Pahlavi kirrēnīdan: Traces of Iranian Creation Mythology Author(s): Bruce Lincoln Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 4 (Oct. Dec., 1997), pp. 681-685 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/606450 Accessed: 29-12-2016 10:38 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/606450?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:38:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS 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 daand means "to create," "to destine," and "to decree."' 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-, krntdti, "cut, split, rend"; Homeric cKEtip, "shear, clip, cut short (esp. * I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary collegiality of William Malandra and P. O. Skjaervo, whose numerous suggestions substantially improved this paper. Any remaining infelicities are, of course, my own. 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 SkjTrv0 have both suggested to me the possibility that, like Pahl. bridan, it may be derived from Indo-European *bhr(e)iH- "to cut off" (Avestan pairi.brinayha, Sanskrit bhrindti, Russian 6pHTb, etc.), conceivably by way of Avestan *broi0ra-, 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 Dadestdn i Denig (Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy, 1990), 1: 315. hair)"; Old Norse skera "cut, slaughter, carve"; Old High German scrinden "divide, split up"; Russian Kpoio, KpOHTb "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, 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 *skher-, which may be modified by nasal and other suffixes. 5 TD2 MS 4.9-14: ka-s did an i ohrmazd rosnih agriftar ud frdz-payrog zaddr-kdmagih aresk-gohrih ray pad murnjenidan tag abar kard. u-s pas did cerih ud abarwezih i freh az an i xwes abaz o tom dwdrist. kirrenid was dew[dn] an dam i murnjeniddr niyaz o ardikkarih. With one exception (frdz-payrog for his fraz padirot), I have followed the text extablished by R. C. Zaehner, Zurvdn: A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1955), 279, with notes at pp. 290-91. 6 TD2 MS 11.10-12: gandg menog az getig tarigih an i xwes tan [i] dam frdz kirrenid pad an i kirb i sydih i a durestar- *gon i tom-arzdnig druwand ciyon bazag-adentar xrafstar. 681 This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:38:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.4 (1997) 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 (dewdn-frdz-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 (karantat) against the embodied creation, for the destruction of the creations of truth."'0 Here, as in the case of Avestan tas and Ofaras-," 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 7 TD2 MS. 15.7-10: ganag menog pad an petydragomandih az kamaligdn dewan nazdist akoman fraz kirrenid pas andar ud pas sdwul pas ndhagih pas taromad pas taric ud zeric pas abarigdn dewan. 8 civon jam. abdz-darisnih i sahm ud tangih (ud) sej ray ruwdn i oy yazihed ud xwanihtd pad abdz-estisnih (i) dewdn-frdTzkirrenid hez-iz (I) +awastar (ud) sahm ud sej-iz i nihdn-rawign. 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.aojastamgm drujim fraca karantat anjro mainyus aoi ygm astvaitim gaeOqm mahrkai aSahe gaeOanqm. 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 (withfra-) 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-, *tvar-," in Indo-lranica: Melanges presentds a Georg Morgenstiere (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), 141-48. krtis 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"'4is not usually a ritual instrument.'5 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. 12 Eight occurrences of krtare listed in Hermann Grassmann, Worterbuch zum Rig-Veda (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964 [rpt.]), 346, most with the preverbs vior 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 tydja ends cakarthagne prcchami nu tvdm dvidvan / dkridan krfdan hdrir dttave 'ddn vi parvasas cakarta gadm ivasih II 14 Comparison to Avestan ayhiis still advocated by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 643, and by older reference works, but is difficult to reconcile with William Malandra's identification of the atyhas a bow, not a sword, "A Glossary of Terms for Weapons and Armor in Old Iranian," Indo-lranian 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 asiappears 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 (pdrasvdn-, identified as a donkey by Grassmann and a rhinoceros by Liiders) 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. 682 This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:38:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms LINCOLN: Traces of Iranian Creation Mythology 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 kirreniddr who destroys things." (PRDD 26.4)17 6 md tva tapat priyd atmdpiydntam md svddhitis tanvi a tisthipat te / ma te grdhnur avisastdtihdya chidrd gatrdny asind mithi kah // On this verse, see the notes of Louis Renou, Etudes vddiques et pdnineennes, 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 asiis 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, proclaiming their names joint by joint. cdtustriniad vajino devdbandhor vdnikrir dSvasya svddhitih sdm eti I dchidra gatra vayund krnota pdrus-parur anughi.sya vi sasta // 17 ud hom yazad o kas ray nifrin kuned. gowed ki-t frazand ma bawad u-t dusrawih ud abarig andgih xwgf bawad ke man andar yazisn kdr ne framaye ud sur i pid ohrmazd be o man dad erwdrag abag uzwdn ud casm i hoy i hamdg gospand ud gospand sardagdn. ne yaze be joye ke an sar i pid i man ohrmazd be o man dad ne yazed be joyed andar man i oy ne zdyed ne asron ne arteStar ud ne wastaryos. ud andar man i oy zdyend mardom i cihr ijadagan ud winahed dahisn i ohrmazd kirreniddr i tis tabah kuned. This passage follows the Avestan of Here, the agent noun kirreniddr denotes a man who, like the Greek payEipo;, has the ritual responsibility of dismembering the sacrificial victim's body and distributing its pieces.'8 The kirrinidar 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,'9 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 ijadigan] 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 microand macrocosm that is familiar from other Pahlavi sources, the specification Y 11.4-6, but the phrase kirreniddr 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 madagkardar, kii 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 u 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. 683 This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:38:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.4 (1997) 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,2' 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.karantam] Spityura.22 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 dedides a la me'moire 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, 199.1), 219-31; and such texts as Dk 3.105, 3.194; GBd 26.127 and 27.52. 22 Yt 19.46: adat aete fralharacayat dsiste katarascit. spanto mainyus aetam frayharscayat vohuca mano asamca vahistam atramca ahurahe mazdd puOram. ayro mainyus aetam fragharacayat akamca mano aesamamca xrvi.dram azimca dahdkam Together with [Al] Dahag. Spityura was the one who cut apart [kirrnmd] 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 [kirrinid]. (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-kirrenidardn] 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 creaspitvuramca vimo.karantam. 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'6tudes 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 TD2 MS. 228.12: spitur an bawed ke abdg dahdg jam kirrenid. 24 jam ohrmazd tar menid ka-m *astwihdd ne rased us pad an tarmenisnth eg-isan be kirrenid dewdn [ud] mardomdn. 25 ud ka rist ul estened awesadn ke-san jam kirrenid ud res wizend wen-nihan *anastihd be kunend ud awesdn hamag be mirend 3 roz murd nibayend. This passage is quite unclear, particularly in the phrase I read as res wizend wen-nihan *andstihd. 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 TD2 MS. 124.15-125.1: ka-gan jam be kirrenid xwarrah i jam az dast i dahag ddur *farnbag bozenid. 27 ka druwandan az dusox abar dwurd hend jam-kirrenidaran wazay-kirbiha abaz o dusox oftend ud 3 an gyag bawend. 684 This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:38:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms LINCOLN: Traces of Iranian Creation Mythology tion through sacrifice (Latin Remus, Germanic Tuisco).28 Accordingly, scholars since Hermann Giintert 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 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 (ProtoGermanic *Manwaz, cognate to Skt. Manuand the first element in Avestan Manus.cira-) and their primordial ancestor. His name means "twin," and is built on the number two; cf. Old Saxon twisc, Old High German zwisc "binus, geminus," AngloSaxon 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 Giintert, 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-Gay6mard-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 fiir Hermann Gintert, 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: 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. BRUCE LINCOLN UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 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 fir Hermann Giintert, 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 losephi 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, 198891), 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. 685 This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:38:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms