THE SAUMA CONTROVERSY AFTER 1968 For more than two centuries Western scholarship has engaged in the quest for the original, Proto-Indo-Iranian (PIIr.) plant, the accepted com- mon origin of the remarkably concordant Indian soma and Iranian haoma traditions1. Despite many valuable contributions the botanical identity of sauma remains the issue of a lively controversy, which, nev- ertheless, has made substantial progress on various parts of the problem during the last three decades. Until the publication of Soma: divine mushroom of immortality by Wasson (1968), sauma was generally believed to be the fermented juice of a plant2. Today it is recognized that the duration of the rituals does not allow enough time for fermentation to take place, and that, since the reli- gious literature lacks unequivocal references to this process3, the phar- macological origin of sauma’s intoxication is rather to be found in psy- chotropic alkaloids4. Precisely the definition of sauma’s mada, however, is a stumbling block and, as the present author believes, the very cause of scholarly dis- agreement on its botanical identity5. Since the beginning of sauma research a sharp distinction has been drawn between the frequent refer- ences to the strengthening action of soma and haoma and the more obscure allusions to some kind of ecstatic visionary experience6. Whether one opts for the PIIr. cult of a stimulant, or adheres to the hypothetical use of a more spectacular drug, is very much dependent on one’s general conception of the Aryan religions. 1 Cf. the exhaustive status quaestionis by O’Flaherty (1968). 2 Among the few exceptions note cannabis and ‘mountain rue’. 3 The mada of haoma is considered superior to all other intoxications, including that of the alcoholic hura (Y. 10.8; Yt. 17.5). 4 Nevertheless, linguistic support for sauma’s local substitution by hops and rhubarb was lent by Abaev (1975) and Morgenstierne (1973), and Rausing (1987) even identified late Vedic soma with sugar cane. 5 Cf. Taillieu (1994). 6 Most frequently the ¤gveda associates soma with the warring Indra and his Aryan pro- tégés as a strengthening, invigorating drink; correspondingly, haoma grants physical strength, victory, protection, etc. (Y. 9-11 passim). Hallucinations have been read chiefly into the Laba- sukta (¤V. 10.119) and the obscure descriptions of the mada- (Y. 10.14, 19; etc.). Highly per- suasive evidence is further adduced from Middle-Persian accounts of drug-induced visions in the Zoroastrian religious context, cf. Arda Viraz Namag, the conversion of Wistasp (Dk. 7.4.84 sq.) and Zoroaster’s interview with Ohrmazd (Dk. 9.36; Zand i Wahman Yast 3.6-22). 44 D. TAILLIEU Wasson, who had gained international fame for his rediscovery of the Meso-American psilocybian mushroom cult, intuitively identified the Vedic soma with Amanita muscaria7. He assumed that the ¤gvedic hymns praise the beauty of soma and that the many allusions to its mor- phology create the picture of a mushroom: apart from the lack of ¤gvedic references to soma’s roots, leaves, blossoms and seed, the choice of later substitutes seems te be governed by the criteria of small- ness, leaflessness and fleshiness. However, critical reviews8 have proved that Wasson overestimated the Vedic poets’ interest in the botanical (morphological) aspect of their soma. Many of the supposedly descriptive verses find a perfect explana- tion on the ritual and mythological level9, whereas some genuine char- acteristics of soma were misinterpreted10. Equally unconvincing is the correspondence of soma’s mountainous habitat with the mycorrhizal relationship of the fly-agaric to birches and conifers, which are found in the Indo-Iranian territory only at great heights. On the one hand, soma’s localisation on the mountain may have ritual or mythical purport11, on the other hand, explicit ref- erence to river valleys is made (¤V. 8.6.28; Y. 10.17), but most importantly, Amanita muscaria has never been found in the Indo-Iran- ian area. Wasson’s crucial argument, the consumption of soma in two forms (directly and metabolized), the hypothetical core of the Vedic Mys- tery, met with unanimous aversion and rejection. The refutation of muqr¢m ahya madahya by Zaraqustra (Y. 48.10) as well as soma ‘putting into movement the human waters’ (¤V. 9.63.7) are not to be taken literally, whereas ‘to urinate soma’ (¤V. 9.74.4) is an obvi- ous example of metaphorical word play on Ved. mih- ‘to rain’ and ‘to urinate’. 7 Wasson (1968 to 1979). 8 In particular those by Brough (1971) and Kuiper (1970). 9 To these belong especially the nir∞ij- (¤V. 9.71.2), references to ‘the hide of bull and the dress of sheep’ (9.70.7), etc. 10 E.g. Skt. hári-, Av. zairi-, according to Wasson (1968: 36 sq.), is ‘the precise adjec- tive that one would wish to employ in Vedic to describe the fly-agaric’, expressing both its colour (ranging from red to light yellow) and the intensity of that colour (dazzling, brilliant, lustrous, resplendant, flaming); cf. also Bailey (1974). Also, haoma’s var¢saji, fraspar¢ga and fravaxsa (Y. 10.5) Wasson (1968: 19-21) erroneously interpreted as the ‘stalk’ of the mushroom. 11 Cf. Brough (1971: 336, 342). THE SAUMA CONTROVERSY 45 Despite early enthusiasm Wasson’s argumentation suffered a pro- found lack of decisive force12. Additional evidence involving the etymo- logical connection of PIIr. *sauma- with PIE *swombho- ‘fungus’ by Bailey (1979: 491; 1984) and the identification of the putika-, a major substitute of soma, with a fungus by Kramrisch (1975) did not suffice to safeguard the fly-agaric hypothesis13. Gershevitch (1974) managed to rebuild its argumentation, but the evidence remained inconclusive. Nevertheless, his re-introduction of (Old-)Iranian sources into the debate initiated a recent tendency giving precedence to these over their Indian counterparts. According to the hypothetical origin of the ¤g-veda in Punjab and the Indus valley14, the Indian religious tradition is attested only after the Proto-Vedic emigration from the PIIr. lands. Thus the geo- graphical continuity of the Iranian sources is of overriding importance in the search for the original plant15. About half a century ago a hitherto unknown species of mandrake was discovered in South-west Turkmenia, north of the Sumbar valley, where it grows at the edge of the thicket on mountain slopes. Since its mor- phological characteristics correspond to the ‘male’ mandrake of Pliny and Dioscurides, Khlopin (1980) assumed Mandragora turcomanica to have had a much wider distribution in the past. Contrary to the ‘female’ (Greek) variety it is characterized by a white root, rhubarb-like leaves, bell-shaped violet flowers and great, fetid, saffron-coloured berries. Greek and Middle-Eastern ethno-pharmacological records16 attest to the popularity of mandrake in ancient and mediaeval medicine and magic, particularly the anthropomorphic root of mandrake being used in the treatment of wounds, skin diseases, tooth- and headache, podagra, eye problems, etc. The narcotic action of the berries was valued against insomnia and in the mitigation of birth-giving, but the unripe fruits led to (non-fatal) intoxication. 12 Initial success with Ingalls (1971), Elizarenkova — Toporov (1976), Bongard- Levin — Grantovskij (1981) and others. 13 Cf. Schwartz (1989: §186-222); Kuiper (1984); Emmerick (1985). 14 Flattery (1989: §16-19). However, the historico-geographical perspective of the early Aryans as defined by Gonda (1975: 20-25) has recently been challenged by Parpola (1988). 15 Of course, the claim that the Avesta offers a better reflection of ancient realia (Flat- tery, 1989: §19) is contested by Mylius (1992: 45). 16 Theophrastus (Research on Plants 9.7.8 and 9.9.1), Pliny (Naturalis Historia 25.94), Dioscurides apud Biruni (Kitab aÒ-Òaydana fi’†-†ib 950), Abu Hanifa al-Dinawari, al-Arragani and Avicenna (Law of Medicine 337-338, 369, 444). 46 D. TAILLIEU According to Khlopin, Turkmenian mandrake matches both morpho- logically and pharmacologically17 the features of sauma, which is also, though not exclusively, located on mountains. Whereas the juice of its apple-like berries continued to serve the Iranians as haoma18, the emi- grated Indo-Aryans probably used the Himalayan variety as soma. Renewed interest in the mythological positions of soma and haoma19 led Windfuhr to compare the Chinese Orion mythology, which is inti- mately connected with the panacea ginseng20, with the Indo-Iranian sauma traditions. Thus he identified the celestial definition of the Maz- dayasna religion as ‘the star-decked, spiritually fashioned girdle around the sky, three-fold with four knots’, the xwarrah of which is appointed as ‘general’ over the ‘unmixable stars’ (the Milky Way), with a schematic representation of Orion21. Another model for this constellation is the ‘four-cornered var¢na’ where Qraetaona venerates Haoma (Yt. 5.53), who granted his birth to Aqwya, one of the first sacrificers of haoma (Y. 9.3-14)22. Orion’s neighbours, the ‘rain-star’ Sirius (in Canis maior) and Taurus, are repre- sented by the prototypical archer Tistrya, the releaser of the waters, and G≠us Urvan. The resulting configuration of Taurus, Orion and Canis maior coin- cides with the Zoroastrian months of Asa, Haurvatat and Tistrya. It was one of the most auspicious and fundamental configurations in the sky — the other being located around its celestial opponent Scorpio —, indicat- ing major transition periods. The rising of Orion and Sirius, announcing rain and harvest, at the summer solstice around 2000 B.C. corresponds to the probable beginning of savana-year at that time. Due to the Indian preoccupation with the juice rather than the plant itself, Soma was identified as the moon, whereas Prajapati (the first sac- rifice) represented Orion. Nevertheless, Soma retained his ‘arrows’ (¤V. 17 Khlopin defined sauma as a healing tonic ‘mit irgendwelchen Halluzinationen’ (p.230).