942, pp. 231, 242-46; cf. Hampel, 1974, pp. 24-31, 194-204); they are generally referred to as “lunar stations” (but see Morrisey and Pingree, 1989), each of them measuring 13° 20'. In the Ind. Bd., 28 asterisms seem to be mentioned, although Henning (1942, p. 243) considered such a number wrong (but see Belardi, 1977, pp. 122-35; cf. Hampel, 1974, pp. 30-31). In ms. K27, fol. 12 (Copenhagen), these asterisms seem to have been called manāzel, as in Arabic (cf. Hampel, 1974, pp. 24, 29). A passage from Dēnkard, III, 419 (ed. Madan, 1911, pp. 403-5; Nyberg, 1934, pp. 34-39; Boyce apud de Menasce, 1973, p. 376; Belardi, 1977, p. 123) clearly refers to the beginning of the seasons coinciding with the entrance of the sun into the asterisms placed in Aries (spring), Cancer (summer), Libra (autumn), and Capricorn (winter). In a fragmentary Manichean Sogdian text from Turfan (M 549), 28 asterisms are listed (Henning, 1942, pp. 242-43; Belardi, 1977, p. 122). In addition, we know three other lists of nakṣatras: a Sogdian and a Chorasmian list are quoted by Biruni (Āṯār, pp. 238-40; tr. Sachau, pp. 226-28), and another Sogdian list is identical with the latter (Freĭman, 1938, pp. 43-ss.; 1962, pp. 46-60; Henning, 1942, p. 242). Here the asterisms are named ʾnγrnʾ mʾk “stars of the moon.”

These lists with 27 or 28 asterisms are in any case of Indian origin (Scherer, 1953, pp. 152-59). Their diffusion in Iran should be placed in the Sasanian period, but, without entering here into a detailed discussion about Belardi’s (1977, p. 138, n. 19) assumption of an early Iranian origin for them, it is quite probable that this special subdivision of the constellations was already known in Central Asia about the 2nd century CE through the mediation of Buddhist sources in Sanskrit and the derived Chinese translations, such as those by the Parthian prince An Shih-kao (cf. Forte, 1968; Pingree, 1987, p. 859). Also in the Khotanese literature we can find references to the nakṣat(t)ra- (with a term clearly derived from Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit), sometimes with the direct mention of the individual asterism referred to (e.g., pulśä or pväśa nakṣatträ, etc.; cf. Skt. puṣya-; Bailey, 1982, p. 29; see also the Book of Zambasta, XXIV, 202; Emmerick, 1968, pp. 380-81; Leumann, 1933-36, pp. 322-23).

The conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn also played an important role in Sasanian astrology (Kennedy, 1964, pp. 259-60 Pingree, 1963a; Panaino, 1998, p. 160). These were, at least in part, connected with the Zoroastrian cosmological doctrine of the 12,000 years, in which each millennium was placed under the domain or the chronocratoria of a Zodiacal constellation (cf. ʿOlamā-ye Eslām; Zaehner, 1972, pp. 410-11; see Kennedy and Pingree, 1971, pp. 72-75, with regard to the Astrological History of Māšāʾallāh). The doctrine of the Great Conjunctions, probably introduced by Sasanian astrologers (Pingree, 1963a, pp. 245-46), was strictly linked with that of the so-called “triplicities,” that is, another astrological subdivision of the Zodiac into four groups of three constellations respectively associated with the four basic elements of the creation (first triplicity: Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius with Fire; the second: Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn with Earth; the third: Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius with Air; the fourth: Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces with Water). These Saturn- Jupiter conjunctions actually take place every 20 years in the same triplicity until, after 12 of them (more rarely 13), that is, after 240 or 260 years, a shift of triplicity occurs and a new series of 12 or 13 conjunctions is transferred to the following triplicity, and so on until the end of the cycle, which takes about a millennium, with the occurrence of the Greatest Conjunction (see Kennedy, 1964, pp. 30-32). Then the entire cycle is repeated. This system was basic for the Sasanian historical astrology (Pingree, 1997, pp. 42-44, 55-62) and for the arrangement of general annual predictions based on the horoscopes of the revolutions of the years and on the prorogations of many indicators (such as the fardar, entehāʾ and qesma).

We recall that, according to the Zoroastrian pattern, all the stars should have been considered divine and positive. But in an Arabic astrological text (entitled Ketāb al-mawālid; see Kunitschz, 1993), attributed to Zoroaster and of clear Middle Persian origin, astrologers, using crude deterministic patterns, also assumed the presence of stars with negative significance (see Panaino, 1997a); apparently none of these was located along the ecliptic. This peculiar doctrine should be attributed to an Iranian astrological tradition ultimately depending on an old astrological doctrine of Greco-Babylonian origin. For a direct reference to this unorthodox subdivision (from the point of view of Zoroastrian theology) of the stars into Ohrmazdian and Ahrimanian, see the Persian Riwāyats of Farāmarz (Dhabhar, 1932, p. 431).

With the beginning of the seventh millennium of the gumēzišn, that is, with the period of mixture with Ahriman’s forces, the “chiliadic domination” (hazārag xwadāyīh) was given to the Balance (Ir. Bd. V B 15-17), the sign that represented “the dejection of the dejections” (Pahl. šēbān šēb = Gk. tapeínōma tapeínōmatōn) for the Sun—the astrologically worst place of the Zodiac (see Panaino, 1996a). On the other hand, the Balance contained the place of exaltation for Saturn (Kēwān), the most dangerous planetary demon of the heaven, who therefore became the lord of that millennium. This subdivision is confirmed from the Zand ī Wahman Yasn (Cereti, 1995), where world history is arranged according to the system of the exaltations with respect to the four kéntra (cardines; see above), which are distributed among the four sequences of 3,000 years within the entire cycle of 12,000 years (see Pingree, apud Panaino, 1996a). The beginning of the gētīg (material existence) thus corresponds to the third cardine and the domination of Saturn.

The Pahlavi sources also mention the “terms,” Pahl. marz, Gr. horion “boundary, limit,” which was a particular section of the Zodiac assigned to any planet (Panaino, 1994, pp. 182, 187).

In Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram 30.1-13 (Gignoux and Tafazzoli, 1993, pp. 96-99) a planetary melothesy (i.e. a systematic representation of the mutual correspondences between the various parts of the human body and the 12 zodiacal constellations) is attested. Its pattern here partly follows that attested in the Yavanajātaka, I, 123-126 (Pingree, 1978, II, pp. 251-52). In Ir.Bd. XXVIII (par. 3) the functions of hands and feet is compared with the seven planets and the 12 constellations, while (par. 5) the two eyes are related to the sun and the moon, and the teeth to the stars; this passage has been discussed by Götze, 1923, but the thesis that it influenced the pseudo- Hippocratic text Peri hebdomádōn remains under discussion.

A negative or deterministic representation of the role played by the 7 planets and the 12 constellations is expressed in Wizarišn ī Čatrang 30 (Panaino, 1999, pp. 75-76), where human life is declared to be determined by astral bonds, and destiny is compared to the throw of the die in the game of nēw-ardaxšīr (a kind of backgammon). The complex representation of the astral bonds, originally (i.e., in the Indian sources) which involves the progression of the planets through the Zodiac, and the explanation of their retrogradation, was later extended, according to some Zoroastrian and Manichean sources (see Panaino, 1998a), also to the stars, and then, from stars and planets, to the souls of the human beings.

A Zoroastrian poetical text (in 26 couplets) in Modern Persian, entitled Borj-nāma “Book of the Zodiacal Signs,” and attested in the Persian Rivāyats of Dārāb Hormazdyār (in the ms. BU 29 just after the Mār-nāma “The Book of the Snakes”), states what the appearance of the new moon portended in each sign of the Zodiac (text and tr., Gray, 1909-10, pp. 340-42; 1918, p. 464 [ms. Bu, fol. 64]; cf. West, 1904, p. 129; Panaino, 2005b).

Also present in the Zodiac is the heavenly Dragon. Its head (gōzihr sar) and tail (gōzihr dumb), Gr. ho anabibázōn and ho katabibázōn [súndesmos] (Bouché-Leclerq, 1899, pp. 121-23, passim) are cited in the world horoscope of the Bundahišn, following an Indian astrological tradition; and these correspond to the daêvic representation of the lunar nodes (i.e., the places where eclipses occur). The Dragon’s name has been generally interpreted in Pahlavi as Gōzihr (gwcyhl; Ar. Jawzah(a)r; see in bibliog. the works by Hartner), which should derive from the standard epithet of the Moon in Avestan (gaociθra- “holding the seed of cattle”). However, such a sematic shift remains questionable; the name could be explained otherwise as *gaw- čihr (gwcyhl) from ⁴gav- “daêvic hand” + ¹ciθra- “form” (i.e., *²gaociθra- or *gāuciθra-; cf. Bartholomae 1895-1901, cap. 288, par. 33, p. 157; Morgenstierne, 1927, p. 89, s.v. warγōwai “palm of the hand, sole of the foot” < *fragava-ka-), thus “having the form of a devilish hand.” The model of the Dragon seems to follow the image of Rāhu, the Indian black planet, normally represented with two enormous hands (see Panaino, 2006). Reference to this demon is found in the Mid. Pers. Manichean fragment M556, where the head and the tail are referred to as two dragons (azdahāg; see Boyce, 1975, p. 60; Hutter, 1992, p. 10).

References, not only to astral bodies but more specifically to astrological concepts strictly connected with the standard image of the Zodiac, are well attested also in Manichean sources (Stegemann, 1997); in particular a detailed description of the Manichean representation of the celestial vault is given by the Sogdian manuscript M 178 (ed. Henning, 1948, pp. 310-16; see also Panaino, 1997b). We know that individual horoscopy was practiced as confirmed from the Manichean fragment M 543 (cf. Salemann, 1908, p. 28; Boyce, 1975, p. 149, text cqa), where it is stated that Mani was “born under a sign of good auspice” (cy zʾd hy pd prwj ʾxtr). The knowledge of so-called catholic (or universal) astrology is confirmed thanks to a Manichean Parthian fragment (ed. Kudara, Yoshida, and Sundermann, 1997: photo vol., pl. 124, text vol., p. 232; signature no. 11079; cf. Panaino, 1997b, p. 256, n. 36); here the regions of the known world correspond to the signs of the Zodiac according to a general pattern comparable to that attested in the Tetrabiblos of Ptolemy, 2.3.3-5 (ed. Robbins, 1940, pp. 128-29). The correspondence between human body and the cosmos (melothesia) was greatly developed in the Coptic Kephalaia (chap. LXX; ed. Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, pp. 169-75; Gardner, 1995, pp. 179-84); in it are found two melothesiae (Schmidt, 1940, p. 174, ll. 1-ss), in which the order of description is close to that followed by Indian and Classical astrologers (cf. Pingree, 1978, II, pp. 193-203).

In the Manichean cosmology also the stars were considered as demoniac beings, and for this reason the Zodiac too was regarded negatively; but a residual positive evaluation of these constellations seems to survive in the image of the Twelve Virgins of Light and in various other divine groups of 12, such as the 12 buckets of the noria “wheel” in the Column of Light, and the 12 Eons placed behind God the Father of Greatness; these probably have absorbed the role of the Zodiac (Panaino, 1997b). This also seems to be the case for the magic, twelve- faced “Lens” (mjyʾ), on which see Henning (1948, pp. 315-16), set up on the ten Firmaments by the Lord of the Seven Climes and the Mother of the Righteous, where the Son of God sits as watcher, according to the Sogdian fragment M 178 (Henning, 1948, p. 312). Each Firmament has twelve Gates, which, according to Henning (1948, p. 311), appear not to be connected with the twelve constellations; but it is clear that their number evokes another kind of prototypical Zodiac. According to the same manuscript (Henning, 1948, p. 315), below the ten Firmaments were fashioned a rolling wheel and the Zodiac (in Sogdian: Man. ʾ(n)xrwzn/Buddh. ʾnγrwzn; see Gharib, 2004, pp. 40, 47, 82). Within the Zodiac the demons of Darkness were fettered; here we find also a reference to the negative role of the planets and of the twelve Zodiacal constellations. In the same Zodiac, which in the Pahlavi sources represents a mixed place, that is, a place of battle, the demons are imprisoned, and they wove together roots, veins, and links, which can be compared with many other kinds of astral bonds attested in a number of Manichean, Zoroastrian, and also Mandean sources (see Panaino, 1998a).

In the Buddhist Sogdian text of Paris (P. 3, vv. 147 ff.; see Benveniste, 1940, p. 66; Henning, 1946, p. 727), an Indian representation of the heavens is attested with additional references to various astronomical and astrological subdivisions: here the “houses” (γnʾk) of the twelve constellations (12 ʾnγr) are said to have been painted in a magical building by a Shaman, above the image of Mount Sumeru (smʾyr γrw); in addition, the text refers to the 28 “lunar mansions” (28 ʾnγrt), the twelve (eleven in the ms.) “great and terrible Hours” (mzʾyγw wẓpγwnʾyth ẓmnth), and the other Zodiacal stars. The mention of Mount Sumeru is well known in Indian Buddhist astral texts (as well as that of Mount Meru in Hindu sources) and refers to a spherical image of the celestial vault, where the peak of the cosmic mountain is connected with Dhruva or the Pole Star (see Kirfel, 1920, pp. 182-85; Neugebauer and Pingree, 1971, p. 83; Pingree, 1981, pp. 12-13; Panaino, 1995-96, pp. 195-98).

For a description of the Zodiac in Islamic times, see Pingree, 1987 (s.v. ASTROLOGY).

Bibliography:

Biruni, al-Āṯār al-bāqia ʿan al-qorun al-ḵāliya, ed. C. Edward Sachau, Leipzig, 1878; tr. C. Edward Sachau as The Chronology of Ancient Nations, London 1879; Russian tr. M. A. Sal’e, Izbrannye proizvedeniya (Selected works), Tashkent, 1957.

Idem, Ketāb al-tafhim le-awāʾel ṣenāʿat al-tanjim, tr. R. Ramsay Wright as The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology, London, 1934.

Idem, Ketāb al-qānun al-masʿudi, 3 vols., Hyderabad (Deccan), 1954-56. W. Belardi, Studi Mithraici e Mazdei, Rome, 1977.

H. W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books, repr. with a new introd., Oxford, 1971; 1st ed., Oxford, 1943.

Idem, The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan, New York, 1982.

E. Benveniste Textes Sogdiensédités, traduits et commentés, Paris, 1940.

A. Böhlig, Kephalaia, Zweite Hälfte, Lieferungen 11/12 (Seite 244- 291), Stuttgart, 1966.

Fr. Boll, in Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum (= CCAG), Codicum RomanorumPartem Priorem descripserunt Franciscus Cumont et Franciscus Boll V, Bruxellis, 1904.

Idem, Sphaera: neue griechische Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sternbilder, Leipzig, 1903.

M. Boyce, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian, Acta Iranica 9, Tehran and Liège, 1975.

A. Bouché-Leclercq, L’astrologie grecque, Paris, 1899.

C. J. Brunner, “Astronomy and Astrology in Iran ii. Astronomy and Astrology in the Sasanian Period,” in EIr. II, London and New York, 1987, pp. 862-68.

Ch. Burnett and D. Pingree, The Liber Aristotilis of Hugo of Sanctalla, The Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 26, London, 1997.

[CCAG] Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, 12 vols., Brussels, 1898-1953.

C. Cereti, The Zand i Wahman Yasn. A Zoroastrian Apocalypse, Rome, 1995.

F. Cumont, “Zodiacus,” in Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines V, Graz, 1969, pp. 1046-62.

B. N. Dhabhar, The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and other. Their Version with Introduction and Notes, Bombay, 1932.

R. E. Emmerick, The Book of Zambasta, London, 1968.

A. Florisoone, “Les origines chaldeénnes du zodiaque,” Ciel et Terre 67, 1950, pp. 256-68.

Idem, “Astres et constellations des Babyloniens,” Ciel et Terre 67, 1951, pp. 153-69.

A. Forte, “An Shih-kao: biografia e note critiche,” Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, N.S. 17 (vol. 28), 1968, pp. 151-94.

A. Freĭman, “Sogdiĭskiĭ rukopisnyĭ dokument astrologicheskogo soderzhaniya (kalendar’)” (A Sogdian ms. document of astrological content [calendar]), Vestnik Drevneĭ Istorii 2, 1938, 3, pp. 34-49; repr. in idem, Sogdiĭskie dokumenty s gory Mug, I: Opisanie, publikatsiya i issledovanie dokumentov s gory Mug, Moskva, 1962, pp. 46-60. I. Gardner, The Kephalaia of the Teacher. The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with Commentary, Leiden, 1995.

Ph. Gignoux, “Les noms des signes du zodiaque en syriaque et leurs correspondants en moyen-perse et en mandéen,” in Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont, Contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux, Genève, 1988, pp. 299-304.

Ph. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli, Anthologie de Zādspram, Édition critique du texte pehlevi traduit et commenté, Paris, 1993.

Gh. Gnoli, Zoroaster in History, New York, 2000.

L. H. Gray, “The Parsī-Persian Burj-Nāmah: or, the Book of Omens of the Moon,” JAOS 10, 1909-10, pp. 336-42.

Idem, “Alleged Zoroastrian Ophiomancy and its Possible Origin,” in The Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume, being Papers on Iranian Subjects written by Various Scholars, Bombay, 1918, pp. 454-64.

H. G. Gundel, Zodiakos. Tierkreisbilder im Altertum, Main am Rhein, 1992.

A. von Gutschmidt, “Die nabatäische Landwirtschaft und ihre Geschwister,” ZDMG 15, 1861, pp. 1-110. J. Hampel, Die Kopenhagener Handschrift Cod. 27, Wiesbaden, 1974.

J. Harmatta, “La médaille de Jēb Šāhānšāh,” Studia Iranica, 11, 1982, pp. 166-80.

W. Hartner, “The Pseudoplanetary Nodes of the Moon Orbit in Hindu and Islamic Iconographies. A Contribution to the History of Ancient and Medieval Astrology,” Ars Islamica 5/2, 1938, pp. 112-54; repr. with addenda and corrigenda in Hartner, 1968, pp. 349-404.

Idem, Le problème de la planète Kaïd. Les Conférences du Palais de la Découverte, Série D, no. 36, Université de Paris, Paris, 1955; repr. in Hartner, 1968, pp. 268-86.

Idem, “al-Djawzahar,” in EI² II, 1963a, pp. 501-2; repr. in Hartner, 1968, p. 264.

Idem, “al-Kayd,” in EI² IV, 1963b, pp. 809-11.

Idem, Oriens Occidens. Ausgewählte Schriften zur Wissenschafts- und Kulturgeschichte. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag, Hildesheim, 1968.

W. B. Henning, “An Astronomical Chapter of the Bundahishn,” JRAS, 1942, parts 3 and 4, pp. 229-48.

Idem, “The Sogdian Texts of Paris,” BSOAS 11/4, 1946, pp. 713- 40.

Idem, “A Sogdian Fragment of the Manichaean Cosmogony,” BSOAS 12/2, 1948, pp. 306-18.

H. Hunger and D. Pingree, MUL.APIN. An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform, Archiv fur Orientforschung, Beiheft 24, Horn, 1989.

Idem, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, Leiden, 1999.

M. Hutter, Manis Kosmogonische Šābuhragān-Texte, Wiesbaden, 1992.

E. S. Kennedy, “Ramifications of the World-Year Concept in Islamic Astronomy,” in Actes du dixième Congrès International d’Histoire des Sciences, Ithaca 26 VIII 1962 - 2 IX 1962, Paris, 1964, pp. 23-43.

E. S. Kennedy and D. Pingree, The Astrological History of Māshā’allāh. Cambridge, Mass., 1971. W. Kirfel, Die Kosmographie der Inder nach den Quellen dargestellt, Leipzig, 1920.

K. Kudara, Y. Yoshida, and W. Sundermann, Iranian Fragments from the Otani Collection, Kyoto, 1997.

P. Kunitzsch, “The Chapter of the Fixed Stars in Zarādusht’s Kitāb al-mawālīd,” Zeitschrift für Geschichte der arabisch- islamischen Wissenschaften 8, 1993, pp. 241-49.

E. Leumann, Das nordarische (sakische) Lehrgedicht des Buddhismus, ed. M. Leumann, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XX. Band, Leipzig, 1933-36.

D. N. MacKenzie, “Zoroastrian Astrology in the Bundahišn,” BSOAS 27, 1964, pp. 511-29.

Idem, A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, London and New York, 1971.

J. Markwart, A Catalogue of the Provincial Capitals of Eranshahr (Pahlavi Text, Version and Commentary), ed. G. Messina, Rome, 1931.

J. de Menasce, Le troisième livre du Dēnkart, Paris, 1973. P. Morrisey and D. Pingree, “On the Identification of the Yogatāras of the Indian Nakṣatras,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 20, 1989, pp. 99-119.

C. A. Nallino, “Tracce di opere greche giunte agli arabi per trafila pehlevica,” in A Volume of Oriental Studies Presented to Professor E.G. Browne. Cambridge, 1922, pp. 345-63.

Idem, Raccolta di Scritti editi e inediti. Vol. V. Astrologia - Astronomia - Geografia, ed. M. Nallino, Rome, 1944.

Idem, Raccolta di Scritti editi e inediti, vol. VI, Letteratura - Linguistica - Filosofia - Varia, ed. M. Nallino, Rome, 1948.

O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 2nd ed., Providence, 1957.

O. Neugebauer and D. Pingree, The Pañcasiddhāntikā of Varāhamihira, 2 vols, Copenhagen, 1970-71.

H. S. Nyberg, Texte zum mazdayanischen Kalender, Uppsala, 1934.

Idem, A Manual of Pahlavi II, Wiesbaden, 1974.

A. Panaino, “The Decans in Iranian Astrology,” East and West 37/1-4, 1987, pp. 131-37.

Idem, “L’inno avestico a Vanant,” Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 28 (1987) 1989, pp. 21-30.

Idem, Tištrya. Part I. The Avestan Hymn to Sirius, Rome, 1990a.

Idem, “Contatti sino-iranici nella cultura astronomica dell’Iran preislamico,” in Dall’Europa alla Cina: contributi per una storia dell’Astronomia, ed. I. Iannaccone and A. Tamburello, Naples, 1990b, pp. 41-54.

Idem, “Considerazioni sul lessico astronomico-astrologico medio-persiano,” in Lingue e Culture in contatto nel mondo antico e altomedievale. Atti dell’VIII Convegno internazionale dei Linguisti tenuto a Milano nei giorni 10-12 settembre 1992, Milan, 1993, pp. 417-33.

Idem, Tištrya. Part II. The Iranian Myth of the Star Sirius, Rome, 1995a.

Idem, “Uranographia Iranica I. The Three Heavens in the Zoroastrian Tradition and the Mesopotamian Background,” in Au carrefour des religions. Mélanges offerts à Ph. Gignoux. Bures- sur-Yvette, 1995b, pp. 205-25.

Idem, “Uranographia Iranica II. Avestan hapta.srū- and mərəzu- : Ursa Minor and the North Pole?” Archiv für Orientforschung, 42- 43, 1995-96, pp. 190-207.

Idem, “The Two Astrological Reports of the Kārnāmag ī Ardašīr ī Pābagān (III, 4-7; IV, 6-7),” Die Sprache 36/2 (1994) 1996a, pp. 181-98.

Idem, “Saturn, the Lord of the Seventh Millennium (with a contribution of D. Pingree),” East and West 46/3-4, 1996b, pp. 235-50.

Idem, “Sopravvivenze del culto iranico della stella Sirio nel Kitāb al-mawālīd di Zarādušt ed altre questioni di uranografia sasanide,” in Studi in onore di S. Moscati. Rome, 1997a, pp. 343- 54.

Idem, “Visione della volta celeste e Astrologia nel Manicheismo,” in Atti del Terzo Congresso internazionale di Studi “Manicheismo e Oriente Cristiano Antico”. Arcavacata di Rende - Amantea, 31 agosto - 5 settembre 1993, ed. L. Cirillo and A. van Tongerloo, Louvain and Naples, 1997b, pp. 249-95.

Idem, Tessere il cielo. Considerazioni sulle Tavole astronomiche, gli Oroscopi e la Dottrina dei Legamenti tra Induismo, Manicheismo e Mandeismo, Rome, 1998a.

Idem, La novella degli Scacchi e della Tavola Reale. Un’antica fonte orientale sui due giochi da tavoliere più diffusi nel mondo eurasiatico tra Tardoantico e Medioevo e sulla loro simbologia militare e astrale. Testo pahlavi, traduzione e commento del Wizārišn ī čatrang ud nihišn ī nēw-ardaxšīr“La spiegazione degli scacchi e la disposizione della tavole reale,” Milan, 1999.

Idem, “Quelques réflexions sur le calendrier zoroastrien,” in Iran. Questions et connnaissances. Vol. I. La période ancienne, textes réunis par Ph. Huyse, Paris, 2002, pp. 221-32.

Idem, “Considerazioni sulla trasmissione delle scienze esatte e delle cosiddette “pseudoscienze” tra Grecia e Iran,” in Varia Iranica, ed. C. G. Cereti, B. Melasecchi, and F. Vajifdar, Rome, 2004, pp. 213-37.

Idem, “The «Gift» of the «Givers»,” in Festschrift F. Kotwal, ed. J. Choksi, 2005a, in the press.

Idem, “Lunar and Snake Omens among the Zoroastrians,” in Officina Magica, ed. Sh. Shaked, Leiden, 2005b, pp. 73-89.

Idem, “Pahlavi gwcyhl : Gōzihr o Gawčihr?” in Scritti in onore di Giovanni M. D’Erme, ed. M. Bernardini and N. L. Tornesello, 2 vols., 2005, vol. II, pp. 795-826.

G. Pettinato, La scrittura celeste. La nascita dell’astrologia in Mesopotamia, Milan, 1998. D. Pingree, “Astronomy and Astrology in India and Iran,” ISIS 54, part 2, no. 176, 1963a, pp. 229-46.

Idem, “The Indian Iconography of the Decans and Horās,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 26, 1963b, pp. 223-54.

Idem, The Thousands of Abū Ma‘shar, London, 1968.

Idem, “Indian Influence on Sasanian and Early Islamic Astronomy and Astrology,” The Journal of Oriental Research 34- 35 (1964-65, 1965-66), 1973, pp. 118-26.

Idem, ed., Dorothei Sidonii Carmen Astrologicum. Interpretationem arabicam in linguam anglicam versam una cum Dorothei fragmentis et graecis et latinis, Leipzig, 1976a.

Idem, The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1978. Idem, Jyotiḥśāstra, Astral and Mathematical Literature, Wiesbaden, 1981.

Idem, “Astronomy and Astrology in Iran i. History of Astronomy in Iran,” in EIr. II, London and New York, 1987, pp. 858-62; “iii. Astrology in Islamic Times,” pp. 868-71.

Idem, “Classical and Byzantine Astrology in Sassanian Persia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43, 1989, pp. 227-39. Idem, From Astral Omens to Astrology. From Babylon to Bīkāner, Rome, 1997.

H. J. Polotsky and A. Böhlig, Kephalaia, Erste Hälfte (Lieferungen 1-10), Stuttgart, 1940.

E. Raffaelli, L’oroscopo del mondo. Il tema di nascita del mondo e del primo uomo secondo l’astrologia zoroastriana, Milan, 2001.

F. E. Robbins, ed., Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Cambridge, Mass., 1940; repr., 1980. F. Rochberg-Halton, “New Evidence for the History of Astronomy,” JNES 43, 1984, pp. 115-40.

Šahrastāni, Ketāb al-melal wa’l-neḥal, tr. and notes D. Gimaret and G. Monnot as Livre des religions et des sectes I, Leuven, 1986.

C. Salemann, Manichaeische Studien, I. Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersburg, VIIIᵉ Série, Vol. 8, 1908, no. 10. St.-Petersburg.

Fr. Saxl, Verzeichnis astrologischer und mythologischer illustrierter Handschriften des lateinischen Mittelalters, Band 2., Die Handschriften der National-Bibliothek in Wien, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 2, Heidelberg, 1925-26. Idem, La fede negli astri, Turin, 1985.

A. Scherer, Gestirnnamen bei den indogermanischen Völkern, Heidelberg, 1953.

Carl Schmidt, Manichäische Handschriften der staatlichen Museen Berlin. Band 1. Kephalaia. 1. Hälfte (Lieferung 1-10), Stuttgart 1940.

F. Sezgin, Geschichte der arabischen Schrifttum VI., Astronomie bis ca. 430 H., Leiden, 1978.

Idem, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums VII., Astrologie - Meteorologie und Verwandtes bis ca. 430 H., Leiden, 1979.

W. Sundermann, “Cosmogony and Cosmology IV. In the Mazdakite Religion,” in EIr. VI, 1993, pp. 315-17.

V. Stegemann, “Zu Kapitel 69 der Kephalaia des Mani,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 37, (1938) 1939, pp. 214-23; repr. in Der Manichäismus, ed. G. Widengren, Darmstadt, 1977, pp. 214-24.

M. Tabataba’i, A Dictionary of Astronomy and Astrology. English-Persian. Persian-English, Tehran, 1991. K. Yamamoto and D. Burnett, Abū Măšar on Historical Astrology. The Book of Religions and Dynasties (On the Great Conjunctions), 2 vols., Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 2000.

A. Warburg, La rinascita del paganesimo antico, Firenze, 1980.

B. L. van der Waerden, “History of the Zodiac,” Archiv für Orientforschung 16, 1952-53, pp. 216-30.

Idem, Erwachende Wissenschaft. Bd. 2. Die Anfänge der Astronomie, Basel and Stuttgart, 1968.

E. W. West, “Pahlavi Literature,” in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie II, ed. W. Geiger and E. Kuhn, Strassburg, 1904, pp. 75-129.

R. C. Zaehner, Zurvan, a Zoroastrian Dilemma. 2nd ed., New York, 1972 (1st ed., Oxford, 1955).

July 20, 2009

(Antonio Panaino)

Originally Published: July 20, 2009 ______

ẒOHUR-AL-ḤAQQ

ẒOHUR-AL-ḤAQQ (variously also called Tāriḵ-e Ẓohur-al-Ḥaqq and Ketāb-e Ẓohur-al-Ḥaqq), the most comprehensive history of the first century of the Bahai faith yet written, compiled in nine volumes by Mirzā Asad-Allāh, known as Fāżel Māzandarāni (1881-1957). In about 1924, shortly after his succession to the leadership of the Bahai community, Shoghi Effendi wrote to the Central Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of Persia, asking them to gather materials towards the compilation of a general history of the Bahai faith. Initially this work was handed to a committee and Fāżel served as the liaison between this committee and the Assembly, of which he was himself a member at the time. However, after the committee failed to make significant progress, Fāżel took on the responsibility to compile this work himself.

Local assemblies throughout Persia were asked to prepare Bahai histories of their areas and to forward these to the Central Assembly. There thus exists a set of local Bahai histories written in the late 1920s and early 1930s, some about whole provinces such as Azerbayjan, Khorasan and Gilan; some about cities such as Isfahan, Hamadan and Yazd; and some on smaller Bahai communities such as those in Milān, Neyriz, Ābādeh, Sangsar, Nur and some of the villages around Yazd. Most of these histories were written by prominent Bahais in each locality. These materials were subsequently put at the disposal of Fāżel, who also collected much material himself on his travels and through his contacts with old Bahai families who had kept important sources in their possession.

It appears that the early volumes of Ẓohur-al-Ḥaqq, on the era of the Bāb, had been completed by May 1932, whereupon Fāżel asked the Central Assembly of Persia to ask the Assemblies in India, Iraq, Egypt, the United States and Europe to collect historical materials for this project (Shoghi Effendi, p. 107). The completion of the fourth volume of Ẓohur-al-Ḥaqq was mentioned in February 1936 (Fāżel, I, p. qāf), and in November 1936, Shoghi Effendi wrote to express his appreciation of the completed work, and his desire to see it published soon (Shoghi Effendi, p. 169). However, he could not have been referring to the completion of the ninth volume, since this final volume covers events as far as 1943.

The publication of this work was problematic since the Bahai community has, for most of its history, been prohibited from publishing books in Persia. In July 1939, Shoghi Effendi wrote that he hoped that, even if the whole work could not be published, portions of it could be distributed in some form (Shoghi Effendi, p. 197). There was, however, a short period of time during World War II when conditions in Persia appeared to become a little less restrictive for the Bahais. The Assembly took advantage of this opportunity to print the third volume of Ẓohur-al-Ḥaqq (532 pp.), which was one of the shorter volumes of this work and was ready at that time for publication. However, in July 1943 Shoghi Effendi wrote to prohibit the publication of further volumes, since the actions that had been taken were technically illegal and he did not want the Bahais to do anything unlawful (Shoghi Effendi, p. 254). As early as 15 September 1932, Shoghi Effendi had instructed in a letter that a committee be established to compare the history of the time of the Bāb which Fāżel had just completed with Nabil’s narrative of that period (Zarandi, 1932), for he regarded that as one of the most complete and accurate primary sources for the period of the Bāb (Shoghi Effendi, pp. 101, 111-2). It appears that this was not carried out, since, after the publication of the third volume of Ẓohur-al-Ḥaqq, some Bahais wrote to Shoghi Effendi about discrepancies between the two histories. As a result, a small pamphlet was published in Persia in 1950, pointing out some 37 discrepancies.

After the death of Fāżel in 1957, the eighth volume was eventually published in two parts by the National Bahai Publishing Trust in Persia as a mimeograph (Tehran, 1974-5). The other volumes have not been published yet, but there are plans underway for their publication.

Ẓohur-al-Ḥaqq is a nine-volume work. The first volume deals with the period just before the appearance of the Bāb, and is taken up largely by an account of the Šayḵi movement, led by Shaikh Aḥmad Aḥsāʾi and Sayyed Kāẓem Rašti; the second volume gives an account of the life of the Bāb and the history of the Bābi movement up to 1850; the third volume, which has been published, contains the biographies of the leading followers of the Bāb as well as a few of his main opponents; the fourth volume concerns the life of Bahāʾ-Allāh and the events of the period from 1851 to 1866; the fifth volume continues the biography of Bahāʾ-Allāh and the history of the Bahai faith from 1867 to 1892, and ends with a section consisting of biographies of the family of the Bāb and Bahāʾ-Allāh; the sixth volume consists of biographies of the principal followers of Bahāʾ-Allāh and of some of his main opponents; the seventh volume is the life of ʿAbd-al-Bahāʾ and the main events of his ministry (1892- 1921); the eighth volume, which has also been published, consists of biographies of the leading Bahais of the time of ʿAbd-al-Bahāʾ, and of some of his opponents; and the ninth volume is a resumé of events from 1921 up to the end of the first Bahai century (1943).

Fāżel employs a scholarly Persian prose style, as used by the classical Persian historians, with a heavy admixture of Arabic words and phrases. One of the valuable features of his work is that he frequently gives lengthy quotations, both in the text and as appendices and footnotes, from key historical sources that he had in his possession. There are also reproductions of some important documents as well as numerous historical photographs. As he was constantly traveling, Fāżel had entrusted many of the historical documents he had in his possession to certain friends. Due to the recent events in Persia, the persecution of the Bahais, and the confiscation of much of their property, these sources seem to have disappeared and cannot at present be traced.

Bibliography:

Shoghi Effendi, Tawqiʿāt-e Mobāraka 1922-1948, Tehran, 130 B.E./1973.

Fāżel Māzandarāni, Amr wa ḵalq I, 3rd ed., Langenhain, Germany, 141 B.E./1984, pp. alef to Šin.

Idem, Ẓohur-al-ḥaqq VIII/2, Tehran, 132 B.E./1975, pp. 825-81.

ʿAziz-Allāh Solaymāni, Maṣabiḥ-e Hedāyat, Tehran, 129 B.E./1972, VII, pp. 69-141.

Nabil-e Aʿẓam Zarandi, The Dawn-breakers: Nabil’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’i Revelation, ed. and tr. S. Effendi, New York, 1932.

This article also draws on personal communications from Dr. Iraj Ayman and Dr. Vahid Rafati.

(Moojan Momen)

Originally Published: July 20, 2002

______

i. The Name.

ii. General Survey.

iii. Zoroaster the Avesta.

iv. In the Pahlavi Books.

v. As Perceived by the Greeks.

vi. As Perceived in Western Europe.

vii. As Perceived by Later Zoroastrians.

(Multiple Authors)

______ZOROASTRIAN RITUALS

Ritual has been variously theorized in recent decades. While the category remains elusive, the formative social importance of ritual is by now generally acknowledged even in Zoroastrian studies.

ZOROASTRIAN RITUALS. Ritual has been variously theorized in recent decades (Kreinath, Snoek, and Stausberg). While the category remains elusive, the formative social importance of ritual is by now generally acknowledged even in Zoroastrian studies (Stausberg, 2004a). The Gathas are now interpreted by many (e.g., Kellens and Pirart; Skjærvø, 2002; idem, 2003; Cantera) as sacrificial poetry rather than sermons by a prophet. Most contemporary Zoroastrians, however, define their religious identity in ethical and subjective terms, namely as a commitment to “good thoughts, good words, and good deeds” and the individual choice of the autonomous believer. This is probably a modern development, reflecting various projects to reform the religion stimulated by exposure to colonialism in India and nationalism in Iran (Stausberg, 2002; Ringer). While the success of such reforms was limited in India, they were pursued by a modernizing lay community leadership (spearheaded by Arbāb Kayḵosrow Šāhroḵ) and, later, by liberal high priests in Tehran.

In Iran, this policy resulted in rather dramatic changes taking the forms of substitution (e.g., disposal of the dead [see BURIAL iii] replaced by burial), abandonment (e.g., the use of cow’s urine [gōmēz] as a cleansing agent), reduction (e.g., the number of times consecrated fires are given ritual care on a daily basis), relaxation (e.g., the requirements for ritual purity), and innovation (e.g., the introduction of weekly congressional prayer sessions in some places or more bourgeois settings, such as priests sitting on chairs at tables rather than on the ground, or women becoming formally appointed as [assistant] priests, mobedyār).

As Zoroastrians left their bounded space and sought to become part of Iranian mainstream society, ritual boundaries were downplayed and the ritual function of the emblematic fire was de-emphasized. At the same time, shrines and pilgrimage places (pirān or ziāratgāh; e.g., Bānu Pars) of various size and types, which are unconnected to the cult of fire, have been thriving inconspicuously (Langer). The shrine Pīr-e Sabz (Green Shrine), also known as Pir-e Sabz-e Čak-ak Kuh, “drip-drip- mountain” [commonly interpreted as a diminutive of Čak]; for this shrine see Boyce, pp. 255-62; Afšār, I, pp. 63-65; II, pp. 855- 58; Langer, pp. 328-51) is located in the desert east of Ardakān-e Yazd at the northeastern end of the plain of Yazd. The annual pilgrimage to this shrine, held for several days in mid-June, has become a kind of national event for Iranian Zoroastrians. Images of the shrine can be found in many Zoroastrian homes in Iran.

In India, visits to Ātaš Bahrām fire temples, in particular to the one at Udvada (see IRĀNŠĀH), are often referred to as pilgrimages. In contrast to the Iranian case, however, the involvement of the Parsis in modern (colonial and post-colonial) Indian society went along with an affirmation of their ethnic identity, including religious and ritual boundaries. In present- day Iran, non-Zoroastrians can enter many fire temples, but this is still not the case in India. Secondary sources such as the reports by non-Zoroastrian authors writing in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, or Persian give glimpses of non-priestly perspectives and practices, while almost all primary sources on Zoroastrian religion in pre-modern languages (starting from the Avesta) were written by priests. Accordingly, in these sources one finds intricate discussions of ritual matters, but they only provide very limited information on popular practices, for example in relation to feasts and festivals (see FESTIVALS i. ZOROASTRIAN; GĀHĀNBĀR; SADA FESTIVAL) or life cycle ceremonies such as initiations or weddings. Besides reflecting the particular ideologies, values, and interests of the priestly authors, this lack points to the importance of the professional priesthood values for Zoroastrian history, even in the present age. In interviews with non-priestly Zoroastrians about the priesthood conducted by the present author in Mumbai in 2007, the overwhelming majority of the 101 respondents affirmed that the priesthood was necessary in Zoroastrianism.

Sources from pre-Islamic Iran attest that the magi performed a variety of tasks in addition to the purely ritual ones; they were involved in administration, education, politics, and legal affairs. In Sasanian times, the clergy was reorganized in the form of a hierarchy. In the centuries after the Arab conquest, when Zoroastrianism became a religious minority, the priesthood was decoupled from the state, but priests probably continued to act as community leaders. A few centuries after the loss of power, the term dastur (priest, authority, minister) emerged to denote the higher ranks of the priesthood with the dastur-e dasturān (high priest) or dastur-e mas at the top (nowadays, this title is more one of prestige rather than of power). In the early modern period the laity, often wealthy landowners and agriculturists, merchants, and traders, assumed preeminence in the community leadership. Modern community organizations such as the Bombay Parsi Panchayat and the Anjoman-e Zartoštiān are dominated by the laity; priests are consulted in religious matters.

In Iran, shortly after the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79, an outspoken Zoroastrian priest, Mobed Rostam Šāhzādi (1912- 2000), made his voice heard at the Assembly of Experts (Majles- e Ḵobragān), where the four acknowledged religious minorities were represented by religious leaders (Sanasarian, 2000, pp. 58- 72). Šāhzādi is an example of modern Iranian priests who were critical of many inherited ritual traditions and blamed the great influence of the clergy for the downfall of the Sasanian empire. In India and Pakistan, the Parsi priest Dastur Maneckji Nusserwani Dhalla (1875-1956) abandoned many rituals in favor of an ethicist, intellectualist, and devotional form of Zoroastrianism, but as a profession the priesthood in the subcontinent has continued its main role as providers of ritual services to their clients.

In both Iran and India, the number of priests has declined sharply in modern times. In India, most priests are nowadays trained in special boarding schools in Mumbai, where they also receive secular education. In India, priests are initiated before the onset of puberty, but in Iran only adults are trained as priests. While there is some evidence for women playing active parts in the performance of public religious rituals in Sasanian times (see Nērangestān 22.1-5, and discussion in Elman), for the past millennium or so the priesthood has been an all-male profession, and entry is restricted by genealogy (but in Iran, in 2011, eight Zoroastrian women were formally recognized as [assistant] priests, termed mobedyār). In India, not all of those who are initiated into the priesthood will pursue this as a profession later in life; priests who work as full-time practicing priests are nowadays referred to as mobed, the others as ērvad (see HĒRBED).

Water and fire are central agents and elements in Zoroastrian rituals. Before the introduction of electricity, the domestic hearth fire was the ritual/religious focus of the homes, and the development of fire temples (the exact introduction of which remains unclear) can be seen as an extension of the cult of the domestic fires. There were several classifications of fires. In India, a distinction in three grades (Ātaš Bahrām, Ādorān, Dādgāh; see ĀTAŠ) is still maintained in ritual practice, while this has become obsolete in Iran. Several temples have been erected in the diaspora (several in North America, referred to as Darb-e Mehr; see DAR-e MEHR, which in India refers to one part of a temple), but, at present time, none of them houses a fully consecrated fire. By their consecration, temple fires are traditionally considered as ritual agents in their own right, having their own personalities. The recital at the Ātaš Nyāyišn, together with the offering of dry wood (and fragrance), is traditionaly the key act of daily temple worship, which is to be performed in each of the five divisions of the day (gāh). Believers are likewise expected to say their prayers in each of these five gāhs. Not only priests but also lay people among the Parsis report of experiences and expectations related to some fire(s). Indian temples need to have a well to draw fresh water for some rituals, and visitors to the temples can be seen praying at the wells. In colonial India, many wells, which often were held to be the abode of spirits, were closed for reasons of hygiene. In central south Mumbai, the Bhikha Behram Well continues to serve as a site of worship for Zoroastrians (non-Parsis are not admitted). In Iran, wells, springs, and ponds often serve as the natural basis for shrines (Stausberg, 2004b, pp. 258-62). Fires need to be purified (for which there are special techniques) before being consecrated. Purity is a key concept in most Zoroastrian rituals, which require ritually pure spaces, performers, and implements. Recurrent acts of cleansing such as the pādyāb, which also involve prayers, are a feature of daily life of Zoroastrians; thereby, ideally, if one follows the prescriptions of the priestly texts, one’s life becomes heavily ritualized from morning to night. Daily affairs such as eating, sleeping, or going to the toilet involve rites of purification. Simple purifications can be done by every believer, but more severe forms of pollution require rituals of purification performed by priests such as the sāde-nāhn and the barašnom (Boyce, 1977, pp. 111-12). The latter requires a separate ritual site. The priestly concept of purity, involving more than the absence of pollution, has developed into a positive quality. A state of positive purity is a requirement for the performance of some ritual acts such as the worship of consecrated fires. Inversely, some traditions go so far as to deny prayer to women who are in menstruation (bīnamāzī); at any rate, in Zoroastrianism women are advised to stay away from the fire temples and other religious sites during their period. Water serves as the main cleansing agent; cow’s urine is used in addition, both as a more powerful cleansing agent and to shield water from impurity. Consecrated cow’s urine, called nirang, considered the most powerful cleansing agent, is also applied internally in some rituals of purification such as the sāde-nāhn, where the candidate also chews a pomegranate-twig. In Iran, the use of cow’s urine has been abandoned.

The pādyāb-kosti rite (performed at the beginning of a religious ritual or as an independent act of cleansing) involves the religious garments, the shirt (šabig; sodra) and the cord or girdle (kustīg; kosti), the wearing of which is by the priestly texts considered a basic duty of all Zoroastrians. In pre-modern times, these garments were woven by the wives of priests. According to the priestly tradition, prayer is only valid when one is wearing the shirt, so it is only when being invested with these garments that people become endowed with ritual agency. It is only with the investiture with shirt and cord/girdle that they become responsible for their own actions. This ritual of initiation is known as sedre-puši, sedre-pušun (putting on of the shirt) in Iran and navjote (popular etymology: “new birth”) in India (e.g., see Boyce, 1977, pp. 238-40 and pls. VIIa-b; Stausberg, 2004b, pp. 402-15, with clips and pictures on CDs). The investiture proper is preceded by a ritual of purification administered by a priest, who then, in the initiation proper, assists the pre-pubescent child (typically seven to ten years old in India, somewhat older in Iran) in the first public prayer with shirt and girdle/cord and then recites a litany of blessing (tandorosti).

Similarly, in weddings the priest(s) conduct a purification and the blessing (āširvād). In Iran, the priest typically delivers a speech of admonishment. In addition to priestly officiation, initiations and weddings (Stausberg, 2004b, pp. 402-46) cannot do without a number of auspicious objects that are prepared and displayed, or without certain rites that are performed by the women (typically mothers and aunts, but the latter only when married and not widowed). In the case of weddings, the priestly ceremony was the culmination of a series of rites (some involving fertility symbolism) and visits between the family of bride and groom. These rites have been handed down by tradition but are nowhere mentioned in the priestly literature. For those who can afford it, initiations and weddings are the occasion for lavish meals and parties; both are therefore highly costly events and markers of social status. In funerals (see DEATH), women play no active role. The corpse is handled by the (male) corpse-bearers (nasā-sālārs), but the priests take care of the ceremonies related to the transition of the soul into the other world and the recurrent post-funerary ceremonies. This is the Sitz-im-Leben of most priestly liturgies, which are held on behalf of the departed ones. These liturgies are by the Indian priestly tradition divided into two main categories: those that are performed “within the ritual precincts” (pāw mahal) and the ordinary ones (hušmordi); the division is also known as “inner” versus “outer” liturgies (Modi, p. 246). In the case of the ‘inner’ liturgies the ritual precinct is demarcated by furrows (pāwi) in the floor; in the case of ‘outer’ rituals the ritual space is demarcated by placing a cloth or a rug on the ground.

The performance of ‘inner’ liturgies requires special priestly qualifications and entails the following characteristics: the recitation of the Avestan Yasna (either entirely, or sections thereof, or entirely but with further additions and embedded in other Avestan texts); the use of specific implements (see ĀLĀT) such as the sacred twigs (barsom); the marking, consecration, and tasting of a specific type of small flat bread (see DRŌN) and the preparation by mixing, pounding, and recitation of haoma, which is today made out of goat milk and water (see JIWĀM), ephedra twigs and pomegranate twigs, pounded in a mortar. The standard ‘inner’ rituals are the bāj-dharnā or drōn yašt (Karanjia), where no haoma is produced, and the Yasna. Among the ‘inner’ rituals, the most complex one is the nirang ceremony, which needs to be held from time to time in order to produce consecrated water and consecrated cow’s urine (nirang; MP nērang), these materials are (India), or were (Iran), indispensable for the performance of some rituals of purification. The ‘outer’ liturgies can be performed by any priest, or even qualified lay persons.

In contrast to the ‘inner’ liturgies, the texts recited in the ‘outer’ ceremonies are not dependent on the Yasna, but on the Ḵorda Avesta (see KHORDEH AVESTĀ; moreover, Middle Persian texts are added to a greater extent. Standard ‘outer’ liturgies are the āfrinagān, the faroḵši, and stūm. In all of them different sorts of food items such as cooked food (including meat), wine (now generally discontinued), dried and fresh fruit (especially pomegranate, bananas, dates, and grapes), milk, water, and lime juice are consecrated. In Iran, melons are widely used; in India, coconuts. In Iran, a mixture of several (often seven) types of dried fruits (e.g., “senjed [the fruit of the oleaster], dates, raisins, walnuts, almonds, dried apricots, plums, and mulberries”; Boyce, 1977, p. 38) called lork is used in all such rituals. In rural areas of Iran, women also prepare sir-o-sedāb, that is, garlic and rue (with some added herbs, seeds and spice) fried in hot oil and then cooled down by adding vinegar and water, thereby producing steam and an auspicious aroma (cf. ESFAND; Stausberg, 2004b, pp. 46-58).

The main medium of Zoroastrian rituals are words. Zoroastrian rituals (even those performed by lay women in Iran; see Phalippou for a detailed but sometimes speculative treatment) are verbal events, mainly comprising recitation of texts. In the case of the Iranian women, these folk- or fairy-tale like narrations are recited in the Zoroastrian dialect (see BEHDINĀN DIALECT), whereas the rituals administered by the priesthood draw mainly on the corpus in Avestan and Middle Persian. The priests have to learn the text of the Yasna by heart, which is why priests are trained while they are still young and can mnemotechnically absorb such a large amount of text. In Iran, however, the ‘inner’ liturgies are no longer performed in their entirety, and the texts are read from books. In order to be initiated into the religion the children have to learn some basic prayers. Some Avestan formulae (manthras) such as the Yathā ahū vairiiō and the Ašem vohū, widely believed to be inherently powerful, are used throughout the entire register of rituals, from a short private prayer to the most elaborate priestly ceremonies. The more elaborate the rituals, the more texts need to be memorized and recited. These texts, many of which are proclamations of worship, constitute a corpus of revelation, which is not preached to an audience but executed in ritual practice. Priests can give speeches at specific occasions such as feasts, but there are no sermons as part of the priestly liturgies. Mistakes in the verbal (and non-verbal) performance are dramatic, since they undermine the cosmic order and strengthen the evil powers (amounting to “demon worship”). In addition to the Avestan manthras, there are formulae in Middle or New Persian (nērang), which are used in rituals, but they are also recited in short independent rites or used as amulets (see MAGIC i). Another structural element of Zoroastrian rituals, or of ritualizing acts such as eating, is the framing of a sequence of (verbal or non-verbal) acts by an opening and a concluding speech act (see BĀJ).

Bibliography:

Iraj Afšār, Yādgārhā-ye Yazd, 3 vols., Tehran, 1975. Mary Boyce, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, Oxford,

1977.

Idem, “Pādyāb and nērang: Two Pahlavi Terms Further Considered,” BSOAS 52/2, 1991, pp. 281-91.

Alberto Cantera, “Ethics,” in Michael Stausberg and Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina, eds., The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, forthcoming.

Jamsheed K. Choksy, Purity and Pollution in Zoroastrianism: Triumph over Evil, Austin, 1989.

Yaakov Elman, “Scripture Versus Contemporary Needs: A Sasanian/Zoroastrian Example,” Cardozo Law Review 28/1, 2006, pp. 153-169.

Ramiyar Parvez Karanjia, The Bāj-Dharnā (Drōn Yasht): A Zoroastrian Ritual for Consecration and Commemoration, History, Performance, Text and Translation, Mumbai, 2010.

Jean Kellens and Eric Pirart, Les Textes vieil-avestiques, Wiesbaden, 1988.

Jens Kreinath, Joannes Augustinus Maria Snoek, and Michael Stausberg, Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts, Leiden, 2006.

Robert Langer, Pīrān und Zeyāratgāh: Schreine und Wallfahrtsstätten Der Zarathustrier im neuzeitlichen Iran, Acta Iranica 48, Leuven and Paris, 2008.

Jivanji Jamshedji Modi, The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees, Bombay, 2nd ed., 1937.

Éric Phalippou, Aux sources de Shéhérazade: contes et coutumes des femmes Zoroastriennes, Acta Iranica 38, Leuven, 2003.

Monica M. Ringer, Pious Citizens: Reforming Zoroastrianism in India and Iran, Syracuse, N.Y., 2011.

Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Praise and Blame in the Avesta: The Poet-Sacrificer and His Duties,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 26, 2002, pp. 29-67.

Idem, “Zarathustra: First Poet-Sacrificer," in Siamak Adhami, ed., Paitimana: Essays in Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt, 2 vols. in 1, Costa Mesa, 2003, pp. 157-194.

Eliz Sanasarian, Religious Minorities in Iran, Cambridge and New York, 2000.

Michael Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathustras: Geschichte, Gegenwart, Rituale II, Stuttgart, 2002.

Idem, ed., Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, Leiden, 2004a.

Idem, Die Religion Zarathushtras: Geschichte, Gegenwart, Rituale III, Stuttgart, 2004b.

Idem, “From Power to Powerlessness: Zoroastrianism in Iranian History,” in Anh Nga Longva and Anne Sofie Roald, eds., Religious Minorities in the Middle East: Domination, Self- Empowerment, Accommodation, Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2012, pp. 171-93.

(Michael Stausberg)

______

ZOROASTRIANISM

Historical reviews

ZOROASTRIANISM i. Historical review: up to the Arab conquest.

ii. Historical review: from the Arab conquest to modern times.

(Multiple Authors)

Originally Published: January 22, 2015

______

ZOROASTRIANISM i. HISTORICAL REVIEW UP TO THE ARAB CONQUEST

ZOROASTRIANISM

i. HISTORICAL REVIEW:

This article presents an overview of the history of Zoroastrianism from its beginnings up to the 9th and 10th centuries CE. Details of different periods and specific issues relating to Zoroastrianism are discussed the relevant separate entries.

Owing to both the nature and availability of sources, it is difficult to write a comprehensive history of Zoroastrianism, as there are periods about which we know very little, others for which information is well restricted to circumscribed subjects or genres, and still others that must be reconstructed by reading back in time from the contents of later writings or by reading forward from the sources of cognate cultures. A survey of the important scholarly literature on the subject will reveal both areas of consensus and those of widely divergent opinion. While it is often possible to distinguish clearly fact from theory, one finds all too frequently that fact and theory are hard to disentangle one from the other.

Sources. The most important source for our knowledge of the ancient period of Zoroastrian history is the collection of scriptures known by its Middle Persian (Pahlavi) name Abestāg (Avesta). Written in an ancient Eastern Iranian language, Avestan, the Avesta is the great achievement of learned Zoroastrian priests who collected, edited, and codified a variety of written and oral traditions during the Sasanian period, that is, during an era far removed from the times when the constituent pieces of the tradition were composed. Those constituent pieces that have survived to today, however, represent only a fraction of what the Sasanian priests produced. During the reign of Ḵosrow I Anōširavān (531-79 CE), if not earlier, there existed a vast collection of texts consisting of twenty-one Nasks (parts). These Nasks had been composed partially in Avestan and partially in Pahlavi. In addition to much of the extant corpus of the Avesta, there were other Avestan texts that have since been lost, as well as a vast amount of texts written in Pahlavi, called zand “commentary,” which were either glosses of Avestan originals or compositions for which no Avestan ancestor had existed. Priest-scholars in the 9th and 10th centuries compiled extensive digests of these materials, such as the Dēnkard and the Bundahišn. In sorting through these digests, one must attempt to distinguish what may have had an ancient Avestan origin and what derives from Sasanian or even Arsacid sources. What this means to the historian is that the disposition of the scriptural sources is almost entirely non-contemporaneous with times and eras that one wants to understand through them. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to figure out the date with any degree of accuracy, since the constituent pieces of the Avesta deal to a great extent with matters of ritual, myth, and worship without any reliable ties to dateable events.

To gain a perspective on ancient western Iranian religious history one has the relatively small corpus of Achaemenid inscriptions contemporaneous with the events they report and, in addition, documents from the ancient Near East and the writings of Classical authors, of whom the most significant is Herodotus. Although Greek and Latin authors are important, sometimes sole sources for the span of time stretching from the Achaemenids through the Sasanians, they must always be approached with critical caution.

There is very little source material, indigenous or foreign, for the Seleucid and Arsacid periods. For the Sasanians there are the literary sources already discussed, inscriptions, especially important among them being that of the high priest Kirdēr, and a variety of writings on coins, silverware, etc.; in addition, we have Byzantine sources and historians of the Islamic period (e.g., Ṭabari, Ṱaʿālebi, Meskawayh) preserve much valuable information. For all periods, save the most ancient, art, architecture, and the material culture revealed by archeology provide information usually not present in the written record.

Ancient Iranian religion. Just as in the case of other religions that can be identified with a founder, whether Jesus, Māni, or Moḥammad, so too with Zoroastrianism, we find that the new religious movement was inspired and informed against an historical-cultural background peculiar to the founder. Thus, the history of Zoroastrianism cannot begin with Zarathustra, but rather with the reconstruction that we achieve of ancient Iranian religion. Matters are complicated by the fact that Zarathustra’s religious vision (daēnā, see DĒN) seems to have been slow in its spread among the Iranian peoples. Ancient forms of religion coexisted and intermingled with the new. An eventual synthesis occurred, quite different from the ruptures with the past that one finds in Christianity and Islam.

During the 3rd millennium, a large group of loosely associated tribes calling themselves Arya, living somewhere in central Asia and speaking related dialects of what is now known as the Indo- Iranian group of Indo-European languages, differentiated itself into two major linguistic and cultural groups. By the middle of the 2nd millennium one group was migrating into the Punjab region of the Indian subcontinent and into Anatolia, while the other group was migrating over the Iranian plateau. The Indo- Aryans who found themselves in the ancient Near East played a brief role in political and military affairs, but were soon absorbed by the dominant cultures. The Indo-Aryans who settled the Punjab and the Iranians (Mid. Pers. ērān, an old genitive plural *aryānām, Av. airyānąm “land of the Aryas”) soon overwhelmed the respective indigenous populations politically, linguistically, and culturally. Once sharing common religious ideologies and cultic practices, as they settled down, the two groups began to develop their religious lives along separate lines. Nevertheless, when the religious texts of both are studied together they provide a basis for reconstructing common features and for identifying innovations.

Central to both Iranians and Indo-Aryans was the sacrificial worship (Av. yasna-, OInd. yajñá-) of the gods (Av. daēva-, OPers. daiva, OInd. devá; see DAIVA, DĒV), in which an essential element was the preparation of the sacred drink (Av. haoma-, OPers. hauma-, OInd. sóma-; see HAOMA). They worshiped deities, some of whom bore the same or nearly identical names, for example, Miθra/Mitra, Vayu/Vāyu, Θwōrəštar/Tvaṣṭar, and some represented common concepts of divine functions, for example, Vərəθraγna/Indra (warrior), Spəntā Ārmaiti/Pṛthivī (Earth), Ātar/Agni (Fire). At the head of the Iranian pantheon stood Ahura Mazdā. He was a creator (dātar) in the sense that he exercised dominion over creation in establishing order and putting (vb. dā-) everything in its proper place. The actual crafting of the creation was the work of the demiurge, θwōrəštar- “craftsman.” Ahura Mazdā’s consort was the Earth, known by the name Spəntā Ārmaiti, though he seems to have had other wives, the Ahurānīs “wives of Ahura.” Ahura Mazdā had a particular connection to the cosmic principle of order and truth called aṧa- in Avestan (OInd. ṛtá-, OPers arta-), and like the supreme Vedic god Varuṇa, was a source of insight into Truth for poets, the divinely inspired creators of sacred hymns. Two male deities were closely associated with Ahura Mazdā. One was Rašnu “Judge,” who had a limited judicial function, analogous to that exercised by Varuṇa, in serving as the divine judge presiding over the oaths sworn by men. The other was Miθra. While Miθra was a complex deity, the essence of his being was that he was foremost the god “Covenant.” That is, he presided over all treaties between nations and covenants between people. The image of him as a mighty warrior riding in his chariot full of weapons reflects his ability to enforce the sanctity of covenants. As a warrior he shares much in common with another powerful deity Vərəθraγna (Mid. Pers. Wahrām, NPers. Bahrām) “Victory,” whose name etymologically means “the smashing of resistance” (AirWb., col. 1412; see BAHRĀM). As such he embodied the ideal of the Iranian warrior who was capable of smashing the defenses of all enemies (Boyce, 1975-82, I, pp. 62-65; Schwartz, pp. 671-73). Warriors invoked both Miθra and Vərəθraγna as they went into battle, yet, when it came to the exercise of legitimate temporal power and the success of the ruler in wielding that power, two other forces came into play. The Iranians developed a unique concept of an impersonal force called xᵛarənah- “glory,” conceived as a fiery presence that attached itself to legitimate rulers but remained unobtainable by illegitimate usurpers (see FARR[AH]; Bailey, pp. 1-51). Without this royal glory one could not hope to hold power. Whereas xᵛarənah- was an impersonal power, victory to the legitimate ruler and righteous warrior was granted by the goddess Anāhiti/Anāhitā (see ANĀHĪD), who maintained this role even into Islamic times, disguised as Šahrbānu. Like Athena and Ištar, she dispensed success in arms. (Schwartz, pp. 667-84).

The cosmos was basically three-tiered, consisting of earth, atmosphere, and heaven. The earth was divided into six concentric continents (karšvar) surrounding the central continent, Xᵛainiraθa (Mid. Pers. Xwanirah), where aryana vaējah (Mid. Pers. Ērān-Wēz) “the Iranian expanse” was located (Gnoli, 1980, pp. 88-90; idem, 1989, pp. 38-47; Benveniste, 1933-35; for various suggestions concerning its location, see Dandamaev, pp. 36-37). At the center of the earth was the cosmic mountain, Harā Bərəzaitī, the Alborz, which acted as the axis mundi. At its southern flank was the sacred Vouru-kaša sea (see FRĀXKARD), in the middle of which grew the Tree of Life (Av. Gaokərəna, Mid. Pers. Gōgirn). Over the earth and expanse of sky arched the stone vault of heaven (asman-) beyond which was the realm of the Infinite Lights (anaγra raočå), and the heavenly abode called the Best Existence (vahišta- ahu-), and the House of Song (garō.nmāna-,Mid. Pers. garōdmān). Below the earth was the realm of Infinite Darkness, (anaγra təmå). The entire earth rested upon and was surrounded by the waters of chaos. Fresh water flowed down Harā in the river goddess Arədvī Sūrā, the Strong Moist, into the Vouru-kaša, and from it the various rivers of the world flowed, accumulating pollutants in their courses, to the salt sea called Pūitika, the Filterer, from which the hydrological cycle repeated itself (Boyce, 1975-82, I, pp. 135-36).

As far as one can reconstruct on the basis of Pahlavi sources, thought concerning the temporal dimension of the cosmos was in terms of a system of three or four world ages, analogous to the yuga system of ancient India and the four metallic ages of Greece, with each lasting three-thousand years. One can guess that there was an idea of the degradation of the cosmos over the course of the ages and that a complete cycle would have ended with a cataclysm and subsequent creation that renewed the cycle, though in its present form the cycle has been thoroughly transformed into a myth of creation, battle of good and evil, final triumph of the good and establishment of the eternal kingdom of God, Ohrmazd (see COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY i.). The yearly cycle was punctuated by various sacred festivals, which probably varied from region to region. The most important was the spring festival celebrating the new year (Phl. nōg rōz, New Pers. nowruz), preceded by a liminal time marking the return of the spirits of the dead, the frawašis (see FRAVAŠI; Gignoux, 2001, pp. 16-20). The ancient Iranian cultic practices seem to have been very similar to those referred to in the Vedic literature. Men with special training were required and, as at later periods, the priestly functions may have been hereditary. The presiding priest was the zaotar- (OInd hótar-) ‘the one who offers libations,” who was attended by various functionaries. Another functional title, aθaurvan- (cf. OInd. átharvan-) became the name for the sacerdotal caste, though originally it may have designated those priests charged with the care of the sacred fire, ātar- (see ĀTAŠ), both the element and a deity. Worship of the deities was ritually performed through the yasna. Originally this was a complex ritual that involved the offering of a sacrifice (food) and the sacred haoma (drink). Modeled on rites of hospitality, the yasna was an elaborate festive meal to which a deity or deities were invited as honored guests. The deity was offered food and drink, and was entertained through the recitation of poetry created for the occasion to magnify the divine guest. The poet was called a mąθrān (cf. OInd. mantrín-), that is, one who creates sacred poetry (mąθra-). The yašts of the Avesta are collections of such poetry (see Thieme, 1957).

Beliefs about the soul, death, and an afterlife were complex. A person possessed a number of what one might loosely call souls. In addition to animating forces, the urvan (Pahl. ruwān) was the individual’s soul, which survived death and went to the other world; the frawaši was a guardian spirit; the daēnā was a sort of spiritual double (Gignoux, 2001, pp. 12-16, 20-30; Widengren, 1983). At death, when the breath of life (vyānā-; Mid. Pers. gyān, NPers. jān) departed, the soul hovered near the corpse (immediately possessed by Nasu, the demon of putrefaction) for three days before journeying to a bridge crossing to the other world. This is the Činwad bridge (see ČINWAD PUHL) mentioned already by Zarathustra. It is not known what ethical concepts were originally applied to this perilous crossing, but with Zarathustra and the rest of the Zoroastrian tradition the crossing meant the time of reckoning for one’s good and evil deeds, with the righteous proceeding to heaven, the wicked to the abyss.

Zarathustra. One of the most vexing problems for a history of Zoroastrianism is the location of Zarathustra in time and place. While there is general agreement that he did not live in western Iran, attempts to locate him in specific regions of eastern Iran, including Central Asia, remain tentative. Also uncertain are his dates. Plausible arguments place him anywhere from the 13th century BCE to just before the rise of the Achaemenid empire under Cyrus II the Great in the mid-6th century BCE, with the majority of scholars seeming to favor dates around 1000 BCE, which would place him as a contemporary, at least, of the later Vedic poets (see, e.g., Boyce, 1975-82, I, pp. 190-91; Duchesne- Guillemin, pp. 135-38; Gnoli, 1980, pp. 159-79; Henning; Hertel; Herzfeld; Jackson, 1896; Klima, 1959; Shahbazi, 1977 and 2002).

The milieu in which Zarathustra began his mission was sketched above. He was both a zaotar and a mąθrān. The only reliable biographical information about him is contained in his Gathas, preserved by oral tradition for centuries and then continued to the present in oral and written priestly transmission. Zarathustra had a particularly close relationship with Ahura Mazdā, from whom he received revelatory visions (daēnā-). His vision, expressed in the Gathas, included a radical transformation of traditional beliefs. In place of the pantheon he elevated Ahura Mazdā to a position of supremacy that approaches monotheism and surrounded him with a group of abstract entities, the Aməša Spəntas, all of whom perpetuate key concepts of Iranian religion as hypostases of Ahura Mazdā. At the heart of the vision, though, was an ethical dualism that saw the principles of Truth (aṧa-) and Falsehood (druj-, OPers drauga-, OInd. dróha-) in fundamental opposition. In Zarathustra’s thought dualism is not primordial, as it appears in later Sasanian theology, but arose out of the right and wrong choices made by twin Spirits, who stand in paradigmatic relationship to human beings in the exercise of free will. As a result, the world could be divided between the followers of Truth (aṧavan-, cf. OPers. artāvan-, OInd. ṛtāˊvan-) and the followers of the Lie (drugvant-; see DRUJ). His dualistic theology also included the polarization of the traditional classes of deities, the ahuras and the daēvas. As a zaotar, Zarathustra was concerned with proper cultic practice, especially the proscription of violence upon the sacrificial victim as carried out by the daēvic priests. He may have modified the haoma cult, but certainly did not ban it. Finally, Zarathustra articulated the kernel of the idea of a Savior figure, the Saošyant (Mid. Pers. Sōšyans), who would arrive in the future to redeem the world.

The history of Iranian religion after Zarathustra is very difficult to reconstruct. In the course of his ministry in eastern Iran, he converted a local ruler (kavi-) named Vištāspa, who became his patron and protector (Jackson, pp. 59 ff; Boyce, 1975-82, I, pp. 11, 279-81). For convenience, following Ilya Gershevitch (pp. 8- 9), we may call the religion of the prophet “Zarathuštrianism.” We can only assume that the religious community that Zarathustra founded continued and thrived after his death. The Yasna Haptaŋhaitī is the production of this community. With the consolidation of greater Iran under the Achaemenids, his religion, into whatever form it had evolved, made its way to western Iran, where it encountered forms of Iranian religion different not only from itself, but also from non-Zarathuštrian religions of the East. The Achaemenid period. The question of Zoroastrianism among the Medes is moot, as we possess too little information about this period to form any clear idea what their religious practices and beliefs were. The one piece of information that stands out is the inclusion of the Magi by Herodotus in a listing of the Median tribes (Herodotus, 1.101). The power that the Magi enjoyed in western Iran during the Median rule is indicated by further statements of Herodotus concerning the pervasive presence of this priesthood in religious matters. From Herodotus’s account we learn that the Magi were necessary for the performance of sacrifices at which they recited “theogonies,” that is, presumably hymns in praise of the gods being worshiped. They also were involved in the disposal of the dead through exposure to birds and dogs; and they exhibited a passion for killing noxious creatures (Herodotus, 1.132). Further the political intrigues of the Magi, especially that of the false Smerdis/Bardiya, attested both in Herodotus and Darius’s inscription at Bisotun (DB 1.30-33; Herodotus, 3.30, 61, 65 ff.), and the subsequent magophonia festival, bear witness to the continued importance of this caste in Pārsa and the Achaemenid empire (Herodotus, 3.78-79). As Zoroastrianism became the dominant religion of the empire, the Magi assumed its priestly functions, giving their name to the priestly nomenclature of post-Achaemenid Zoroastrianism.

There is no consensus among scholars over the question whether the early great kings (Cyrus II The Great, Darius I The Great, Xerxes) were influenced by some form of Zarathuštrianism. They certainly believed in the absolute supremacy of Ahura Mazdā (OPers. Auramazdāh-) and in the dichotomy of ahura- and daiva-. Beyond that, however, all is speculation. Neither the Achaemenids themselves nor Herodotus mention Zarathustra, and Gathic quotations, which some see in the inscriptions (Skjærvø, 1999) may merely reflect phrases common to the shared (Indo-)Iranian poetic diction. Although Cyrus’s famous cylinder inscription proclaiming himself as the appointee of the Babylonian deities may be dismissed as pure propaganda, it does stand in sharp contrast to the fervent devotion to Ahura Mazdā of Darius and Xerxes. The latter’s destruction of the daivadāna- (daiva-sanctuary; XPh 35-41) may show Zoroastrian zeal, or it may bear witness to an old Iranian dichotomy independent of the Prophet’s teachings. Centuries later, the Sasanians, who were indisputably Zoroastrians, in their inscriptions invoke Ohrmazd and use the term mazdēsn “Mazdean” (e.g., Šāpur I’s inscriptions ŠKZ 24, Ḥajjiābād [ŠH] 1, 3; Šāpur II at Ṭāq-e Bustān [ŠTBn] 2, 5; Narseh at Veh Šābuhr [NVŠ] 1, 6; see Back, pp. 334, 372, 490), nowhere did they mention the prophet’s name (*Zarduxšt). Achaemenid imperial art shows at least extensive iconographic borrowing from the ancient Near East, for example, the winged Ahura Mazdā icon borrowed from nearly identical Assur figures (Root, 1975; Jacobs, 1991). The silence of the sources may reflect the attitude of the Achaemenids toward religion in general. Their policy toward non-Iranian religions was one of tolerance and issues of orthodoxy at home, so prominent under the Sasanians, were probably not a concern to them.

In any case, the reign of Artaxerxes II (404-359 BCE), marked by a calendar reform, in which the names of Zoroastrian deities were substituted for the earlier Persian month-names, by the introduction of the Anāhitā cult and the worship of Mithra, and by the first mention of Zoroaster in Greek sources, was a turning point (see CALENDARS i.). What emerged during the Achaemenid period was an eclectic Iranian religion, Zoroastrianism, which contained elements of Zarathuštrianism, apocryphal legends of the prophet, a full pantheon of deities that are almost entirely absent from the Gathas, an overriding concern over purity and pollution, the establishment of fire temples, a strong ethical code based on man’s part in the cosmic struggle between the principles of the Truth and the Lie, and an eschatology which saw history as an unfolding struggle between these principles, which would lead to the final Renovation (frašō-kərəti) of the Cosmos. Thus, it contained a great deal of the Old Iranian religion outlined above. Curiously, the extant Avesta remains thoroughly eastern Iranian in its geographic (see AVESTAN GEOGRAPHY; Gnoli, 1980; idem, 1985, pp. 17-30) and linguistic orientation (see AVESTAN LANGUAGE). One assumes that radical concessions to traditional beliefs had already taken place after Zarathustra’s death and before Zoroastrianism became pan-Iranian.

A significant question, for which there are few definitive answers, is to what extent were Judaism and later Christianity indebted to Zoroastrianism for ideas that surfaced beginning in the 5th century BCE but persisted well into the Parthian period, ideas such as a trans-historical mašiaḥ, heaven and hell, and a day of judgement.

Greeks and Parthians. Our knowledge of Zoroastrianism during the long stretch of time extending from the conquest of the Persian empire by Alexander The Great (330, i.e., the death of Darius III) to the foundation of the Sasanian dynasty (ca. 224 CE) is very fragmentary. Although pieces of information are abundant enough to witness the presence of Zoroastrianism throughout the Near East, including Armenia, they do not add up to a coherent history. Sasanian writers knew of Alexander only as a legendary, evil (Mid. Pers. gizistag) Roman (hrōmāyig, i.e., Byzantine) enemy of Iran, who destroyed the Avesta and created general confusion of the Good Religion. There is a vague reference in the Dēnkard to an attempt under Walaxš (Vologases I, ca. 51-80; see BALĀŠ I) to gather together the Avesta dispersed because of Alexander. In general, however, Sasanian political rhetoric was at pains to place the Arsacids in a bad light as custodians of traditional Iranian values, while portraying themselves as the restorers of tradition and particularly of Zoroastrianism. Since already in the 3rd century the high priest Kirdēr presupposes an ecclesiastical hierarchy and organization, one may assume that this was an inheritance from the Arsacids (Widengren, 1965a).

The Sasanians (see also SASANIAN DYNASTY). The ancient world at the time of the Sasanian rise to power under Ardašir (ca. 224 CE) was very different from that which the Achaemenids had entered more than seven centuries before. The Roman empire extended throughout the Mediterranean world and had challenged the Parthians over control of the Near Eastern heartland. Although the Roman empire embraced and tolerated a vast array of local and national religions, the Roman Imperial Cult, soon to be replaced by Christianity, was imposed throughout the empire. Local religious movements and cults were gaining universal followings. Not only was the tide of Christianity rising in the west, but also the wave of Buddhism had been sweeping over eastern Iran and Central Asia. Jewish communities were long settled in Mesopotamia and Persia, and Manicheism was soon to burst on the scene. Zoroastrianism itself had been the national religion of the majority of Iranian peoples, whether they were living in the Near East or on the Iranian plateau. Whereas the Arsacids had continued the tradition, going back to the Achaemenids, of religious tolerance throughout their empire, the Sasanians broke with that practice. Also, while there can be no doubt that among the Arsacids and their predecessors the support and spread of Zoroastrian institutions was closely tied to the interests of the state, the Sasanians quickly developed a theology of the unity of church and state, which was generally intolerant both of foreign, that is, non-Zoroastrian, religions and of internal deviations from what would be declared orthodoxy. The Iranian example was to be followed in the west as Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire(s), and, centuries later, the arrival of Islam through the Arab conquest would have a devastating effect upon Zoroastrianism itself.

The Sasanian period was one of relative stability, during which Zoroastrianism flourished. Although there were heresies and challenges from other religions, the authority of the Zoroastrian church was basically uncontested. The numbers of sacred fires were greatly increased throughout Persia and with them the pervasive presence of priests. There were calendar reforms and the standardization of the yearly cycle of festivals. Zoroastrianism also supported an increasingly rigorous division of society into castes (pēšag), with priests and nobles as elites lording it over peasants and artisans. The burden of support for the elites shouldered by the lower castes was heavy, and their plight would find brief expression in Mazdakism (see below).

Ecclesiastical authority soon passed to an extraordinary priest named Kirdēr, whose long career began under Ardašir and extended into the reign of Bahrām II (r. 276-93). Even though Šāpur I (r. 240-72) speaks of the many fires which he established, he seems to have relaxed the policies of Ardašir and Tansar in matters of religion, allowing not only a free exercise of belief but also himself flirting with the new gnosticism preached by Māni at court. His long reign must have tried the patience of the strictly orthodox Kirdēr. Yet, the skilful priest maintained his power, while waiting for a change in succession. After the death of Šāpur, Kirdēr’s power grew greatly to the point that he was the supreme authority in all matters pertaining to religion. In fact, his power paralleled royal power to the extent that, uniquely, he could publish his inscription in various places, including the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt below the famous inscription of Šāpur I (see Gignoux, 1983, pp. 1209-11; idem, 1965; Hinz, 1970). From the first part of this inscription we learn that a formidable bureaucracy was in place to support the establishment and maintenance with funds and magi of local fires in both Iranian and non-Iranian territory. Further, heresies had been rooted out, idols destroyed, and other religions (inter al., Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists and Brahmins) were being attacked. Using a theme to be greatly elaborated toward the end of the Sasanian period in the book Ardā Wirāz nāmag, (see ARDĀ WĪRĀZ), the second part of the inscription describes an other-worldly journey by mediums conjured up by Kirdēr, whose mission it was to confirm his spiritual authority. (see SHAPUR I, sec. 4; Skjærvø, 1983).

It seems from Manichean sources that Kirdēr arranged to have Māni dispatched sometime during the reign of Bahrām I (Mary Boyce, 1975, texts m-p, pp. 43-48; Widengren, 1965b, pp. 37-42), and, while it flourished in other parts of the ancient world, Manicheism was rendered insignificant in the Iranian heartland. The most significant theological controversy within Zoroastrianism, one that seems to have been already present in the Parthian period and perhaps earlier, was over Zurvanism. This theology reckoned Zurvān “Time” as the supreme deity, whose twin sons, Ohrmazd and Ahriman, vied for control of the universe (Zaehner, 1955, pp. 60-61, 245). It was opposed to the dualistic theology that held Ohrmazd and Ahriman to be primordial, uncreated spirits. Although radical dualism prevailed in the latter part of the period, it is not clear to what extent Zurvanism was ever viewed as heresy. It is probable that Kirdēr himself held Zurvanite beliefs, and all evidence indicates that it was the accepted orthodox theology among the Sasanian rulers (see Boyce, 1979, pp. 112-13, 118-23). Šāpur II (r. 309-79), shortly after ascending the throne, assembled representatives of various religious movements, about whom no details are given, in order to establish truth. A certain priest named Ādurbād ī Mahraspandān prevailed, not only by theological argument, but also by submitting successfully to the ordeal (war) of having molten metal poured on his chest. As with Tansar, this was an occasion for the king to affirm orthodoxy and to root out heterodoxy. One may wonder whether this was a triumph of Zurvanism. It is possible, moreover, that the development of the Avestan script and organization of the religious canon into the Nasks (divisions) was carried out during the reign of Šāpur II, although it seems more likely that it was the achievement of Ḵosrow I Anōširavān (r. 531-79).

While wars with Rome and Byzantium in the west and skirmishes with nomadic tribes in the northeast were a perpetual threat to the stability of the empire, signs of internal social unrest were clearly visible during the reign of Kawād I (r. 488- 531) with the rise to prominence of the religious-social movement led by a certain Mazdak ī Bāmdādān, who would displace Māni in the later literature as the arch-heretic. Mazdakism was an eclectic religion based in both Zoroastrianism and in an ascetic spirituality that appears to have roots in Manicheism. It challenged the establishment, preaching social equality, including women, to the extent that property should be held in common. The appeal of such ideas to the masses is obvious, yet Mazdakism also had a following among nobles. Kawād himself embraced Mazdakite ideas. For this apostasy he was deposed by a coalition of nobles and priests, only later to win back the throne. After that he distanced himself from Mazdakism to the extent that eventually he allowed his son, Ḵosrow I to have Mazdak and his followers killed at a banquet in 528 (see Klima, 1977; Yarshater; Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser, pp. 455-67).

When Yazdagird III perished in 651, Zoroastrianism was dealt a blow from which it never recovered, even though it has managed to survive to the present day. The military conquest of the Sasanian empire was relatively swift, the religious conquest slower, yet ultimately triumphant (see ʿARAB v.). The reasons for the triumph of Islam are complex. There were certain cases of conversion by the sword, but these were the exception. Rather, the motivations for Zoroastrian conversion must be sought elsewhere. A central problem for the survival of Zoroastrianism was Sasanian theology of the unity of throne and church. With the elimination of the throne, the church was not only bereft of its political-economical support, but also of its place in the eschatological plan of world history. The oppressed state of the lower classes in Sasanian society that had provided the conditions for the rise of Mazdak had remained unaddressed. Islam’s promise of universal equality must have given many people both spiritual and material hope for a better life. Furthermore, the relegation of Zoroastrians to the tolerated, though second-class status of “people of the book” (ahl al- ketāb) was a clear incentive for many who sought advancement to apostatize. In some ways Zoroastrianism was an archaic religious system with complex rituals that could be performed only by priests and with a dualistic theology that was wedded to ancient myths and ancient deities. In contrast, Islam presented a simple monotheistic theology that did not need to be mediated by an institutional priesthood. Moreover, because it held key beliefs in common with Zoroastrianism, especially that world history was leading to the Day of Judgement to be followed by eternal life of beatitude for the righteous, Islam presented a path to salvation that was familiar to Zoroastrians. Besides, as Islam became entrenched in Persia, it borrowed from Zoroastrianism; Shiʿites eventually held the idea of a future savior (the “Hidden Imam”), embraced shrines of saints, and developed a system of clergy. Islamic law also presented a comprehensive ethical system for the individual and society that could displace the ideals of Zoroastrianism.

In spite of the constant erosion of Zoroastrian influence in the early centuries of Arab/Islamic dominance, the Good Religion maintained a vigorous presence in Iranian society. From the point of view of later history, the 9th and early part of the 10th centuries were pivotal for the preservation of the faith, for that period witnessed a prodigious output of religious literature mentioned above. We cannot know to what extent this scholarly, intellectual activity was motivated by a premonition of impending eclipse or by hope for revival. What it did accomplish was the production of encyclopedias, treatises on ethics and ritual, theological tracts, and the provision for the scribal tradition that would preserve the written testimony of Zoroastrianism through great vicissitudes up to modern times.

Bibliography:

The bibliography for pre-Islamic Zoroastrianism is vast. The works listed below are major works in the field (with brief annotations) or discussions of topics in the text above. Particularly important are the comprehensive volumes by M. Boyce (History)and M. Stausberg, the latter especially for its bibliography. For the general reader and for use in college courses, Boyce’s Zoroastrians provides an accessible orientation. See also the many specialized entries in EIr. (keyword search “Zoroastrian” at iranicaonline.org).

Michael Back, Die Sassanidischen Staatsinschriften: Studien zur Orthographie und Philologie des Mittelpersischen der Schriften, Acta Iranica 18, Leiden, 1978.

Harold W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books, Oxford, 1943.

Emile Benveniste, “L’Ērān-vēž et l’origine légendaire des Iraniens,” BSOS 7, 1933-35, pp. 265-74.

Mary Boyce, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian: Texts with Notes, Acta Iranica 9, Leiden, 1975.

Idem, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, 1979 (basically a summary history of Zoroastrianism from its beginnings to the present intended for the general reader, following the contours of her three-volume history).

Idem, A History of Zoroastrianism, vols. I-II, Leiden, 1975-82. Mary Boyce and Franz Grenet A History of Zoroastrianism III: Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule, Leiden, 1991. (These three volumes present a comprehensive, detailed, and richly documented account of the beginning of Zoroastrianism, its development under the Achaemenids and during a long period extending from the Macedonian conquest of Persia in 330 BCE to the 4th century CE in the Greco-Roman cultural and political spheres. In the first volume, the author has used later Pahlavi sources, rather uncritically, to provide a reconstruction of Zoroaster’s religion. She also seeks to establish a very early date for Zoroaster and to demonstrate the great continuity of the belief and practice; some of her conclusions, however, have been argued against by other scholars of the field.)

Muhammad A. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, tr. Willem J. Vogelsang, Leiden, 1989.

George Dumézil, Naissance d’archanges, Abbeville, 1945 (in a variety of books, but mainly in this one, the author describes Zarathustra’s theology of the Aməša Spəntas as a sublimation of his tripartite ideology of the Indo-Europeans).

Jean Duchesne-Guillemin, La religion de l’Iran ancien, Paris, 1962 (an excellent handbook; the author, although under the influence of George Dumézil’s theory of a tripartite ideology, is not intrusively dogmatic and presents a balanced view with references to various scholarly approaches).

Ebn Esfandiār, Nāma-ye Tansar, ed. Mojtabā Minovi, Tehran, 1975; tr. Mary Boyce as The Letter of Tansar,Rome, 1968. Ilya Gershevitch The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1959 (tr. of Yašt 10 with commentary, with an introduction containing a cogent reconstruction of the development of the religion in which the terms “Zarathustrianism” and “Zoroastrianism” are defined to differentiate the religion of the prophet from the religion of the Younger Avesta).

Philippe Gignoux, “Middle Persian Inscriptions,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, 1983, pp. 1205-15.

Idem, “L’Inscription de Kartir à Sar Mašhad,” JA 256, 1968, pp. 387-418.

Idem, Man and Cosmos in Ancient Iran, Rome, 2001.

Gherardo Gnoli, Zoroaster’s Time and Homeland: A Study on the Origins of Mazdeism and Related Problems, Naples, 1980.

Idem, De Zoroastre à Mani, Pais, 1985.

Idem, The Idea of Iran: An Essay on Its Origin, Rome, 1989.

Walter Bruno Henning, Zoroaster: Politician or Witchdoctor, Oxford, 1951 (harshly criticizes both Herzfeld and Nyberg).

Johannes Hertel, Die Zeit Zoroasters, Leipzig, 1924. Ernst Herzfeld, “The Traditional Date of Zoroaster,” in Jal Dastur C. Parvy, ed., Oriental Studies in Honour of Cursetji Erachji Parvy, London, 1933, pp. 132-36.

Idem, Zoroaster and His World, 2 vols., Princeton, 1947 (portrays Zarathustra as a player at the Achaemenid court; criticized and refuted by Henning).

Walther Hinz, “Die Inschrift des Hohenpriesters Kardēr am Turn von Naqsh-e Rostam,” AMI, NS 3, 1970, pp. 251-65.

A. V. Williams Jackson, “On the Date of Zoroaster,” JAOS 17, 1896, pp. 1-22.

Bruno Jacobs “Der Sonnengott im Pantheon der Achämeniden,” in J. Kellens, ed., La religion iranienne à l’époque achéménide, Gent, 1991, pp. 58-80.

Jean Kellens Les textes vieil-avestiques I, text with Fr. tr. and commentary, Wiesbaden, 1988 (argues that Zarathustra never existed as an individual, and the work attributed to him was really by a committee of poets).

Otakar Klima, “The Date of Zoroaster,” Archiv Orientali 27, 1959, pp. 556-64. Idem, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Mazdakismus, Prague, 1977.

Herman Lommel, Die Religion Zarathustrasnach dem Awesta dargestelt, Tübingen, 1930. (The problems involved in interpreting the Gathas and of reconstructing a coherent picture of Zoroaster’s religion still plague scholarship; yet this work of Lommel remains the most balanced account and necessary starting point for discussion. For details on Gathic problems see further under ZOROASTER and GATHAS.)

Henrik Samuel Nyberg, Die Religionen des alten Irans, tr. Hans Heinrich Schaeder, Leipzig, 1938; 2nd ed. with new Preface, Osnabrück, 1966 (presents Zarathustra as just a shaman; sharply criticized and refuted by Henning).

Margaret C. Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art, Leiden, 1975, pp. 169-176.

James Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, Cambridge, Mass., 1987 (combines knowledge of Zoroastrianism and of Armenian sources to provide a comprehensive work on this often neglected area).

A. Shapur Shahbazi, “The Traditional Date of Zoroaster Explained,” BSOAS 40, 1977, pp. 25-35.

Idem, “Recent Speculations on the ‘Traditional Date of Zoroaster’,” Studia Iranica 31/1, 2002, pp. 7-45. Michael Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathustras: Geschichte, Gegenwart, Rituale, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 2002. (The first volume provides an excellent detailed history of pre-Islamic Zoroastrianism with rich, up-to-date bibliography and much useful and necessary discussion of methodological problems; it is, however, not as comprehensive as Mary Boyce’s History.)

Martin Schwartz, “The Old Eastern Iranian Worldview According to the Avesta,” in Camb. Hist. Iran II, 1981, pp. 640-63 (an informative article about the cultural background of the Avesta).

Idem, “The Religion of Achaemenian Iran” in Camb. Hist. Iran II, pp. 664-97.

P. Oktor Skjærvø “Kirdir’s Vision,” AMI 16, 1983, pp. 269-306.

Idem, “Avestan Quotations in Old Persian,” in S. Shaked and A. Netzer, eds., Irano-Judaica IV, Jerusalem, 1999, pp. 1-64.

Paul Thieme “Vorzarathustrisches bei den Zarathustriern und bei Za rathustra,” ZDMG, 107, 1957, pp. 67-104.

Geo Widengren, Die Religionen Irans, Stuttgart, 1965a (an excellent handbook of the pre-Islamic religions of Iran, although the author was strongly influenced by Dumézil and by Nyberg’s shamanistic interpretation of Zarathustra; it makes the most use of the comparative religious method). Idem, Mani und der Manichäismus, tr. Charles Kessler as Mani and Manichaeism, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, 1965b.

Idem, “La recontre avec la daēnā, qui represente les actions de l’homme,” in Gherardo Gnoli, ed., Orientalia Romana: Essays and Lectures 5, Iranian Studies, Rome, 1983, pp. 41-79.

Ehsan Yarshater, “Mazdakism,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, 1983, pp. 991-1024.

Robert C. Zaehner, Zurvan, A Zoroastrian Dilemma, Oxford, 1955.

Idem, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, London, 1961. (As the title suggests, this book basically ignores the Greco- Roman and Arsacid periods; Zaehner’s approach, although somewhat idiosyncratic and dogmatic, provides a balance to the weight of Dumézil’s and Nyberg’s theories, which were prevalent in the mid-twentieth century. The book also contains an annotated bibliography.)

(William W. Malandra)

Originally Published: July 20, 2005

______

ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times

ZOROASTRIANISM

ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times

Designations. In ancient times Zoroastrians had traditionally referred to themselves as Mazdayasna-, from which the Inscriptional Parthian form Mazdēzn, Inscriptional Middle Persian form Mazdēsn, and Book Pahlavi (book Middle Persian) form Māzdēsn (plural Māzdēsnān) “Mazda-worshiper” were derived. Those self-designations continued to be utilized after Arab Muslims conquered Sasanian Iran in the seventh century CE and conversion of Zoroastrians to Islam occurred over the next five centuries. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, only very orthodox Zoroastrians still call themselves Mazdayasna (often rendered also as Mazdayasni), a term now used for interchangeably both the singular and plural.

In the Islamic period, another self-designation also became increasingly popular, namely, New Persian (Fārsi) Zartošti, Zardošti (plural Zartoštiyān, Zardoštiyān), which eventually provided the Gujarati word Jarθušti “Zoroastrian” after Pārsis settled on the west coast of India between the seventh and ninth centuries CE, but is derived from a standard Avestan line in the Fravarānē “Profession of Faith” (from Yasna 12.1; compare Yašt 13.89 or Frawardīn Yašt in honor of the Fravašis or immortal souls), which begins with “I profess myself a Mazda-worshipper, a follower of Zarathushtra” (... mazdayasnō zaraθuštriš; see CONFESSIONS i.). So in fact the designation as “a follower of Zarathushtra” or “Zoroastrian” does go back at least to the third century BCE.

The term Pārsi/Pārsee (in the latter case the “i” long vowel is rendered as ee per more recent Indian convention) comes from the designation Fārsi “Persian” and is commonly used for the descendants of those Zoroastrians who left Iran and settled in India (and from India later went elsewhere), although it shows up in Indian subcontinental usage before the seventh century CE due to the presence of Zoroastrian sailors, warriors, and merchants there from the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sasanian empires. Another term used by Zoroastrians on the Indian subcontinent for later co-religionists from Iran who settled among the Pārsis, especially after the sixteenth century CE, and carved out economic niches for themselves, for instance, as alcohol distillers and vintners, is Irāni “Iranian.”

Medieval Muslims writing in Classical Arabic and New Persian designated all Zoroastrians inaccurately as al-majus “magians” (see MAGI) based upon the technical term for Zoroastrian priests or magi (Middle Persian magūk, mowbed, mowmard, New Persian mobed). But the designation has stuck and is still used by pious Shi‘ites in Iran, often as a mild slur. Zoroastrian acts of worship customarily were conducted in the presence of fires on altars inside fire temples (Middle Persian ātaxškadag, New Persian āteškade; see ĀTAŠKADA). So the New Persian term ātašparast “fire worshipper,” picked up from Christians, became an insult directed by Shi‘ites at Zoroastrians despite the latters’ protesting that their actions were similar to Muslims facing prayer niches and the Kaʿba. Another early New Persian designation that still is used by Iranian Muslims to deride Zoroastrians as nonbelievers in God was gabr, meaning “hollow, empty,” hence “one lacking faith, infidel,” despite the latter sect’s claim that their scripture, the Avesta, is a holy book just like the Bible and the Qurʾān.

Zoroastrians who endure in Iran have retained an older version of the New Persian language, which they use among themselves, calling it Dari (to be distinguished from literary Dari and formal Afghan Persian, called Dari [see AFGHANISTAN v. LANGUAGES, also KABOLI). Also sometimes called Behdināni, and most often spoken rather than written, it has two main sub- dialects—Yazdi and Kermani—due to the predominant pre- modern Zoroastrian communities of Iran having clustered around Yazd and Kerman. Muslims, who by-and-large are unable to comprehend the dialect, on the other hand, term it Gabri. Yet, in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, as Zoroastrian youth in Iran have steadily migrated away from their community’s traditional strongholds, the use of Dari has waned, and the Fārsi they have also always spoken and written has come to be their main language of communication, with English moving into second place due to the international convenience it offers. Likewise, in India, the Pārsis slowly began generating their own dialect of Gujarati, eventually mixing Gujarati, Persian, and English words, so that it is now called Pārsi Gujarati; it replaced Persian as their written and spoken language by the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. Then in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, during the British Raj, Pārsis steadily learned the English language, which has now begun to eclipse Gujarati in daily usage. During the twentieth century, as both Pārsi and Iranian Zoroastrian relocated to European and North American nations, the generations born in those Western countries have steadily lost the ability to communicate in any of their faith’s languages, and English has become the community’s broad-based form of discourse.

Belief in Zaraθuštra as a Prophet. As the Zoroastrians in the Achaemenian, Parthian (Arsacid), and Sasanian states interacted with Jews and Christians, they began developing a hagiography or sacred biography for Zaraθuštra (Zoroaster) similar in themes to those of Moses and Jesus. Magian hērbedān “theologians” culled the Gāθās for details that could be ascribed to his life, times, mission, and followers. The Sasanian-era hagiography was supplemented by parallels to the Sīra or text about the Prophet Muhammad’s life between the seventh and thirteenth centuries. In that medieval canonized tradition about Zaraθuštra as the Prophet of ancient Iran and the founder of the Zoroastrian religion, the girl destined to become his mother, Duγdōvā (see DUGDŌW) was forced to flee her hometown for another village. There she met a pious man named Pourušāspa, with whom she conceived Zaraθuštra, whose immortal spirit (Av. frauuaṣ̌i) had been sent to earth by Ahura Mazdā. A light supposedly shone from Duγdōvā’s womb when she was pregnant, resulting in attempts by evildoers to harm mother and fetus. Upon birth, Zaraθuštra’s first breaths are said to have sounded like a laugh rather than a cry. Surviving several attacks upon his life by hostile kavis and karapans, who used fire, stampedes of horses and cattle, and exposure to wolves, Zaraθuštra eventually left home at the age of twenty. After a decade of wandering and contemplation, he received revelation via the Aməṣ̌a Spəṇta “Holy Immortal” Vohu Manah (Mid. Pers. Wahman, Pers.: Bahman) “the Good Mind,” and returned to preach the religion of Ahura Mazdā. Zaraθuštra was opposed by the clergy of the older cults in his native land and had to seek refuge at the court of a neighboring ruler named Vištāspa who accepted the religion. Here Zaraθuštra preached and gained many followers until he was assassinated by a priest of another sect at the age of seventy-seven, or so it was written. Through these stories, Zaraθuštra’s image was firmly established as that of a Near Eastern prophet and eventually recorded in the Zardošt-nāma “Book of Zaraθuštra” (tr. Eastwick) and other post-conquest texts such as the encyclopedic Dēnkard “Acts of the Religion” (see Molé) in the Middle Persian and New Persian languages.

In contrast with the literary accounts that are derived from Avestan and Middle Persian sources, however, no early visual images of Zaraθuštra have survived. Indeed the oldest one dates to the second century CE in the Mithraeum at Dura Europos and allegedly presents the ancient Iranian religious founder in Parthian garb. During the fifteenth century, as Europeans speculated about their intellectual past, the famed Italian Renaissance artist Raphael Santi (1483-1520) portrayed Zaraθuštra in a white robe, holding a globe of the stars, facing a depiction of Ptolemy, and standing next to Raphael himself on the lower right corner of the “School of Athens” fresco at the Vatican in Rome. In the nineteenth century, Zoroastrians began generating their own images of Zaraθuštra. One was modeled on a rock relief of Miθra wearing a rayed-cap commissioned by the Sasanian king Ardeshīr II (r. 379-383) at Ṭāq-e Bostān in Iran (see SASANIAN ROCK RELIEFS). Another took the upward pointing gesture of the classical Greek philosopher Plato at the center of Raphael’s “School of Athens” and transposed it onto Zaraθuštra. Eventually both images were even fused together to depict the Prophet Zoroaster with rays of light emerging from a halo pointing his right forefinger toward heaven (Figure 1)—this particular image remains extremely popular in fire temples and homes, although most Zoroastrians do not know its origins.

Priests, laypersons, and their religious writings. As Zoroastrians lost political control of Iran to Arab Muslims in the seventh century, and thereafter Zoroastrians began slowly but steadily adopting Islam, the magi attempted to preserve their religion’s beliefs, traditions, and lore by writing them down, first in Middle Persian and subsequently in New Persian. Manuščihr ī Juwānjamān (9th century), a high magus of Fārs and Kerman provinces compiled the Dādestān ī dēnīg “Book of religious judgements” and the Nāmagīhā “Epistles.” His brother Zādspram, the magus of Sirkan, authored the Pahlavi Wizīdagīhā “Selections.” Mardānfarrox ī Ohrmazddādān (also during the 9th century) produced the Škand gumānīg wizār “Doubt-dispelling exposition” in Pahlavi to both defend Zoroastrianism and attack Judaism, Christianity, Manicheism, and Islam as agdēn “evil religion.” Another defense of Zoroastrianism, Gizistag Abāliš “[Book About the] accursed Abāliš,” was set in the narrative context of a theological debate conducted at the palace of the ‘Abbasid caliph al-Ma’mun (813-833) and associated with the denunciation of a Zoroastrian apostate. Two hudēnān pēšōbāy “leader of the faithful [Zoroastrians]” in Fars, Ādurfarrōbay ī Farroxzādān (early ninth century) and Ādurbād ī Ēmēdān (early tenth century) assembled portions of the Middle Persian Dēnkard “Acts of the Religion.” Zoroastrianism’s main cosmogonical and eschatological text, the Bundahišn “[Book of] Primal Creation” was redacted in the year 1078. The Ardā Wirāz nāmag “Book of righteous Wirāz,” although based on Sasanian- era materials, also survives through a ninth- or tenth-century redaction and preserves the description of a spiritual voyage through heaven, limbo, and hell.

Ritual texts compiled by medieval magi as Zoroastrianism declined in popularity include the short Čīm ī kustīg “Meaning of the holy cord,” which survives in both Pahlavi and Pāzand renditions. Among extant catechisms is the Čīdag handarz ī pōryōtkēšān “Select counsels of the ancient sages” dating from the ninth century. Also titled Pand nāmag “Book of advice,” it provides a synopsis of religious values, beliefs, and practices. The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī dēnīg “Middle Persian treatise accompanying the Book of religious judgements” covers belief, rites, and religious law during the late ninth or early tenth century. Religious stipulations and ritual requirements are discussed as well in the Šāyest nē šāyest “The proper and the improper” with its supplementary texts, which, although based on Sasanian-period materials, date from the ninth century too. Other miscellaneous Zoroastrian writings in Middle Persian, but also including some of those already discussed, were collected together by magi into codices such as those used by Jamaspji Minocheherji Jamasp-Asana to compile the collection Pahlavi Texts (2 vols., Bombay, 1897-1913). The Pahlavi Rivāyat of Ādurfarrōbay and Farrōbaysrōš contain responses by two Iranian magi to questions posed by laypersons in the years 800 and 1008, respectively.

Magi living in Iran under Muslim rule also produced Pāzand (i.e., “[text] with commentary”) literature. Pāzand prayers include the Paywand nāme or Aširwād, which serves as the benediction for marriage ceremonies. This tradition was continued by a Pārsi priest named Neryōsangh Dhaval (late eleventh century or early twelfth century), who transcribed select Pahlavi books into the Avestan script to make them accessible to magi who could read Avesta, but not Middle Persian. Other Pāzand texts by Indian magi include the Petīt pašēmāni (see CONFESSIONS i.) “Act of Contrition,” Dibāče or “Prefatory recitations” to Āfrīnagān, Āfrīn, Duā, Nirang, Setāyešne, and other regularly recited prayers and invocations (see, e.g., Kanga).

Neryōsangh Dhaval translated portions of Avestan scripture into Sanskrit, including an incomplete Pahlavi version of the Yasna, Xorde Abestāg, Mēnōg ī xrad, and Škand gumānīg wizār. Fragments of Sanskrit translations of the Vidēvdād, perhaps also going back to Neryōsangh’s efforts, have survived. His intention was to make Zoroastrian scripture and exegesis accessible to Pārsis who knew Gujarati and other Indian languages, but not Avestan and Middle Persian. Sixteen Sanskrit ślokas or verses dating to before the seventeenth century, which discuss socio-religious matters from prayer times to dress codes to purity, are attributed by Pārsi tradition to Neryōsangh. Those verses, however, seem likely to be the work of a Hindu priest named Ākā Adhyāru rather than a Zoroastrian mobed or behdin (see KUSTĪG). On the other hand, the Aširwād was translated from Pāzand into Sanskrit by Dinidās Bahman prior to the year 1415.

Many Zoroastrian religious documents came to be written in New Persian. Most famous is the Pārsi community’s founding legend known as the Qessa-ye Sanjān “Story of Sanjan.” The Qessa-ye Sanjān, a narrative poem in New Persian based upon older oral traditions, was composed in 1600 by Bahman Kaykōbād Sanjāna, another Zoroastrian priest. Its contents, much romanticized, provide information on the early religious history of the Pārsis in India. Expository translations into New Persian from Middle Persian texts include the late medieval Saddar Bondaheš “[Book of] Primal Creation [written] in one hundred chapters,” and Saddar Nasr “One hundred chapters of Assistance.” More original works of advice, yet drawing upon established traditions, became the Persian Revāyats “Treatises” which date from the late fifteen to late eighteenth centuries and contain responses by learned Zoroastrians living in Yazd and Kerman to ecclesiastical questions posed by their Indian coreligionists. Those treatises include the Revāyat-e Ithoter “Treatise of seventy-eight chapters.” The Farziyāt nāme “Book of obligatory duties,” by Dastur “high priest” Darab Pahlan (1668-1734), written in couplets at Navsari, lays out the religious duties of each individual throughout life and on every day of the month, and it reveals Indian influences such as vegetarianism. It was translated and published in Gujarati for general readership approximately one century later. The same high priest’s Ḵolāse- ye din “Exposition of religion” recounts the story of creation, the lives of Zoroaster and Yima (Jam), and the religious duties of laypersons; it lists Ahura Mazdā’s names, lists the Aməṣ̌a Spəṇtas and the demons opposing them, and cites important prayers. He also composed monājāt “religious songs” in Persian and Gujarati. During the twentieth century, the Iranian Muslim scholar Ebrahim Pourdavoud (1885-1968; see HISTORIOGRAPHY ix. PAHLAVI PERIOD (2), “Contributions of Purdawud”) produced New Persian translations of the Gāthās and Yašts, which became popular among educated Iranians and were reprint by Pārsis in Bombay (now Mumbai).

Pārsis began composing original religious texts in the Gujarati language when it replaced New Persian as their medium of communication. The mid-nineteenth century Rehbar-e Din-e Jarthushti “Guide to the Zoroastrian Religion,” a pre-modern catechism, was written by the high priest Erachji Meherjirana (1826-1900). That text was eventually translated into English with a commentary by the contemporary Pārsi priest Dr. Firoze Kotwal, who served as dastur of the Wadia Ātaš Bahrām in Bombay (Kotwal and Boyd). As generations of Zoroastrian theologians and priests adapted to life in minority and diasporic situations, between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries they also began augmenting subsequent manuscript copies of Avestan and Pahlavi texts with interlinear translations and commentary in Fārsi and Gujarati (Figure 2). As English has become popular among Zoroastrians owing to British colonialism, Western-style secular education, globalization, and travel to and from the West, translations of scripture have been produced in that language too. Among the most commonly utilized prayer books, especially for teaching scripture to children before their initiation into the faith, with transcription in Roman script and translations into English during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries are Daily Prayers of the Zoroastrians by the Ceylonese or Sri Lankan Pārsi scholar Framroz Rustomjee (1896-1978), who eventually immigrated to Australia to join his children, who had moved there a few years earlier, and Khorde Avesta by the Irani mobed Faribourz Shahzadi who now lives in the United States. Discourses on Zoroastrianism, written in English, have been published by Dastur Khurshed Dabu (1889-1979) at Bombay, Ērvad Godrej Sidhwa at Karachi, and Mobed Bahram Shahzadi at Westminster, California, among many others. Basically catechisms, those discourses serve to disseminate knowledge of Zoroastrianism from a variety of perspectives to clerical and lay Zoroastrians and to non-Zoroastrians who may not know any of their community’s traditional languages.

According to tradition, the dastur dasturān “high priest of high priests” moved to the central Iranian village of Torkābad north of Yazd in the twelfth century and then to Yazd itself in the eighteenth century. In India, starting in the tenth century, Pārsi magi divided into five panths “ecclesiastical groups” based on location: the Sanjānas at Sanjan, the Bhagarias serving Navsari, the Godavras based at Anklesar, the Bharuchas controlling rites in Broach, and the Khambattas of Cambay. These panths cooperated when necessary, for instance, during 1129-1131. To ensure that the community’s calendar received appropriate intercalation, although each generally regulated its own clergy, laity, and religious matters through an anjoman “association.” The anjoman system of communal administration, borrowed from Iran, would eventually spread back to the Zoroastrian homeland in the nineteenth century, as Pārsis helped their coreligionists rebuild social organizations.

The present-day priesthood, whose members are still called mobeds, traces its lineage to the medieval magi of Iran. Indian magi do so via a single ancestor, Shāpūr Shahriyār (late tenth or early eleventh century). In Iran and India, they form the āthornān “[members of the] priestly group” distinct from the behdinān “laity.” Within the modern magi, ranks persist, including that of ostā (Pers. ostād) “teacher” (an uninitiated priest), ērvad (see HĒRBED) “teacher priest” (a priest who has undergone the first level of induction), and dastur “high priest,” whose office is usually, but not always, associated with a temple for a holy fire of the ātaš bahrām or highest ritual level. Two categories of lay individuals assist the magi now, especially in Iran: the ātašband “keeper of the flames,” who tends ritual fires, and the dahmobed “junior priest,” who serves as temple warden. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, another category of priestly assistants has been created by the Mobed Councils in Iran and North America, namely the mobedyār “lay priest,” to counter the growing shortage in the number of official clerics. In North America, even Zoroastrian women are occasionally initiated as mobedyār.

Magi in both Iran and India continue to wear white robes and a white turban. They don a white mouth and nose mask (Middle Persian and New Persian: padām, Gujarati: padān) to avoid polluting implements (New Persian and Gujarati: ālāt) and offerings (Av.: miiazda, Mid.Pers.: mēzd, Pers. and Gujarati: myazd) during rituals (Figure 3). For high or inner rituals, they are required to be in a major state of ritual purity, which is obtained via the Barašnūm ī nō šab “Purification of the nine [days and] nights,” ceremony (see BARAŠNOM; ZOROASTRIAN RITUALS). During rites, an appropriately inducted and purified magus can serve as bōywalla “incense offerer,” rāspi “assistant,” or zōt “invoker.” Passed from father to son, but in no clearly documented cases to a daughter, priesthood involves long years of studying the liturgies and rituals of Zoroastrianism, starting during childhood. Now there are only two functioning seminaries, called madrasas and both located in Mumbai, for the magi: the Athornan Boarding Madrasa at Dadar and the M. F. Cama Athornan Institute at Andheri West. Despite such training, because scripture is memorized, many magi comprehend only the gist of prayers. Clerical training may be followed by formal initiation as a priest via a two-stage ritual process involving the Nāwar and Martab (Maratib; Pers. marāteb) ceremonies among the Pārsis and the Navezut ceremony among Iranis. Ritual purification of body and soul is obtained via two (for the Nāwar) or one (for the Martab) Barašnūm ī nō šab performance(s) among Pārsi priests. Next, the novice performs the Yasna “Worship, Sacrifice” ritual for the Nāwar initiation or the Vendidād (“Code to ward off evil spirits”) ritual for the Martab initiation. Most magi also obtain secular education and, after undergoing only the Nāwar or basic Navezut induction, serve as part-time priests or else leave the priesthood completely for secular employment, which provides higher remuneration. The resulting shortage of magi has led to abbreviation of certain rites such as purificatory ones and a focus on the daily devotions or outer rituals such as Jašan “Thanksgiving” (Pers. jašn) services, rather than on high rites or inner rituals such as the Vendidād and Nīrangdīn “Consecration of liquids.” On a daily basis, magi serve lay Zoroastrians at fire temples, in countries as diverse as Iran, India, Australia, England, and the United States, where they are employed by local congregations. Conversion to Islam, decline of institutions, and minority status. The Arab Muslim conquest of Zoroastrian Iran and overthrow of the Sasanian dynasty (224-651) during the seventh century came to be associated with apocalyptic and prophetic expectations. Zoroastrian apocalypticism alluded to doom and the final days of humanity (see ESCHATOLOGY i. IN ZOROASTRIANISM AND ZOROASTRIAN INFLUENCE). According to the Zand ī Wahman Yasn “Exegesis on the Devotional Poem to Vohu Manah,” redacted anonymously in ninth century Iran: “(Ahura Mazdā told the Prophet Zaraθuštra,) ‘The seventh age, of alloyed or debased iron, entails evil rule by disheveled demons from the clan of Kheshm’” (1:11; see AĒŠMA). Islamic prophecy highlighted triumph, presenting the Prophet Muhammad (ca. 570-632) and the Muslim caliphs as successors to Zaraθuštra and the Sasanian monarchs. Since people believed those statements, they acted on their beliefs. Many despondent Zoroastrians, concluding that a true deity would not have forsaken their religion or them, chose to accept the faith, which had demonstrated its ascendance through political victory. Urban Irani Zoroastrians adopted Islam from the eighth through tenth centuries, and that faith spread among rural folk from the tenth through thirteenth centuries. As residents’ confessional alliance shifted to Islam, there was diminishment in contributions to pious foundations that supported the magi. Consequently, many Zoroastrian ecclesiastical institutions such as fire temples and hērbedestāns “theological colleges, seminaries” were either transformed into Islamic mosques and Sunni madrasas, respectively, or abandoned and destroyed, by the fourteenth century. The čahārṭāq “four arches” style of fire precinct with its domed roof (Figure 4) was assimilated into Muslim architecture as domed mosques. Zoroastrianism initially represented the dominant faith numerically, though no longer politically, in those regions of the Islamic empire seized from the Sasanians and the princes of western Central Asia. To facilitate peaceful governance, medieval Muslim scholars drew upon hadīth “traditions” attributed to the Prophet Mohammad and caliphs like ʿUmar I (d. 644) and the first Shi‘ite emām “spiritual guide” ‘Ali b. Abi Tālib (598-661) for incorporating Zoroastrians into the ahl al-ḏemma “protected communities.” Not all Muslims recognized Zoroastrians as a ḏemmi community, but the Umayyad (661-750) and ‘Abbasid (750-1258) caliphates did.

Because ḏemmi status provided at least nominal safety as a religious minority, magi facilitated the Zoroastrian claim to that position by making copies of the Avesta and its Zand. Zaraθuštra’s hagiography was augmented to remake him into a Near Eastern prophet (discussed above) who had preceded Mohammad. Ahura Mazdā was gradually transformed into the Zoroastrian God. Aŋra Mainyu “the Angry Spirit” (see AHRIMAN), who had originally been Ahura Mazdā’s spiritual opposite, became the Devil. Zoroastrianism influenced Islam as well, with Iranian traditions of afterlife including the imagery of a bridge leading to heaven filled with pleasure, and notions of an apocalypse at the end of time followed by an eschaton, entering both Sunnism and Shi‘ism.

Between the eighth and fifteenth centuries, the lives of Zoroastrians as members of a ḏemmi community were governed by religious tenets and by a sectarian society dominated by Muslim men. Realizing that cross-communal contacts threatened the traditional way of life, magi outlawed sex, marriage, and most forms of interaction by Zoroastrians with Muslims unless such contact was vital for a Zoroastrians livelihood or safety. Likewise, Muslim jurists (see FEQH) such as Mālek b. Anas (716-795) ruled that Zoroastrians should not be permitted to marry Muslims unless Islam was adopted. Yet intermarriage across confessional boundaries became increasingly frequent, with Zoroastrian spouses experiencing rejection from their coreligionists. So they adopted Islam and raised their children as Muslims. Because Zoroastrians were regarded as unclean, Muslims initially were not supposed to eat food prepared by Zoroastrians. Traditions, attributed to various early caliphs including ‘Alī and an ex-Zoroastrian companion of the prophet Mohammad named Salmān al-Fārsi (d. 656), developed to overcome that barrier, eventually resulting in Muslim jurists such as Ahmad b. Hanbal (780-855; see HANBALITE MAḎHAB) decreeing that meals prepared by Zoroastrians could be consumed by Muslims.

Conquest and rule of Iran by the Mongols (1219-1256), Il-khanids (1256-1335), and Timurids (1370-1507) resulted in violence against urban Zoroastrians residing in city quarters specifically designated for them. Those seeking to avoid harm often sought protection through re-affiliating their faith to Islam. Those Zoroastrians who survived sought refuge by moving to out-of- the-way locales within the Fars, Yazd, and Kerman provinces of Iran. There the magi attempted to maintain Zoroastrian rites and beliefs by compiling religious literature known as the Pahlavi Books in Middle Persian and the Revāyats in New Persian (see KERMAN ii. HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY).

The early modern period in Iran. During the Safavid period (1501- 1736), institutionalization of Shi‘ism, often carried out violently, resulted in Zoroastrians increasingly experiencing the specter of forced conversion to Islam under the religious zealousness of Shi‘ite clerics or mollās. Zoroastrians living in the cities of Yazd and Kerman plus the villages surrounding those urban centers seem to have borne the brunt of religious persecution which forced many of them into adoption of Shi‘ite Islam. At the same time, the transformation of fire temples into mosques or masjeds, and desecration or even demolishment of funerary towers or daḵmas accelerated. As a result, fire altars or ātašdāns came to be hidden in inconspicuous side chambers of fire temples to protect the flames which smoldered under piles of ash from being desecrated, as occurred when a governor of Kerman spat upon the fire there (Jean Baptiste Tavernier [1605- 1689], p. 481; tr., p. 167; cf. Boyce, 1977, pp. 75-76).

During the reign of Shah ʿAbbās I (1587-1629), it was noted that a number of Zoroastrians had been forcibly relocated in 1608 from Yazd and Kerman to the capital city Isfahan as laborers (Pietro della Valle [1586-1652], tr., II, p. 104; Garcia de Silva y Figueroa [1550-1624], tr., p. 179).

In other cities of Safavid Iran, they also served as a manual workforce and as textile weavers (Tavernier, pp. 106, 481; tr., pp. 41, 167; Silva y Figueroa, tr., p. 178). Outside the cities, they were forced to toil for meager wages on farmland owned by Muslims. Shah ʿAbbās even had a high priest or dastur dasturān executed together with other Zoroastrian notables for failing to deliver to the royal court a legendary manuscript ascribed to the biblical Abraham that the Zoroastrians were, incorrectly, thought to have possessed (John Chardin [1643-1713], II, p. 179).

In the mid-1650s, among the harsh measures undertaken during the reign of ʿAbbās II (r. 1642-66), mass expulsion of Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians from Isfahan’s city center took place—on account of their presence being deemed detrimental to the orthodox beliefs, ritual purity, and day-to-day safety of Muslims. This is described by the chronicler Aṙakʿel of Tabriz (tr. in Bournoutian, pp. 347-61; see also KERMAN xiv. JEWISH COMMUNITY OF KERMAN CITY). Forcible conversion of Zoroastrians to Shi‘ism, execution of community elites who refused to comply and thereby set an example for the rest of the Zoroastrians, coupled with destruction of their fire temples and other places of worship was decreed by Solṭān Ḥosayn (r. 1694- 1722; Lockhart, pp. 72-73; for the Shiʿite religious context, see also MAJLESI, MOḤAMMAD-BĀQER). Disintegration of Safavid authority at that time resulted in only sporadic enforcement of that royal commandment, and so the number of Zoroastrians did not fall drastically from around a supposed 100,000 until the 18th-19th centuries (Karaka, p. 31). The faith’s members in Iran suffered further as a result of the Afghan invasions led by Mahmud Khan Ghilzai and other tribal chiefs during 1719-1724 (see ḠILZĪ; KERMAN viii. AFSHARID AND ZAND PERIOD). At Kerman, Zoroastrians in the gabr-maḥalle (their city quarter) and the surrounding villages were executed for being non-Muslims. Some Zoroastrians survived by fleeing via the qanāt or subterranean irrigation system into the citadel. Priests and laity who lived adjacent to the fire temple within the city survived the slaughter as well, and constructed a makeshift daḵma funerary tower to expose the mass of corpses (Karaka, pp. 33-35). Desperate for better living conditions, Zoroastrians eventually did side with the Afghans. Approximately five hundred Zoroastrian men joined the Afghan forces attacking Kerman, slaying many Iranian Muslims in a garden called the Bāḡ-e Naṣr. Likewise at Yazd, in September 1724, Afghan leaders reached a deal with their Zoroastrian counterparts in order to launch an attack against that city’s Safavid citadel (Floor, pp. 43, 46, 49-50, 57, 93, 227). Collaboration with the Afghans led to the Zoroastrian minority being punished by forced conversion to Islam or execution by Nāder Shah (r. 1736-47).

Similarly, after Zoroastrians sided with the more religiously tolerant Zand dynasty (1750-94), which made pretensions to ancient Iranian tradition, they were designated traitors and punished by Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār (r. 1779-97). In early Qajar times, as in the few hundred years previously, a major occupation among Zoroastrians was agriculture. Some of those individuals found work outside the agrarian sector as laborers, carpenters, weavers, bankers, and traders. The jezya had to be collected by the notables of each local community and paid to the regional Muslim authorities, and they were beaten if payment was not made in full on time. Conversion to Islam was enforced periodically with transformation of fire temples into mosques. As result, a majority of Zoroastrians continued withdrawing to rural settings—for example, the urban community at the royal capital Tehran numbered only about one hundred, and community membership at Isfahan declined to approximately four hundred households (Karaka, pp. 31, 39-42, 49; Malcolm, p. 47). Demographic estimates of Zoroastrians in Qajar Iran varied widely during this period (see KERMAN ii. HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY), and another source, namely, the Parsi emissary Manekji Limji Hataria (1813-1890; on him, see below), calculated a total of 7,123 in Tehran, Yazd, Shiraz, and Kerman (for his head counts, see A. de Gobineau [1816-1882], pp. 373-74).

Zoroastrians living during the middle of the nineteenth century feared that their homes would be raided and possessions— especially religious texts, trade items, and personal valuables— seized or burned (H. Petermann [1801-1876], II, p. 204). Homes, therefore, had hiding places with food and water for persons plus discreet cubicles were valuables and religious items could be kept safe. Religious rites were performed indoors, out of view of Muslims, so as not to attract hostile action. The British educationalist Rev. Napier Malcolm (1870-1921) noted that, in 1865, Zoroastrians were required to follow essentially demeaning medieval rules for non-Muslim protected minorities. They had to identify themselves publicly through yellow or similar colored clothing, could not utilize umbrellas for shade from the sun or eyeglasses for better vision, were not permitted to ride animals in the presence of Muslims, so that the latter individuals would not seem shorter than the former persons, and were required to dwell in low-roofed homes with poor ventilation (Malcolm, pp. 36, 45-47; see KERMAN xiii. ZOROASTRIANS OF 19TH-CENTURY YAZD AND KERMAN). Given that Qajar authorities enforced those rules, the community did not complain of its hardships directly to the monarchy for fear of retribution, although they did communicate their sufferings to the Parsis in India.

Medieval migrations to India and elsewhere. The Arab Muslim conquest of Iran triggered migrations by Zoroastrians. Some Zoroastrians, especially Sasanian nobles and military personnel, immigrated to China. Zoroastrians survived in China as late as the middle fourteenth century, after which time they were completely assimilated into the local population. The situation proved different for those who went to India between the seventh and tenth centuries to form the Pārsi community there.

The Zoroastrian migration to India is recorded as the Pārsi community’s founding legend known as the New Persian Qessa- ye Sanjān “Story of Sanjan.” According to that text, during the reign of the Samanid kings (892-1005) groups of Zoroastrians left the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan to avoid forced conversion to Islam. Their descendants finally reached Gujarat in western India by sea via Hormuz and Diu in the year 716 or the year 936 CE, depending on interpretation of the date’s numerals. Despite details in the Qessa, other textual and archeological data suggest that the communal designation of Zoroastrians dwelling outside Iran as “Pārsis” (Sanskrit: Pārasika, Pārsika, from Iranian: Pārsika, Pārsīg) predates the eponymous landing at Sanjan. Zoroastrians in Iran certainly had contact with people in the Indian subcontinent from at least the fifth century BCE, through overland and maritime trade. Middle Persian inscriptions plus Sasanian coins and seals found in archeological excavations of mercantile communities dating to late antiquity (third to sixth centuries CE) in India and Sri Lanka attest to such dealings and to Pārsi settlements. So do documents in the Old Sinhala language from the fifth and sixth centuries. Not surprisingly, in early Islamic times, gabr groups in the hinterland of north India are attested (Choksy, 2013 provides details). Likewise, a late ninth-century (dated to 849 CE) copper plate from Kollam, Kerala, documents Zoroastrian merchants having recorded their names in Middle Persian as witnesses from the “Good Religion” (Cereti, 2007, p. 212; “Copper Plates”). The number and size of such communities suggests that Zoroastrians must have entered India via both sea and land routes, and over many centuries, rather than in a single post- Arab conquest maritime migration.

About five years after their arrival, the Pārsis consecrated an ātaš behrām “victory fire” named Irān Šāh “King of Iran,” which remained their main flame for more than eight hundred years. Most religious rituals were performed using dādgāh “hearth” fires. The jezya that had been levied from the Zoroastrian minority in medieval Iran by Muslim dynasties was imposed upon Pārsis in 1297, when the Delhi Muslim sultanate conquered Gujarat. Economic hardship created by payment of the jezya plus the stigma of designation as ḏemmi resulted in conversion of portions of the Pārsi population to Islam. Yet, the community persisted in their beliefs and praxes with the result that early European travelers began to encounter them. Thus ca. 1321 the Dominican friar Jordanus observed their exposure of corpses (Yule, tr., p. 21) in daḵmas (Av. daxma) “funerary towers” (see CORPSE). When their Indian religious stronghold at Sanjan was sacked by the Mozaffarid sultan Mahmud Begath (1458-1511) in the year 1465, Pārsi mobeds transferred the Irān Šāh ātaš bahrām to a mountain cave for twelve years of safety before moving it to the city of Navsari, where it again become the main focus of Zoroastrian piety in India. After a dispute in 1741 with the Bhagaria priests who controlled Navsari, priests of the Sanjāna panth who were custodians of that ātaš bahrām transferred it south to the city of Udwada, where it burns to the present day (Figure 5). The Bhagarias consecrated their own ātaš bahrām at Navsari in 1765. Thereafter, six other fires of the ātaš bahrām ritual level were established: two at Surat in 1823, and four at Bombay in the years 1783, 1830, 1845, and 1897.

As they assimilated into Indian society, pressure from Hindus compelled the Pārsis to accept certain socio-religious transformations. Ritual slaughter of cattle had to be discontinued gradually in accordance with Hindu veneration for those animals, although goats and sheep continued to be offered with a portion of their bodies or fat being deposited in holy fires. The same religious framework stirred Pārsis into establishing a custom of maintaining albino bulls for procurement of tail-hair to make sieves used in rituals and for obtaining nīrang “consecrated bull’s urine” for purificatory rites. As Pārsis settled in parts of the Indian subcontinent where their demographic numbers were insufficient to maintain funerary towers, they began adopting the custom of burial within an ārāmgāh “place of repose, cemetery, graveyard” (Figure 6). Perhaps most important in terms of socio-religious change was that, over time, Pārsis came to be regarded as a caste within Hindu society. So, despite accepting some converts from among Hindus who had close contact through friendship or work, the religion slowly became hereditary in an Indian context with no converts being accepted. Pārsis also had to mingle with members of other faiths in India and to explain their doctrines and praxes. In 1564 the emperor Akbar (r. 1542-1605), already a student of non-Muslim religions, lifted the jezya. In 1578 he summoned a Bhagaria priest named Meherji Rāna to the Mughal court for a symposium (Modi). That contact proved beneficial to the Pārsis. The Bhagarias rewarded the clergyman by granting the rank of dastur at Navsari to him and his male descendants.

In 1746, a disagreement relating to the calendar caused division of the community into Kadmis, who accept the qadimi “ancient” Iranian calendar, and Shenshais or Rasimis, “traditionalists,” who maintain the original Pārsi calendar (see CALENDARS i. Pre-Islamic calendars). Since 1906, another group, the Fasalis (also Faslis) formed to follow a faṣl “seasonal” calendar for rituals. These communal divisions continue to the present and have even caused minor variations in liturgies and rites. Contact between Zoroastrians in India and Iran, that is, the Pārsis and the Irānis, gained momentum in the thirteenth century. Several religious texts were sent from Iran to India for safekeeping, and as a result, most of the oldest extant copies of Zoroastrian scripture and exegesis remained in India until colonial times, when some of those documents were obtained by Western museums and universities.

Pārsis and the British. Contact between the Pārsis and Europeans grew with the establishment of trading posts in the seventeenth century. European eyewitness accounts note that at first the Pārsis enforced their own customs, with violators being excommunicated or even, occasionally, executed. But as trade increased, so did the Pārsi community’s economic and social diversity. The port of Surat grew into a settlement of over one hundred thousand Pārsi Zoroastrians between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. When in 1661 the port of Bombay came under the British East India Company’s administration, Pārsis relocated there in large numbers as merchants. Pārsis flourished in Bombay, led by the commercial successes of individuals such as Lowji Nassarwanji Wadia (1702-1744) and Sir Jamsetji Jijibhai (1783-1859) in shipbuilding and the opium and cotton trades between India, England, and China. Pārsis also established themselves quickly in textile manufacture and the banking segment. Steadily, Pārsis became the mercantile arm of the British in India for more than two hundred years. In keeping with Anglican mores, ritual slaughter of animals was slowly phased out by the late 1930 as distasteful; so was the ātaš-zōhr “offering to fire,” of animal flesh, fat, and butter.

Socioeconomic success under British rule began transforming the Pārsi community, and so a Panchāyat was established in 1728 to regularize and regulate religious and social practices via codes and edicts (see BOMBAY PARSI PANCHAYAT). In addition to serving the needs of Zoroastrians on the Indian subcontinent, members of the Panchāyat and other wealthy Pārsis also began to look after the needs of their coreligionists in Iran by building schools such as the Khodadādi School in 1879 and the Marker School in 1912 at Yazd, orphanages, retirement homes, and hospitals. Renovation of fire temples, funerary towers at Yazd (Figure 7) and elsewhere, and graveyards used by Iranian Zoroastrians also was funded from Bombay. The lack of religious freedom for Zoroastrians in Iran also concerned Pārsi elites, who sent an emissary named Manekji Limji Hataria (1813-1890) there in 1854. Hataria lived in Iran for four decades, married an Irani Zoroastrian woman, and even visited the Qājār court to intercede on behalf of those Zoroastrians. Hataria’s mission, coupled with pressure on the Iranian monarch from the British Raj on behalf of the Pārsis, led to the jezya finally being abolished in 1882. Iranian magi also began traveling to and residing in India for clerical training—a trend that last until the later decades of the twentieth century when the priesthood within Iran was able to strengthen its organizational and didactic bases during the reign of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi (1941-79).

Secular, Western-style education picked up by the Pārsis in the nineteenth century resulted in English-style schools, libraries, and educational trusts being set up for their sons and daughters. Pārsi parents began encouraging their children to take up careers in public, multi-communal, workplaces. This development played a major role in fueling a demographic shift among Pārsis away from the coastal villages and orchards of Gujarat to large cities like Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, Karachi, and Colombo. Rapid urbanization began in the 1900s and reached 94 percent by 1961, and as a result Pārsis became a highly urbanized middle to upper class in the societies of the Indian subcontinent. Within this urbanized society, marriages arranged by relatives declined in frequency as Pārsi women began select their own spouses, just like their British counterparts. At the same time, educated women in the community began choosing careers over marriage, family, and domesticity. As a consequence, approximately 25 percent of Pārsi women remained unmarried from the 1970s onward, and so the community’s birthrate began declining precipitously.

Pārsis began entering politics with Dadabhai Naoroji (1825- 1917), an architect of Indian independence, becoming the first president of the Indian National Congress in 1885. Other Pārsis closely associated with the Indian nationalist movement were Sir Pherozeshah Mehta (1845-1915), Sir Dinshaw Wacha (1844- 1936), and Madam Bhikaji Cama (1861-1936). In England, several Pārsis have held elected office at various levels of government starting with three members of the British Parliament, Dadabhai Naoroji of the Liberal Party mentioned previously, Sir Muncherji Bhownagree (1851-1933) of the Conservative Party, and Shapurji Saklatvala (1874-1936), who was a Communist. In 2006, Karan Billimoria was appointed a life peer in the British House of Lords as the Baron of Chelsea.

Zoroastrians in contemporary societies. In India, the community went on to help found the industrial base of modern India after that nation gained independence from Britain in 1947. Pārsi entrepreneurs established the iron and steel industries, hydroelectricity, the Indian Institute of Science, and the atomic energy research institute, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. Pioneers included Jamshedji N. Tata (1839-1904), who founded the iron and steel industries, hydroelectricity, and the Indian Institute of Science, and Homi J. Bhabha (1909-1966), who pioneered atomic energy research. Others such as Lieutenant General Sam H. F. J. Manekshaw (1914-2008) led India’s post- independence military. This trend in political involvement continues among Pārsis in other independent nations of the Indian subcontinent. Some Pārsis moved from India to Ceylon, where after independence of the modern Sri Lanka, Kairshasp Choksy (1932) became Minister of Constitutional and State Affairs and subsequently Minister of Finance. During the British Raj, other Pārsis from western India went to the region that became Pakistan, where they continue to reside in the cities of Karachi, Quetta, and Lahore. Eventually, Jamsheed Marker (1922-) became a prominent ambassador first for Pakistan and then for the United Nations. Loyalty and service to the countries and cultures in which they reside have emerged as important attitudes among Pārsis.

Zoroastrians in Iran experienced social, legal, and economic parity with Muslims during the Pahlavi dynasty (1925-79), owing to that regime’s secularist policies and its harkening back to Iran’s pre-Islamic past. Approximately 60,000 Zoroastrians lived in Iran during the 1960s. Westernization of Iran in the twentieth century brought change to Zoroastrian funerary praxis with exposure of corpses being phased out. Iranian Zoroastrians now bury their dead in ārāmgāhs at Tehran, Yazd, Kerman, Cham, and other locales, after washing the corpse and wrapping it in a white shroud, following Muslim praxis. Their wedding ceremonies often are conducted not in fire temples but in community halls, and the bride and groom often wear Western clothes (Figure 8).

The advent of the Islamic Republic of Iran witnessed a return to de facto ḏemmi status for Zoroastrians. They now reside mainly in the cities and suburbs of Tehran, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan, and Shiraz. Technically protected under Article 13 of the 1979 Islamic Constitution of Iran, the community is allocated one elected representative position among the two hundred and ninety representatives in the majles “parliament.” Despite being officially recognized as a minority and represented in public settings, Zoroastrians often are offered only limited protection on a daily basis from their Muslim neighbors. As a result, they sporadically have been targets for persecution. Community records list cases of Zoroastrian women being compelled to marry Muslim men in the presence of Shi‘ite mollās “clerics” and to publicly adopt Islam. More important, on a daily basis, are renewed legal distinctions between Muslims and Zoroastrians, which echo ordinances that Zoroastrians experienced under earlier Islamic regimes. A Zoroastrian who converts to Islam is regarded by Iranian law as the sole inheritor of his or her family’s assets. A Zoroastrian who even accidentally causes the demise of a Muslim faces the possibility of capital punishment, but not vice versa. The concept that Zoroastrians are najes “unclean,” has been revived. Chronic unemployment has become prevalent among Zoroastrians of both genders due to discrimination. Consequently Zoroastrians have begun leaving Iran yet again, immigrating to countries in North America and Europe. Those who remain behind still worship at their fire temples in Tehran, Yazd, Kerman (Figure 9), and Isfahan. Heritage communities of Iranian descent had survived in lands that became the modern nations of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as well. Recent economic- induced relocations have generated Zoroastrian diasporas in other Muslim countries of the Middle East, especially the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar. At those locales contemporary Zoroastrians continue their beliefs, rituals, and, customs in forms modified to mitigate conflict and facilitate coexistence with their Muslim counterparts.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, European scholars concluded that the founder of the Pārsis’ religion, Zaraθuštra, had preached a monotheistic faith that was debased by his followers. This viewpoint gained the acceptance of many Pārsis, who sought to structure their religion into its allegedly pristine form based on the Gāthās “Devotional poems” ascribed to the prophet. Pārsi Zoroastrians who follow the teachings of Minocher Pundol (1908-1975) combine such trends with mysticism. The introduction of theosophy further attenuated doctrinal unity among the Pārsis. Lack of doctrinal concord and a concomitant decline in theological education continue to the present day.

Another issue that divides Pārsis across the globe is the role of women in positions of religious leadership. The persistence of notions of ritual pollution linked to menstruation and childbirth, especially among the male priesthood, ensures that women play no role in the faith’s clerical hierarchy. As a result, women have found religious leadership posts in heterodox movements. One such group, the Mazdayasnie Monasterie of the Ilm-e Khshnum movement, which subscribes to mystical trends and holistic medicine, is led by a woman named Meher Master-Moos (1951-). Members of this sect regard both genders as religiously equal while alive and believe that souls are non-gendered and asexual after death. Among the Khshnumists, attainment of spiritual purity through mysticism is stressed rather than ritual purity of the body. Followers of another esoteric movement believe that an Indian Pārsi woman called Sri Gururani Nag Kanya or Nag Rani “Cobra Queen” represents an incarnation of the divine.

The spread of heterodoxy among Pārsis is in part due to an attenuation of their priesthood. Poor wages, substandard living conditions, and the lure of secular professional careers have steadily sapped enrolment in the two madrasas. Attempts to enhance the lifestyle of priests have only limited success among a community that increasingly views the magi as out of step with modernity. Consequently, most boys from priestly families (the magi continue to be a hereditary male ecclesiastical class) opt out of the priesthood altogether or attain only the nāwar or first level of clerical training. Thus the number of priests available to perform rituals continues to decline. So rites have in many instances been abbreviated and in certain locales are restricted to the basic ones of passage, including initiation, marriage, and death, and to jašan services. In a parallel development, the number of women who weave the kusti (see KUSTĪG) has also diminished as their priestly families take up secular occupations.

Other interrelated topics of much debate worldwide within Pārsi communities are those on who exactly are the Pārsis, should intermarriage with non-Zoroastrians be recognized, and whether converts can be accepted. As the Pārsis became a pseudo-caste within Indian society, they diverged from their Iranian coreligionists by abjuring conversion to the faith. By the nineteenth century, magi who initiated as Zoroastrians the children of non-Pārsi fathers or the adopted children (from non- Zoroastrian parents) of Pārsis came to be subjected to censure by their clerical anjomans. Guidelines were set, eventually, in India by that country’s civil judiciary in 1909 and 1925 as the result of court cases seeking to exclude non-Pārsi wives from fire temples and community institutions.

Through those legal decisions, the civil courts upheld the community’s restriction of its properties to the children of Pārsi and Irani Zoroastrians plus duly initiated children of Pārsi fathers by non-Zoroastrian wives. So in India and, as a result of colonial rule, in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Pārsi Zoroastrian, whether male or female, is defined as a person whose father was or is a Pārsi Zoroastrian. Converts are not accepted. The children of a Pārsi woman who is married to a non-Zoroastrian are not regarded as either Pārsis or Zoroastrians. They cannot enter fire temples, benefit from communal funds, or even have Zoroastrian last rites. Not all priests and laity accept that position, however, either in South Asia or elsewhere. So, recently in the United States (as previously in India), there have been occasional instances when individuals who wished to join Zoroastrianism have been initiated by Pārsi priests. Moreover, enhanced contact between Pārsi Zoroastrians and members of other faiths, especially in Europe, North America, and Australia, has led to an increase in the frequency of marriage across confessional boundaries. On this issue, the diaspora communities in the West have increasingly diverged from the Pārsis on the Indian subcontinent by permitting non-Zoroastrian spouses to attend rituals at fire temples and cemeteries, and to participate fully in community activities and governance. In so doing, Pārsis living in the West have come closer to the longstanding positions of Iranian Zoroastrians and Irani Zoroastrian immigrants to the West on these issues. Likewise, Pārsis in North America have begun initiating coreligionists who are not of clerical families into a lay priesthood, just as their Iranian counterparts had been beginning to do before 1979 by accepting men and occasionally even women as mobedyārs. So non-Zoroastrian spouses are routinely permitted to attend worship in the fire temples of the United States such as at Hinsdale (a suburb of Chicago) (Figure 10) and Canada. Even the more traditional Zoroastrian community in England has begun relaxing its rules. Zoroastrians in the Indian subcontinent and Iran often hold their children’s religious initiation ceremonies in secular locales, while still having magi officiate, to facilitate non-Zoroastrian friends’ attendance (Figure 11).

Modern Demographics. Zoroastrianism continues to decline in the number of its followers mainly due to low reproductive rates and to intermarriage with spouses of other faiths, resulting in children not being initiated into the faith. Worldwide surveys of Zoroastrian communities by the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America (FEZANA) indicates that in 2012, where global distribution of Zoroastrians was: India 61,000, Iran 15,000, United States 14,306, Canada 6,421, Britain 5,000, Australia 2,577, Persian Gulf nations (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman) 2,030, Pakistan 1,675, New Zealand 1,231, continental Europe 1,000, Singapore 372, Hong Kong 204, South Africa 134, Malaysia 43, East African nations 37, Sri Lanka 37, Japan 21, Seychelles 21, mainland China 21, Thailand and Vietnam 16, Philippines 15, Ireland 10, South American nations 10, Central American nations 10, Indonesia 5, South Korea 5 (Rivetna, 2012). So the global extent of Zoroastrianism now includes only approximately 111,200 individual followers (11 percent decline since the previous global census in 2004; Rivetna, 2004). As the communities in Iran and India continue to fall, those in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia rise, due to Zoroastrians emigrating there for economic opportunities.

Bibliography:

Abu Yusof Yaʿqub b. Ebrahim al-Anṣāri, Ketāb al-ḵarāj, ed. and tr. A. Ben Shemesh, as Taxation in Islam, 3 vols., Leiden, 1965- 69.

George A. Bournoutian, tr., The History of Vardapet Aṛak‘el of Tabriz II, Costa Mesa, 2006.

Mary Boyce, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, Oxford, 1977.

Idem, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, 1979. James W. Boyd and Firoze M. Kotwal, “Worship in a Zoroastrian Fire Temple,” Indo-Iranian Journal 26, 1983, pp. 293-318.

John Chardin, Voyages du chevalier Chardin, en Perse, et autres lieux de l'Orient, 4 vols., Amsterdam, 1735.

Jamsheed K. Choksy, Purity and Pollution in Zoroastrianism: Triumph over Evil, Austin, 1989.

Idem, Conflict and Cooperation: Zoroastrian Subalterns and Muslim Elites in Medieval Iranian Society, New York, 1997.

Idem, Evil, Good, and Gender: Facets of the Feminine in Zoroastrian Religious History, New York, 2002.

Idem, “Altars, Precincts, and Temples: Medieval and Modern Zoroastrian Praxis,” Iran 44, 2006, pp. 327-46.

Idem, “Despite Shāhs and Mollās: Minority Sociopolitics in Premodern and Modern Iran,” Journal of Asian History 40/2, 2006, pp. 129-84. Idem, “How Iran Persecutes Its Oldest Religion,” CNN, 2011, available at http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/14/opinion/choksy-iran- zoroastrian/index.html?iref=allsearch.

Idem, “Non-Muslim Religious Minorities in Contemporary Iran,” Iran and the Caucasus 16/3, 2012, pp. 271-99.

Idem, “Sailors, Soldiers, Priests, and Merchants: Reappraising Iran’s Early Connections to Ceylon,” Iranica Antiqua 48, 2013, pp. 363-91.

“The Copper Plates from Kollam,” at http://849ce.org.uk/ and http://849ce.org.uk/legal-worlds-and-legal-encounters/.

Pietro della Valle, Les fameux voyages de Pietro della Valle, gentil-homme romain, surnommé l'Illustre voyageur, French tr. E. Carneau and F. le Comte, 4 parts in 3 vols., Paris, 1661-65.

Edward Backhouse Eastwick, “Translation of the Zartusht-Na ′ma,” Appendix A in John Wilson, The Pársí Religion: as Contained in the Zand-Avastá ..., Bombay, 1843, pp. 477-522.

Michael M. J. Fischer, Zoroastrian Iran between Myth and Praxis, Ph.D. dissertation, Chicago, 1973.

Willem Floor, The Afghan Occupation of Safavid Persia 1721- 1729, Leuven, 1998. Arthur comte de Gobineau, Trois ans en Asie (de 1855 à 1858), Paris, 1859.

Marzban J. Giara, Global Directory of Zoroastrian Fire Temples, 2nd ed., Mumbai, 2002.

Nile Green, “The Survival of Zoroastrianism in Yazd,” Iran 38, 2000, pp. 115-22.

John Hinnells, The Zoroastrian Diaspora: Religion and Migration, Oxford, 2005.

Idem, Zoroastrians in Britain, Oxford, 1996.

John Hinnells and Alan Williams, eds., Parsis in India and the Diaspora, London, 2007.

Maneck Fardunji Kanga, tr., Khordeh Avestã Comprising Ashem, Yatha, the Five Neyãyeshes, the Five Gãhs, Vispa Humata, Nãmsetãyeshne, Pater Pashemãnee, All the Nirangs, Bãjs, and Namaskars, and Sixteen Yashts, Bombay, 1993.

Dosabhoy F. Karaka, The Parsees: Their History, Manners, Customs, and Religion, London, 1858. Janet Kestenberg Amighi, The Zoroastrians of Iran: Conversion, Assimilation, or Persistence, New York, 1990.

Firoze M. Kotwal and James W Boyd, A Guide to the Zoroastrian Religion: a Nineteenth Century Catechism with Modern Commentary, Chico, Calif., 1982.

Philip G. Kreyenbroek and Shehnaz N. Munshi, Living Zoroastrianism: Urban Parsis Speak about their Religion, Richmond, 2001.

Laurence Lockhart, The Fall of the Ṣafavī Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia, Cambridge, 1958.

Napier Malcolm, Five Years in a Persian Town, New York, 1905; repr., London, 1908.

Jivanji J. Modi, “The Parsis at the Court of Akbar, and Dastur Meherji Ráná,” BBRAS 21, 1904, pp. 69-245.

Idem, The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees, 2nd ed., Bombay, 1937.

Marijan Molé, La legende de Zoroastre selon les Textes Pehlevis, Paris, 1967. [Julius] Heinrich Petermann, Reisen im Orient, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1860-61; 2nd ed., 1865.

Roshan Rivetna, “The Zarathushti World: A Demographic Survey,” FEZANA Journal 17/4, 2004, pp. 22-83.

Idem, “The Zarathushti World: A Demographic Picture,” presented at the XVI North American Zarathushti Congress, August 2-5, 2012 in Rye, New York; available at http://www.fezana.org/files/Demographics/Zworld6Sep12.pdf.

Idem, Eliz Sanasarian, Religious Minorities in Iran, Cambridge, 2000.

Shahrokh Shahrokh, and Rashna Writer, ed. and tr., The Memoirs of Keikhosrow Shahrokh, Lewiston, N.Y., 1994.

Silva y Figueroa, Garcia de, L’ambassade de D. Garcias de Silva Figueroa, French tr. A. de Wicq[ue]fort, Paris, 1669.

Stewart, Sarah, “The Politics of Zoroastrian Philanthropy and the Case of Qasr-e Firuzeh,” Iranian Studies 45/1, 2012, pp. 59-80.

Michael Stausberg, ed., Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, Leiden, 2004. Alan Williams, ed. and tr., The Zoroastrian Myth of Migration from Iran and Settlement in the Indian Diaspora. Text, Translation, and Analysis of the 16th Century Qeṣṣa-ye Sanjān ‘The Story of Sanjān’, Leiden, 2009.

Jean Baptiste Tavernier, Les six voyages de Jean Baptiste Tavernier en Turquie, en Perse, et aux Indes, Premiere Partie, Paris, 1679; tr. “J. P.,” as The Voyages of John Baptista Tavernier … through Turkey into Persia, and the East Indies …, London, 1678.

Rashna Writer, Contemporary Zoroastrians: An Unstructured Nation, Lanham, Md., 1994.

Henry Yule, tr., Mirabilia Descripta. The Wonders of the East by Friar Jordanus, London, 1863.

Zand ī Wahman Yasn: Behramgore Tehmuras Anklesaria, ed. and tr., Zand-î Vohûman Yasn and Two Pahlavi Fragments, Bombay, 1957.

(Jamsheed K. Choksy) Originally Published: January 22, 2015

______

ZOROASTRIANISM i. HISTORICAL REVIEW UP TO THE ARAB CONQUEST

ZOROASTRIANISM

i. HISTORICAL REVIEW:

The ancient Iranian cultic practices seem to have been very similar to those referred to in the Vedic literature. Men with special training were required and, as at later periods, the priestly functions may have been hereditary. The presiding priest was the zaotar- (OInd hótar-) ‘the one who offers libations,” who was attended by various functionaries. Another functional title, aθaurvan- (cf. OInd. átharvan-) became the name for the sacerdotal caste, though originally it may have designated those priests charged with the care of the sacred fire, ātar- (see ĀTAŠ), both the element and a deity. Worship of the deities was ritually performed through the yasna. Originally this was a complex ritual that involved the offering of a sacrifice (food) and the sacred haoma (drink). Modeled on rites of hospitality, the yasna was an elaborate festive meal to which a deity or deities were invited as honored guests. The deity was offered food and drink, and was entertained through the recitation of poetry created for the occasion to magnify the divine guest. The poet was called a mąθrān (cf. OInd. mantrín-), that is, one who creates sacred poetry (mąθra-). The yašts of the Avesta are collections of such poetry (see Thieme, 1957).

The Achaemenid period. The question of Zoroastrianism among the Medes is moot, as we possess too little information about this period to form any clear idea what their religious practices and beliefs were. The one piece of information that stands out is the inclusion of the Magi by Herodotus in a listing of the Median tribes (Herodotus, 1.101). The power that the Magi enjoyed in western Iran during the Median rule is indicated by further statements of Herodotus concerning the pervasive presence of this priesthood in religious matters. From Herodotus’s account we learn that the Magi were necessary for the performance of sacrifices at which they recited “theogonies,” that is, presumably hymns in praise of the gods being worshiped. They also were involved in the disposal of the dead through exposure to birds and dogs; and they exhibited a passion for killing noxious creatures (Herodotus, 1.132). Further the political intrigues of the Magi, especially that of the false Smerdis/Bardiya, attested both in Herodotus and Darius’s inscription at Bisotun (DB 1.30-33; Herodotus, 3.30, 61, 65 ff.), and the subsequent magophonia festival, bear witness to the continued importance of this caste in Pārsa and the Achaemenid empire (Herodotus, 3.78-79). As Zoroastrianism became the dominant religion of the empire, the Magi assumed its priestly functions, giving their name to the priestly nomenclature of post-Achaemenid Zoroastrianism.

Ardašir I Pāpagān (ca. 224-40), founder of the Sasanian dynasty, set about to establish uniformity in theology and practice throughout his empire. He was assisted in his project by an able hērbed named Tansar (or Tōsar). From Tansar’s own epistle, the Nāma-ye Tansar, preserved in a 13th-century Persian translation by Ebn Esfandiār of an Arabic translation, and from various notices in the Dēnkard, we know that he was responsible for two major policy moves. One was the establishment of a new canon of authoritative scriptures that was purged of materials judged heterodox. This new canon provided a basis for placing all interpretation of the religion within his control under a declaration of infallibility. The other was to promote the expansion of sacred fires while enforcing cultic uniformity. Especially important was the iconoclasm of the reformed Zoroastrianism, which forbade the use of idols in worship but allowed extensive use of divine images in art. In many cases the installation of the sacred fire was the substitute for a purged image (Boyce, Introd. to Nāma-ye Tansar, tr., pp. 5-7). Ecclesiastical authority soon passed to an extraordinary priest named Kirdēr, whose long career began under Ardašir and extended into the reign of Bahrām II (r. 276-93). Even though Šāpur I (r. 240-72) speaks of the many fires which he established, he seems to have relaxed the policies of Ardašir and Tansar in matters of religion, allowing not only a free exercise of belief but also himself flirting with the new gnosticism preached by Māni at court. His long reign must have tried the patience of the strictly orthodox Kirdēr. Yet, the skilful priest maintained his power, while waiting for a change in succession. After the death of Šāpur, Kirdēr’s power grew greatly to the point that he was the supreme authority in all matters pertaining to religion. In fact, his power paralleled royal power to the extent that, uniquely, he could publish his inscription in various places, including the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt below the famous inscription of Šāpur I (see Gignoux, 1983, pp. 1209-11; idem, 1965; Hinz, 1970). From the first part of this inscription we learn that a formidable bureaucracy was in place to support the establishment and maintenance with funds and magi of local fires in both Iranian and non-Iranian territory. Further, heresies had been rooted out, idols destroyed, and other religions (inter al., Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists and Brahmins) were being attacked. Using a theme to be greatly elaborated toward the end of the Sasanian period in the book Ardā Wirāz nāmag, (see ARDĀ WĪRĀZ), the second part of the inscription describes an other-worldly journey by mediums conjured up by Kirdēr, whose mission it was to confirm his spiritual authority. (see SHAPUR I, sec. 4; Skjærvø, 1983).

The reign of Ḵosrow I is remembered, often romantically, into the Islamic period as the great era of the blossoming of Sasanian culture and political power. This was not so much a time of innovation as that of consolidation and preservation. For Zoroastrianism this meant primarily the final canonization of the sacred Avesta together with its commentary traditions, the Zand, as well as the production of other forms of religious literature. The extensive Pahlavi writings of the 9th century are either copies of or, what is more significant, digests of the vast literature of late Sasanian times. After Ḵosrow’s death, internal struggles for power and the external defense of borders led to a fairly rapid decline in the central authority of the state (see HORMOZD IV; HORMOZD V). No one was aware of the assault on Zoroastrianism and on the state that was about to issue from Arabia. When Yazdagird III perished in 651, Zoroastrianism was dealt a blow from which it never recovered, even though it has managed to survive to the present day. The military conquest of the Sasanian empire was relatively swift, the religious conquest slower, yet ultimately triumphant (see ʿARAB v.). The reasons for the triumph of Islam are complex. There were certain cases of conversion by the sword, but these were the exception. Rather, the motivations for Zoroastrian conversion must be sought elsewhere. A central problem for the survival of Zoroastrianism was Sasanian theology of the unity of throne and church. With the elimination of the throne, the church was not only bereft of its political-economical support, but also of its place in the eschatological plan of world history. The oppressed state of the lower classes in Sasanian society that had provided the conditions for the rise of Mazdak had remained unaddressed. Islam’s promise of universal equality must have given many people both spiritual and material hope for a better life. Furthermore, the relegation of Zoroastrians to the tolerated, though second-class status of “people of the book” (ahl al- ketāb) was a clear incentive for many who sought advancement to apostatize. In some ways Zoroastrianism was an archaic religious system with complex rituals that could be performed only by priests and with a dualistic theology that was wedded to ancient myths and ancient deities. In contrast, Islam presented a simple monotheistic theology that did not need to be mediated by an institutional priesthood. Moreover, because it held key beliefs in common with Zoroastrianism, especially that world history was leading to the Day of Judgement to be followed by eternal life of beatitude for the righteous, Islam presented a path to salvation that was familiar to Zoroastrians. Besides, as Islam became entrenched in Persia, it borrowed from Zoroastrianism; Shiʿites eventually held the idea of a future savior (the “Hidden Imam”), embraced shrines of saints, and developed a system of clergy. Islamic law also presented a comprehensive ethical system for the individual and society that could displace the ideals of Zoroastrianism.

Bibliography:

Michael Back, Die Sassanidischen Staatsinschriften: Studien zur Orthographie und Philologie des Mittelpersischen der Schriften, Acta Iranica 18, Leiden, 1978.

Harold W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books, Oxford, 1943.

Emile Benveniste, “L’Ērān-vēž et l’origine légendaire des Iraniens,” BSOS 7, 1933-35, pp. 265-74.

Mary Boyce, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian: Texts with Notes, Acta Iranica 9, Leiden, 1975.

Muhammad A. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, tr. Willem J. Vogelsang, Leiden, 1989.

Ebn Esfandiār, Nāma-ye Tansar, ed. Mojtabā Minovi, Tehran, 1975; tr. Mary Boyce as The Letter of Tansar,Rome, 1968.

Ilya Gershevitch The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1959 (tr. of Yašt 10 with commentary, with an introduction containing a cogent reconstruction of the development of the religion in which the terms “Zarathustrianism” and “Zoroastrianism” are defined to differentiate the religion of the prophet from the religion of the Younger Avesta).

Philippe Gignoux, “Middle Persian Inscriptions,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, 1983, pp. 1205-15.

Idem, “L’Inscription de Kartir à Sar Mašhad,” JA 256, 1968, pp. 387-418.

Idem, Man and Cosmos in Ancient Iran, Rome, 2001.

Gherardo Gnoli, Zoroaster’s Time and Homeland: A Study on the Origins of Mazdeism and Related Problems, Naples, 1980.

Idem, De Zoroastre à Mani, Pais, 1985.

Idem, The Idea of Iran: An Essay on Its Origin, Rome, 1989.

Walter Bruno Henning, Zoroaster: Politician or Witchdoctor, Oxford, 1951 (harshly criticizes both Herzfeld and Nyberg).

Johannes Hertel, Die Zeit Zoroasters, Leipzig, 1924.

Ernst Herzfeld, “The Traditional Date of Zoroaster,” in Jal Dastur C. Parvy, ed., Oriental Studies in Honour of Cursetji Erachji Parvy, London, 1933, pp. 132-36.

Idem, Zoroaster and His World, 2 vols., Princeton, 1947 (portrays Zarathustra as a player at the Achaemenid court; criticized and refuted by Henning).

Walther Hinz, “Die Inschrift des Hohenpriesters Kardēr am Turn von Naqsh-e Rostam,” AMI, NS 3, 1970, pp. 251-65.

A. V. Williams Jackson, “On the Date of Zoroaster,” JAOS 17, 1896, pp. 1-22.

Bruno Jacobs “Der Sonnengott im Pantheon der Achämeniden,” in J. Kellens, ed., La religion iranienne à l’époque achéménide, Gent, 1991, pp. 58-80.

Otakar Klima, “The Date of Zoroaster,” Archiv Orientali 27, 1959, pp. 556-64.

Idem, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Mazdakismus, Prague, 1977.

Margaret C. Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art, Leiden, 1975, pp. 169-176.

James Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, Cambridge, Mass., 1987 (combines knowledge of Zoroastrianism and of Armenian sources to provide a comprehensive work on this often neglected area).

A. Shapur Shahbazi, “The Traditional Date of Zoroaster Explained,” BSOAS 40, 1977, pp. 25-35.

Idem, “Recent Speculations on the ‘Traditional Date of Zoroaster’,” Studia Iranica 31/1, 2002, pp. 7-45.

Michael Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathustras: Geschichte, Gegenwart, Rituale, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 2002. (The first volume provides an excellent detailed history of pre-Islamic Zoroastrianism with rich, up-to-date bibliography and much useful and necessary discussion of methodological problems; it is, however, not as comprehensive as Mary Boyce’s History.) Martin Schwartz, “The Old Eastern Iranian Worldview According to the Avesta,” in Camb. Hist. Iran II, 1981, pp. 640-63 (an informative article about the cultural background of the Avesta).

Idem, “The Religion of Achaemenian Iran” in Camb. Hist. Iran II, pp. 664-97.

P. Oktor Skjærvø “Kirdir’s Vision,” AMI 16, 1983, pp. 269-306.

Idem, “Avestan Quotations in Old Persian,” in S. Shaked and A. Netzer, eds., Irano-Judaica IV, Jerusalem, 1999, pp. 1-64.

Paul Thieme “Vorzarathustrisches bei den Zarathustriern und bei Za rathustra,” ZDMG, 107, 1957, pp. 67-104.

Idem, Mani und der Manichäismus, tr. Charles Kessler as Mani and Manichaeism, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, 1965b.

Idem, “La recontre avec la daēnā, qui represente les actions de l’homme,” in Gherardo Gnoli, ed., Orientalia Romana: Essays and Lectures 5, Iranian Studies, Rome, 1983, pp. 41-79.

Ehsan Yarshater, “Mazdakism,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, 1983, pp. 991-1024.

Robert C. Zaehner, Zurvan, A Zoroastrian Dilemma, Oxford, 1955.

(William W. Malandra)

Originally Published: July 20, 2005

______

ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times

ZOROASTRIANISM

ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times

In Book Pahlavi, Zoroastrians called their religion Māzdēsn dēn “the Mazda-worshipper’s religion” and dēn ī Māzdēsnān “the religion of the Mazda-worshippers,” which was derived from Avestan Mazdayasna daēnā-. This Avestan phrase has been revived by orthodox Pārsi Zoroastrians in recent years. Also in Book Pahlavi are found the phrases weh dēn and dēn ī weh, both meaning “the good religion,” which were commonly used to denote the religion. So the religion’s followers also called themselves wehdēn (plural wehdēnān) in Sasanian and early Islamic times, from which the New Persian behdin “[follower of] the good religion” (plural behdinān) is still used by Zoroastrians in both Iran and India (among the Pārsis behdin is used for both the singular and plural forms). Medieval Muslims writing in Classical Arabic and New Persian designated all Zoroastrians inaccurately as al-majus “magians” (see MAGI) based upon the technical term for Zoroastrian priests or magi (Middle Persian magūk, mowbed, mowmard, New Persian mobed). But the designation has stuck and is still used by pious Shi‘ites in Iran, often as a mild slur. Zoroastrian acts of worship customarily were conducted in the presence of fires on altars inside fire temples (Middle Persian ātaxškadag, New Persian āteškade; see ĀTAŠKADA). So the New Persian term ātašparast “fire worshipper,” picked up from Christians, became an insult directed by Shi‘ites at Zoroastrians despite the latters’ protesting that their actions were similar to Muslims facing prayer niches and the Kaʿba. Another early New Persian designation that still is used by Iranian Muslims to deride Zoroastrians as nonbelievers in God was gabr, meaning “hollow, empty,” hence “one lacking faith, infidel,” despite the latter sect’s claim that their scripture, the Avesta, is a holy book just like the Bible and the Qurʾān.

As Zoroastrians have endured centuries of minority status among Muslims, Christians, and Hindus, this hagiography has become increasingly popular, because it provided common ground with members of other faiths, especially Islam, under which Zoroastrians had come to be regarded as a ḏemmi “protected minority.” This pious biography is now reproduced in novels, comic books, and illustrated children’s stories by Pārsi and Irāni popular authors. It has become the standard account of Zaraθuštra’s missionary life and is accepted by modern Zoroastrians without examination and with pride that their faith’s founder is regarded as one of the earliest prophets. In contrast with the literary accounts that are derived from Avestan and Middle Persian sources, however, no early visual images of Zaraθuštra have survived. Indeed the oldest one dates to the second century CE in the Mithraeum at Dura Europos and allegedly presents the ancient Iranian religious founder in Parthian garb. During the fifteenth century, as Europeans speculated about their intellectual past, the famed Italian Renaissance artist Raphael Santi (1483-1520) portrayed Zaraθuštra in a white robe, holding a globe of the stars, facing a depiction of Ptolemy, and standing next to Raphael himself on the lower right corner of the “School of Athens” fresco at the Vatican in Rome. In the nineteenth century, Zoroastrians began generating their own images of Zaraθuštra. One was modeled on a rock relief of Miθra wearing a rayed-cap commissioned by the Sasanian king Ardeshīr II (r. 379-383) at Ṭāq-e Bostān in Iran (see SASANIAN ROCK RELIEFS). Another took the upward pointing gesture of the classical Greek philosopher Plato at the center of Raphael’s “School of Athens” and transposed it onto Zaraθuštra. Eventually both images were even fused together to depict the Prophet Zoroaster with rays of light emerging from a halo pointing his right forefinger toward heaven (Figure 1)—this particular image remains extremely popular in fire temples and homes, although most Zoroastrians do not know its origins.

As English has become popular among Zoroastrians owing to British colonialism, Western-style secular education, globalization, and travel to and from the West, translations of scripture have been produced in that language too. Among the most commonly utilized prayer books, especially for teaching scripture to children before their initiation into the faith, with transcription in Roman script and translations into English during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries are Daily Prayers of the Zoroastrians by the Ceylonese or Sri Lankan Pārsi scholar Framroz Rustomjee (1896-1978), who eventually immigrated to Australia to join his children, who had moved there a few years earlier, and Khorde Avesta by the Irani mobed Faribourz Shahzadi who now lives in the United States. Discourses on Zoroastrianism, written in English, have been published by Dastur Khurshed Dabu (1889-1979) at Bombay, Ērvad Godrej Sidhwa at Karachi, and Mobed Bahram Shahzadi at Westminster, California, among many others. Basically catechisms, those discourses serve to disseminate knowledge of Zoroastrianism from a variety of perspectives to clerical and lay Zoroastrians and to non-Zoroastrians who may not know any of their community’s traditional languages.

Conversion to Islam, decline of institutions, and minority status. The Arab Muslim conquest of Zoroastrian Iran and overthrow of the Sasanian dynasty (224-651) during the seventh century came to be associated with apocalyptic and prophetic expectations. Zoroastrian apocalypticism alluded to doom and the final days of humanity (see ESCHATOLOGY i. IN ZOROASTRIANISM AND ZOROASTRIAN INFLUENCE). According to the Zand ī Wahman Yasn “Exegesis on the Devotional Poem to Vohu Manah,” redacted anonymously in ninth century Iran: “(Ahura Mazdā told the Prophet Zaraθuštra,) ‘The seventh age, of alloyed or debased iron, entails evil rule by disheveled demons from the clan of Kheshm’” (1:11; see AĒŠMA). Islamic prophecy highlighted triumph, presenting the Prophet Muhammad (ca. 570-632) and the Muslim caliphs as successors to Zaraθuštra and the Sasanian monarchs. Since people believed those statements, they acted on their beliefs. Many despondent Zoroastrians, concluding that a true deity would not have forsaken their religion or them, chose to accept the faith, which had demonstrated its ascendance through political victory. Urban Irani Zoroastrians adopted Islam from the eighth through tenth centuries, and that faith spread among rural folk from the tenth through thirteenth centuries. As residents’ confessional alliance shifted to Islam, there was diminishment in contributions to pious foundations that supported the magi. Consequently, many Zoroastrian ecclesiastical institutions such as fire temples and hērbedestāns “theological colleges, seminaries” were either transformed into Islamic mosques and Sunni madrasas, respectively, or abandoned and destroyed, by the fourteenth century. The čahārṭāq “four arches” style of fire precinct with its domed roof (Figure 4) was assimilated into Muslim architecture as domed mosques.

Zoroastrianism initially represented the dominant faith numerically, though no longer politically, in those regions of the Islamic empire seized from the Sasanians and the princes of western Central Asia. To facilitate peaceful governance, medieval Muslim scholars drew upon hadīth “traditions” attributed to the Prophet Mohammad and caliphs like ʿUmar I (d. 644) and the first Shi‘ite emām “spiritual guide” ‘Ali b. Abi Tālib (598-661) for incorporating Zoroastrians into the ahl al-ḏemma “protected communities.” Not all Muslims recognized Zoroastrians as a ḏemmi community, but the Umayyad (661-750) and ‘Abbasid (750-1258) caliphates did.

Limited socioeconomic interactions with Muslims notwithstanding, minority status resulted in considerable hardship for followers of Zoroastrianism. The powerful Saljuq vizier Nezām al-Molk (d. 1092) commanded that Zoroastrians, like other ḏemmi, should not be appointed to positions of authority over Muslims and even equated them with Muslims groups that were regarded as heretical. Even more problematic was that Zoroastrians’ standing under Islamic law was secondary to members of the majority confessional group— affecting equitable resolution of commercial and social disputes. The jezya “poll tax” usually was collected by community leaders rather than paid directly to Muslim officials by each Zoroastrian. Yet here too legal inequity impacted. Mahmud b. ʿOmar al- Zamaḵšāri (1075-1144), an important Muslim theologian, suggested that Zoroastrians be publicly humiliated each time the jezya was collected. Previously, from around the year 750 onward, Zoroastrians were required to wear yellow colored caps, shawls, belts, and badges so that Muslims could easily identify members of that religious minority. Muslim authorities had forbidden the use of horses and saddles by Zoroastrians. (See, e.g., the jurist Abu Yusof al-Anṣāri [d. 182/798], ed. and tr., III, pp. 87, 93, 99; cf. the regulations imposed on all ḏemmi by the caliph Motawakkel in 235/849-50, in Ṭabari, iii, pp. 1389-90; tr., pp. 89- 90. For the nineteenth century, see KERMAN xiii. ZOROASTRIANS OF 19TH-CENTURY KERMAN AND YAZD.) Conquest and rule of Iran by the Mongols (1219-1256), Il-khanids (1256-1335), and Timurids (1370-1507) resulted in violence against urban Zoroastrians residing in city quarters specifically designated for them. Those seeking to avoid harm often sought protection through re-affiliating their faith to Islam. Those Zoroastrians who survived sought refuge by moving to out-of- the-way locales within the Fars, Yazd, and Kerman provinces of Iran. There the magi attempted to maintain Zoroastrian rites and beliefs by compiling religious literature known as the Pahlavi Books in Middle Persian and the Revāyats in New Persian (see KERMAN ii. HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY).

On this issue, the diaspora communities in the West have increasingly diverged from the Pārsis on the Indian subcontinent by permitting non-Zoroastrian spouses to attend rituals at fire temples and cemeteries, and to participate fully in community activities and governance. In so doing, Pārsis living in the West have come closer to the longstanding positions of Iranian Zoroastrians and Irani Zoroastrian immigrants to the West on these issues. Likewise, Pārsis in North America have begun initiating coreligionists who are not of clerical families into a lay priesthood, just as their Iranian counterparts had been beginning to do before 1979 by accepting men and occasionally even women as mobedyārs. So non-Zoroastrian spouses are routinely permitted to attend worship in the fire temples of the United States such as at Hinsdale (a suburb of Chicago) (Figure 10) and Canada. Even the more traditional Zoroastrian community in England has begun relaxing its rules. Zoroastrians in the Indian subcontinent and Iran often hold their children’s religious initiation ceremonies in secular locales, while still having magi officiate, to facilitate non-Zoroastrian friends’ attendance (Figure 11).

Bibliography:

Abu Yusof Yaʿqub b. Ebrahim al-Anṣāri, Ketāb al-ḵarāj, ed. and tr. A. Ben Shemesh, as Taxation in Islam, 3 vols., Leiden, 1965- 69.

George A. Bournoutian, tr., The History of Vardapet Aṛak‘el of Tabriz II, Costa Mesa, 2006.

Mary Boyce, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, Oxford, 1977.

Idem, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, 1979.

James W. Boyd and Firoze M. Kotwal, “Worship in a Zoroastrian Fire Temple,” Indo-Iranian Journal 26, 1983, pp. 293-318.

Carlo Cereti, “Some Primary Sources on the Early History of the Parsis in India,” in F. Vahman and C. V. Pederson, eds., Religious Texts in Iranian Languages, Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen, 2007, pp. 211-21. John Chardin, Voyages du chevalier Chardin, en Perse, et autres lieux de l'Orient, 4 vols., Amsterdam, 1735.

Jamsheed K. Choksy, Purity and Pollution in Zoroastrianism: Triumph over Evil, Austin, 1989.

Idem, Conflict and Cooperation: Zoroastrian Subalterns and Muslim Elites in Medieval Iranian Society, New York, 1997.

Idem, Evil, Good, and Gender: Facets of the Feminine in Zoroastrian Religious History, New York, 2002.

Idem, “Altars, Precincts, and Temples: Medieval and Modern Zoroastrian Praxis,” Iran 44, 2006, pp. 327-46.

Idem, “Despite Shāhs and Mollās: Minority Sociopolitics in Premodern and Modern Iran,” Journal of Asian History 40/2, 2006, pp. 129-84.

Idem, “How Iran Persecutes Its Oldest Religion,” CNN, 2011, available at http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/14/opinion/choksy-iran- zoroastrian/index.html?iref=allsearch.

Idem, “Non-Muslim Religious Minorities in Contemporary Iran,” Iran and the Caucasus 16/3, 2012, pp. 271-99. Idem, “Sailors, Soldiers, Priests, and Merchants: Reappraising Iran’s Early Connections to Ceylon,” Iranica Antiqua 48, 2013, pp. 363-91.

“The Copper Plates from Kollam,” at http://849ce.org.uk/ and http://849ce.org.uk/legal-worlds-and-legal-encounters/.

Pietro della Valle, Les fameux voyages de Pietro della Valle, gentil-homme romain, surnommé l'Illustre voyageur, French tr. E. Carneau and F. le Comte, 4 parts in 3 vols., Paris, 1661-65.

Edward Backhouse Eastwick, “Translation of the Zartusht-Na ′ma,” Appendix A in John Wilson, The Pársí Religion: as Contained in the Zand-Avastá ..., Bombay, 1843, pp. 477-522.

Michael M. J. Fischer, Zoroastrian Iran between Myth and Praxis, Ph.D. dissertation, Chicago, 1973.

Willem Floor, The Afghan Occupation of Safavid Persia 1721- 1729, Leuven, 1998.

Arthur comte de Gobineau, Trois ans en Asie (de 1855 à 1858), Paris, 1859.

Marzban J. Giara, Global Directory of Zoroastrian Fire Temples, 2nd ed., Mumbai, 2002. Nile Green, “The Survival of Zoroastrianism in Yazd,” Iran 38, 2000, pp. 115-22.

John Hinnells, The Zoroastrian Diaspora: Religion and Migration, Oxford, 2005.

Idem, Zoroastrians in Britain, Oxford, 1996.

John Hinnells and Alan Williams, eds., Parsis in India and the Diaspora, London, 2007.

Dosabhoy F. Karaka, The Parsees: Their History, Manners, Customs, and Religion, London, 1858.

Janet Kestenberg Amighi, The Zoroastrians of Iran: Conversion, Assimilation, or Persistence, New York, 1990.

Firoze M. Kotwal and James W Boyd, A Guide to the Zoroastrian Religion: a Nineteenth Century Catechism with Modern Commentary, Chico, Calif., 1982. Philip G. Kreyenbroek and Shehnaz N. Munshi, Living Zoroastrianism: Urban Parsis Speak about their Religion, Richmond, 2001.

Laurence Lockhart, The Fall of the Ṣafavī Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia, Cambridge, 1958.

Napier Malcolm, Five Years in a Persian Town, New York, 1905; repr., London, 1908.

Jivanji J. Modi, “The Parsis at the Court of Akbar, and Dastur Meherji Ráná,” BBRAS 21, 1904, pp. 69-245.

Idem, The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees, 2nd ed., Bombay, 1937.

Marijan Molé, La legende de Zoroastre selon les Textes Pehlevis, Paris, 1967.

[Julius] Heinrich Petermann, Reisen im Orient, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1860-61; 2nd ed., 1865.

Roshan Rivetna, “The Zarathushti World: A Demographic Survey,” FEZANA Journal 17/4, 2004, pp. 22-83.

Idem, Eliz Sanasarian, Religious Minorities in Iran, Cambridge, 2000.

Shahrokh Shahrokh, and Rashna Writer, ed. and tr., The Memoirs of Keikhosrow Shahrokh, Lewiston, N.Y., 1994.

Silva y Figueroa, Garcia de, L’ambassade de D. Garcias de Silva Figueroa, French tr. A. de Wicq[ue]fort, Paris, 1669.

Stewart, Sarah, “The Politics of Zoroastrian Philanthropy and the Case of Qasr-e Firuzeh,” Iranian Studies 45/1, 2012, pp. 59-80.

Michael Stausberg, ed., Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, Leiden, 2004.

Alan Williams, ed. and tr., The Zoroastrian Myth of Migration from Iran and Settlement in the Indian Diaspora. Text, Translation, and Analysis of the 16th Century Qeṣṣa-ye Sanjān ‘The Story of Sanjān’, Leiden, 2009.

Moḥammad b. Jarir Ṭabari, Ketāb taʾriḵ al-rosol wa’l-moluk, ser. iii, III, ed. M. J. de Goeje, repr., Leiden, 1964; tr. Joel L. Kramer, The History of al-Tabarī XXXIV. Incipient Decline, Albany, 1989. Jean Baptiste Tavernier, Les six voyages de Jean Baptiste Tavernier en Turquie, en Perse, et aux Indes, Premiere Partie, Paris, 1679; tr. “J. P.,” as The Voyages of John Baptista Tavernier … through Turkey into Persia, and the East Indies …, London, 1678.

Rashna Writer, Contemporary Zoroastrians: An Unstructured Nation, Lanham, Md., 1994.

Henry Yule, tr., Mirabilia Descripta. The Wonders of the East by Friar Jordanus, London, 1863.

Zand ī Wahman Yasn: Behramgore Tehmuras Anklesaria, ed. and tr., Zand-î Vohûman Yasn and Two Pahlavi Fragments, Bombay, 1957.

(Jamsheed K. Choksy)

Originally Published: January 22, 2015

______

ZRANKA territory around Lake Hāmun and the Helmand river in modern Sistan. See DRANGIANA.

territory around Lake Hāmun and the Helmand river in modern Sistan. See DRANGIANA.

DRANGIANA or Zarangiana; territory around Lake Hāmūn and the Helmand river in modern Sīstān.

According to Strabo, the northern part of Drangiana was bordered both on the north and the west by Aria, whereas most Drangian territory extended south of the Parapamisus and was bordered on the west by Carmania, on the south by Gedrosia, and on the east by Arachosia. Strabo also reported that the province formed a single tax district with Aria, information that applies only to Parthian times (11.10.1, 15.2.9). The land was characterized as rich in tin (Strabo, 15.2.10), and the inhabitants were said to imitate the Persian way of life but to have little wine. The most detailed description, though riddled with errors, is that of Ptolemy (6.19), according to whom Drangiana was bounded in the west and north by Aria, in the east by Arachosia, and in the south by Gedrosia; a river, supposedly a branch of the Arabis, flowed through it. Ptolemy also mentioned individual tribes living there: the Darandae near the Arian border, the Batrians near Arachosia, and the inhabitants of Tatakēnḗ (or the like) between, perhaps reflecting the subdivision of Drangiana in Seleucid and Parthian times (cf. Tomaschek, col. 1666, correcting the first and third names to Drangae and Paraitakēnḗ respectively). He listed a number of towns and villages, of which Prophthasía (cf. 8.25.8) and Ariáspē are known from other sources as well: Strabo (11.8.9, 15.2.8) and Pliny (Historia Naturalis 6.61) named Prophthasía, located on or near Lake Hāmūn on the network of major roads, and Stephanus Byzantius (s.v. Phráda) knew its pre-Alexandrian name Phráda; both this city and Ariáspē were mentioned as rich and illustrious by Ammianus Marcellinus (23.6.71). Isidore of Charax (Mansiones Parthicae 17) mentioned only Párin (to be emended to Zárin) and Korók among Drangian towns. From all these reports Paolo Daffinà (p. 30) concluded that in the Hellenistic period Drangiana was not restricted to the lower Helmand basin but extended northeast toward the Hindu Kush. Pliny listed the Zarangians among a large number of peoples living between the Caucasus and Bactria, side by side with the Drangians (Historia Naturalis 6.48, 6.94), obviously confusing information on a single people taken from different sources.

In Achaemenid royal inscriptions Drangiana is listed as a separate province, but its position varies; it was located either between Parthia and Aria (DB, DPe, and the restored portion of DSm), between Chorasmia and Arachosia (DNa, the restored portion of DSe, and the late tomb inscription A?P), or even, owing to an awkward rearrangement of the text, before Parthia and Aria and after Armenia (XPh). On the other hand, in Herodotus’ tribute list (3.93.2) the Sarangians, Sagartians, Thamanaeans, Utians, Mycians (i.e., all the peoples living in the lands extending from the Iranian central desert through Baluchistan to the Persian Gulf), and neighboring islanders were included in the fourteenth tax district, required to pay the relatively high amount of 600 talents annually. In Xerxes’ army the Sarangian contingent was led by Pherendátēs, son of Megabazus; the men were armed with Median bows and lances and wore brightly colored clothes and knee-high boots (Herodotus 7.67.1). Barsaë´ntēs, satrap of Arachosia and Drangiana, was one of the accomplices of the usurper Bessos against the last Achaemenid king, Darius III (Arrian 3.21.1; cf. Curtius Rufus, 6.6.36); the combination of these two provinces in a single satrapy cannot be dated exactly. Alexander the Great came to the capital of Drangiana in pursuit of Bessos and his followers (Arrian, 3.25.8; cf. Diodorus, 17.78.4; Strabo, 15.2.10) in the winter of 330-29 B.C.E. and subdued the entire satrapy (Arrian, 3.28.1, 7.10.6, who used the forms Drángai and Zarángai or Zarangaîoi interchangeably; cf. Justin, 12.5.9). Early in the summer of 325 B.C.E. Alexander sent Craterus with part of the army from India via Arachosia, Drangiana, and Carmania (Arrian, 6.17.3; cf. Strabo, 15.2.5). At that time Stasanor of Soli was satrap of Aria and Drangiana, having succeeded one Arsames (Curtius Rufus, 8.3.17; Arrian, 6.27.3; cf. Justin, 13.4.22); his appointment was confirmed by Perdiccas after Alexander’s death (Diodorus, 18.3.3). Unlike Craterus Alexander himself made a dangerous march across the Gedrosian desert, ordering racing camels and pack animals sent to him in Carmania from “Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, and the other countries bordering on the desert” (Diodorus, 17.105.7). As part of the great mingling of Greco-Macedonian and Oriental customs and institutions initiated by Alexander, which culminated in the famous mass wedding ceremonies at Susa in 324 B.C.E., Zarangian, Bactrian, Sogdian, and Arachosian cavalry units were included in the royal horse guards (Arrian, 7.6.3).

In 321 B.C.E., when Antipater redistributed the satrapies, Stasander of Cyprus received Aria and Drangiana (Diodorus, 18.39.6, 19.14.7). According to Polybius (11.34.13), after the Greco-Bactrian king Euthydemus had subdued the Sogdians, Arachosians, Drangians, and Arians (Justin, 41.6.3), Antiochus III marched against him; he returned in the winter of 206-05 B.C.E., crossing Arachosia, the Erymanthus (i.e., the Etymand(r)us or Helmand) river, Drangiana, and Carmania in turn. Some time in the mid-2nd century B.C.E. Drangiana became part of the Arsacid empire under Mithridates I. Ammianus Marcellinus (23.6.14) incorrectly listed Drangiana, between the Paropamisus and Arachosia, as one of the provinces of the Sasanian empire.

Bibliography:

(For abbreviations found here, see “Short References.”) W. Ball, Catalogue des sites archéologiques d’Afghanistan I, Paris, 1982.

W. Belardi, “Sul nome dell’Egitto nel persiano antico,” AI(U)ON, Sezione linguistica 2, 1960, pp. 171-84.

J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire, London, 1983.

P. Daffinà, L’immigrazione dei Sakā nella Drangiana, Rome, 1967, esp. pp. 23 ff.

G. Gnoli, Ricerche storiche sul Sīstān antico, Rome, 1967, esp. pp. 41 ff.

W. B. Henning, Zoroaster, Politician or Witch-Doctor? Oxford, 1951.

G. Morgenstierne, “Notes on Balochi Etymology,” NTS 5, 1932, pp. 37-53.

[W.] Tomaschek, “Drangai,” in Pauly-Wissowa, V/2, cols. 1665- 67.

(R. Schmitt)

Originally Published: December 15, 1995

______

ZUR-ḴĀNA

(lit. “house of strength”), the traditional gymnasium of urban Persia and adjacent lands.

ZUR-ḴĀNA (lit. house of strength), the traditional gymnasium of urban Persia and adjacent lands. Until the mid-20th century the zur-ḵāna was associated primarily with wrestling, and it bore great resemblance to the wrestlers’ tekkes (Pers. takia, Ar. takiya “lodges, buildings designed for confraternal life) of Ottoman Turkey (Kreiser, pp. 97-103), to the harkaras of Afghanistan, and to the akhāṛās (wrestling ground) of India (Alter). This would seem to indicate the existence in the past of an agonistic tradition common to the ethnically diverse populations of a wide region stretching from the Balkans to Bengal.

Descriptions of the zur-ḵāna often imply a timeless essence, while in fact the institution has constantly evolved and continues to do so. The traditional zur-ḵāna consisted of a building whose architecture resembled that of a public bathhouse, in whose close proximity it was often located. The zur-ḵāna’s main room was often sunken slightly below street level to provide constant temperatures and prevent drafts that might harm the perspiring athletes, but its roof contained windows for light. Access to the main room was possible only through a low door, forcing everyone to bow in respect while entering. At the center of the room lay the gowd, a hexagonal sunken area about one meter deep in which the exercises took place. To provide a soft surface for wrestling, the bottom of the arena used to be covered first with brushwood, then with ash, and finally with a layer of clay earth, but gradually this was replaced with linoleum or wooden planks. The gowd was surrounded by stands for spectators and racks for exercise instruments, and the walls were adorned with pictures of athletes and saints (Partow Bayżāʾi, pp. 35-36). Of particular importance was an elevated and decorated seat, the sardam, which was reserved for the man who accompanied the exercises with rhythmic drumming and the chanting of Persian poetry. This included poems by Saʿdi, Ḥāfeẓ, Rumi, Ferdowsi, and other great classic poets, as well as a type of maṯnawi specific to the zur-ḵāna, the gol-e košti (flower of wrestling), of which the most famous is that of Mir Najāt Eṣfahāni (repr. in Partow Bayżāʾi, pp. 379-419). Since the early 20th century, the drummer has been called moršed (guide or director), a title previously reserved for the most senior member of the group (Partow Bayzāʾi, p. 37).

In the gowd athletes had to be bare-chested and barefoot, symbolizing the irrelevance of outside hierarchies and distinctions (Partow Bayżāʾi, pp. 27, 53). Their standard attire was the long, a cloth wrapped around the loins and passed between the legs. When they were wrestling, leather breeches (tonbān) were worn; these were sometimes embroidered (Baker). As they entered the gowd, athletes showed their respect for the hallowed space by kissing the ground, which in practice took the form of touching the floor with their fingers and then raising these to their lips. Once inside, they had to desist from eating, drinking, smoking, laughing, or chatting. Until the mid-1920s, men went to the zur-ḵāna in the morning after morning prayers, except during Ramadan, when exercises took place in the evening after breaking the fast (efṭār). Since then, however, evening sessions have gradually become the norm (Partow Bayżāµʾi, pp. 52-4).

The exercises took place in a more or less standard order, and were led by the most senior member present, the miāndār. After some warming-up calisthenics (pāzadan), in the course of which one of the athletes might leave the gowd, lie on his back, and lift heavy wooden boards called sang with each arm, athletes did push-ups (šenā) and then swung mils (Indian clubs), both exercises being accompanied by the moršed’s drumming and chanting. They would then take turns whirling rapidly (čarḵ) about the gowd, after which one or two athletes would in turn step forward to swing a kabbāda above their heads, this being a heavy iron bow on the cord of which heavy rings are strung. In the individual exercises (čarḵ and kabbāda), members came forth in ascending order of seniority, and so, uniquely in Persian social convention, humility was shown by trying to go first. To come forth, an athlete would ask the miāndār for permission by saying roḵṣat (permission), to which the answer was forṣat (chance, opportunity). Until about the 1940s, the crowning event of a zur-ḵāna session was wrestling (košti), which was the original raison d’être of the gymnasium. With the introduction of international freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling, however, wrestling disappeared from the gowd. Traditional wrestling survived in a modernized form under the name of košti-e pahlavāni (pahlavāni wrestling), but lost its organic link with the zur-ḵāna, where it is now rarely taught. The loss of its agonistic component has somewhat contributed to the decline of the institution’s popularity among young men.

Traditionally, athletes were divided into a number of grades. These were, in ascending order of seniority, nowča (novice), nowḵᵛāsta (beginner), pahlavān (athlete), and finally each establishment’s most accomplished member, the miāndār (formerly kohna-savār), who conducted the proceedings. At each grade, the long was wrapped somewhat differently. Beginning in the 1940s, however, these grades gradually fell into disuse and were replaced by the standard international categories “cadet, “ “junior,” and “senior,” and, for pahlavāni wrestling, weight classes.

The practices and rituals of the zur-ḵāna are permeated with the symbolism of Twelver Shiʿism. Veneration of the first Shiʿite Imam, ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb, plays a major role, and the exercises are frequently interrupted by salvos of the invocation of God’s blessing upon the Prophet Moḥammad (ṣalawāt). Traditionally, a man had to be ritually clean to enter the gowd, and admittance to the premises was forbidden to women, non-Muslims, and prepubescent boys. In spite of the institution’s Twelver Shiʿite affinities, zur-ḵānas spread to Sunnite Kurdistan in the 18th century (Kamandi), and in the mid-20th century there were even a few Jewish zur-ḵānas in Tehran and Shiraz and a Zoroastrian one in Yazd; their rituals were adapted accordingly (Chehabi, pp. 5-9).

The origin of the zur-ḵāna is shrouded in mystery. Its vocabulary, rituals, ethos, and grades recall those of fotowwa (see JAVĀNMARDI) and Sufism, but a direct affiliation cannot be established at the present stage of knowledge. Since wrestling has an old tradition in west, central, and south Asia, it is possible that sometime in the 14th or 15th centuries wrestlers formed guilds and adopted rituals borrowed from fotowwa and Sufism. Wrestlers were mostly entertainers with low social status (Chardin, p. 200), and so perhaps this appropriation of noble ideals was an attempt to acquire greater respectability (Piemontese). The synthesis of wrestling prowess and Sufism is embodied by the 14th-century Pahlavān Mahmud of Ḵᵛārazm, better known in Persia as Puriā-ye Wali, whom zur-ḵāna athletes (as well as wrestlers in Turkey) regard as a role model.

While references to wrestling and wrestlers can be found in classical Persian literature (see below), the earliest known mention of zur-ḵāna exercises and practices occurs in a fragment dating from the Safavid era, the Tumār-e Poriā-ye (sic) Wali (reproduced in Partow Bayżāʾi, pp. 350-64). This suggests that zur-ḵānas appeared first under that dynasty, which would also explain the close connection between them and popular Twelver Shiʿism, which takes the form, for instance, of very active participation of their members in ʿāšurā processions.

The first Western traveler to describe a zur-ḵāna was John Chardin, who observed it in the 1670s: “Wrestling is the Exercise of People in a lower Condition; and generally Speaking, only of People who are Indigent. They call the Place where they Show themselves to Wrestle, Zour Kone, that is to say, The House of Force. They have of’em in all the Houses of their great Lords, and especially of the Governours of Provinces, to Exercise their People. Every Town has besides Companies of those Wrestlers for show ... They perform their Exercises to divert People” (Chardin, pp. 200-1). A century later, Carsten Niebuhr also described a house of strength, and to him we also owe the first graphic representation of one. It shows musicians accompanying the exercises, a practice still common at folk wrestling events throughout west Asia and the Balkans, but one that has disappeared from the Persian zur-ḵāna, perhaps under the impact of the Shiʿite clergy’s distaste for music. The Qajar rulers of Persia were enthusiastic patrons of wrestling, and consequently zur-ḵānas thrived in the 19th century. They were embedded in the social structure of town quarters and constituted an important part of community life (Arasteh). Some were frequented by craftsmen and tradesmen associated with the bazaar, some had a Sufi membership, and still others were used by the luṭis (urban thugs). In 1865 Nāṣer-al-Din Shah’s court physician noted that “since a lot of dissolute and merry types frequent [the zur-ḵāna], young men of good families do not go there” (Polak, p. 189). However, men of higher birth did occasionally participate in the exercises and wrestle in the gowd (Drouville, II, p. 58), a development that reached its peak under Nāṣer-al-Din Shah (r. 1848-96), when a number of statesmen built themselves private zur-ḵānas (Partow Bayżāʾi, pp. 9, 154- 55).

With the advent of the Constitutional Revolution in 1905-06, royal patronage ceased. This dealt a severe blow to the zur- ḵāna, which became once again a feature of urban lower and lower middle class culture only. By the 1920s the introduction of modern Western sports and physical education further diminished the appeal of zur-ḵāna exercises among athletically inclined men, while cinemas drew spectators away. At the same time the growing penetration of society by the state, which resulted in better security, diminished the role of the strongmen who used to maintain law and order in neighborhoods and who trained in the zur-ḵāna. Another function of the zur-ḵānathat disappeared in the first decades of the 20th century was the training it provided for šāṭers, long distance couriers in the service of the shah and high officials, whose profession became obsolete with the introduction of modern transportation. Šāṭers had their own special exercises (e.g., šelang), which have completely disappeared (Partow Bayżāʾi, pp. 28-38). In the troubled times after the end of the Qajar régime, a number of amateur athletes kept the zur-ḵāna alive independently of elite patronage, and in 1924 they founded a Jamʿiyat-e gordān-e Irān (Society of Iranian heroes) to organize traditional physical education and make it respectable again by a rigorous admission process (ʿAbbāsi, I, pp. 296-303).

The pioneers of modern physical education in Persia had no respect for zur-ḵāna-type exercises and ignored them in the physical education curricula they drew up for Persia’s modern schools. In the 1920s and 1930s numerous articles appeared in the Persian press denouncing the institution. Four criticisms were leveled at it. Firstly, it was implied that members were morally corrupt (e.g., Ṣamimi, p. 11). This was an oblique reference to the allegation that sodomy was prevalent among some athletes (Šahri, 1968, pp. 204-8; idem, 1990, I, p. 414, V, pp. 247-49). Secondly, zur-ḵānas were castigated for harboring uncouth ruffians, a reference to the marginal luṭis and their frequent brawling. Thirdly, it was pointed out that the exercises did not satisfy modern expectations in that they contained no team sports and developed the body unevenly. Finally, the gymnasia were criticized for their insufficient ventilation (“Dar zur-ḵāna,” Eṭṭelāʿāt, 17 Ābān 1317/8 November 1938). The last point was a constant theme, and we find it as late as 1947 in the first empirical study of zur-ḵānas in Tehran, which averred: Zur- ḵānas “are generally narrow and dark and lack sufficient sun- light. The air is heavy and humid, and constantly poisoned by the smell of the coal of the moršed’s brazier and by the petrol of the numerous lamps. Moreover, the stench of the toilets, which are inside the building, and the unwashed longs and dirty rugs, add to the heaviness of the air inside zur-ḵānas. In addition, the constant pipe and cigarette smoke of themoršed, the spectators, and even the athletes themselves is a health hazard for the athletes’ lungs” (Guša, p. 49).

Zur-ḵānas might have died out completely had it not been for the nationwide millenary celebration of Ferdowsi’s birth in the summer of 1934 (see FERDOWSI iv). Exhibitions of zur-ḵāna exercises featured prominently in them, and thenceforth the state showed more interest in them (Partow Bayżāʾi, pp. 138, 211-17). Until about 1938 the term varzeš-e qadim (old sport) was used to designate zur-ḵāna exercises, but then gradually the term varzeš-e bāstāni (ancient sport) caught on, implying a pre- Islamic origin for the exercises (“Varzešhā-ye bāstāni,” Eṭṭelāʿāt, 10 Šahrivar 1318/1 September 1939). When in 1939 the crown prince married Princess Fawzia of Egypt, the wedding celebrations included exhibitions of “ancient sport” as part of the mass gymnastic displays in Tehran’s main stadium, a practice that was continued until the end of the monarchy. In 1941 Radio Iran started broadcasting zur-ḵāna poetry and drumming in the morning, allowing amateurs to swing their Indian clubs at home.

The ideas adumbrated in the late 1930s were given substance beginning in the 1940s. Towards the end of his life, Persia’s last poet laureate, Moḥammad-Taqi Bahār, published a number of articles on traditional Persian javānmardi, in which he mentioned the ethos of the zur-ḵāna as a contemporary manifestation of this tradition. By this juxtaposition, the early history of popular anti-centralist movements in Persia such as those of the ʿayyārs (members of medieval brotherhood organizations) was constituted as the early history of the zur- ḵāna. Gradually, as one author uncritically quoted another, it became conventional wisdom that the zur-ḵānas originated in the underground resistance activities of Persian patriots against Arab and later Mongol invaders (Guša, pp. 47-48), which made them acceptable to the elites again by providing them with an aura of patriotism.

There remained the irritating fact that a moral ambiguity attached to the institution in the minds of most Persians, who took the zur-ḵāna pahlavāns’ protestations of chivalry with a grain of salt. To explain (away) the unseemly behavior of many zur-ḵāna habitués, it was now suggested that the institution had entered a period of moral decline under the Qajars. This fit in well with the official Pahlavi view of that dynasty, which legitimated the usurpation of the throne in 1925 by holding the Qajars responsible for both Persia’s economic backwardness and moral degeneration. The idea of a golden age of virtue preceding the degeneration of the late Qajar years is not borne out by evidence, however, as is shown, for instance, in the satirical poetry of ʿObayd of Zākān (d. ca. 1371), who already repeatedly impugns the morality of pahlavāns.

Another theory about the pre-Islamic origins of the zur-ḵānawas proposed by the Iranist Mehrdād Bahār. Struck by the similarities between the architecture and rituals of traditional zur-ḵānas and those of temples dedicated to the Iranian deity Mithra (Mithraeums), he speculated that the gymnasia had a Mithraic origin (Bahār). The fact remains that there is no textual or architectural evidence for the existence of zur-ḵānas before Safavid times (Elāhi). The idea of a pre-Islamic origin, however, lives on in popular writing.

In 1953, one of the most prominent traditional athletes, Šaʿbān Jaʿfari, was a ringleader of the CIA-financed riots that accompanied the military coup d’état of 1953 against Prime Minister Moḥammad Moṣaddeq. The shah rewarded Jaʿfari with a modern club, whose facilities were lavish by the humble standards of traditional zur-ḵānas, and he himself opened it on 17 Ābān 1336/8 November 1957 (Behzādi, p. 190; Jaʿfari, pp. 159 ff., 207 ff.). Led by Jaʿfari, zur-ḵāna athletes performed by the hundreds in Tehran’s main stadium on such occasions as the shah’s birthday. It was at least partly due to Jaʿfari’s good contacts to the court, which allowed him to be the center of a patronage network, that many young men were inducted into the world of ancient sport, and he may yet be credited for having ensured the survival of the tradition.

Jaʿfari’s club received competition in the late 1950s, when the influential head of Persia’s Planning Organization (Sāzmān-e barnāma wa budja), Abu-al-Ḥasan Ebtehāj, had a luxurious zur- ḵāna built for the country’s main bank, the Bank Melli. The director of this club, Kāẓem Kāẓemayni, published a number of books and articles on the zur-ḵāna and on the heroic exploits of Persia’s past pahlavāns and heroes, books that stand out by their shrill nationalism shading into xenophobia (Kāẓemayni, 1967). The Jaʿfari and the Bank Melli clubs vied for the honor of performing for visiting monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, secretaries general of Communist parties, film stars, and singers, including women. While in some cities (Isfahan, Kāšān, and Qom) there existed zur-ḵānas that were pious endowments (waqfs; see Partow Bayżāʾi, pp. 36), until the 1960s most zur-ḵānas were owned by private individuals who charged athletes a fee. The numbers of zur-ḵānas rose until 1961, but remained stagnant in the last years of the monarchy (Tehrānči, p. 11). In the provinces, the state did not much support the zur-ḵānas, which in many places fell into disrepair (Kamandi, pp. 70-72). Beginning in the 1970s, many private zur-ḵānas closed down, since they were no longer profitable. Their place was taken by zur-ḵānas attached to major private companies, state enterprises, or state organs (Rochard, 2000, p. 77).

After the Revolution of 1978-79, the authorities of the Islamic Republic emphasized the Islamic character of the institution and tried to popularize it again. To attract young people, boys were permitted into the gowd, and even though women are once again barred from attending the zur-ḵāna, athletes have been made to wear tee shirts. A plethora of competitions are held with the aim of turning the exercises into modern sport replete with point systems, records, and champions. One result of these efforts has been a certain homogenization of practices, visible, for instance, in the renaming of many provincial zur-ḵānas that now carry the name of Puriā-ye Wali. Older athletes resent this intrusion of an official body into a sector of civic life that had always been self-regulating. Partly as a result of internal quarrels, the center of zur-ḵāna activity shifted to Mashad in the 1990s, where the Āstān-e Qods-e Rażawi has proven a generous patron.

Outside Persia, zur-ḵānas can be found in the Republic of Azerbaijan, and they were introduced into Iraq in the mid-19th century, where they seem to have existed until the 1980s (Ṭāʿi). In the 1990s a zur-ḵāna was founded in London by Persian émigrés.

For a music sample, see Battle between Rostam and Sohrāb, The.

Bibliography:

Mahdi ʿAbbāsi, Tāriḵ-e košti-e Irān, 2 vols., Tehran, 1995.

Joseph S. Alter, The Wrestler’s Body: Identity and Ideology in North India, Berkeley, 1992.

A. Reza Arasteh, “The Social Role of the Zurkhana (House of Strength) in Iranian Urban Communities during the Nineteenth Century,” Der Islam 36, February 1961, pp. 256- 59.

Mehrdād Bahār, “Varzeš-e bāstāni-e Irān wa rišahā-ye tāriḵi-e ān,” Čistā 1, October 1981, pp. 140-59; republ. as “Āʾin-e Mehr, zur- ḵāna, ʿayyāri, wa Samak-e ʿAyyār,” in Moḥammad-Mahdi Moʾaḏḏen Jāmeʿi, ed., Adab-e pahlavāni. pp. 323-42.

Moḥammad-Taqi Bahār, “Āʾin-e javānmardi,” in Eḥsān Narāqi, tr. and compiled, Āʾin-e javānmardi, Tehran, 1984, pp. 109-20.

Patricia L. Baker, “Wrestling at the Victoria and Albert Museum,” Iran 35, 1997.

ʿAli Behzādi, Šebh-e ḵāṭerāt, Tehran, 1996.

John Chardin, Travels in Persia, 1673-1677, New York, 1988.

Houchang E. Chehabi, “Jews and Sport in Modern Iran,” in Homa Sarshar and Houman Sarshar, eds., The History of Contemporary Iranian Jews IV, Beverly Hills, 2001.

Gaspard Drouville, Voyage en Persependant les années 1812 et 813, 2 vols., Paris, 1819-20; tr. Manučehr Eʿtemād Moqaddam as Safar dar Irān, Tehran, 1985. Ṣadr-al-Din Elāhi, “Negāh-i digar ba sonnat-i kohan: zur-ḵāna,” Irān-šenāsi/Iranshenasi 6/4, 1995, pp. 726-45.

Ḡolām-Reżā Enṣāfpur, Tāriḵ o farhang-e zur-ḵāna wa goruhhā-ye ejtemāʿi-e zur-ḵāna, Tehran, 1974.

R. A. Galunov, “Zurkhana: atletchyeskaya arena persii (Zur- ḵāna: The athletic arena of Persia),” Iran (Leningrad) 1, 1926, pp. 87-110. Ḥasan Guša, “Varzeš-e bāstāni dar Irān,” Payām-e now 3/6, Farvardin 1326/March-April 1947, pp. 47-55.

Šaʿbān Jaʿfari, Šaʿbān Jaʿfari (text of the interview by Homā Saršār), Los Angeles, 2001.

ʿAbbās Kamandi, Varzeš wa sargoḏadšt-e varzeš-e bāstāni-e Kordestān, Sanandaj, 1984.

Kāẓem Kāẓemayni, “Zur-ḵāna,” Honar o mardom, N.S., nos. 56- 57, 1967, pp. 55-62.

Idem, Dāstānhā-ye šegeftangiz az tāriḵ-e pahlavāni-e Irān, Tehran, 1967.

Klaus Kreiser, Edirne im 17. Jahrhundert nach Evliyā Çelebī: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der osmanischen Stadt, Freiburg, 1975.

Eḥsān Narāqi, tr. (of Henry Corbin’s articles) and compiler, Āʾin- e javānmardi, Tehran, 1984.

Carsten Niebuhr, Reisebeschreibungnach Arabien und anderen unliegenden Ländern, Copenhagen, 1778.

Ḥosayn Partow Bayżāʾi Kāšāni, Tāriḵ-e varzeš-e bāstāni-e Irān: zur-ḵāna, Tehran, 1958, new ed., Tehran, 2003. Angelo Piemontese, “Il capitolo sui pahlavān delle Badāyiʿ al- Waqāyiʿ di Vāsfi,” AIUON, N.S. 16, 1966, pp. 207-20.

Jacob Eduard Polak, Persien: das Land und seine Bewohner, Hildesheim, 1976; tr. Keykāvus Jahāndārī as Safar-nāma-ye Pūlāk (Īrān wa īrānīān), Tehran, 1982.

Philippe Rochard, “Le ‘sport antique’ des zurkhâne de Téhéran: formes et significations d’une pratique contemporaine,” unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Université Aix-Marseille I, 2000.

Idem, “The Identities of the Zūrkhānah,” tr. Houchang E. Chehabi, Ir. Stud. 35/3, 2002, pp. 313-40.

Moṣṭafā Ṣadiq “Gowd-e moqaddas: peydāyeš-e zur-ḵāna,” Honar o mardom, N.S. no. 145, 1974, pp. 55-62.

Idem, “Negāh-i moḵṭaṣar bar varzeš-e zur-ḵānaʾi dar Irān,” in Majmuʿa-ye maqālāt-e mardom-šenāsi darIrān 1, 1983, pp. 45-78.

Jaʿfar Šahri, Šakar-e talḵ, Tehran, 1968.

Idem, Guša-i az tāriḵ-e ejtemāʾi-e Tehrān-e qadim, Tehran, 1978, pp. 82-93. Idem, Tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi-e Tehrān dar qarn-e sizdahom, 6 vols., Tehran, 1990, I, pp. 410-14; V, pp. 244-51.

Noṣrat-Allāh Ṣamimi, “Varzeš,” Irān-e bāstān 2, no. 29, 3 Šahrivar 1313/25 August 1934.

Jamil Ṭāʿi, al-Zurḵānāt al- baḡdādiya, Baghdad, 1986.

Moḥammad-Mahdi Tehrānči, Pažuheš-i dar varzešhā-ye zur- ḵānaʾi, Tehran, 1985.

(Houchang E. Chehabi)

Originally Published: August 15, 2006

______

ZURVAN ancient Zoroastrian deity of Time. Although the etymology of the Avestan word causes difficulty, there is consensus over its basic meaning, “period (of time).”

ZURVAN (Av. zruuan-, Pahl. zrlwʾn), ancient Zoroastrian deity of Time. Although the etymology of the Avestan word zruuan- causes difficulty, there is consensus over its basic meaning, that is, “period (of time),” rather than (abstract) “time” itself (Lubonsky, p. 73). It occurs thus in a limited number of fixed expressions, all indicating a (determined, allotted) period of time (Kellens; Rezania). Of particular interest in this connection is the distinction, made in a number of passages, between the finite period of lifetime allotted to mortals and the immortal period of time that is characteristic of the gods (Yašt 8.11 with parallels).

In a few more recent passages from the Avesta (Vd. 19.13; 19.16; Ny. 1.8) and, remarkably, in the final words of the Yasna ceremony (Y. 72.10, followed only by a few formulas), an abstract being with the name zruuan- is worshipped. The passages themselves align this being with a range of other, often better known, spiritual beings as recipients of praise. Although the number of passages is not very large, this deity Zurvan is always accompanied by a few other divinities (yazata) who represent, together, the basic structure and outline of the cosmos: the god Θwāša (firmament), who is widely seen as representing (abstract) space, and the god Vayu, who is associated with the void between the realms of light and darkness. Zurvan has two epithets: akarana- (infinite) and darǝγō.xvaδāta- (for a long time subject to its own laws). In some Zoroastrian traditions, these two epithets gave rise to two divine beings, one governing or representing “time eternal,” the other a fixed period of historical time, but this remains an exception. Finally, in a unique passage describing the fate of the soul after death (Vd. 19.29), the paths leading up to the Činwad Bridge (Činwad Puhl, q.v.) are said to be zruuō.dāta- (established by [or in] time).

It is clear that the few Avestan passages that mention the concept and the deity do not allow much interpretation. Little notice would have been taken of Zurvan, as one among many abstract deities mentioned in the Avesta (Gray, pp. 124-29), had it not been for a spectacular later development in Zoroastrian traditions (see ZURVANISM). This development is known exclusively from non-Iranian sources, in Syriac (e.g., Theodore Abu Qorra), Armenian (e.g., Ełišē, q.v.), Arabic (e.g., Šahrastāni), and Greek (Eudemus of Rhodes). These all begin to flow from the late fourth century C.E. onwards and present an alternative cosmogony, according to which Ahura Mazdā/Ohrmazd and Ahriman (qq.v.) are the offspring of the only pre-existent god, Zurvan (Zaehner, pp. 54 ff., 419 ff.). It is in one of these sources, the Dubitationes et solutiones of the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius (late 5th/early 6th cent. CE), that a reference is made to a much earlier authority, Eudemus of Rhodes (4th cent. BCE), but it is impossible to make out which part of Damascius’s remarks (mentioning “Time” or “Place” as pre-existent entities, in whom the two spirits originated) reproduces Eudemus’s words. Even the most generous assumption in this respect, however, cannot cloak the fact that Damascius (or Eudemus) does not mention the name of Zurvan or anything resembling the myth of Zurvan as it is found in the later sources (de Jong, pp. 336-37). Support for an Achaemenid popularity of Zurvan was further sought in the presence of a divine name Turma in the Elamite tablets from Persepolis (Hallock, PF 1956.1, 1957.1), which some scholars interpret as an Old Persian form of the god’s name (Gershevitch, p. 183). This has been shown to be impossible on linguistic grounds (Henkelman, pp. 534-36). With this, all evidence for an early importance of Zurvan in western Iran has dissipated (for the Sasanian evidence for the god and the Zurvanite movement, see ZURVANISM).

Bibliography:

Mary Boyce, History of Zoroastrianism II: Under the Achaemenians, Leiden, 1982, pp. 232-41.

Damascius, Dubitationes et solutiones, 2 vols., Amsterdam, 1966.

Ilya Gershevitch, “Iranian Nouns and Names in Elamite Garb,” Transactions of the Philological Society 68, 1969, pp. 165-200.

Louis Herbert Gray, The Foundations of the Iranian Religions: Ratanbai Katrak Lectures, Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 15, Bombay, 1929.

Richard T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Chicago, 1969.

Wouter Henkelman, The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts, Achaemenid History 14, Leiden, 2008.

Albert de Jong, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 133, Leiden, 1997. Jean Kellens, “L’ellipse du temps,” in Johanna Arten, Almut Hintze, and Eva Tichy, eds., Anusantatyai: Festschrift für Johanna Narten zum 70. Geburtstag, Dettelbach, 2000, pp. 127- 31.

Alexander Lubotsky, “Avestan zruuan-,” in Tatiyana M. Nikolaeva, ed., Polytropon: K 70-letiju Vladimira Nikolaeva Toporova, Moscow, 1998, 73-85

Kianoosh Rezania, Die zoroastrische Zeitvorstellung: Eine Untersuchung über Zeit- und Ewigkeitskonzepte und die Frage des Zurvanismus, Göttinger Orientforschungen, Iranica, N.S. 7. Wiesbaden, 2010.

Abu’l-Fatḥ Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Karim Šahrastāni, Ketāb al- melal wa’l-neḥal, ed. William Cureton, Leipzig, 1928, pp. 183-85; tr. Afżal-al-Din Ṣadr Torka Eṣfahāni, ed. Moḥammad-Reżā Jalāli Nāʾini, Tehran, 1956, pp. 181-83.

Robert Charles Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma. Oxford, 1955.

(Albert de Jong)

______

ZURVANISM a hypothetical religious movement in the history of Zoroastrianism. The myth of Zurvan is fairly well known from Armenian, Syriac, Greek, and Arabic sources, but it is not to be found in any Zoroastrian source.

ZURVANISM, a hypothetical religious movement in the history of Zoroastrianism.

The first notices of a movement called zurvānīyya among the Iranians derive from the rich tradition of Muslim writings on religions and religious movements in the early Islamic world. These sources reflect, first and foremost, Muslim concerns (Monnot, 1986, pp. 97-125). These Muslim writers had a keen interest in elaborating their own concept of the oneness of God (Ar. towḥīd) by contrasting it with the views of their competitors. Where they found what to them must have looked like substantive differences in the phrasing of God’s nature (both in the developing Muslim theologies and among the non-Muslim religions of their time), they intuitively translated these differences into differences of schools or sects. In this, they were the inheritors of a similar style of classifying (and solving) philosophical and religious difference that originated in the ancient world, both among historians of philosophy (known as doxographers) and among early Christian authors who intended to defend their version of the religion against the opinions of others (so-called heresiographers).

Although much valuable information has been preserved in all these sources, this information is almost irredeemably corrupted both on an empirical and on a structural level. Empirically, the evidence is often contaminated by the intrusion of imaginary persons, schools, and opinions (or by the suggestion that groups that had long been extinct were still to be found). More importantly, on a structural level, differences of opinion are automatically translated into social units (“sects,” “movements,” “schools”) that may not correspond to any recognizable socio-historical reality. The mechanisms of this sanitized view of the world are well-known: it contrasts the unity of the “orthodox” with the divisions among those seen as “heretics” (who fight against the majority opinion as well as among themselves), and this acts as a sign that the opinions of these heretics must be wrong.

Western scholars who first began to write about Zoroastrianism were likewise indebted to this tradition in the history of ideas and of religions. It had acquired for them, moreover, the same type of urgency that it had had for the early Muslim writers, since the Reformation had engendered a very similar (and ongoing) fragmentation of the Christian churches that manifested itself in the realms of ideas (theology), of ritual, and of modes of organization. Since their sources, apart from the writings of Classical authors (who did not distinguish between different types of religion among the Persians at all), were the same early Muslim writers on Zoroastrianism, it is not surprising that the notion of a Zurvanite movement entered Western views of Zoroastrianism at an early stage. The earliest authors, however, resemble the Classical attitude more, in that they simply described or listed the story of Zurvan as progenitor of the two spirits, without relegating it to a separate movement. Thus, the twenty-second chapter of Thomas Hyde’s (q.v.) influential Veterum Persarum et Parthorum et Medorum Religionis Historia (Oxford 1760), which deals with the Zoroastrian ideas about the two spirits and their origin, drew its information from Damascius, Plutarch, and Šahrastānī (Hyde 1760, pp. 292-303) and faithfully discusses Zurvan and his role in the origin of the two spirits. Likewise, Anquetil-Duperron mentions the fact that Zoroaster taught the origin of the two spirits as creatures of a first principle, “le tem[p]s sans bornes” (“infinite time”; Anquetil-Duperron, 1771, I/2, p. 68).

It was Friedrich Spiegel who revived the notion of a Zurvanite movement (or, as he called it, “sect”), first in his Érân. Das Land zwischen dem Indus und Tigris (Spiegel 1863, pp. 64, 366), and then, more extensively (on the basis of Šahrastānī again) in his interpretation of Zoroastrian sects in his monumental Erânische Alterthumskunde (Spiegel, 1871-78, II, pp. 175-87). It is characteristic of Spiegel’s often underestimated importance for the history of Iranian studies that most of the “information” and interpretations used in later discussions of Zurvanism, or the Zurvanite myth, were already given by him, even though not all later scholars cared to refer to his contributions (see Rezania, 2010, pp. 12-24, for a much fuller discussion of the history of the study of Zurvanism than can be given here).

After Spiegel, Zurvanism became a standard subject in discussions of Zoroastrianism. Some scholars thought of it as a pre-Zoroastrian (Median) religion that was brought into Zoroastrianism with the conversion of the Medes to that religion (Nyberg, 1938, p. 388; Widengren, 1938, pp. 271-74) or as the religion of the Parthians (Widengren 1955, pp. 88-89). Others rightly stressed the fact that almost all sources are from the Sasanian period and saw a special role for the Sasanian kings as supporters of a Zurvanite version of Zoroastrianism (Christensen, 1944, pp. 150-55). Two discoveries considerably widened the discussion in the early twentieth century. The first was the discovery of Manichean Middle Persian texts from Central Asia, in which the Father of Greatness, the supreme God of the Manichean pantheon, was (sometimes) called Zurvān, suggesting a similar role for this god in third century Persian Zoroastrianism (see below). The second was the discovery of the inscriptions of Antiochus I of Commagene, which presented a Graeco-Iranian dynastic cult with gods who bore Greek and Iranian names, and with an important reference also to the concept of “boundless time” (Gk. chronos apeiros) as a reality in which human destiny unfolds (Boyce and Grenet 1991, pp. 332-34). These discoveries led to a mass of publications, many of them of an extremely speculative nature, that gave Zurvanism (and Iranian religion generally) a very important role in the development of Hellenistic religions. For several scholars saw in Zurvanism a solution to the problem of the rise of the concept of aiōn in Hellenistic thought. This led them to exaggerate that concept in Hellenistic religions themselves, but especially to misrepresent the nature of Zurvanism (Eisler, 1910; Reitzenstein, 1921, pp. 151-250; Junker, 1921-1922).

The problem was (and continues to be) the fact that, while the myth of Zurvan is fairly well known from Armenian, Syriac, Greek, and Arabic sources, it is not to be found in any Zoroastrian source. This led scholars to speculate that it must have existed in Zoroastrian sources themselves, but that all references to it had deliberately been purged from the surviving literature (Widengren, 1967). This, in turn, led them to detect Zurvanite ideas in passages that, although they had thus been purged, would still reflect a Zurvanite coloring. The procedure was completely circular: all speculations on time and space, all speculation on the workings of fate, and all passages in which women were seen as ambiguous beings were declared “Zurvanite,” because “Zurvanism” was simply assumed to have been characterized by an interest in time and space, by an accommodation of “fatalism,” and by a negative view of women (De Jong, 1995). This led to a very rich dossier of texts, none of which mentioned anything called Zurvanism or gave any hint of the possibly controversial nature of the information provided (Zaehner, 1955). With this development, Zurvanism became a convenient receptacle for everything that clashed with generally held notions about “real” Zoroastrianism, and since the dominant approach to the subject was that Zurvanite ideas originated in a confrontation of Iranian with Babylonian or Greek ideas, the Zurvanite hypothesis came to function as a shield to protect “proper” (Iranian) Zoroastrianism from a hybridized version of that religion that was contact-induced. This in turn led to the interpretation of Zurvanism as a “heresy” or even a “betrayal” of “true” Zoroastrianism, even though it clearly represented a dominant interpretation of Zoroastrian theology at the Sasanian court (Boyce, 1996).

With this, the study of Zurvanism and of the history of Zoroastrianism generally had reached an impasse, and protest became inevitable. It was Shaul Shaked who contributed most to the demolition of the edifice that had thus been erected. In a series of important articles and a monograph, he not only showed the feeble source-base in which most speculation had been grounded, but also the pernicious side-effects of the whole construction of a “Zurvanite” sect/heresy/movement/church (Shaked, 1992; 1994a; 1994b). He showed that the myth of Zurvan, securely attested (see below), was one among many variants of the Zoroastrian cosmogony and that there are no signs to indicate that it was seen as somehow offensive. This left the importance of that particular myth for an understanding of the history of Sasanian Zoroastrianism somehow unexplained, so that there is still room for discussion here. It is necessary, therefore, to present the main evidence and to attempt to give it some context.

Zurvan as deity. Zurvān “Time” is known as a minor god in Avestan texts (see ZURVĀN). He is not mentioned very often, but he is clearly present as one among many abstract deities, in this case representing the notion of “time” in the sense of a “period of time.” The Yasna ceremony ends with an invocation of this deity, in the company of the related gods Rāman (“peace”), Thwasha (“firmament”), and “Vayu” (representing the “void” between the worlds of light and darkness), suggesting speculation on the structure of the cosmos in terms of space and time as the precondition for the genesis of our present world of mixture (Rezania, 2010). It is this theme that is consistently taken up in (much) later sources, which give systematic discussions of the (crucial) narrative of the origin of creation in the battle between the two spirits.

“Time” and “place” were bound to come up in the development of this narrative, which took its current form in the Achaemenid period (De Jong, 2005). It chiefly represented the two spirits as pre-existent, in a context of (equally pre-existent) “time” and “space,” which were further delimited (“cut”) as part of the pact sealed between them (this is the most likely background of the much-discussed passage from Eudemus of Rhodes (4th cent. BCE) in the work of the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius (De Jong, 1997, pp. 336-37). These speculations are standard elements of all retellings of the story of creation, and there is nothing to suggest a special role for a deity Zurvan in it.

This is also true for the development of the Zoroastrian calendar; earlier scholars had found a “Zurvanite” element in the day-dedications, in the fact that four days of the month were allotted to Ahura Mazda, which was interpreted in the light of (very late) Manichean sources that suggested that the Father of Greatness was a fourfold deity (Nyberg, 1931). Since this Father of Greatness was (sometimes) called Zurvan in Manichean Middle Persian texts, his fourfold nature, in combination with the dating of the development of the calendar to the Achaemenid period, was used to support the idea of a very early development of Zurvanite theology. This reconstruction has since been shown to be untenable (Buyaner, 2006), and the whole notion of early Zurvanism must therefore be abandoned.

The Manichean Zurvan. The only element that remains, apart from the (Sasanian) myth of Zurvan, is the Manichean evidence, which is important for two reasons: it shows that the notion of Zurvan as supreme deity is older than the earliest sources we have for the myth of Zurvan (see below), and it shows that this role for Zurvan was more typical of Pars and speakers of Middle Persian than it was of the other Iranian lands. The evidence is conclusive, in the sense that the interpretation of the Father of Greatness as Zurvan occurs already in the Šābuhragān, an early Manichean composition in Middle Persian (and the only text written by Mani himself of which large portions survive). This allows us to date its occurrence to the early Sasanian period. The identification of the Father of Greatness with Zurvan is not found in Manichean Parthian, which has usually been taken to indicate that this role of Zurvan did not correspond to a Parthian version of Zoroastrianism. The name Zurvan occurs, it is true, in Sogdian and other Central Asian languages, but since these texts derive from Sogdian Manicheans who used Middle Persian and Parthian as their church languages, this in itself does not contradict the impression that Zurvan was chiefly recognized by Persian Zoroastrians. Generally, moreover, the “interpretation” of Buddhist and Manichean deities with Zoroastrian ones is an open-ended affair with uncertainties on both sides: even though one can speculate about reasons why a certain Zoroastrian deity was chosen to represent a Manichean or Buddhist spiritual being, it is almost impossible to present the data from Buddhist or Manichean texts as evidence for developments in Zoroastrian theology.

The myth of Zurvan. We are left, therefore, with a very specific and amply attested fact: the myth of Zurvan, which is an alternative version of the Zoroastrian myth of creation known from Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic sources (texts given synoptically in Zaehner, 1955 and Rezania, 2010). In this myth, which is surprisingly uniform in the various sources, the two spirits (Ohrmazd [see AHURA MAZDĀ] and Ahreman [see AHRIMAN]) are presented as the twin offspring of a pre-existing god Zurvan. The difference among versions of the myth is largely restricted to the origin of the two spirits: the myth presents Zurvan as sacrificing for a period of a thousand years, in order to beget a son. Zurvan experienced a moment of doubt; as a result, Ohrmazd came into being because of the sacrifices and Ahreman out of Zurvan’s doubt. When Zurvan realized that two children had been formed in his womb, he promised to give dominion to his first-born, intending it to be Ohrmazd, but Ahreman pierced the womb and presented himself as the first- born. It is here that the stories vary, but in general it is from the birth of the two spirits onwards that the narration of the cosmogony follows the customary lines known from “standard” Zoroastrianism. The myth of Zurvan is thus some sort of a “prequel” to the ordinary story of creation, and there are very few (if any) indications that this prequel was considered as imposing by any contemporary Zoroastrian, as it has seemed to modern Western scholars.

It is important to stress here that the notions of “monotheism,” “dualism,” and “polytheism” belong to pre-modern Europe (with evident precursors in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim texts, which differ sharply among themselves) and do not correspond in any meaningful way to self-identifications of Zoroastrianism before the Islamic period. It has been possible, as a consequence, to present “standard” Zoroastrianism with each of these labels simultaneously, which is a sure indication that the labels do not fit. Much ink has been spilled on sorting out if the myth of Zurvan was a “reworking” (or even “betrayal”) of classical Zoroastrianism in the face of a growing “monotheism” in the Near East in Late Antiquity, but since there is nothing to indicate that this was even noticed by any Zoroastrian of the period, most of this debate has been pointless.

As to the origin of the myth, several suggestions have been made, most of which trace it to contact with non-Iranian religions, either Babylonian (Zaehner, 1955, pp. 19-20) or Greek (De Blois, 2000, p. 6). None of these suggestions is very convincing. There are two good suggestions that have been made from an internal Iranian perspective. The first of these was already hinted at above: ideas about “space” and “time” were a necessary part of the development of the Zoroastrian story of creation, and since “time” in particular came to play a dominant role in these speculations, it is no surprise that a pre-existent time(-god) could play a role in ideas about reality before the creation of the cosmos (Rezania, 2010). More importantly, a convincing case has been made for the possibility that scholar- priests interpreted the famous line from Y. 30.3 of the Avesta, according to which (in conventional interpretation) the two spirits are presented as “twins,” as indicating that, if they were twins, they needed a father (Boyce, 1982, p. 232). It is indeed the idea that Ohrmazd and Ahreman are brothers that has been the target of Manichean and Zoroastrian polemics, which suggests that the verse was indeed interpreted in this way. It is an example, moreover, of a type of reasoning (or theology) that comes into being with the development of a class of learned priests or professional theologians who begin to “study” the text of the revelation for its meaning. Since there are many indications that the early Sasanians used such a class of priests for the reformulation and streamlining of the religion (to suit an imperial agenda; De Jong, forthcoming), the early Sasanian period seems a likely time-frame for the origin of the myth. It would be confined, then, to circles of court priests, which is firmly supported by the surviving references to the myth.

The social background of the myth. Although the earliest attestation of the myth goes back to the late fourth century (Theodore of Mopsuestia as quoted in the Library of the ninth- century Byzantine patriarch Photius), the best indications for the social and political importance of the myth come from Armenia. The Sasanians were aware, it seems, of the fact the Armenians had been Zoroastrians before they converted to Christianity (Russell, 1987), and in the fifth century they attempted to re- impose Zoroastrianism on the Armenians. This led, eventually, to the notorious battle of Avarayr (q.v.; in 451 CE), in which the Armenians were defeated by the Sasanians. This defeat is seen by the Armenians, not without justification, as a victory, since it led to the informal recognition of the fact that the imposition of Zoroastrianism on Christian Armenia was no longer a viable option. It is thus the subject of important Armenian historical works, with pride of place going to the History of Vardan of Ełišē (q.v.) Vardapet (Thomson, 1982), probably written within one or two generations of the actual events. In Ełišē’s narration of the events, the myth of Zurvan is very important; he includes in his History a letter written by the wuzurg-framādār Mihr-Narseh (see MEHR-NARSEH) to the Armenians, urging them to give up their religion and accept the truth of Zoroastrianism, which he summarizes by retelling the myth of Zurvan. This myth is also the target of the polemical works of the Armenian theologian Eznik of Kołb (Blanchard and Young 1998), which can be dated to the fifth century. The Armenians, it is well known, did not recognize this religion as the religion from which their forefathers had been converted to Christianity, and they summarily rejected its relevance to them. Some of the reports in Syriac also go back to the fifth century, although most of them (and all of the Arabic ones) are much later; the early ones also reproduce encounters between lapsed Zoroastrians and representatives of “official,” imperial Sasanian Zoroastrianism.

This strengthens the case for the fact that the Zurvanite myth was not just one among many alternative versions of the cosmogony, but that it was—at least in the fifth century – the version of the court. This gives it a social importance that has occasionally been downplayed and makes it urgent to try and reconstruct how it, eventually, disappeared.

The end of Zurvanism. Since no Zoroastrian text refers to anything resembling “Zurvanism” as an organized movement (while showing no hesitation in mentioning Zurvan’s name or in speculating about “time”), this question is evidently difficult to answer. In sixth-century Iran, two important developments changed Zoroastrianism drastically. The first was the destruction of the Mazdakite movement (after a very brief period of royal approval), which led to a tightening grip of the priesthood on the instruction of the laity. The second, possibly even more momentous, development was the writing down of the Avesta (with its Zand), which led to a scriptural movement among the Zoroastrians (De Jong, 2009). Kings and priests had acted together several times in imperial Iranian history to streamline the Zoroastrian religion. These two developments were to transform Zoroastrianism into a version of that religion that has survived to the present. They coincide, for example, with a huge elaboration of the purity rules, possibly with the development of the Vendidad ceremony as a night office, and very likely with the disappearance of all funerary traditions except excarnation. These have in common the fact that they very much rely on Avestan precedent, which supports the idea that they originate in such a scriptural movement, in which the Avesta began to be thought of as a text that should be consulted, explained, and applied.

If that is the case, this must have spelled the end of a number of developments in “lived” Zoroastrianism for which scriptural authority could not be found. The most obvious example of this are the non-Iranian deities who were very popular in (regions of) Iran, such as the goddess Nanaia or the god Sasan. The story of Zurvan as progenitor of the two spirits likewise cannot be located in any part of the extant Avesta, and it may have fallen victim to the same movement. To this must be added the fact that, if the myth of Zurvan was indeed a version of Zoroastrian theology that was characteristic of the Sasanian court (in the fifth century), the disappearance of that court—and its priests— must have accelerated the erosion of the myth of Zurvan.

As is well known, it did not disappear, for it was recorded in early Islamic times by a large number of Syriac and Arabic writers, not all of whom should be considered to have found it in earlier sources that were no longer current in their own times. This final piece of the puzzle, which should include the survival of “Zurvanite” ideas in the Persian treatise ʿOlamā-ye Eslām be dīgar raveš (Rezania 2010, p. 6; see OLAMĀ-YE ESLĀM) is difficult to crack, but the fact that the myth persisted in some Zoroastrian writings suitably underlines the conclusion reached earlier by Shaul Shaked, and by now broadly accepted, that up to the ninth century a wide array of stories of creation was still current among the Zoroastrians—and that this meant less than modern scholars have been able to accept.

Bibliography:

A. H. Anquetil-Duperron, Zend-Avesta, ouvrage de Zoroastre, Paris, 1771.

M. J. Blanchard and R. D. Young, A Treatise on God written in Armenian by Eznik of Kołb, Leuven, 1998.

F. de Blois, “Dualism in Iranian and Christian Traditions,” JRAS, 2000, pp. 1-19.

M. Boyce, “Some Reflections on Zurvanism,” BSOAS 19, 1957, pp. 304-16.

Idem, A History of Zoroastrianism II. Under the Achaemenians, Leiden, 1982.

Idem, “Some Further Reflections on Zurvanism,” in Iranica Varia. Papers in Honor of Professor Ehsan Yarshater (Acta Iranica 30), Leiden 1990, pp. 20-29

Idem, “On the Orthodoxy of Sasanian Zoroastrianism,” BSOAS 59, 1996, pp. 11-28

M. Boyce and F. Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism III: Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule, Leiden, 1991.

D. Buyaner, “On the Structure of the Zoroastrian Month,” IIJ 48, 2006, pp. 199-206.

A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les sassanides, Copenhagen, 1944.

R. Eisler, Weltenmantel und Himmelszelt. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Urgeschichte des antiken Weltbildes, München, 1910.

T. Hyde, Veterum Persarum et Parthorum et Medorum religionis historia, Oxford, 1760.

A. de Jong, “Jeh the Primal Whore? Observations on Zoroastrian Misogyny,” in R. Kloppenborg and W. J. Hanegraaff, eds., Female Stereotypes in Religious Traditions (NUMEN Book Series 66), Leiden, 1995, pp. 15-41 Idem, Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 133), Leiden, 1997.

Idem, “The Contribution of the Magi,” in V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart, eds., Birth of the Persian Empire (The Idea of Iran 1), London, 2005, pp. 85-97.

Idem, “The Use of Writing and the Idea of the Avesta in Sasanian Iran,” in E. Pirart and X. Tremblay, eds., Zarathushtra entre l’Inde et l’Iran. Études indo-iraniennes et indo-européennes offertes à Jean Kellens à l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire (Beiträge zur Iranistik 30), Wiesbaden, 2009, pp. 27-41.

Idem, “Religion and Politics in pre-Islamic Iran,” in M. Stausberg and Y. Vevaina, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, forthcoming.

H. F. Junker, “Über iranische Quellen der hellenistischen Aion- Vorstellung,” Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg, 1921-1922, pp. 125-78.

G. Monnot, Islam et religions, Paris, 1986.

H. S. Nyberg, “Questions de cosmogonie et de cosmologie mazdéennes,” JA 219, 1931, pp. 1-134; 193-244. Idem, Die Religionen des alten Iran, Leipzig, 1938.

R. Reitzenstein, Das iranische Erlösungsmysterium. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Bonn, 1921.

K. Rezania, Die zoroastrische Zeitvorstellung. Eine Untersuchung über Zeit- und Ewigkeitskonzepte und die Frage des Zurvanismus (Göttinger Orientforschungen, Iranica, N.F. 7), Wiesbaden, 2010.

J. R. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, Cambridge, Mass., 1987.

S. Shaked, “The Myth of Zurvan: Cosmogony and Eschatology,” in I. Gruenwald, S. Shaked, and G. G. Stroumsa, eds., Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity, presented to David Flusser (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 32), Tübingen 1992, pp. 219-40.

Idem, “Some Islamic Reports concerning Zoroastrianism,” Jerusalem studies in Arabic and Islam 17, 1994 , pp. 43-84.

Idem, Dualism in Transformation. Varieties of Religion in Sasanian Iran, London, 1994.

F. Spiegel, Érân. Das Land zwischen dem Indus und Tigris. Beiträge zur Kenntniss des Landes und seiner Geschichte, Berlin, 1863.

Idem, Erânische Alterthumskunde, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1871-1878.

R. W. Thomson, Ełishē. History of Vardan and the Armenian War, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.

G. Widengren, Hochgottglaube im alten Iran: eine religionsphänomenologische Untersuchung, Uppsala and Leipzig, 1938.

Idem, “Stand und Aufgaben der iranischen Religionsgeschichte II: Geschichte der iranischen Religionen und ihre Nachwirkung,” Numen 2, 1955, pp. 47-134.

Idem, “Primordial Man and Prostitute: A Zervanite Myth in the Sassanid Avesta,” in Studies in Mysticism and Religion presented to Gershom G. Scholem, Jerusalem, 1967, pp. 227-34.

R. C. Zaehner, Zurvan. A Zoroastrian Dilemma, Oxford 1955.

(Albert de Jong)

Originally Published: March 28, 2014

______

ZURWĀNDĀD the eldest son of the grand vizier (wuzurg framādār) Mehr Narseh, who appointed him to the high religious office of chief hērbed.

ZURWĀNDĀD, the eldest son of the grand vizier (wuzurg framādār) Mehr Narseh, who appointed him to the high religious office of chief hērbed during the reign of the Sasanian king Bahrām V Gōr (r. 420-38, q.v.) in the 5th century CE (Ṭabari, I/2, p. 869, tr., p. 104).

His name, Zurwāndād (created by Zurwān), is significant in that it points out the possible prominence of Zurvanite tendencies in the 5th century CE, although it does not necessarily indicate that its bearer was a Zurvanitebeliever. Robert Zaehner has suggested that in the 5th century, Zurvanism was in ascendancy, especially during the reign of Yazdgerd II (r. 438-57; Zaehner, p. 47). Mehr Narseh’s Zurvanite belief is further corroborated by the evidence from the Armenian sources, where he is said to have imposed Zoroastrianism (Armenian awrēnk ʿdeni mazdezn), but, instead in his proclamation to the Armenians, he provides a clear Zurvanite doctrine (Ełišē, p. 78). Furthermore, Ṭabari reports that as part of his beneficent policies, Mehr Narseh laid out three large gardens and planted 12,000 date palms in one of them, 12,000 olive trees in the second garden, and the same number of cypress trees in the third one (Ṭabari, I/2, pp. 870-71, tr., p. 105). The number 12,000 is associated with the Zurvanite doctrine, as the allotted time from the creation of the cosmos until its end (Wikander, p. 177). Zurvanism seems to have been shunned during the reign of Pērōz (r. 459-87), when Mehr Narseh apparently was accused of having committed a sin, although the accusation did not cause him to be dismissed from his office. There is also the mention of a Zurwāndād/Zarvāndād as a great sinner along with Mazdak in the Pahlavi Vendidad (IV.49), which may be a reference to Mehr Narseh’s son. In the Vendidad, Zurwāndād is mentioned as having had authority, but he had been sinful and destructive and, besides, had disputed the “creator of the corporeal world,” that is, Ohrmazd (čiyōn zarvāndād uš pahikār abāg astwandād; ed. Jamasp, p. 134).

According to Ṭabari, Mehr Narseh founded four villages in Fars, and erected a fire temple in each of them, one for in his own name and the rest in those of his three sons. The one that was for the sake of Zurwāndād’s soul was called Zarāvandāḏān (Ṭabari, I/2, p. 870; tr., p. 105).

Bibliography:

Ełišē, Ełišēi vasn Vardanay ew Hayocʿ Paterazmin, ed. E. Ter- Minasean, Erevan, 1957; tr. Robert W. Thomson as History of Vardan and the Armenian War, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.

Hoshang Jamasp, ed., Vendidâd: Avesta Text with Pahlavi Translation and Commentary, and Glossarial Index, Bombay, 1907.

Moḥammad b. Jarir Ṭabari, Taʾriḵ al-rosol wa’l-moluk, ed. Michaël Jan De Goeje et al., 15 vols., repr. Leiden, 1964; tr. by various scholars as The History of al-Ṭabari, 40 vols., Albany, N. Y., 1985-2007, V, tr. Clifford E. Bosworth as The Sāsānids, the Byznatines, the Lakmids, and Yemen, Albany, N.Y., 1999.

Th. Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden, Leiden, 1878; repr., Leiden, 1973; tr. ʿAbbās Zaryāb as Tāriḵ-e Irāniān wa ʿArabhā dar zamān-e Sāsāniān, Tehran, 1999.

Stig Wikander, Feuerpriester in Kleinasien und Iran, Lund, 1946.

Robert Charles Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma, New York, 1972.

(Touraj Daryaee)

______

Zār Songs: Vorāra, Yo mama

Zār Songs: Vorāra, Yo mama 5:12

title Zār Songs: Vorāra, Yo mama genre/topic Zār language performer Bābā Darviš, voice and dohol

Māmā Hanife, response

Musā Amāli, Kasser instrument Voice; Dohol; Kasser composer author/poet first line of poem recorded by Fozieh Majd place of recording Island of Qešm date of recording 1973 duration 5:13 source Regional Music of Iran. Music in Nobān and Zār, 2007 (MCD-215), track 6.

Used with permission of the publisher. note Collected and Researched by Fozieh Majd

EIr entries ZĀR

(music sample) Originally Published: May 19, 2015

______

Z~ CAPTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS list of all the figure and plate images in the Z entries

Z~ ENTRIES: CAPTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS

EntryImage Caption

ZAND DYNASTY Figure 1. Portrait of Karim Khan Zand (© British Library Board, MS Or. 4938; Rieu, Persian Manuscripts, Supp., p. 262).

ZARUDNIĬ, NIKOLAĬ ALEKSEEVICH Figure 1. Nikolaĭ Alekseevich Zarudniĭ.

ZENDA BE GURFigure 1. Book cover of Zenda be gur.

ZHUKOVSKIĬ, VALENTIN ALEKSEEVICH Figure 1. A portrait of Valentin Alekseevich Zhukovskiĭ.

ZIGGURAT Figure 1. Tepe Sialk, view to the north, undated. Photograph by M. Schicht. After Stöllner, I, p. 205, fig. 7.

ZIGGURAT Figure 2. Choga Zanbil, undated. Photograph courtesy of Georg Gerster.

ZIGGURAT Figure 3. Zabil, reconstruction. Drawing by J.-H. Sixtus. After Ghirshman, 1966, p. 60, fig. 40. ZIGGURAT Figure 4. Zabil, building phase 1. Drawing by J.- H. Sixtus. After Ghirshman, 1966, p. 41, fig. 27.

ZIGGURAT Figure 5. Choga Zabil, building phase 2. Drawing by J.-H. Sixtus. After Ghirshman, 1966, p. 43, fig. 29.

ZIGGURAT Figure 6. , platform. Drawing by F. Hole and N. Kouchoukos. After Harper, p. 27, fig. 23.

ZIGGURAT Figure 7. Tepe, terrace complexes I and II. Excavation grid by W. Kleiss, first published with wrong orientation in Negahban, plan 2. After the corrected version in Stöllner, I, p. 300, fig. 3.

ZIGGURAT Figure 8. vessel, Jiroft (?), architectural decoration. After Majidzadeh, 2003, p. 71, no. 71.

ZODIAC Figure 1. Illustration of the zodiac in the Bundahišn, TD1, fol. 20 v.

ZODIAC Figure 2. Illustration of the zodiac in the Bundahišn, ed. and tr. M. Bahar, 1990, p. 58.

ZODIAC Figure 3. horoscope of the world, after D. N. MacKenzie, "Zoroastrian Astrology in the ‘Bundahišn’," BSOAS27/3, 1964, p. 514.

ZOROASTER vi. As perceived by later Zoroastrians Figure 1. Zoroaster depicted on a wall-hanging, from a portrait of the prophet popular in the late 19th century.

ZOROASTER vi.Figure 2. Portrayal of Zarathuπtra, found in Karaka’s History of the Parsis, which depicts the prophet in the guise of one of the sculptured figures at Tāq-e Bostān.

ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times Figure 1. A popular, 20th-century depiction of the Prophet Zarathustra on a stained glass window at the Tata Fire Temple, Bandra, India. (Copyright ©Jamsheed K. Choksy). ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times Figure 2. A Vidēvdād manuscript with Avestan scripture, Pahlavi liturgical sade or instructions, Farsi/New Persian headings, and Old Gujarati (written in Devanagari script) ritual sade, 1704. (Copyright ©Jamsheed K. Choksy).

ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times Figure 3. Mobed seated in front of fire altar and ritual offerings, holding flowers, while performing a Jašan ritual, Dadar, India, 1984. He wears a padān over his mouth to avoid defiling the fire. (Copyright ©Jamsheed K. Choksy).

ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times Figure 4. Ruins of a fire temple of the Sasanian period, at Firuzabad (q.v.), Fars Province, Iran. (Copyright ©Jamsheed K. Choksy).

ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times Figure 6. Ārāmgāh for Iranian Zoroastrian burials, at Kerman, Iran, built in the 20th century. (Copyright ©Jamsheed K. Choksy).

ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times Figure 8. Iranian Zoroastrian wedding ceremony, officiated by Mobed Mehraban Firouzgary, Tehran, Iran, 2003. (Copyright ©Jamsheed K. Choksy). ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times Figure 9. Interior of the Banu Rostam Farrokh fire temple, at Kerman City, built 1924. (Copyright ©Jamsheed K. Choksy).

ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times Figure 10. Interior of the 20th-century Arbab Rustom Guiv Darbe Mehr fire temple, at Hinsdale, Illinois, built 1983. (Copyright ©Jamsheed K. Choksy).

ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Historical Review: from the Arab Conquest to Modern Times Figure 11. The Kusti bastan ritual of bestowing the sacred cord cord, at a Navjote initiation ceremony, performed at Karachi, Pakistan, 2003. (Copyright ©Jamsheed K. Choksy).

(Cross-Reference)

______