( 6 ) Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Vol. 50, No. 2, March 2002 On the Treatment of the Victims in the Agnicayana Atsuko IZAWA The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the victims and their heads are treated in the Agnicayana. According to the three Black Yajurveda Samhitas and the Satapatha Brahmana (SB) 1), in the animal sacrifice of the Agnicayana the five animals including a human being are offered to the fires. The sacrifices lets the animals go after circumambu- lation with fire and concludes the rite with one animal for Prajapati. To Vayu of the team a hornless goat is offered2). Though one should behead the animal (s) to put the head (s) in the ukha (pot) at the bottom of the first layer, the three Samhitas do not mention how to obtain, kill and behead the victims. On the other hand, SB 6.2.1.18-19 talks about an order for killing the victims and about the rope with which the victims are tied to the sacrificial post. SB 6.2.1.7 mentions that Prajapati cut off the heads and then let float the remaining trunks on the water. In order to know the way of obtaining and killing the victims, we need to refer to the Srauta Sutras (SS) 3).The BSS and the MSS (whichbelong to the Black Yajurveda)commonly give instructions to prepare human head of vaisya (or ksatriya) who is accidentally dead, that is, there is no murder at least for the animal sacrifice4). In contrast, the KSS of the White Yajurveda says that the human victim should be silenced (killed) in an enclosure, and he (the Adhvaryu) cuts off the heads by holding a blade of darbha grass between the throat and the knife (KSS 16.1.14and 18).KSS 16.1.32-35 says, however, that the Adhvaryu may optionally obtain the five heads of the five types of animals from some other sources and preserve them with or without the skins and the brains, and if he were not to get the actual animal heads he may have them made either of gold or of earth. Note that SB 6.2.1.37-39 rejects these alternatives5). Though there is no reference to the slaughter, the TS, the KS and the SS of the same school describe the purification of the human head6), to which SB and KSS do not refer. The head(s) gained in the animal sacrifice are put in the ukha at the bottom of the first -1031- On the Treatment of the Victims in the Agnicayana (A. IZAWA) ( 7 ) layer. Its process is as follows7) ; He puts down the mortar in the‡@ middle. (TS 5.2.8.7 ; KS 20.7) A span long wooden mortar is to be made. (MS 3.1.10) He settles the mortar and the pestle. (SB7.5.1.25) He pounds. (TS 5.2.8.7) ‡A He places the ukha‡B thereon. (TS 5.2.9.1 ; KS 20.7 ; MS 3.1.10 ; SB 7.5.1.26) He fills the ukha. ‡C With sand (TS 5.2.9.1). With sand and clarified butter. (KS 20.7) With sand, coagulated milk, clarified butter and honey. (MS 3.1.10) With sand and clarified butter. (SB 7.5.1.32) On the (organs of the) breaths he hurls‡D chips of gold. (TS 5.2.9.3) He throws down gold pieces. He puts (it?) to the ukha and throws them down. (KS 20.8) He inserts gold pieces into the holes (of the animals' heads). (MS 3.1.10) He thrusts seven gold chips into each head. If there is one victim, he thrusts seven chips into this one. (SB 7.5.2.8-12) He fills (it) with ‡Ecurds mixed with honey. (TS 5.2.9.3) He places man's head in the middle, and paces ‡Fothers on both sides. (TS 5.2.9.2,5.2.9.3 ; KS 20.8 ; MS 3.1.10 ; SB 7.5.2.1,7.5.2.14-22) He offers (clarified butter) upon the man's head. ‡G (MS 3.2.8 ; SB 7.5.2.23-27) As we can see from the above, only the TS mentions ‡A and ‡E. Now let us refer to the SS again8). The statements of ‡A and ‡E are found in BSS 10.33 and MSS 6.1.7.23,26. It is important to note that in the several places we can find a case where the topic which the MSS takes up is not mentioned in the MS. See note 6). Considering that both the MS and the SB mention ‡G and neither of them talks about the purification of the human head (again see note 6), they seem to share certain similarities. By contraries, the TS and the SB are much different from each other. For example, TS 5.2.8.7-5.2.9.2 gives orders to pound in the mortar and onnects the mortar and the ukha with food. On the other hand, the SB relates them with the birth of Agni. There the ukha is iden- tified with the womb, these worlds and Prajapati. The ukha is also the belly, the mortar the womb and the pestle the sexual organ (SB 7.5.1.26-27,38). The three Samhitas and SB share similarities in that they tell to put the heads in the ukha. -1030- ( 8 ) On the Treatment of the Victims in the Agnicayana (A. IZAWA) None of them except the SB, however, give a reason for it. SB 7.5.2.1-7 enumerates the reasons for putting the heads in the ukha in the form of the Prajapati myth. It is worth noting that SB 7.5.2.3 says that when he puts the heads of the victims in the ukha, he thereby unites those rumps with those heads. In this respect we must pay attention to SB 6.2.1.7-8, where Prajapati, after cutting off the heads, let float the remaining trunks on the water in the animal sacrifice, and then having gathered both that clay and water where he threw away the trunks, he made a brick. Furthermore, SB 6.2.1.11 says that as to those glories, they are these same heads of the victims ; and those (headless) trunks are these five layers (of the fire-altar): thus when he builds up the layers after putting the heads of the victims, he thereby unites those trunks with those heads. In the SB a sacrifices piles up the fire altar to restore Praja pati, who created the world through his own dismemberment. The head and trunk concept is surely not irrelevant to this purpose. It is likely that SB 7.5.2.3, giving a reason for putting the heads in the ukha, identifies the ukha with the five layers in order to emphasize the head and trunk concept. The following account results from investigating the difference in the treatment of the victims in the animal sacrifice. The fact that the White Yajurveda is interested only in the action of killing suggests that the action was not carried out any more at that time, so that it was a safe topic. On the con- trary, the way of obtaining the human head indicated by the Black Yajurveda seems proper and reliable, and so it is safe to say that this method was really accepted. Evidence of this can be derived from the fact that the SB does not mention the purification of a human head at all. This means the SB has no interest in the matter. Given that at the time of the SB real heads were not used, we might ask why the SB rejects the use of counterfeit heads of gold or clay. It may be presumed that the SB needs to give the impression that real heads are used in order to focus attention on the importance and meaning of using a real head. In the case of the process of putting the heads in the ukha at the bottom of the first layer, there is not much difference not only among the three Samhitas but also between the Samhitas and the SB. The most significant characteristics that distinguish the SB from the three Samhitas are that the SB shows in the important places its original interpretation by adopting the Praja- pati myth in order to indicate Prajapati's restoration that is the final purpose (SB 6.2.1.7-8,11,7.5.1.26-27,38,7.5.2.1-7). -1029- On the Treatment of the Victims in the Agnicayana (A. IZAWA) ( 9 ) As stated above, the MS and the SB seem to share certain similarities. It may be presumed that the MS is placed nearer to the SB than the TS is. In this respect, it needs further con- sideration. 1) Taittiriya Samhita (TS) 5.1.8,5.5.1.1-5 ; Kathaka Samhita (KS) 19 .8-9,20.8 ; Maitrayani Samhita (MS) 3.1.10; Satapatha Brahmana (SB) 3.1.3.1-2,6.2.1.1-39,6.2.2.1-40 2) For the animal sacrifice see Dumont, P-E. [ 1962] "The Animal Sacrifice in the Taittiriya-Brahmana,The Part of the Hotar and the Part of the Maitravaruna in the Animal Sacrifice, TB 3.6 with Tr.."PAPS 106-3, pp. 246-263. Dumont, P-E. [1969] "The Kamya Animal Sacrifices in the Taittiriya-Brahmana, TB 3.8 with Tr.