State Research Institute of Restoration.
The progress of Soviet Iranian studies was worthy of reflection in the collection dedicated to the 2500th anniversary of Iranian statehood.
The collection opens with a problematic article by academician B. G. Gafurov “On the 2500th anniversary of the Iranian state.” It examines the processes of complication of socio-economic relations and the formation of the most important political institutions within the Achaemenid state. It is noteworthy that the spread of writing and coinage in the Middle East from the headwaters of the Indus to Central Asia occurred precisely as a result of state measures taken by the Achaemenids.
The general provisions outlined in the work of B. G. Gafurov are developed and detailed by M. A. Dandamaev (“The Achaemenid state and its significance in the history of the ancient East”). He focuses on the flexible external and domestic policy Achaemenids, their regulation of land relations, and limitation of the economic power of temples.
The same general historical part of the collection should include the work of B. Ya. Stavisky “Central Asia and Achaemenid Iran.” An interesting attempt by B. Y. Stavisky to trace the fate of the Achaemenid cultural heritage in Hellenistic and early medieval Central Asia (pp. 160-161), although the possibilities for developing this topic are far from exhausted by him.
The historical section ends with the article by G. A. Koshelenko “Royal power and its justification in early Parthia.” The subject of research here was the ideological basis of early Arsacid legitimism. It identifies three leading factors: the Hellenistic tradition of sanctifying power by the right of conquest, then the pan-Iranian theory of divine investiture and, finally, the closely related religious ideas of the Zoroastrian circle (pp. 214-216). Obviously, a similar complex of Sasanian views, if not entirely, then in its most significant aspects, had its source not in the Achaemenid era, but in the early Parthian era (p. 216). As for the theory of divine investiture, it would seem that one should consider its possible connection with the vestiges of tribal system and initiation rites, thereby clarifying the qualitative modification of this concept in the new historical situation.
Archaeological topics are very widely represented in the collection. This is eloquent evidence of the scope of archaeological work in Central Asia and Transcaucasia, in the territories adjacent to Iran. Articles by O. Berdyev, M. N. Pogrebova, I. Aliev, M. E. Masson, E. Atagarryev document the complex interactions of the material cultures of ancient Iran, Transcaucasia and Central Asia in a wide chronological range - from the 6th millennium BC. e. until the pre-Mongol period.
Particularly noteworthy in the archaeological section is the article by V. I. Sarianidi “Burials of Gissar III. New materials and observations." Analysis of traces of fire in the burial structures of the Hissar III culture allowed the author to doubt the traditional interpretation of the destruction of these monuments as a consequence of military expansion from the outside (pp. 170 and 178). Having outlined the connection between funeral rituals and the cult of fire and fire, V.I. Sarianidi prefers to carefully interpret the latter as an undesirable accident. The deliberate burning of burial structures is quite well known, albeit from later monuments. There is reason to think that this ritual is determined by the ideas of Eurasian shamanism about the fiery renewal of the universe, a micro-replica of which was the funeral structure.
Art criticism is reflected quite fully in the collection. V. G. Lukonin (“The Art of Ancient Iran, Main Stages”) undertook, perhaps for the first time in Russian literature, an attempt to summarize the ancient Iranian artistic culture from Marlik, late Sialk and Hasanlu to the Sasanian era. The author successfully shows the continuity and differences between the late Parthian and early Sasanian traditions (pp. 116-117). Perhaps Bishapur is examined somewhat one-sidedly - only on the materials of famous mosaics. But also the carved pieces of Bishapur
deserves attention, since it clearly anticipates early Islamic ornamental compositions developed in the decor of the Umayyad “paradises”, and even the mosques of Cairo.
The article by G. A. Pugachenkova “Architecture of Central Asia and Iran in Historical Connections” has the same generalizing character. The chronological interval covered by the study is even wider - from the Achaemenids to the mature Middle Ages. It must be noted that the desire to figuratively highlight a characteristic sometimes fails the author. Thus, on page 238 G. A. Pugachenkova categorically states that architecture “knows neither export nor import,” and on pages 239-240 she describes the borrowing of the ancient order by Central Asian architecture. Some other provisions are also vulnerable. The early medieval origin of the chortak (p. 242) can be, at a minimum, disputed, since its original prototype is attested in the Parthian sanctuary of Mansur - Depe of the 2nd-1st centuries. BC e. The Byzantine origin of the domed octogons of Central Asia is also doubtful (p. 242). Even A. Saladan associated the round, square and polygonal tower-shaped mausoleums of Islam with the Zoroastrian tradition.
As if in contrast to the two previous works of a wide profile, E. E. Kuzmina (“Cylindrical seal from the Merv oasis with a martial arts scene”) preferred a scrupulous study of a miniature stone-cutting product.
The extensive historiography of Soviet Iranian studies is significantly supplemented by the works of I. M. Oransky and I. P. Petrushevsky. More in essence than in form, they are joined by I. V. Pyankov’s article “The formation of the Achaemenid state according to ancient sources” with a review of the works of Charon, Hellanicus, Herodotus, Ctesias, Dinon, Diodorus, Trogus Pompey, Nicholas of Damascus, Xenophon.
A prominent place in the collection is given to linguistic studies, among which stand out articles by I. M. Dyakonov (“Eastern Iran to Cyrus”), E. A. Grantovsky (“On the spread of Iranian tribes on the territory of Iran”) and V. I. Abaev (“ From Iranian onomastics"). If I.M. Dyakonov convincingly substantiated the dating and localization of the Avesta and, moreover, outlined the prehistory of the Eastern Iranian tribes in the 2nd millennium BC. z., then E. A. Grantovsky once again 5 provided strong evidence in favor of the Trans-Caucasian migration of Western Iranians.
The actual Iranian origin of the personal names of the Achaemenids is substantiated in the article by V.I. Abaev, and the very important Scythian-Avestan onomastic isogloss Spitama was also restored there (pp. 271-275). M. N. Bogolyubov (“Prayer to Ahura Mazda in Ancient Iranian among Aramaic inscriptions from Arebsun”) interpreted the first of the surviving records in Aramaic writing of the ancient Iranian prayer text (p. 282). Since the author is inclined to consider it an Avestan fragment, the attribution should have been more carefully argued or an expanded interpretation of the epithet “Avestan” should have been stipulated.
Iranian philology is represented in the collection by articles by A. N. Boldyrev “Reflection of ancient cultural traditions in classical literature Iran". Using a lot of examples, the author traces the ancient Iranian heritage in the themes genre specifics, stylistics of New Persian literature. It is not without interest to calculate the correlative frequency of the onomasticon of the New Persian diwans (pp. 256-257), from which it is clear that Hafiz, Khakani and Unsuri had a clear and, apparently, non-random predilection for the image of the legendary Dzhemshid. Statistical analysis of the patterns of creativity of these and other poets promises to reveal the features and reasons for their cultural and historical orientation, which cannot be captured by traditional methods.
It would be wrong to say that the collection fully reflects the state of Soviet Iranian studies. Nevertheless, the content of the book under review gives an idea of the development trends in this area in our country. Problems of socio-economic and political history are thoroughly developed, and simple traditions of linguistic research continue. The progress of archeology is obvious. Literary criticism is less impressive, as is the history of art. The study of the philosophical and religious thought of ancient and partly medieval Iran, its rich mythology, and, finally, social and ethnic psychology is lagging the most. It is hoped that future research social structure and the contents of the spiritual culture of ancient Iran will take their rightful place in domestic Iranian studies.
M., State Scientific Research
Research Institute for Restoration of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Russian Federation
Federation, 1992
This work is the publication of a doctoral dissertation manuscript representing
is a historiographical review of many years of study of the Avesta and Zoroastrianism by foreign
and domestic Iranian scholars.
Preface
Introduction
Chapter I. General historiography and bibliography of the problem
Chapter II. Historiographical chronicle of the development of the science of the Avesta in the 19th-20th centuries.
Chapter III. Avesta and Zoroastrianism: basic concepts and problems
o 1. The phenomenon of Zoroastrianism
o 2. Image of Zoroaster
Chapter IV. Basic issues of cultural and historical interpretations of the Avesta
o 1. Indo-Iranian studies and Avesta
o 2. Time and place of origin of the Avesta
o 3. Zoroastrian funeral rites
o 4. The cult of fire and the problem of its relationship with Zoroastrianism
o 5. The importance of external sources for studying the Avesta
o 6. Mazda and Ahura
o 7. The Deity of Time in the Avesta and in external sources
o 8. Dualism in the Avesta
o 9. The doctrine of creation in the Avesta
o 10. Legendary chronology in the Avesta
o 11. Legend of the Keyanids
o 12. Reform of Zoroaster
o 13. Social orientation of the doctrine of Zoroaster
Chapter V. Methodological aspects of cultural and historical reconstructions based on
Avesta data
Conclusion
Bibliography
Preface
Presenting to the reader a book whose author is no longer with us is not an easy task, because such
the preface will almost certainly be met with skepticism. Anything contained therein
the remark will, not without reason, be regarded as not very appropriate in this situation, but
any praise can be perceived as dictated not so much by real
merits of the work, as well as the circumstances under which it appears before
reader. It is also important that the published research is devoted to purely special
problems and is unlikely to fall into the hands of a completely unprepared, random person;
This means that there is no need to explain the meaning of the questions raised in the book, their place
in the history of world culture. Based on all that has been said, it seems correct
limit myself in this preface to just a few words about the book itself and its author.
The relationship between the intellectual and spiritual aspirations of a person, on the one hand,
and his professional activities, on the other hand, can develop differently. There are people,
for whom the work they are busy with is the main meaning of life, it is entirely
consumes their mind and soul. Others, on the contrary, work all their lives in a particular field
and even having achieved significant success and a prominent position in it, they constantly dream of
completely different activity. Sometimes these aspirations remain an unfulfilled dream;
sometimes such people still manage to devote crumbs of free time to their favorite pastime,
and then it receives a partly funny, partly offensive and derogatory name -
hobby.
The fate of Leonid Arkadyevich Lelekov (1934 - 1988) does not fit into any of
the listed options. Its short and not too simple working life maybe, perhaps
serve as an example of the happiest possible variant of human self-realization:
He had two favorite things, to both he devoted his mind, his time, his soul to varying degrees.
And although his service for decades was connected with only one of these cases - with
theory and history of restoration of artistic monuments, my second favorite thing is
the study of the history and culture of ancient Indo-European peoples, primarily
Iranian studies was by no means a side hustle for him, a way to fill his leisure time,
an easy hobby. This was literally his second specialty.
L. A. Lelekov has done a lot in this field. There is no possibility or need
list here his published research on the above-mentioned issues. Circle it
interests in this area were unusually wide and varied. But to the topics, especially him
captivating, should first of all be attributed to the history of the religion of the ancient Iranians, in
particularly Zoroastrianism. Research in this area is summarized in
the book offered to the reader's attention. The perspective chosen in it to consider the problem is
historiographical - is also quite logical: without abandoning what was declared above
intention to avoid in this preface any assessments, much less recommendations, not
I can, however, fail to note that L. A. Lelekov’s knowledge of domestic and foreign
literature on the issues outlined was truly unprecedented. For everyone who
no matter who turned to him for advice or information, he could serve as a pilot in the vast and not
the sea of this literature is too well known in our country. To a certain extent the role
His published work can also play a role in this sea.
However, it would be unfair to evaluate this work as a dispassionate guide to
Avestological literature. The paradoxical mind of L. A. Lelekov had a passion for
non-trivial hypotheses, it was precisely these that he looked for - sometimes unconsciously - in the works of others
scientists, he largely gave preference to them in his own research. This
trait could not but influence the attitude of his colleagues towards his works on Iranian studies - often
extremely critical, sometimes bordering on outright rejection. However, as these
disputes go further into the past, you clearly understand what an important thing was done by the one who
constantly drew our attention to such non-trivial concepts, to
hypotheses breaking out from the general series, what life-giving impulses were for
audience reviews published by L. A. Lelekov foreign literature and his original
research. All this is so often lacking in scientific life.
And one more circumstance should be noted before the reader turns to the text
of this work: the published manuscript was created not as a book, but as a doctoral dissertation.
Of course, this circumstance could not radically change its content. But those
who is familiar with the practice of defending dissertations that existed in our country for many years, and
still alive today, they themselves can easily identify the features of the book due to this
peculiarity of its origin. Here there is a strictly limited volume, which forced the author
exclude many detailing passages from the text: and the purely canonical structure of the introductory
sections; and - what to hide! — a certain self-censorship regarding the most controversial
judgments and hypotheses. Probably, if this work were addressed not to the special council, but to readers
book, the author would have written it slightly differently.
But L. A. Lelekov was no longer destined to rework the manuscript in this vein. Finished as
dissertation several years ago, this manuscript was then accepted for defense. By
circumstances not at all dependent on the author - in connection with the reorganization of the council - defense
was postponed. Then, finally, her date was set, but she never took place. Author,
who managed to do so much, did not manage to get what he was looking for, as they write in official reviews,
degree...
Let it be at least in this form, which does not quite correspond to the plans of L. A. Lelekov himself
this manuscript will reach the reader.
Doctor
D. S. Raevsky
Historical
Introduction
The Avesta was and remains one of the key documents for the study of the historical past
peoples of the USSR and the foreign East. Accordingly, historiographical and
source study aspects of modern avestology are becoming increasingly
more important for science, for complex methodologically cultural-historical
reconstructions designed to certify a long-past historical reality.
The relevance of considering these aspects is also evident from the fact that almost all key
questions of interpretation of the Avesta as a source still remain hotly debated.
The lack of awareness in the historiography of the problem has more than once led to the fact that
In the newest publications, old hypotheses were resurrected as discoveries of the current period
or, conversely, good arguments put forward by scientists of the second century were ignored
half of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries.
Another important reason for turning to this topic was the continuous increase
the significance of the Avesta information is proportional to the expansion of large-scale archaeological
research in the territories of the Soviet republics of Central Asia, and also partly in
Afghanistan and Central Asia. Soviet archaeologists discovered in this region a colossal
fund of remarkable monuments, revealed the features of what once happened here
historical events requiring in-depth analysis using Avesta data.
The new qualitative state of modern Central Asian archeology must
comply with methodologically new and more informative approaches to the historical and philological criticism of the Avesta; from which follows the task of deploying the necessary
this historiographical panorama.
Specific in complexity and debatability of the problem of studying and cultural-historical
interpretations
Avesta
already
for a long time
found
V
Iranian studies
special
historiographical and source study status. Without their permission, modern
Oriental studies will not be able to get closer to the desired understanding of the material and spiritual
culture of the ancient inhabitants of Iran and Central Asia, their beliefs, beliefs, views on
peace and the structure of society.
Soviet science has repeatedly addressed these problems and devoted many bright pages to them.
However, the most fundamental generalization of facts known to science in the domestic
Iranian studies took place relatively long ago, more than two decades ago, in
first volume of "History of the Tajik people". Number of facts over the elapsed time
has increased, many different theories and hypotheses have appeared in foreign publications, until
which have not yet received a thorough critical analysis from domestic Iranian scholars.
Of course, in one work, which is also limited not only by the author’s capabilities, but also by her
volume, complete and equally representative accounting of all the achievements of world avestology in
in any case it will be unrealistic. Therefore, it is necessary to select and characterize
from a historiographical point of view. The most significant or least known, but
noteworthy works on the problem under consideration. Assess the scale and
the complexity of such a task can to some extent be seen from brief reviews by J. Duchesne-Guillemin
, J. Kellena , X.-P. Schmidt and ours, but
the small volumes of all these publications do not allow us to seriously delve into the subject with its
complex, sometimes contradictory specifics.
Separately, it should be emphasized the extreme importance of Avesta data for attribution
abundant archaeological materials in the areas inhabited by Iranian-speaking peoples of antiquity.
Contributing to the interpretation of many still mysterious phenomena of an ideological order,
such materials themselves need
correlation with archaic
texts,
V
source study support. Almost every researcher of Central Asian antiquities
pre-Arab times had reason to turn to the information of the Avesta and partly Pahlavi
books, and for some works such information became fundamental, for example, when
Yu. A. Rapoport's study of beliefs and funeral rites of ancient Khorezm, B. Ya.
Stavisky - Sogd, B. A. Litvinsky - Bactria.
Another of the many reasons prompting us to take a closer look at the typology
Avestan corpus, serves as a prominent place for the latter in the general fund of cultural values
Ancient East and all humanity, Europe's long-standing interest in mysterious sayings
Zoroaster. This interest arose already among the students of Plato and Aristotle, and was heard in
introduction to the “Younger Edda” and found its culmination in the well-known work of F.
Nietzsche, i.e. flared up periodically over two and a half millennia.
A purely scientific expression of this interest in foreign Europe took the form
an inexhaustible avalanche of publications, moreover, in a dozen languages, very diverse, sometimes
mutually exclusive, but for the most part quite interesting and deep in
development. A significant part of them, especially with a historical and philological bias, are not
attracted increased attention from our Orientalists, since they are more
were interested in the linguistic aspects of studying the language of the Avesta or its
source study potential for broad reconstructions of socio-political
pictures of ancient Iranian society. The genre nature of the text, its figurative and expressive
means and especially the ideological context in domestic Iranian studies of meaning
relatively little was given, although E. E. Bertels and I. S. Braginsky did
a number of valuable observations in this regard.
Meanwhile, it is precisely in this direction that foreign Orientalism has hardly concentrated
not the main efforts and received many interesting, although not indisputable, of course, results.
Therefore, it seems advisable to characterize this aspect as far as possible
development of modern avestology, identify and consider the most typical for it
trends and methods. Of course, accounting and, even more so, analysis of several thousand monographic
and article publications exceeds the capabilities of one person, which the author is fully aware of
this work, especially in the absence of appropriate precedents, but the need
Russian avestology undoubtedly justify such a plan.
Such a goal setting requires a rejection of the traditional chronological and
descriptive presentation of the issue, since, firstly, such would entail
represents a multiple excess of the volume of work, secondly, an overload of its details and
details. In the age-old question of whether or not it is necessary to sacrifice the distinguishability of individual
trees, in order to take in the entire forest, you have to choose the first. Unacceptable
construction looks like it follows the principle of Personalia, since it inevitably entails
hierarchical ranking of scientific names and directions, for which there is no basis today.
Thematic grouping of material has its drawbacks. Therefore, to whenever possible
display the historiography of the phenomenon under study both in general and in some of the most
essential details, it makes sense to introduce two levels of presentation. On the first one
it is intended to show modern science’s interpretation of the main fundamental problems,
such as the phenomena of the Avesta and Zoroastrianism in general or the historicity of the image of Zoroaster. On
at the second level, in a separate chapter, specific issues of historical and
historiographical nature, most of interest to the domestic and
world archaeological science with its desire to certainly include certain information
Avestas into the real stratigraphy of the Bronze Age or Early Iron Age in the territories
Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia. We will talk about the Indo-Iranian background in the Avesta, about
funeral rites of Zoroastrianism and its other cult features, about the reliability
reforms of Zoroaster. In the historiographical panorama of the study of the Avesta and Zoroastrianism, especially
evidence from external sources has always occupied an important place - Assyrian,
Old Testament, ancient Greek, etc. Without taking them into account, it is completely impossible to clarify the character
reflection of the Avestan code of true historical reality. Just them
opportunities are far from being fully utilized and require more serious
attention, why it will be necessary to give them a significant place in a special section of the study.
To confirm what has been said, it is enough to cite a brilliant, but unjustifiably forgotten
R. Eisler's observation of Anaximander's cosmology turned out to be quite identical
cosmology of the Avesta in a systemic sense and in specific particulars, due to which
The coincidence of this similarity is excluded. From other Greek cosmologies
Anaximander's doctrine differed sharply. This major discovery was made in 1910,
which did not prevent the most prominent Iranian scholars of our day from developing the hypotheses he excluded,
As can be seen from the works of I. Gershevich in 1959 and 1964. It's exactly the same for now
was not taken into account in any reconstructions by domestic Iranian scholars. Meanwhile from
Anaximander’s cosmology clearly shows that the scholasticism that seems late to us
Zoroastrian worldview with a theologically motivated arrangement of heavenly
luminaries, in which, contrary to the observed reality, the stars are closer to the earth,
than the moon and the sun, existed at the latest in the 7th century. BC. Echoes of the same
Young Avestan ideas in Pherecydes, a younger contemporary of Anaximander,
exclude the randomness of parallelism and force us to state for Western Iranian
territories systemic organization of the cosmological doctrine of the Young Avestan type already in
VII century BC. There are no formal prohibitions on its quite possible aging. In general
features with the fact of the obvious presence of some Zoroastrian beliefs in the first Media
half of the 6th century BC. was considered I.M. Dyakonov, and fully took into account the early Greek
data by M. Boyce in his generalizing monographs of 1975 and 1979. .
In other words, the importance of external sources for the study and for the historiography of the Avesta
colossal, cannot be overestimated and deserves a separate independent
research.
Avestology is still considered an arena for the struggle of ideas and arguments, although it is not always equal.
convincing. Today there are not only no winners, but even no rules of discussion,
therefore, any look at the original data, their relative and absolute value,
deployment priority will inevitably remain subjective to some extent. Costs
compare the well-known monographs of U. Bianchi, R. Zener, J.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M. Molay, M. Boyce, finally J. Gnoli, like everyone else
what is said will receive tangible materiality. All named interpretations, as well as methods
their thematic presentation are not just far from one another, they are incompatible both in general and
and in particular.
Indeed, there are no number of controversial issues and they can be interpreted in any desired way.
way. To demonstrate the extreme complexity of the situation, it would not be superfluous to involve
a group of urgent and intractable problems of sociological orientation
teachings of Zoroaster. Under what socio-political conditions could it be effective?
a sermon demanding that an individual obey an eschatologically charged
religious ethics? The very formulation of the question presupposes that the object of the sermon, the bearer
individual consciousness, stood out from the primitive communal collective, to which
repeatedly decree
ZOROAASTRIANISM is a religion that arose in north-eastern Iran in the midst of an Indian-ran-skoe village and a widespread country. in ancient times and the Middle Ages on the territory of modern Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia and Azerbaijan.
Its main concept is the kar-di-nal pro-ti-po-sta-le-tion of the fi-gu-ry of the top-of-the-go-hard va Ahu-ra-maz-dy and pan-theo-on the ancient In-pre-Iranian deities, as well as the dua-listie pro-ti-in-supply of the Light logo and Dark began the world-building, for-fi-si-ro-van-noe at the level of the Younger Ave-sta.
The name “Zoroastrianism” comes from the name of the pro-ro-ka Zara-tush-tra, based on the origin of blood and pro-po- started Zoroastrianism. The traditional date of the origin of Zoroastrianism is the 7th-6th centuries BC. e., one-on-one linguistic analysis of the first-in-spiritual meaning of the ancient part of the Ave-sta - Gat - allows the era of activity of the XII-X centuries BC. e. The modern Zo-roa-st-ri-tra-di-tion, following the le-to-counting according to the cal-len-da-ryu “fas-li”, counts na-cha -break of the race of Zoroastrianism year of the reign of the king (ka-vi) Vish-tas-sing the teachings from the very Zara-tush-tra (tra- di-tsi-on-no around 1737 BC).
The sacred canon of Zoroastrianism Avesta, which is the main source for its study, is a monument multi-layered and about -ti-vo-re-chi-vy. The latest research has revealed the connection between the text of the Avesta and the accomplishments in the context of the ri-tua-la culture -mi action-st-vi-mi, therefore, Ave-stu is not-about-ho-di-mo-considered, taking into account its practicality- high-quality and genre-specific, and not just as a literary monument or a historical source. There is no single opinion and no significance of the Gathas and the Younger Avesta for the study of Zoroastrianism . Some studies suggest excluding the last one from the circle of sources, others are the basis -they rely on these two parts of the Zo-roa-st-riy-sko-ka-no-na and consider Zoroastrianism a com-pro-mis-som between -but-theistic cult of the supreme god Gat and the ancient Iranian pagan cult of the Younger Avesta. Not only Ga-you and Younger Ave-sta are in op-position to each other, but many theo-re-ti-che -sky, world-view-che-che-sky and mi-fo-logical pro-ti-vo-pos-tav-le-tions are present inside every hour -those who make it difficult to reconstruct the history and ancient cult of Zoroastrianism.
One of the main pro-ti-vo-speech is the idea of the supreme god. In the Ga-takh there is one god - Ahu-ra-maz-da (literally - the lord of wisdom; God the Creator; pekh-le-viy-skaya for -ma - Or-mazd). Ahu-ra-maz-da is the only creator and exists outside the dual op-position of Spen-ta -Mai-new (holiness, creative na-cha-lo, si-la do-b-ra) and An-gro-Mai-new (peh-le-viy-form-ma - Ah -ri-man; bad, destructive, power of evil). On the contrary, in the Younger Ave-sta An-gro-May-new appears directly with Ahu-ra-maz-dy. The concept of sacrifice is the same in the Ga-ts and the Younger Ave-sta. In the first case, there is a preference for bloodless sacrifices - the influence is sacred -no-go na-pit-ka hao-we (So-ma), in the second - with-no-she-ni-yam of sacrificial animals. The Ga-tas did not say anything about the cult of ancestors, which was not possible in the early centuries of the development of religious consciousness. nia; there is no indication of et-nos, place, place and time of action.
About-for-Za-ra-tush-try ad-re-so-va-on a separate person. His re-che-niya but-syat you-ra-zhen-ny mis-sio-ner-sky ha-rak-ter, that not-thought-mo in the ro-do-p-le-men-nom about -sche-st-ve with not-pri-kos-but-ven-ny-mi et-no-kul-tur-ny-mi gra-ni-tsa-mi. Co-der-zha-ni-em Gat is the ideology of the priesthood, and the Younger Avesta is the ideology of the military nobility, In my opinion, one of the most popular ancient Iranian gods is Mithra. The pro-ti-standing of the Gathas and the Younger Ave-sta is the pro-ti-standing of the priesthood with the military nobility for power in society -st-ve. Perhaps, un-blessed social-ci-al-but-po-li-tical circumstances served as an impetus to you-stu-p-le-niu of the zo-roa-st-riy-priest-of-the-st-va, and his ra-same in the fight with the military nobility could- it would become a pre-reference to the design of the pseudo-epi-gra-fa - re-che-niy, with-pi-sy-vae-my Za-ra-tush-tre.
The ideals of the Gat are not the desire for wealth and military victories, but immortality as this basic concept. You don't know the key ideas of Zoroastrianism, namely: from the Indo-Iranian pagan cults that create natural elements; the appearance of the abstract system of Ame-sha-Spen-ta (“immortal saints”) as 7 hypo-statistic manifestations -niy or creation of one god-st-va Ahu-ra-maz-dy; doc-three-well, you-bo-ra between good and evil, separated-from-us in the earthly world (era of Vi-za-rishn). For the first time in the ancient Indo-European world it is indicated that a person’s personal actions influence the struggle -bu do-b-ra with evil, i.e. thoughts, words and de-la in-di-vi-duu-ma ob-words-li-va-yut state of affairs- sche-st-va and cos-mo-sa. Great value comes from the mind of ma-te-ri-al-nyh benefits, including the development of livestock and land -le-de-liyu, increase-in-that-st-va.
The main role in ri-tu-al-noy prak-ti-ke from-in-di-las fire as a symbol and sign in the presence of the highest norms and ideas -la - Ar-you. Thus, against the background of the indicated ethno-cultural-tourist specialties of the social-ci-al-noe co-maintenance of Zoroastrianism op-re-de-la -there are two things: as a pro-t-standing between the sedentary pastoral Iranian tribes and their neighbors, or as a pro-ti-in -standing in one’s own Iranian ro-d-vo-yah, according to Mithra (this point of view seems to be more detailed).
As the state religion of Iran, Zoroastrianism took shape under Sa-sa-ni-dah, then where were the records in Middle Persian ( pekh-le-viy-ki) language many Zo-roa-st-riy literary monuments (for example, “Den-kart”, “Zats-pram”, “Ar-da Vi- times Na-mag"), ko-di-fi-tsi-ro-van corp-pus Ave-sty. After the spread of the country in Iran, part of the Zo-roa-st-riy-priests with their pri-ver-wives tsa-mi moved to Northern India, where they (par-sy) live to this day, some of them remained in the sa- Mom Iran, where, after Zoroastrianism, we are known under the name Geb-ry.
Leonid Arkadyevich Lelekov (1934 - 1988), a historian-orientalist and specialist in the field of restoration theory, came to the All-Union Central Research Laboratory for the Conservation and Restoration of Museum Values (VTsNILKR, later renamed VNIIR and GosNIIR) in 1968, in period of its formation, and devoted a lot of effort and talent to ensure that it turned into a recognized scientific center of the industry.
Overcoming barriers in the pursuit of the most complete self-expression in the scientific field was a remarkable feature of Leonid Arkadyevich’s professional life. His brilliant abilities allowed him, who became fascinated by “mysterious Asia” as a child, to enter the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies. It seemed that with a diploma as a translator from English after graduating from the First Moscow Institute foreign languages, where he had to move in connection with the transformation of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Leonid Arkadyevich would no longer be destined to study the East, however, thanks to tireless work and talent, he managed to become a historian - orientalist. External circumstances doomed him to serve in gray, curtained offices, but he managed to break out of them to lively, public activity in the All-Russian Central Scientific Research Center. For 10 years, Leonid Arkadyevich dealt with specific restoration problems in the Department monumental painting, and then founded and headed the theoretical direction of research at the Institute. As an orientalist, he sought from analysis material culture of the Ancient East to rise to explore its spiritual depths; V last years before his departure, he studied the language of the Avesta.
Having nothing to do with restoration before joining the VTsNILKR, Leonid Arkadyevich very soon became an intellectual leader in the industry. His interests were aimed primarily at studying the fundamental theoretical problems of restoration activities. At the same time, he was a true educator and, working on various restoration councils and commissions, contributed to the logical transparency and coherence of the industry. He was not only a theorist, but also an ideologist of the restoration cause. He was born a warrior of science, always ready to stand up for scientific truth and common sense.
The remarkable ease with which Leonid Arkadyevich started new things turned out to be an absolutely invaluable quality during the formation of the Laboratory and the development scientific restoration in the 1960s - 1980s. Together with Gennady Andreevich Koshelenko in the early 1970s, he laid the foundations of the Department of Monumental Painting. He strongly supported Antonina Vasilievna Ivanova, who was introducing new synthetic conservation materials into the industry. It was Leonid Arkadyevich who was the first, after a long break, to resume and give new impetus to research into theoretical problems of restoration. He was next to the director of VTsNIKR - GosNIIR, Ivan Petrovich Gorin, when the Government was deciding the issue of transforming the Laboratory into an Institute. It was Leonid Arkadyevich who found the necessary arguments and precise words to justify the need for its creation.
Koshelenko Gennady Andreevich is currently the head of the ancient sector of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, professor, doctor of historical sciences.
Ivanova Antonina Vasilievna (1921-1998), from 1961 to 1987. head Chemical-technological laboratory VTsNILKR - VNIIR.
Gorin Ivan Petrovich (1925 - 2003), in 1964 - 1992. director first of VTsNIKR (until 1979), then of VNIIR and GosNIIR.
In December 1969, the Italian Association for the History of Religions (Società italiana di storia delle religioni) held scientific conference“Problems and methods of the history of religions: 1959-1969”, dedicated to the tenth anniversary of the death of the famous Italian religious scholar R. Pettazzoni. Prominent researchers, now recognized as masters of religious studies of the last century, took part in it, including G. Widengren, K.Yu. Bleecker, U. Bianchi and others, who made presentations on both methodological problems related to the issues of comparative historical and phenomenological methods of studying religion, and specific historical issues in the study of various religions.
Readers of the journal “Religious Studies” are offered a translation of the report “Problems and Prospects for Research in Persian Religion,” written by Gherardo Gnoli, the current president of the Italian Association for the History of Religions. In 1969, Njoli was still a fairly young scientist, who, however, had already managed to make a name for himself with two fundamental monographs devoted to the analysis of Judeo-Persian inscriptions discovered in the mountains of Afghanistan, as well as the history of Sistan, one of the ancient Eastern Iranian cultural and political centers. The report of the Italian religious scholar is significant and landmark not only for the late 60s of the last century, but in in a certain sense remains relevant to this day. In general, both then and now, the general situation in the field of research into the pre-Islamic religious situation of Ancient and Early Medieval Iran can be characterized by a very fair judgment by L.A. Lelekova: “both firmly established truths and not yet proven, but sanctified by frequent repetition, postulates are too few in number to bear the burden of universal interpretation. They are clearly outweighed by controversial issues.”
Njoli’s focus is precisely on the problem of postulates, that is, those provisions of the history of religions relating to “Mazdeism” and “Zoroastrianism”, which for a long time remained the cornerstones of Iranian studies. This includes, first of all, the question of the figure of the prophet Zarathushtra and the relationship of the Gatha teachings attributed to him to the religious environment in the context of which it supposedly originated and developed. G. Njoli's arguments and conclusions are not entirely clear and convincing. However, the merit of the Italian religious scholar is that he briefly and succinctly drew a line under a number of previous studies and was able, if not to discard once and for all very dubious positions, then at least to identify the weaknesses of traditional interpretations and outline possible paths further development religious knowledge in this subject field. It seems to us that for the Russian-speaking research environment, G. Njoli’s work continues to remain relevant and has special significance.
To substantiate the last thesis, it seems necessary to give a brief general review current state knowledge about the history of religions of pre-Islamic Iran in Russian-language science. If we construct a certain ideal situation, we can say that the normal state of a certain field of knowledge within one language segment of a particular science should be characterized by the presence of a base of translated primary sources, fundamental research in a given subject field, the presence of a research school or schools, and inclusion in the global context , which is possible, on the one hand, as knowledge and operation of foreign language research data, and on the other, as a representative representation of the main results in other languages. From the point of view of such a design, it can be stated that the current state is far from ideal.
A quick overview of encyclopedic, reference and teaching aids, published in Russian over the past decades, which essentially represent a kind of propaedeutic for the reader to determine his scientific interests and a source of factual material for representatives of other specialties and problem fields, reveals that in cases where we're talking about about “Zorastrism,” they often reproduce, without proper criticism, highly controversial statements, which are thus “sanctified by frequent repetition.” This, it seems to us, is connected, first of all, with a very modest number of special studies by Russian-speaking scientists, devoted directly to the phenomenon of “Zoroastrianism,” by global standards. The latter, in turn, in our opinion, is explained by the insufficient introduction into circulation of primary sources - fundamental Avestan and Pahlavi texts. There is still no complete translation of the Avesta into Russian. Only recently academician I.M. Steblin-Kamensky published the first complete translation of the Gathas. Pahlavi sources through the works of O.M. Chunakova are being introduced, but extremely slowly, and a number of the most important medieval texts, such as “Denkart”, “Great Bundahishn”, “Selected by Zatsparam”, etc., remain inaccessible in Russian. An imaginary critic might argue that all basic primary sources are available in European languages, not to mention the fact that in-depth study of the material is only possible in the original language, so the question of the availability of Russian translations is more a matter of the prestige of Russian science than a fundamental obstacle. With all the justice of such an objection, it should be noted, on the one hand, that a number of European translations are seriously outdated. On the other hand, the presence of translated primary sources is a powerful incentive for development scientific research and strictly speaking, the boom of Western European Iranian studies (in the religious aspect) would have been impossible without the pioneer A.G. Anquetil-Duperron, who gave the Avesta to the Europeans, and translations of Middle Persian religious and philosophical treatises, unprecedented even by today’s standards, made by E.V. West at the end of the 19th century, which were included in five volumes in the compendium “Sacred Books of the East”.
It would be wrong, however, to present the situation with Russian-language monographs in an exclusively negative light. U Russian history The religions of pre-Islamic Iran had a triumphant origin in the pre-revolutionary period, associated with the names of G.A. Ezova, K.A. Kossovich, K.G. Zalemana, A.L. Pogodina, E.M. Dillon, K.A. Inostrantsev and many others, rapid development in the first half of the 20th century, due, among other things, to numerous archaeological and ethnographic expeditions to Central Asia. The names of V.V. are associated with this period. Bartold, E.A. Bertels, S.P. Tolstova, M.M. Dyakonov and other researchers, when referring to whose works we can see them as generalists who combined interests in the field of history, archeology, linguistics and philology, ethnology and ethnography, religious studies, etc. However, since the middle of the 20th century, questions of the study of Iranian religions have become entirely the responsibility of historians and (especially today) linguists, which could not but affect the angle of review of the problems and the form and content of theoretical generalizations. In fact, in the Russian-language historiography of the study of “Zoroastrianism” in the 20th century, it is almost impossible to find religious studies works focused directly on this religious phenomenon, and not on its historical aspects or philological analysis of its texts. A certain “reanimation” of religious studies interest in the problem could have been expected after L.A.’s brilliant monograph, which has no analogues in Russia, was posthumously published in 1991. Lelekov "Avesta in modern science“, however, this did not happen, including because due to the meager circulation, this publication turned into a bibliographic rarity, barely leaving the walls of the printing house.
Of course, the lack of special monographs by domestic authors could be compensated externally, through translations of numerous and very interesting studies of “Zoroastrianism” by foreign religious scholars. However, here too, surprisingly, we discover a serious lacuna. By and large, the number of translated studies by Western authors can be counted on one hand. If we discard translated encyclopedias, reference books and review works on the history of religions (for example, famous work M. Eliade “History of Faith and Religious Ideas”), the bottom line will be only four monographs known to us, devoted directly to “Zoroastrianism”. This, firstly, is a kind of bestseller by M. Boyce “Zoroastrians. Beliefs and Customs,” which has gone through several reprints in Russian since 1988; then less famous collection 2002 “Catechism of Zoroastrianism”, of which, according to the criterion of scientific rigor, only the translation of the work of D.V. deserves mention. Waterhouse "Zoroastrianism"; the almost unnoticed translation of Jal Pavri's work "The Zoroastrian Doctrine of the Afterlife"; and, finally, an almost underground translation of a small work by R.C. Tsenera “Teachings of Magicians”, carried out in 1992 by Russian neo-Zoroastrians, followers of the school of Avestan astrology P.P. Globs. It is obvious that four monographs are a drop in the bucket, and the lack of translations into Russian of fundamental studies by a whole galaxy of Western religious scholars dedicated to “Zoroastrianism” is one of the main factors hindering the development of Russian-language research in this area and preventing the normal entry of domestic works into the global context . In connection with the demonstrated shortage of translations, the problems associated with M. Boyce's monograph deserve special mention. Unfortunately, the publication of this work in Russian became, in a certain sense, fatal. On the one hand, an easy, understandable, popularly and elegantly written monograph by a British researcher generated enormous interest in the phenomenon of “Zoroastrianism,” primarily among the philistine community. On the other side, characteristic feature This publication is characterized by a dogmatic style of presentation, including in cases where we are talking about very controversial and highly debatable issues. To understand the ideological background, undoubtedly connected with the subjective sympathies of the author, which determined the style of presenting the material, it is enough to turn to the very first phrase of the introduction: “Zoroastrianism is the most ancient of the world’s religions of revelation, and, apparently, it has influenced humanity, directly or indirectly, more influence than any other faith.” By and large, the problem is not so much in a single work by a single researcher, but in the fact that nothing else followed the release of this translation, thanks to which to this day “Zoroastrians. Beliefs and Customs” remains the most famous, popular and cited translated work, which defines for many Russian-speaking specialists a specific vision of the problem field, very far from the debatable nature that Gherardo Gnoli emphasizes and substantiates.
In the situation described, anyone is valuable new translation articles or monographs on “Zoroastrianism”, especially if we are talking about material that allows us to penetrate in a new way, more deeply into the substantive and methodological problems of studying this religious tradition. A report by an Italian religious scholar, which in its content and main emphasis is very close to the famous article by L.A. Lelekov “Zoroastrianism. Phenomenon and Problems,” in our opinion, will be of interest to everyone involved in the history of religions, and can and should help expand the horizons of understanding the subject field.
Gnoli Gh. Le iscrizioni giudeo-persiane del Gur (Afghanistan). Rome, 1964; Id. Ricerche storiche sul Sistan antico. Roma, 1967.
Lelekov L.A. Avesta in modern science. M., 1992. S. 25-26.
The number of monographs published in recent years is overwhelming. Noteworthy works include: Khismatulin A.A., Kryukova V.Yu. Death and funeral rites in Islam and Zoroastrianism. St. Petersburg, 1997; Meitarchyan M.B. Funeral rites Zoroastrians. M., 2001; Pahlavi Dictionary of Zoroastrian Terms, Mythical Characters and Mythological Symbols / O.M. Chunakova. M., 2004; Kryukova V.Yu. Zoroastrianism. St. Petersburg, 2005. In the context of historical and philosophical problems of Iranian religions, M.N. is concerned. Wolf (Early Greek philosophy and Ancient Iran. St. Petersburg, 2007) and E.V. Abdullaev (Plato’s Ideas between Hellas and Sogdiana: essays early history Platonism in the Middle East. St. Petersburg, 2007)
Gathas of Zoroaster / Translation from Avestan, introductory article, comments and appendices by I.M. Steblin-Kamensky. St. Petersburg, 2009.
Catechism of Zoroastrianism. Ancient religion magicians Collection. M., 2002.
Pavri D.D.K. Zoroastrian doctrine of the afterlife. From the moment of his own death until the Chinwat Bridge. M., 2004.
Zener R.C. The teaching of magicians. M., 1992.
Boyce M. Zoroastrians. Beliefs and customs. St. Petersburg, 1994. P. 11.
Lelekov L.A. Zoroastrianism: phenomenon and problems // Local and syncretic cults. M., 1991. P. 12-49.
Krupnik I.L. G. Njoli and studies of “Zoroastrianism” (translator’s preface) // Religious Studies. 2010: No. 3-4. — P. 85-88.
