Avestan period

The Avestan period (c. 1500) is the period in the history of the Iranians when the Avesta was produced. It saw important contributions to both the religious sphere, as well as to Iranian mythology and its epic tradition.

Scholars can reliably distinguish between two different linguistic strata in the Avesta; Old Avestan and Young Avestan, which are interpreted as belonging to two different stages in the development of the Avestan language and society. The Old Avestan society is the one to which Zarathustra himself and his immediate followers belonged to. The Young Avestan society is less clearly delineated and reflects a larger time span.

There is a varying level of agreement on the chronological and geographical boundaries of the Avestan period. Regarding the geographical extent of the Avesta, modern scholarship agrees that it reflects the eastern portion of Greater Iran. Regarding the chronological extent, scholarship initially focused on a late chronology, that places Zarathustra in the 6th century BCE. More recently an early chronology, that places him several centuries earlier, has become widely accepted. This early chronology would largely place the Avestan period before the Achaemenid period, making it the earliest period of Iranian history for which literary sources are available.

Old Avestan
The Old Avestan material consists of the Gathas, the Yasna Haptanghaiti, and a number of mantras, namely the Ashem Vohu, the Ahuna Vairya and the Airyaman ishya. These Old Avestan texts are assumed to have been composed close together and must have crystallized early on, possibly due to the associating with Zarathustra himself. They all play a central role in the Yasna, the principal ritual of Zoroastrianism. A few texts are sometimes considered to be in pseudo Old Avestan, namely the Yenghe hatam mantra and some parts of the Yasna Haptanghaiti. This could mean they originated during the Young Avestan period but were composed in such a way to make them appear more ancient.

Young Avestan
The Young Avestan material is much larger, but also more varied and may reflect a longer time of composition and transmission, during which the different texts may have been constantly updated and revised. At some time, however, this process stopped, i.e., the Young Avestan texts crystallized as well and the material was transmitted largely unchanged. This could have happened during the Achaemenid period by Persian-speaking priests who no longer fully mastered the Avestan language.

However, some Young Avestan texts are considered to have be revised or otherwise altered after the main parts of the corpus had already become fixed. This may indicate a composition by people who didn't speak Avestan or after Avestan ceased to be a living language. One example of such a late revision may be found in the extant Aban Yasht dedicated to Aredvi Sura Anahita. Anahita became popular under the Achaemenid kings, and some scholars have argued that certain verses in the Yasht may have been added later to reflect this rise in popularity and the Near Eastern influence that was exerted under royal patronage. A particularly late date is often considered for the Vendidad, which is assumed to have been redacted by an editor or group of editors who compiled a number of early, now-lost Avestan sources, while having only a limited command of the Avestan language. Apart from such changes and redactions, the extant Old and Young Avestan texts were then passed on orally for several centuries until they were eventually redacted and set down in writing during the Sassanid period, forming the Avesta as we have it today.

Zoroastrian literature
In addition to the canonical texts in Avestan, Zoroastrianism features a large literature in Middle Persian. The most important of them are the Bundahishn, a collection of Zoroastrian cosmogony, and the Denkard, a form of encyclopedia of Zoroastrianism. These texts are not considered scripture but they do contain some additional material of the Avesta not contained in the extant text. This is due to the fact that a large portion of the Avesta became lost after the Islamic conquest of Iran and the subsequent marginalisation of Zoroastrianism. The summaries and references made in the Middle Persian literature to these lost texts are therefore an additional source on the Avestan period.

Geography


The Old Avestan parts of the Avesta contain no geographical places names that can be identified with any degree of certainty. Later Iranian tradition identifies Airyanem Vaejah as the home of the early Iranians and birthplace of Zarathustra. However, there is no consensus on where Airyanem Vaijah may have been located or whether it was a real or mythological place. Attempts to locate the Old Avestan society are therefore often contingent of the assumed chronology of the text. Proponents of an early chronology locate Zarathustra and his followers in Central Asia or Eastern Iran, whereas proponents of a late chronology sometimes place him in Western Iran.

On the other hand, the Younger Avestan portion of the text contains a number of geographical references that can be identified with modern locations and therefore allow to delineate the geographical horizon of the Avestan people. It is generally accepted that these place names are concentrated in the eastern parts of Greater Iran centered around the modern day countries of Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

Chronology
There has been a long debate in modern scholarship about the chronology of the Avestan period, particularly about the life of Zarathustra as its most important event. While a relative chronology between the time of Zarathustra and that of his community in the Young Avestan period has been established with some certainty, opinions about its absolute place in time have changed considerably in recent decades. As far as the relative chronology is concerned, it is generally accepted that the Young Avestan period reflects considerable linguistic, social and cultural development compared to its Old Avestan predecessor. Scholars therefore consider a time difference of several centuries necessary to explain these differences. For example, Jean Kellens gives an estimate of roughly 400 years, whereas Prods Oktor Skjaervo assumes that 300–500 years may separate Old and Young Avestan.


 * Approximate timeline of the Avestan period (estimates according to Prods Oktor Skjaervo) vis-a-vis several regions inhabited by Indo-Iranian peoples from 1500 BCE to 0 CE. The range for the Old Avestan period represents an uncertainty range rather than a duration, i.e., Zarathustra and his immediate followers may have lived sometime during the indicated time frame.

As regards the absolute chronology, roughly two different approaches can be found in the literature; a late and an early chronology. The late chronology is based on a rather precise date for the life of Zarathustra placing him in the sixth century BCE. The Young Avestan period would therefore reflect the Hellenistic or even early Parthian period of Iranian history. This date appears in some Greek accounts of Zarathutra's life as well as in later Zoroastrian texts like the Bundahishn. The discussion around this chronology, therefore, strongly focused on the validity of these accounts, with scholars like Walter Bruno Henning, Ilya Gershevitch, and Gherardo Gnoli having made arguments in its favor whereas others have criticized them.

The early chronology assumes a much earlier time frame for the Avestan period, with Zarathustra having lived sometime in the second half of second millennium BCE (1500-1000 BCE) and the Young Avestan period, therefore, reflecting the first half of the first millennium B.C.E. (1000 - 500 BCE). This early chronology is sometimes supported by an older dating of Zarathustra's life which, while giving an implausibly early date of 6.000 year before Xerxes, suggest that the Greeks initially placed Zarathustra into a remote past. In addition, two groups of arguments are typically made in favor of an early chronology. First, the numerous and strong parallels between Old Avestan and the early Vedic period, which itself is assumed to reflect the second half of second millennium BCE. For example, both Old Avestan and the language of the Rigveda are still very close, suggesting only a limited time frame had passed since they split off from their common Proto-Indo-Iranian ancestor. Furthermore, both depict a society of semi-nomadic pastoralists, make no mention of Iron, use chariots and engage in regular cattle raids. Second, the Young Avestan texts lack any discernible Persian or Median influence indicating that the bulk of them was produced before the rise of the Achaemenid Empire. As a result, much, in particular more recent, scholarship now supports an early chronology for the Avestan period.

Archeology


Modern archaeology has unearthed a wealth of data on settlements and cultures in Central Asia and Greater Iran during the Avestan period, i.e., from the Middle Bronze Age to the rise of the Achaemenids. However, linking these data to the literary sources of the Avesta remains difficult. This is due to the aforementioned uncertainty of the texts regarding when and where they were produced. As a result, any identification of a particular archaeological site or culture with parts of the Avesta runs the risk of circular reasoning. Modern scholarship is, therefore, largely confined to interpret the material in the Avesta only within the broader outline of Iranian history, in particular the southward movement of Iranian tribes from the Eurasian steppe into southern Central Asia and eventually onto the Iranian plateau during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age.

Due to the pastoralism visible in the Old Avestan material, a connection with the Andronovo culture has been proposed for this period. As regards the Young Avestan period, the region of southern Central Asia has attracted interest. This is due to the shift from a pastoralist to a sedentary agricultural lifestyle, which is indicated for the time between the Old and Young Avestan period, and the interaction of the Avestan people with pastoralist steppe cultures, indicating a continued proximity to the steppe regions during the Young Avestan period.

During the Bronze Age, Southern Central Asia was home to a prominent urban civilization with long-range trade networks to the south. However, the middle of the second millennium BCE saw major transformations of this area, with the urban centers being replaced by smaller settlements and a shift to a mixed agricultural-pastoral economy with strong ties to the northern steppe regions. This is commonly seen as a result of the migration of Iranian tribes from the steppe. Within this context, one candidate for the Avestan society is the Tazabagyab culture in the region of Khwarazm. This is sometimes connected to the location of Airyanem Vaejah, which Zoroastrian tradition names as the early homeland of the Iranians and birthplace of the Zoroastrian faith. Another archeological culture that has attracted interest as a candidate for the Avestan society is the Yaz culture, also known as Sine-Sepulchro or Handmade-Painted-Ware cultural complex. This is due to the fact that it is also connected to the southward spread of steppe-derived Iranian populations, the presence of farming practices consisted with the Young Avestan society and the lack of burial sites, indicating the Zoroastrian practice of Sky burial.

Old Avestan period
The Old Avestan texts reflect the perspective of a pastoralist society. The cow is of primary importance and considered sacred. In addition to cattle, livestock like sheep and goats are mentioned in the texts. Hippophoric names like Vishtaspa, Pourushaspa and Haecataspa (āspa, 'horse') show the value placed on horses. In addition, camelophoric names like Zarathustra and Frahaostra (uštra, 'camel') show the importance of the Bactrian camel, an animal well adapted to the harsh conditions of the steppe and desert regions of Central Asia.

Kinship is perceived as concentric circles, with the innermost being the family (xvaētu), followed by the clan (vərəzə̄na) and the outermost being the tribe (airyaman). These kinship groups may relate to geographical distinctions, with the family sharing a home (dəmāna), the clan living in a settlement (vīs), and the tribe living jointly in a land (dahyu). There is a clear delineation between priest on one side and warrior-herdsmen on the other. However, it is not clear whether the later group is further separated like in the related Young Avestan and Vedic societies. In the non-Zoroastrian Old Avestan society, priests are generally called karapan, whereas an officiating priest is called zaotar (compare ) and mantras are uttered by priests called mąθran (compare ).

There is no mention of horse riding but several allusion to chariots and chariot races are made. The Old Avestan people knew metal working. Like the Old Vedic term for metal ayas, the meaning of the Old Avestan term aiiah is unknown, but it has been interpreted as copper/bronze, consistent with a setting in the Bronze Age.

Young Avestan period
The Young Avestan texts present a substantially different perspective. Society is now mostly sedentary and numerous references are being made to settlements and larger buildings. Agriculture is very prominent and the texts name activities like ploughing, irrigating, seeding, harvesting and winnowing. Mentioned are grains like barley (yava) and wheat (gantuma). The Vendidad specifically states how "who sows grain sows Asha" and how it is equivalent to "ten thousand Yenghe hatam mantras". In addition, montane transhumance of cattle, sheep and goats is practiced and each September a feast similar to Almabtrieb (ayāθrima, driving in) is celebrated, after which the livestock is kept in stables during the winter.

Young Avestan society has similar concentric circles of kinship; the family (nmāna), clan (vīs) and the tribe (zantu). Together with term for land (dahyu), they are related to the Old Avestan geographical distinctions. There is now a distinct tripartite division of the society into priests (,, 'fire priest'), warriors (, , 'he who stands in a raθa'), and commoners (vāstryō.fšuyant, 'he who fattens cattle on pastures'). Despite the same division and the same general terms existing in the Vedic society, the specific names for priests, warriors and commoners are different, which may reflect an independent development of the two systems. There is a single passage in the Avesta that names a fourth class, namely the craftsmen (huiti).

Society appears to be very warlike and numerous references are made to battles with nomadic raiders. The army is organised at the level of clans and tribes. They march into battle with uplifted banners. Chiefs ride chariots, while commoners fight on foot and warriors on horseback. Weapons include spears, maces and short swords. There is no mention of logistics, and military campaigns were probably only organised on a small scale.

In the Young Avestan society, a number of features associated with Zoroastrianism, like the killing of noxious animals, purity laws, the veneration of the dog, and a strong dichotomy between good and evil, are already fully present. Great emphasis is placed on procreation, and sexual activities that are not conducive to this goal, such as masturbation, homosexuality and prostitution, are strongly condemned. One of the most salient elements of the Young Avestan society was the promotion of next-of-kin marriage, even between direct relatives. Although it is not clear to what extent it was practiced by common people, it has been speculated that this custom was part of an identity-building process in which the customs of closely related Indo-Iranian groups were deliberately inverted.

Identity
The people of the Avesta consistently use the term Arya as a self designation. In Western Iran, the same term appears in the 6th and 5th century BCE in several inscriptions by Darius and Xerxes. In those inscriptions, the use of the word Arya already indicates a sense of a wider, shared cultural space and modern scholars interpret Avestan and Old Persian Arya as the expressing of a distinct Iranian identity. This identification of Arya with Iranian is, however, context specific.

On the one hand, the term Arya also appears in ancient India as a self designation of the people of the Vedas. The people of the Avesta and of the Vedas share a wide range of linguistic, social, religious and cultural similarities and must have formed a single people at some earlier time. Yet despite the close proximity of the Avestan and Vedic Arya, it is not clear if these two peoples had any continued interaction, since neither the Avesta nor the Vedas make any unambiguous reference to the other group.

On the other hand, the Avesta mentions a number of people with whom the Arya were in continuous contact with, namely the Turiia, Sairima, Sainu and Dahi. Despite the clear delineation between the Arya of the Avesta and these other groups, they all appear to be Iranian-speaking peoples. The Turiia are the Turanians of later legends and said to live somewhere beyond the Oxus river. On the other hand, the Sairima and Dahi have been connected to the Sarmatians and Dahae, based on linguistic similarities, whereas the identity of the Sainu is unknown. Scholars, therefore, connect these peoples with the Iranian-speaking nomads that lived in the steppe zone of northern Central Asia.

Religion
Zarathustra's religious reforms took place within the context of Old Iranian paganism. There are no direct sources on the religious beliefs of the Iranian peoples before Zarathustra, but scholars can draw on Zoroastrian polemics and use comparisons with the Vedic religion of Ancient India. There are a number of similarities between Zoroastrianism and the Vedic religion in the ritual sphere, suggesting they go back to the shared Indo-Iranian past. The exact nature of Zarathustra's reforms remains a subject of debate among scholars, but the hostility experienced by the early Zoroastrian community suggests they were substantial. A main target of Zarathustra's criticism was the Iranian cult of the Daevas. These supernatural beings appear in the Vedic religion and later Hindusim as regular gods and it is assumed that they were once the gods of the Iranian peoples as well.

Old Avestan period
Apart from his criticism of the Iranian Daeva cult, Zarathustra's reforms center around a supreme deity called Mazda (, the Wise One) or Ahura (, the Lord), as well as a fundamental opposition between good and evil. The teachings of Zarathustra, therefore, contain both monotheistic and dualistic elements. There is no consensus on the origin of Mazda, who does not appear in the Vedic religion. Some scholars opine he may be a religious innovation of Zarathustra while others believe he represents an early Iranian innovation distinct from the Vedic tradition or that he is the Iranian counterpart of the Vedic Varuna. The dualism expressed in the Gathas exist both within the contrast between Asha (, truth) and Druj (, deception) as well as between Vohu Manah (good mind) and Aka Manah (bad mind). While Asha and Druj have counterparts in Vedic Ṛta and Druh, both concepts have a more prominent and expanded role in Zarathustra's thinking. The Gathas use the term Ahura for both Mazda and some supernatural entities associated with him. Like the Deavas, the Ahuras have an equivalent in Ancient India as the Asuras. While during the Old Vedic period, both the Devas and Asuras are considered gods, the latter become demonized in the Late Vedic period, a process that parallels the demonization of the Daevas in Ancient Iran.

Young Avestan period
The religion expressed in the Young Avestan texts already exhibits the main elements associated with Zoroastrianism. The dualism of the Old Avestan texts is now expressed in the divine sphere as the opposition between Ahura Mazda (the Wise Lord), whose name is now fixed, and Angra Mainyu (, the Evil Spirit), who did not directly appear in the Gathas. The most striking difference, however, from the Old Avestan texts is the presence of a large number of deities called yazata (, one worthy of worship). These deities add a pronounced polytheistic element to the religion. Some of these deities have counterparts in the Vedic religion, whereas others may be Iranian innovations. There is no consensus on how and why these deities appear in the Younger Avestan period. On the one hand, scholars like Mary Boyce believe this represents a continuation of Zarathustra's teaching. On the other hand, scholars such as Ilya Gershevitch have argued that Zoroastrianism is a syncretistic religion that formed from the fusion of Zarathustra's srtictly dualistic teachings with the practices of polytheistic Iranian communities that were absorbed as the faith spread.

World view


The people of the Avesta imagined the world to be divided into seven regions, the Haft Keshvar. Six of these regions are placed in a concentric manner around the central one called xvaniraθa. This central continent is the home of the Avestan people. This is for instance expressed in the Mihr Yasht, which describes how Mithra is crossing Mount Hara and surveys the Airyoshayana, i.e., the lands inhabited by the Airiia, and the seven regions(Yt. 10.12-16, 67). Mount Hara therefore stands at the center of the inhabited world. Around its peak, the Sun, the Moon and stars revolve, and the mythical river Aredvi Sura Anahita flows from its peak into the world ocean Vourukasha.

When the Iranians came into contact with the civilizations of the Ancient Near East, their geographical knowledge and perspective greatly increased. Consequently, their world view became influenced by the world view of these other peoples. For example, the Sassanians often used a fourfold division of the Earth, which was inspired by the Greeks. Regardless, the world view of the Avestan period remained common well into the Islamic period, where Iranian scholars like al-Biruni fused the knowledge of a spherical Earth with the Iranian concept of the seven regions.

Epic tradition


In the Avesta, numerous allusions to the poetry, mythology, stories and folklore of the early Iranians can be found. In particular the Aban Yasht, the Drvasp Yasht, the Ram Yasht, the Den Yasht, and the Zamyad Yasht, often called the legendary Yashts, contain a large number of references. The single largest source is, however, the Bundahishn, a compendium of Zoroastrian cosmogony from the Middle Ages written in Pahlavi.

The Avesta present a long history of the Iranians starting with the Pishdadian dynasty who is followed by the Kayanian dynasty. The last of the Kayanians is Vishtaspa, an early convert to Zoroastrianism and an important patron of Zarathustra. An important part of these stories is the fight between the Iranians (Airiia) against their archenemies the Turanians (Turiia). In particular, their king Franrasyan and his ultimately unsuccessful attempts to acquire the Khvarenah from them are described in great detail. Overall, these stories are considered primarily mythical. Characters like Yima, Thraetaona and Kauui Usan have counterparts in the Vedic Yama, Trita, and Kavya Ushanas and therefore must go back to the common Indo-Iranian period. Regardless, some elements may contain historical information. One example is a possible memory of the kinship between the Iranians peoples expressed through three sons of Thraetaona, namely Iraj (Airiia), Tur (Turiia) and Sarm (Sairima). Another example is the historicity of the Kayanians. While early scholarship had largely accepted their historicity, more recent opinions range over a wide spectrum regarding this question.

Elements of these stories and its characters occur prominently in many later Iranian texts like the Bahman-nameh, the Borzu Nama, the Darab-nama, the Kush Nama as well as most prominently in the Iranian national epic, the Shahnameh. The impact of the Avestan period on Iranian literary tradition was overall so substantial that Elton L. Daniel concluded "Its stories were so rich, detailed, coherent, and meaningful that they came to be accepted as records of actual events - so much so that they almost totally supplanted in collective memory the genuine history of ancient Iran."