Printer Friendly

Pahlavi kirrenidan: traces of Iranian creation mythology.

The occurrences of this etymon are examined for the light they throw on the Iranian mythologies of creation.

Pahlavi contrasts two of the verbs it uses for acts of creation along familiar dualistic lines. The ahuric term, brehenidan, replaces Avestan da- and means "to create," "to destine," and "to decree."(1) Generally, it implies that creation takes place by divine fiat, for which no prior material or spiritual being is necessary, save only Ohrmazd himself.(2) In similar fashion, the daevic term, kirrenidan carries two different senses.(3) The first of these implies the preexistence of material substance, and conforms to the semantics of its cognates throughout the Indo-European family: Sanskrit krt-, krntati, "cut, split, rend"; Homeric [Greek Text Omitted], "shear, clip, cut short (esp. hair)"; Old Norse skera "cut, slaughter, carve"; Old High German scrinden "divide, split up"; Russian [Greek Text Omitted], [Greek Text Omitted] "cut out (esp. cloth)"; and Old Irish scara(im) "separate, remove, cut off."(4) The verb's second semantic domain is unique to Iran, where it also denotes acts through which the Evil Spirit brought loathsome, destructive entities into the world as antagonistic counterparts to Ohrmazd's good creation.

When he saw the light of Ohrmazd, intangible and shining forth, due to his envious nature and desire to smite, [the Evil Spirit] made an attack to destroy it. Then he saw bravery and triumph that were greater than his own, and he scurried back to the darkness. He (mis-)created [kirrenid] many demons, a creation of destruction that was needed for battle. (GBd 1.16-17)(5)

Out of material darkness, which is his own body, the Evil Spirit (mis-)created [kirrenid] his creation in the form of blackness, the color of ashes, worthy of darkness, false like the most evil-bringing vermin. (GBd 1.47)(6)

The Evil Spirit, in the quality of the adversary, among the chief demons (mis-)created [kirrenid] first Akoman, then Indra, Saurva, Nahaithya, Taromand, Taric and Zaric, then the other demons. (GBd 1.55)(7)

Since Yima withstood terror, distress, and trouble, for that reason his soul is worshiped and invoked for resistance to demon-created (dewan-fraz-kirrenid) drought antithetical to the pasture and terror and trouble that moves in secrecy. (ZS 32.2)(8)

In the Avesta, the verb kart-, from which kirrenidan is derived, usually denotes simple acts of cutting.(9) On one occasion, however, it describes an act of demonic creation, when Azi Dahaka is named "the very most powerful lie the Evil Spirit created (kerentat) against the embodied creation, for the destruction of the creations of truth."(10)

Here, as in the case of Avestan tas and ??-,(11) an Iranian verb most concretely associated with acts of scission expands its semantic range into the field of creative action, a development that presumes a view of creation as a cutting of sorts: conceivably an artisanal, sculptural, surgical, martial, or sacrificial act. Vedic evidence could support the last two of these alternatives, since the verb krt- is twice used for heroic deeds with cosmogonic aspects, and once for the dismemberment of animals.(12) The latter occurrence holds particular interest.

What dereliction, O Agni, what fault did you commit among the gods? Now, I unknowing, ask you.

In order to eat, the golden, toothless one - playing and not-playing - cut apart [vi . . . cakarta] [the wood] limb by limb, just as a knife [cuts apart] the ox.(13)

Here, it is worth noting that the kind of knife specified - Vedic asi-, cognate to Latin ensis, "sword"(14) is not usually a ritual instrument.(15) Indeed, at times it appears to be the very antithesis of the tools that by their purity recode the violence of sacrifice as a sacred action. Thus, the passage just quoted playfully describes the way fire splits wood as a kind of ritual fault (enas-). More striking still is a verse addressed to the sacrificial horse just prior to its offering.

Let not your own self torment you as you enter, let not the axe cause harm to your body.

Let not a hasty, unskilled dismemberer proceed incorrectly and do wrong to your broken limbs with a knife [asi-].(16)

Although Pahlavi sources do not use kirrenidan for deeds of a heroic and cosmogonic nature, there is a passage where it appears not just in the general context of sacrifice, but in a sacrifice marked by grave faults regarding the dismemberment and distribution of the victim's body.

The god Haoma makes a curse on a person. He says: "May you have no child, and may you have an evil reputation and other evils of your own, you who do not order that a sacrifice be made to me with the portion my father, Ohrmazd, assigned to me: that is, the jaw, together with the tongue, and the left eye of all animals and animal species. You do not sacrifice; rather, you just gobble it up. He who does not offer the portion Ohrmazd assigned to me, but gobbles it up, let not a priest, warrior, or herdsman-pastoralist be born in his house. People of the line of sorcerers will be born in his house. He damages Ohrmazd's creation, that kirrenidar who destroys things." (PRDD 26.4)(17)

Here, the agent noun kirrenidar denotes a man who, like the Greek [Greek Text Omitted], has the ritual responsibility of dismembering the sacrificial victim's body and distributing its pieces.(18) The kirrenidar in question, however, is guilty of a ritual error so serious that it transforms his status from a blessed, righteous, and truthful man (Pahl. ahlaw) into the opposite: a cursed follower of the Lie (druwand). His error consists of failing to give the god Haoma his rightful portion, the significance of which becomes apparent when one realizes that jaw, tongue, and eye are the organs of speech and vision, defining powers of the priestly class. Consigning these pieces to Haoma confirms his status as priest of the gods,(19) while failure to do so is not only a slight to his dignity, but a threat to all priests and the sacrifice itself. The god's curse on [mis-]sacrificers who short him in this fashion thus disrupts reproduction of the proper social order within their family line, and gives them a progeny that is the very antithesis of a priest's: "Let not a priest, warrior, or herdsman-pastoralist be born in his house. People of the line of sorcerers [cihr i jadugan] will be born in his house."

Beyond its social dimensions, proper sacrificial practice is also expected to renew the cosmos, translating matter from the victim's body into corresponding portions of the physical universe. And within the system of homologies connecting micro- and macrocosm that is familiar from other Pahlavi sources, the specification that Haoma receives the left, but not the right eye, suggests a broader set of associations.(20)

Left eye: Right eye Moon: Sun Haoma: Fire

Under this logic, the conjunction of Haoma and fire, the two chief items of Zoroastrian ritual, restores the primordial unity that was sundered in acts of sacrificial/cosmogonic cutting. Not only does it create the mixture necessary for the sustenance of creation, joining fire's heat to Haoma's moisture,(21) it also unites categories of time and space (sun plus moon, day plus night), and establishes the basis for a wisdom that is synthetic, balanced and whole (right eye plus left), instead of analytic, partial, and fragmented.

One last piece of information helps us make sense of how kirrenidan became a verb of creation and miscreation. This is the identity of the mythic figure who consistently appears as the verb's object.

[In pursuit of Yima's glory], they sent forth whoever was fastest. The Beneficent Spirit sent forth Good Mind, Best Truth, and Fire, the son of Ahura Mazda. The Evil Spirit sent forth Evil Mind, Wrath of the bloody club, Azi Dahaka, and Yima-cutting [yimo.kerentem] Spityura.(22)

Together with [Az] Dahag, Spityura was the one who cut apart [kirrenid] Yima. (GBd 35.5)(23)

Yima showed contempt for Ohrmazd, saying "Astwihad [i.e., death] will not come for me." And as a result of that contempt, demons and men cut him apart [kirrenid]. (PRDD 47.8)(24)

When he makes the dead stand up, (then) those who violently and secretly cut apart [kirrenid] Yima and gave him wounds and injuries, they all die, and for three days they lie dead. (PRDD 48.66)(25)

When they cut apart [kirrenid] Yima, the Farnbag fire saved his glory from the hand of [Az] Dahag. (GBd 18.10)(26)

When the liars are brought up from hell, those who cut apart Yima [jam-kirrenidaran] will fall back to hell in the form of frogs, and be in that place three [days]. (ZS 35.46)(27)

The name Yima, as has long been known, means "twin" or "double" and is cognate to Vedic Yama and Old Norse Ymir, being also closely related to the names of other mythic figures who appear in myths of creation through sacrifice (Latin Remus, Germanic Tuisco).(28) Accordingly, scholars since Hermann Guntert have suggested that in pre-Zoroastrian Iran, it was Yima who played the role of first man, first king, and also first victim in narratives that describe a process of creation through sacrifice; only later was he supplanted by Gayomard and others.(29)

Such a view finds support in and helps to explain the peculiar semantics of kirrenidan, a verb that denoted cutting, carving, or splitting apart with a blade, and could be used for sacrificial dismemberment within the context of ritual practice and/or that of creation myths. When these myths and practices fell into disfavor, however - conceivably as a result of Zarathustra's denunciation of Yima (Y 32.8)(30) - the cosmogonic tradition was reformulated in various ways. Sometimes Yima was forgotten, in which case the Evil Spirit became the subject and focus of a creative action that was condemned as monstrous and marked by a verb - kirrenidan - that acquired a strongly pejorative sense: "to dismember in a cruel or clumsy fashion; to mis-create." Other texts retained Yima as their center of interest, but refashioned the narrative, transforming the cosmogony into an account of primordial regicide, atrocity, and usurpation, in which various "demons and men" - most notably Azi Dahaka and Spityura - became the subjects of the brutal cutting.


1 D. N. MacKenzie, A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), 19; H. S. Nyberg, A Manual of Pahlavi (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974), 2: 49. Although there is no commonly accepted etymology for brehenidan, Professors Malandra and Skjaervo have both suggested to me the possibility that, like Pahl. bridan, it may be derived from Indo-European *[b.sup.h]r(e)iH- "to cut off" (Avestan pairi.brinanha, Sanskrit bhrinati, Russian [Greek Text Omitted], etc.), conceivably by way of Avestan *broiora-, attested in the compound broioro.taeza-"with sharp blade" (personal communications, January and February 1997). See further, Manfred Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindoarischen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1992-), 2: 282; idem, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindisches (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1956-76), 2: 532-33; and Herman Lommel, "Kleine Beitrage zur arischen Sprachkunde: Arisch bhrinati," Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung 50 (1922): 271-75.

2 H. W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 96.

3 MacKenzie, 51; Nyberg, 2: 118; and the glossary to A. V. Williams, ed., The Pahlavi Rivayat Accompanying the Dadestan i Denig (Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy, 1990), 1: 315.

4 T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995), 1: 612; Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindoarischen, 1: 315-16. The reconstructed root is PIE *s[k.sup.h]er-, which may be modified by nasal and other suffixes.

5 [TD.sup.2] MS 4.9-14: ka-s did an i ohrmazd rosnih agriftar ud fraz-payrog zadar-kamagih aresk-gohrih ray pad murnjenidan tag abar kard. u-s pas did cerih ud abarwezih i freh az an i xwes abaz o tom dwarist. kirrenid was dew[an] an dam i murnjenidar niyaz o ardikkarih. With one exception (fraz-payrog for his fraz padirot), I have followed the text extablished by R. C. Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1955), 279, with notes at pp. 290-91.

6 [TD.sup.2] MS 11.10-12: ganag menog az getig tarigih an i xwes tan [i] dam fraz kirrenid pad an i kirb i syaih i a durestar-*gon i tom-arzanig druwand ciyon bazag-adentar xrafstar.

7 [TD.sup.2] MS. 15.7-10: ganag menog pad an petyaragomandih az kamaligan dewan nazdist akoman fraz kirrenid pas andar ud pas sawul pas nahagih pas taromad pas taric ud zeric pas abarigan dewan.

8 ciyon jam. abaz-darisnih i sahm ud tangih (ud) sej ray ruwan i oy yazihed ud xwanihed pad abaz-estisnih (i) dewan-fraz- kirrenid hez-iz (i) + awastar (ud) sahm ud sej-iz i nihan-rawisn.

9 Thus, for example, it is used for cutting in a surgical context at Vd. 7.37-38; in a martial context in Yt. 10.72 and 14.62; and in the context of post mortem punishments in Vd. 4.50.

10 as.aojastemam drujim fraca kerentat anro mainyus aoi yam astvaitim gaeoam mahrkai asahe gaeoanam. Christian Bartholomae, Altiranisches Worterbuch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1961), col. 453, took Vd. 22.1-2 to contain two cosmogonic usages of kart-, once (with the preverb a-) for an Ohrmazdean act of creation, and once (with fra-) for its Ahrimanian counterpart. This has been rejected by Jean Kellens, however, who takes these as instances of kar- ("to make"), rather than kart-, Le verbe avestique (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1984), 171, nn. 4 and 5. As Kellens observes elsewhere (p. 17, n. 4), careful analysis is made particularly difficult by the fact that "toutes les formes de kart sont corrompues et la tradition manuscrite n'ouvre la voie a aucune correction."

11 See the discussion of Manfred Mayrhofer, "Uber Kontaminationen der indoiranischen Sippen von ai. taks-, tvaks-, *tvars-," in Indo-Iranica: Melanges presentes a Georg Morgenstierne (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), 141-48.

12 Eight occurrences of krt- are listed in Hermann Grassmann, Worterbuch zum Rig-Veda (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964 [rpt.]), 346, most with the preverbs vi- or nis-. Two combine martial and cosmogonic resonance, describing Indra's liberation of sun and waters from mountain fastholds (RV 1.57.6 and 10.67.5).

13 RV 10.79.6: kim devesu tyaja enas cakarthagne prcchami nu tvam avidvan / akridan kridan harir attave 'dan vi parvasas cakarta gam ivasih //

14 Comparison to Avestan anhu- is still advocated by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 643, and by older reference works, but is difficult to reconcile with William Malandra's identification of the anhu- as a bow, not a sword, "A Glossary of Terms for Weapons and Armor in Old Iranian," Indo-Iranian Journal 4 (1973): 268-69. As a result, it has been abandoned by Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindoarischen, 1: 145, in contrast to the position he took in Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindisches, 1: 64.

15 There is only one RV occurrence in which asi- appears in a ritual context, and even that exceptional case is revealing, for the sacrifice in question is something of an anti-sacrifice: the offering of a large forest animal (parasvan-, identified as a donkey by Grassmann and a rhinoceros by Luders) in the wild, as a means of redressing a brahmacarin's breach of chastity (RV 10.86.18, on which see Geldner's note, Der Rigveda [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1951], 3: 276-77). AV 9.5.4 is also relevant.

16 ma tva tapat priya atmapiyantam ma svadhitis tanva a tisthipat te / ma te grdhnur avisastatihaya chidra gatrany asina mithu kah //

On this verse, see the notes of Louis Renou, Etudes vediques et panineennes, vol. 16 (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1967), 87. It should be understood as the negative counterpart of the proper sacrificial procedures described in RV 1.162.18, where the asi- is strikingly absent.

The axe arrives at the thirty four ribs of the horse, the steed bound to the gods. Put the unbroken limbs in order. Dismember them, pro- claiming their names joint by joint.

catustrinsad vajino devabandhor vankrir asvasya sva- dhitih sam eti / achidra gatra vayuna krnota parus-parur anughusya vi sasta //

17 ud hom yazad o kas ray nifrin kuned. gowed ku-t frazand ma bawad u-t dusrawih ud abarig anagih xwess bawad ke man andar yazisn kar ne framaye ud sur i pid ohrmazd be o man dad erwarag abag uzwan ud casm i hoy i hamag gospand ud gospand sardagan. ne yaze be joye ke an sur i pid i man ohrmazd be o man dad ne yazed be joyed andar man i oy ne zayed ne asron ne artestar ud ne wastaryos. ud andar man i oy zayend mardom i cihr i jadugan ud winahed dahisn i ohrmazd kirrenidar i tis tabah kuned. This passage follows the Avestan of Y 11.4-6, but the phrase kirrenidar i tis tabah kuned corresponds to no Avestan original. Rather, it reflects the Pahlavi gloss to Y 11.4, where Av. murakaca is interpreted as mudagkardar, ku tis tabah be kunad ("maker of destruction; that is, he makes things ruined").

18 On the mageiros, see Guy Berthiaume, Les rites du mageiros: Etudes sur la boucherie, la cuisine, et le sacrifice dans la Grece ancienne (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982). One is particularly reminded of the "bad mageiros" described by Plato, Phaedrus 265e, who provides a negative model for the science of dialectics by dividing the sacrificial victim in a clumsy and destructive manner, breaking its bones instead of severing them neatly at the joints. Further on the significance of sacrificial dismemberment in classical antiquity, see the essays collected in Jean-Pierre Vernant and Marcel Detienne, eds., La Cuisine du sacrifice (Paris: Gallimard, 1979); and Cristiano Grottanelli and Niccola Parisi, eds., Sacrificio e societa nel mondo antico (Rome: Laterza, 1988).

19 Mary Boyce, "Haoma, priest of the sacrifice," in W. B. Henning Memorial Volume (London: Lund, Humphries, 1970), 62-80.

20 See, for example, GBd 28, ZS 30.4-11, PRDD 46. The connection of the two eyes to sun and moon is made at GBd 28.4. On the association of haoma and moon, see Herman Lommel, "Konig Soma," Numen 2 (1955): 196-205; idem, "Mithra und das Stieropfer," Paideuma 3 (1944-49): 207-18; Gherardo Gnoli, "Questioni sull' interpretazione della dottrina gathica," Annali dell' Istituto Orientale di Napoli 31 (1971): 353-55. Also implicit is a homology sun : moon :: humans : cattle, which I treat in "Once Again the Bovine's Lament," in Psychanodia: Etudes dediees a la memoire de loan Culianu, ed. Ara Sismanian et al. (Louvain: Editions Peeters, forthcoming).

21 Two paired categories are theorized here: hot and cold, moist and dry. In each pair, the former member is understood as life-sustaining, the latter as life-negating, and the latter is simply the absence of the former. Fire is thus coded as +heat/-moisture and Haoma as -heat/+moisture. When the two are ritually united, the positive categories obviate their negative counterparts, resulting in an ideal mix: +heat/+moisture. See further, Bruce Lincoln, Death, War, and Sacrifice (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1991), 219-31; and such texts as Dk 3.105, 3.194; GBd 26.127 and 27.52.

22 Yt 19.46: [Greek Text Omitted] aete franharecayat asiste katarascit. spento mainyus aetem franharecayat vohuca mano asemca vahistem atremca ahurahe mazda puorem. anro mainyus aetem franharecayat akemca mano aesememca xrvi.drum azimca dahakem spityuremca yimo.kerentem. Dk 9.21.2 states that the twentieth fargard of the lost Sudgar Nask told how Dahaka took power from Yima when the latter was cut in two. On Spityura and his role in these narratives, see Arthur Christensen, Le premier homme et le premier roi dans l'histoire legendaire des Iraniens, 2 vols. (Uppsala: Archives d'etudes orientales 1917, 1934), 2: 52, 79; and R. von Stackelberg, "Bemerkungen zur persischen Sagengeschichte," Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 12 (1898): 230-48, esp. pp. 245-46.

23 [TD.sup.2] MS. 228.12: spitur an bawed ke abag dahag jam kirrenid.

24 jam ohrmazd tar menid ku-m *astwihad ne rased us pad an tarmenisnih eg-isan be kirrenid dewan [ud] mardoman.

25 ud ka rist ul estened awesan ke-san jam kirrenid ud res wizend wen-nihan *anastiha be kunend ud awesan hamag be mirend 3 roz murd nibayend. This passage is quite unclear, particularly in the phrase I read as res wizend wen-nihan *anastiha. Both Williams and H. K. Mirza, The Pahlavi Rivayat Preceding the Dadestan i Dinik (Ph.D. thesis, London University, 1942) made numerous - and quite different - emendations, and the former went so far as to drop Yima's name, which is attested in all manuscripts.

26 [TD.sup.2] MS. 124.15-125.1: ka-san jam be kirrenid xwarrah i jam az dast i dahag adur *farnbag bozenid.

27 ka druwandan az dusox abar awurd hend jam-kirrenidaran ?? abaz o dusox oftend ud 3 an gyag bawend.

28 Tacitus, Germania 2, names Tuisco (manuscript variation: Tuisto) as the earth-born god (deum terra editum) whom the Germans' ancient songs celebrated as father to Mannus (Proto-Germanic *Manwaz, cognate to Skt. Manu- and the first element in Avestan Manus.ciora-) and their primordial ancestor. His name means "twin," and is built on the number two; cf. Old Saxon twist, Old High German zwisc "binus, geminus," Anglo-Saxon twist "forked branch; doubled thread." The names Yama and Yima also mean "twin," and are derived from *yemo-, which yields geminus in Latin, with mutation of the initial consonant. Elsewhere I have argued that a different mutation, produced by assimilation to the names of Romulus and Roma, gave rise to the name of Remus, one of Rome's primordial twins. See, however, the critical views of T. P. Wiseman, Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995), a book I hope to treat more fully elsewhere.

29 Hermann Guntert, Der arische Weltkonig und Heiland (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1923), 315-43. The large body of relevant literature includes Christensen, Le premier homme et le premier roi dans l'histoire legendaire des Iraniens, esp. vol. 2; Aram Frenkian, "Purusa - Gayomard - Anthropos," Revue des etudes indo-europeennes 3 (1943): 118-31; R. N. Dandekar, "Yama in the Veda," in B.C. Law Volume, ed. D. R. Bhandarkar (Calcutta: Bhandarkar Oriental Series, 1945), 1: 194-209; A. W. Macdonald, "A propos de Prajapati," Journal asiatique 240 (1953): 323-28; Walter Burkert, "Caesar und Romulus-Quirinus," Historia 11 (1962): 356-76; Hoang-son Hoang-sy-Quy, "Le mythe indien de l'homme cosmique dans son contexte culturel et dans son evolution," Revue de l'histoire des religions 175 (1969): 133-54; Alfred Ebenbauer, "Ursprungsglaube, Herrschergott und Menschenopfer: Beobachtungen zum Semnonenkult," in Antiquitates Indogermanicae: Gedenkschrift fur Hermann Guntert, ed. M. Mayrhofer et al. (Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, 1974), 233-49; Jaan Puhvel, "Remus et Frater," History of Religions 15 (1975): 146-57; Cristiano Grottanelli, "Cosmogonia e sacrificio," Studi Storico-religiosi 4 (1980): 207-35, and 5 (1981): 173-96; Geo Widengren, "Macrocosmos-Microcosmos," Archivio di Filosofia (1980), 297-312; Jean Kellens, "Yima, magicien entre les dieux et les hommes," Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984), 267-81; idem, "Yima et la mort," in Languages and Cultures: Studies in Honor of Edgar Polome, ed. M. A. Jazayery and W. Winter (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1988), 329-34, Shaul Shaked, "First Man, First King: Notes on Semitic-Iranian Syncretism and Iranian Mythological Transformations," in Gilgul: Essays . . . in the History of Religions Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, ed. S. Shaked et al. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), 238-56; and my own works, Priests, Warriors, and Cattle (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1981), Myth, Cosmos. and Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1986), Death, War. and Sacrifice (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1991).

30 For various interpretations of Y 32.8, see Helmut Humbach, "Zur altiranische Mythologie," Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 107 (1957): 362-71; idem, "Methodologische Variationen zur arischen Religionsgeschichte," in Antiquitates Indogermanicae: Gedenkschrift fur Hermann Guntert, ed. M. Mayrhofer et al. (Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, 1974), 193-200; Marijan Mole, Culte, mythe, et cosmologie dans l'Iran ancien (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1963), pp. 222-26; Ilya Gershevitch, "Yima's Beef-Plea," in Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, ed. G. Gnoli and L. Lanciotti (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il medio ed estremo Oriente, 1977), 2: 48799, Stanley Insler, The Gathas of Zarathustra (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 204-5; and Jean Kellens and Eric Pirart, Les textes vieil-avestiques (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1988-91). 3: 86-87. More broadly, on the topic of animal sacrifice in Zoroastrian practice, see Helmut Humbach, "Zarathustra und die Rinderschlachtung," Wort und Wirklichkeit: Studien zur Afrikanistik und Orientalistik (Meisenheim: Anton Hain, 1977), 2: 17-29.
COPYRIGHT 1997 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1997 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lincoln, Bruce
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Date:Oct 1, 1997
Previous Article:Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palastina/Israel: Von den Anfangen bis zur Perserzeit, Einletung.
Next Article:Qiu Ying's other patrons.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters