Farnah

Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies

in Honor of

Sasha Lubotsky

Beech Stave Press

Ann Arbor • New York
 © Beech Stave Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Typeset with LATEX using the Galliard typeface designed by Matthew Carter and Greek Old
Face by Ralph Hancock. The typeface on the cover is Yxtobul by Steve Peter.

Photo of Sasha Lubotsky © Capital Photos.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN ---- (alk. paper)

Printed in the United States of America

    
 Table of Contents


Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Bibliography of Sasha Lubotsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Ph.D. Students of Sasha Lubotsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Peter C. Bisschop, Vedic Elements in the Pāśupatasūtra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Václav Blažek, The Case of Tocharian ‘silver’: Inherited or Borrowed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Michiel de Vaan, The Noncanonical Use of Instrumental Plurals in Young Avestan . . . . 
Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, Sogdian Plurals in the Vessantara Jātaka . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Jost Gippert, A Middle Iranian Word Denoting an Office-Holder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Stephanie W. Jamison, The Vedic Perfect Imperative and the Status of Modal Forms
to Tense-Aspect Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Michael Janda, Vedisch dhénā-: Bedeutung und Etymologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Jay H. Jasanoff, The Phonology of Tocharian B okso ‘ox’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Jared Klein, Syncretism in Indo-European: A Natural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Alwin Kloekhorst, The Origin of the Hittite hi-Conjugation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
˘
Werner Knobl, Das Demonstrativpronomen ETÁD im g veda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
R̊
Petr Kocharov, A Comment on the Vocalization of Word-initial
and Medial Laryngeals in Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Frederik Kortlandt, The Indo-European k-Aorist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Guus Kroonen, Lachmann’s Law, Thurneysen’s Law, and a New Explanation
of the PIE no-Participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Leonid Kulikov, Vedic āhanás- and Its Relatives/Cognates within and outside
Indo-Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

v
Table of Contents

Martin Joachim Kümmel, The Survival of Laryngeals in Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Rosemarie Lühr, Prosody in Indo-European Corpora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Hrach Martirosyan, Armenian Andndayin ōj and Vedic Áhi- Budhnyà-
‘Abyssal Serpent’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ranko Matasović, Iranian Loanwords in Proto-Slavic: A Fresh Look. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H. Craig Melchert, Semantics and Etymology of Hittite takš- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, PIE *g wh3 -éŭ- ‘cow’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alan J. Nussbaum, A Dedicatory Thigh: Greek µηρÒς and µÁρα Once Again . . . . . . . . . . 
Norbert Oettinger, Vedisch Vivásvant- und seine avestische Entsprechung . . . . . . . . . . . 
Birgit Anette Olsen, The Development of Interconsonantal Laryngeals in Indo-Iranian
˛ ptā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
and Old Avestan zaθā
Michaël Peyrot, Tocharian B etswe ‘mule’ and Eastern East Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Georges-Jean Pinault, New Look at Vedic śám . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Tijmen Pronk, Old Church Slavonic (j)utro, Vedic us.ár- ‘daybreak, morning’ . . . . . . . . . 
Velizar Sadovski, Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies
and Liturgical Practices I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
George Starostin, Typological Expectations and Historic Reality: Once Again
on the Issue of Lexical Cognates between Indo-European and Uralic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Lucien van Beek, Greek πšδιλον ‘sandal’ and the Origin of the e-Grade in PIE ‘foot’ . . . . 
Michael Weiss, Veneti or Venetes? Observations on a Widespread Indo-European
Tribal Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Index Verborum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

vi
 Vedic and Avestan Parallels
from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I
 

I. Ritual taxonomy in Indic, Iranian and beyond: Litanies and liturgies as

“hyper-linked” catalogues of the Universe

. Alexander Lubotsky has significantly enlarged our horizon of knowledge concerning the
use of a whole range of data from the Vedic lexicon, phraseology, and ritual formulae rele-
vant for the reconstruction of Indo-Iranian realia and rites. Going beyond the scope of the
usual Rigveda/Gāthā comparison, in his editions of the Paippalāda-Atharvaveda V (Lubot-
sky ) and IV (Lubotsky and Griffiths forthcoming) he offers a series of new parallels
of formulae and rites between (lesser known) Vedic text portions used in the solemn and
domestic ritual—rites for healing (Griffiths and Lubotsky –) or for súrā production,
metaphorically linked to magic against enemies (Lubotsky :f.)—, also considering
archaic Iranian traditions on the quest for data that might be traced back to a common
Indo-Iranian heritage of ritual poetry.
During a decade of fruitful cooperation within the context of the Leiden Summer School
of Languages and Linguistics initiated and directed by Sasha Lubotsky, I have enjoyed the
opportunity to systematically work on the interplay between ritual poetry and ritual prag-
matics with specific regard to various forms of ritual lists, enumerations, and similar cata-
logic structures in both Atharvaveda branches, in the liturgical Yajurveda Sam . hitās (with
the corresponding ritual Sūtras), and in archaic ritual portions of the Rigveda, including
the Āprı̄ hymns and the Khilas, in their relation to Avestan ritual text structures contained in
the “Long Liturgy,” the complex of sophisticated intercalations of the Yasna with texts from
the Vı̄sprad, Vı̄dēvdād, and Vı̄štāsp Yašt, respectively. Before presenting (in part II) some
results of the last-mentioned studies that give two instances of such catalogic enumerations

In particular, in apotropaic and divinatory rituals from the AV. and the Avesta (Sadovski ) and in magic rites
of malediction and benediction (), especially in catalogues of deities and their epithets () as well as in complex,
multipartite lists from the Veda and Avesta () representing the relations between the Indo-Iranian pantheon and
various elements of the macrocosm, the microcosm, and the ritual as mediator between these spheres.

In two classes of the Leiden Summer School , on “Indo-European poetry, ritual and mythology” (Advanced
Indo-European Programme) and on “Avestan language and poetry” (Iranian Programme), cf. http://www.hum. leiden.
edu/summerschool/programmes-/iranian.html#slot--avestan-language-and-poetry-from-comparative-indoiranian-
and-indoeuropean-perspective-–, discussing topics presented in this article and Sadovski forthcoming b and c.


Offprint from Farnah: Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Sasha Lubotsky. Copyright © Beech Stave
Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Velizar Sadovski

in litanies from the Avesta (Y.–) with analogous litanies from the Veda (the corpus of the
Prais.ādhyāya, RV-Kh.), I briefly summarize “what has happened so far” in the exploration
of these structures in contrastive perspective.
.. The cognitive structures underlying the literary genre of catalogues and lists were
recognized early enough for their importance in reconstructing archaic models of thinking
and mind-mapping the Universe, even if the Indo-European representatives of this genre—
with the exception perhaps of obvious examples such as Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and
Days and the main Homeric catalogues—were largely neglected before confrontation with
similar structures in non-IE contexts induced scholars to reflect upon their own traditions.
Among the crucial analytical frameworks triggering this interest were the pioneering stud-
ies of the classical French sociological school on “Primitive Classification” that revealed
highly relevant forms of cognition and ritual experience, followed by studies on catalogic
taxonomies and the list form as part of both sacred poetry and other genres of texts with
social and anthropological relevance in Sumerian, Assyro-Babylonian, Aramaic, and He-
brew traditions, and there specifically the investigation of the lexical lists (Veldhuis :–,
ff.) as evidence for cultural history.
.. However, the huge corpora of the Indo-Iranian oral literatures remained practically
completely excluded from this analytic perspective, even though poetic, ritual, speculative,
and scholarly texts of the Veda and Avesta show a strikingly high presence of the following
characteristic structures from the oldest period on:
... (Meta-)Lists of “multipartite formulae” and/or of ritual sequences are character-
istic of both Vedic and Avestan cultic texts/activities. For the Veda, cf. e.g. Gonda  (on
rituals dedicated to the  gods) and Minkowski  (nivids); for complex “suprastruc-
ture” lists consisting of several hymns of the kind explored in Sadovski :–, see now
Lelli  with evidence for intratextual cohesion in AVP hymns dedicated to sacred king-
ship. For Avestan, cf. Kellens , , , , , ; Schwartz :–;
Cantera a, b, , a, b, b. Meta-lists of linguistic relevance contain
coded complex sound patterns, anagrams, word-plays, and semantically linked conceptual
enumerations: Schwartz , , , ; Sadovski  and :– (with liter-
ature on “glotto-logical” catalogues).
... Cosmological taxonomies and catalogues evolve from basic to increasingly com-
plex structures in myth and ritual. Thus, the performance of “creation catalogues” (cf.
Watkins :f.) in a ritual-liturgical context stands for nothing less than the cultic “re-
creation of the Universe” hic et nunc:


For more detailed surveys of various studies concerned with archaic “catalogic poetry” in Greek and beyond, see
Sadovski forthcoming a and e.

See Durkheim and Mauss – and its new edition from , with lucid remarks of Needham (xxi f.); this line of
research into ritual and myth has been continued, though from a different angle, by Lincoln ( and , the latter
originally ).

For some general statistical figures on the presence of catalogic structures in individual Vedic and Avestan collec-
tions, see Sadovski :; the density of such structures increase with the acme of the (Yajur-)Vedic and (Young)
Avestan ritual poetry and prose, in which the detailed, non-(merely-)linear but stylistically highly elaborate types of
catalogic enumeration achieve the status of central structural and compositional forms.


 Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I

Y.. DNa ff.

And so we worship now Ahura Mazdā,
who created the Cow and Rightness,
created the Waters and good Plants,
created Light and the Earth,
and all good (things).
A great god is Ahuramazda,
who created this Earth [the earth here],
who created yonder Heaven [the heaven there],
who created Man,
who created Happiness for Man [ . . . ].

The leading principle in such text structures is the one of poetic concatenation (cf. Schwartz
:ff. with charts on pp. –, :f.) of list elements in(to) an intertextual whole,
with common nexus both on the formal and semantic level. The formulaic character of
these lists, enumerations, or catalogues “is evident and a function of their status as repeated
litanies. We may think of them as repeated performances, with unbounded variation, of
the same basic ‘creation catalogue’ in the context of traditional oral literature” (Watkins
:f.).
... We discuss further common lexical, phraseological, and compositional topoi re-
garding structure and arrangement of such lists in Sadovski  and Sadovski forthcom-
ing d. On relevant forms of text organization such as anaphora, epiphora, “mesophora,”
symploke, chiasmus, and parallelismus membrorum cf. Sadovski :ff. and :–.

II. Some new parallel multi partite (sic) litanies between the Veda and Avesta

. Thanks to the recent assessment of numerous Avestan manuscripts containing the so-
called “intercalated liturgies” of the Avesta, above all by Alberto Cantera and Jean Kellens
(Cantera a, b, , a, b, a, b; Kellens , , , ,
; Redard and Kellens ), we now know much more about the structure of Mazdayas-
nian liturgies as well as about the employment of the extant Avestan texts in the real context
of the corresponding ritual activities—and not only in the decontextualized form of the indi-
vidual corpora (secondarily) extracted from the liturgical manuscripts. New Indo-Iranian
perspectives have been furnished by the discovery of the significance of the comparison
between the Avestan “Long Liturgy” and some apocryphal Vedic traditions (cf. Sadovski
forthcoming b and c). Slowly but surely, with the development of our heuristics, various
Soma rituals and Haoma liturgies, bloodless and animal sacrifices turn out to show crucial
common structures and even common ways of arrangement of the modules involved.
.. A great deal of new material comes from the “Long Liturgy” of the Avesta. It is
a complex sequence of rituals (litanies plus liturgical activities), containing an “innermost”
liturgical circle—the liturgical nucleus in Old Avestan language—enlarged by a series of
mutually corresponding Young Avestan Yasna texts before and after this Old Avestan core,
which expand in a “bracketing” ritual framework further and further away from the litur-
gical center. This structure of Old+Young Avestan Yasna portions can itself then be inter-
calated with other Young Avestan liturgical texts, from the Vı̄sprad, the Vı̄dēvdād, and the
Vı̄štāsp Yašt, into a variegated meta-liturgy that eventually can consist of at least two and

E.g. the way they have been constituted in the classical, otherwise so indispensible and commendable, critical
edition of the Avesta by Karl Friedrich Geldner (Geldner –), against the liturgical manuscripts that show the
actual ritual use of the texts.


Velizar Sadovski

theoretically up to five liturgical corpora. One of the most characteristic forms of the single
litanies is that of a detailed and well-arranged catalogue, so that the sequences of such in-
dividual litanies themselves build elaborate “catalogues of catalogues.” Table  on the next
page represents the complex structure in which more central strata (in the middle) expand
“from the center outwards” by including more and more anterior and posterior ritual mod-
ules dialectically corresponding to one another.
.. From an “innermost liturgical circle” (Old Avestan liturgical nucleus: Yasna Haptaµ-
hāiti , peaking in the central animal sacrifice) onwards, the ritual framework expands with
Young Avestan texts arranged in a symmetrically spiraliform manner “forwards and back-
wards” from this center. Such a centrifugal textual expansion around an archaic nucleus is
typical also for the Indic liturgies of the (Yajur-)Veda. Thus, the Avestan liturgy appears as
a complex series of ritual modules whose relations we now briefly summarize (in accordance
with Table ).
... The beginning of the Liturgy (and of the table) consists of introductory lists (from
the Yasna – and esp. Y., still not included in the edition Kellens ) of All (Greatest)
Ratus (ratauuō vı̄spe [mazišta]), including Ahura Mazdā. What corresponds to them at the
end of Table  are the last two chapters of the Yasna (Y.–, last row of the table) with the
concluding lists of All Ratus (ratauuō vı̄spe), including Ahura Mazdā. The first Srōš Drōn
(Y.ff.) corresponds to the second Drōn before Y..
... These lists are followed (see the second row of the table) by praising formulae to
the Fire, which, in the ritual, is styled as Son of Ahura Mazdā. Corresponding to them at the
end is a stanza about the return of the Fire after the liturgy (Y.–, the rd-to-last row).
... The Haoma sacrifice (in the third and fourth rows) begins with the election of
the priests and their sacral investiture during which they leave the earthly dimension and
transcend to the divine. Its correspondence in the second part of liturgy is, in Y.., the
return of the priests from the divine to the earthly dimension (the sixth row from the end
of the table).
... The trans-substantiation of Fire in the first part of the liturgy, in Y.. (seventh
row of the table), from the earthly to the divine Fire, has as its pendant in the second part
the re-substantiation of the transcendental Fire to the new earthly fire (fifth row from the
end of the table).
... In the middle of the table we see the actual Old Avestan kernel, in the center of
a multiple series of litanies (and marked by four square brackets): it is the (double) ani-
mal/meat sacrifice within the Haoma ritual.
... The Avestan sacrifice has, consequently, a symmetric and cyclically evolving struc-
ture. The central strata expand ever more strongly by including more and more “anterior”


For depictions of this method of expansion in the form of larger and larger textual “auréoles” starting from the cen-
tral Old Avestan strata and adding Young(er) Avestan texts, see Cantera b, ; Kellens :ff. Cf. Tremblay
:ff. for a common scheme of Yasna and Brāhman.ic rituals, and now with more details Cantera b:– and
Sadovski forthcoming a. (Only after submitting the last-mentioned and the present paper did É. Pirart and Ph. Swen-
nen publish Xavier Tremblay’s  comparison of the “Long Liturgy” with the Agnis.t.oma; thus I can only comment
on this in some detail in Sadovski forthcoming c.)

Cf. the dossier of the “simplest form of Soma offering” in Caland and Henry –.

On parallels between the Avestan and Vedic “Priest Lists” cf. Panaino forthcoming, Panaino and Sadovski forth-
coming, and Sadovski forthcoming b:§§ and .


i

Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I

[Y.“”; Y..–.+Vr.– Initial catalogues: A R (ratauuō vı̄spe maz-

išta), incl. Ahura Mazdā, Am š.a Sp n.tas; recursive, +
e e
Srōš Drōn.
incl. e.g. Y.. Praise formulae to (the) Fire (both as ritual element and
as son of Ahura Mazdā) and all its/his aspects (invoca-
tional catalogue).
Y..–. + Vr.– Hōm Stōd, incl. the staoman- or stuiti- to Haoma; elec-
tion of priests for the haoma sacrifice.
Y..+Vr.+Y.. I  :  →  -
;  SELF-SACRIFICING  .
[[Y. “V”   (+ catalogue of the priestly
functions: zaotar- etc.) +  ( 
      
   )   CHOOSE
  .
Y.–. + Vr.– Catalogue of the pantheon of the Yasna (Kellens
:ff.), with its calendric projections.
Y.. T     →
 F, ĀTAR, S  A M, unit-
ing all fires on earth and all ritual-theological aspects
of Fire.
Y.–, Bagan Yašt Meta-exegesis of the Yasna cult: on the force of the
prayers Ahuna Vairiia, Aš. m Vohu, and Yeµ́hē Hatam,
e ˛
respectively.
Y.– Ritual introduction of the main part of the sacrifice.
[[[Y..–Y.+Vr.–  STAOTA YESNIIA , the divinized “textual Ratus” of
the (Old) Avesta.
Y..–Y.. Old Avestan texts stricto sensu, incl. the GāTās and the
Yasna Haptaµhāiti.
Y.– Beginning of the central core of the Old Avestan
liturgy, esp.:
[[[[Y. Animal sacrifice, up to the
Y.]]]] Offering of meat into the fire.
Y. + [[[[YH]]]] New animal sacrifice and offering into the fire.
Y.. End of the Old Avestan texts stricto sensu.
Y.. R  :  →  
, + eschatological implications.
Y.; Y.]]] R/:  F →
  F + eschatological implications.
Y.–]] (Second Drōn before Y.). Dahmā Āfriti.
Y.– RETURN OF THE FIRE (Y.: Ātaš Niyāyišn) AND THE
WATERS (Y.–: Āb Zohr) TO NEW REALITY.
Y.. Esp.: the Fire after the liturgy, Ātar as Ratu of ge-
nealogical (self )identification of Mazdayasnians.
Y.–] Final catalogues: A R incl. Ahura Mazdā,
Am š.a Sp n.tas, + all R   .
e e

Table . Structure of the liturgical Avesta:

A “Long Liturgy” version of Yasna + Vı̄sprad intercalations.

On the concept of Ratu- repeated several times here, see briefly §..
1
 
Velizar Sadovski

and “posterior” ritual modules. There are crucial common structures and modules between
the expanded Avestan Haoma sacrifice and the various forms of the Vedic Soma sacrifice,
namely, Soma pressings with inclusion of an animal sacrifice. The basis of comparison
between Indic and Iranian rituals is, in this sense, solid: both major ritual structures and
individual ritual modules of the Yasna have Vedic correspondences—in the Khilas of the
Rigveda and in old Yajurvedic rituals.

II.A. Ritual litanies in Indic and Iranian as “hyper-linked” catalogues of the

Universe: Interaction between cosmological and ritual lists

. In this subchapter we present a more complex series of catalogues and lists, as a further
archaic layer in the Avestan “Long Liturgy” that shows surprisingly good Vedic parallels.
The Avestan lists appear in a crucial position within the litanies of Yasna , at the end
of the Liturgy, dedicated to the Waters and the Fire. The relevant stanzas Y.. and –
present elaborate catalogues of all spheres of the Universe:

. We worship all Waters, the ones in the springs and the ones in the courses of rivers;
we worship all Plants, the ones (that grow) on shoots and roots;
we worship the entire Earth;
we worship the entire Heaven;
and we worship all the Stars and the Moon and the Sun(light);
we worship the entire beginningless Light-space;
and we worship all the Animals, the ones on/in the Waters (the aquatic ones) and
the ones on/in the Earth, and the flying ones and the ones (living) in liberty, and
the (ones living) in the pasture.
. We worship these Waters and Lands and Plants (here);
we worship these Places and Dwelling-Places
and Pastures and Residences and Watering-Places (here)
and we worship this Lord of the Dwelling-Place (here),
(him,) who (is) Ahura Mazdā.
. We worship the Ratus, all, the greatest ones: the ones of the Days, of the Day-
sections, of the Months, of the Seasons, of the Year(s).
. I praise, call, sing the good, mighty, holy/beneficent frauuaš.i- of the righteous ones;
we worship the ones (=frauuaš.i-) who are related to the house, to the settlement, to
the clan, to the country, the zaraθuštr-issimi.
. We worship the Fire, Ahura Mazdā’s son, the righteous one, the Ratu of Rightness;
together with the Zao θras, together with the Girdle, we worship this Bar sman, the e
one spread in a righteous manner, righteous Ratu of Rightness:
we worship (the) Apam ˛ Napāt
we worship (the) Nairiiō.saµha

On the Indic material cf. Hillebrandt , Caland and Henry –, Schwab , Oldenberg , Oberlies ,


Panaino forthcoming, and Sadovski forthcoming c.


 Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I

we worship (the) Dāmōiš Upamana

we worship the uruuans (souls) of the ones passed away, which (are) the frauuaš.is
of the righteous ones.
. We worship the High Ratu,
(him,) who (is) Ahura Mazdā [ . . . ].

. This list provides a bridge to a quantity of new parallels of multi-partite catalogic litanies
between the Veda and the Avestan “Long Liturgy,” with a remarkable interaction between
cosmological and ritual lists:

• Both the Avestan and the Vedic litanies contain cultic links between elements of the
macro- and microcosm, ritual articulation of time and space (ritual topology and
chronology), theological entities, and, on a meta-level, designations for ritual Actions
and sacred Words.
• Both are also characterized by the reuse of cosmological lists and catalogues in solemn
liturgical contexts, and also in “private” rites, even in rituals of white/black magic.
• Above all, the catalogic form substantially determines the characteristic shape of ritual
texts and sections of the liturgical Avesta (Yasna, Vı̄sprad, Āfrı̄nagān).

.. Thus, the Vı̄sprad liturgy, starting already with its opening chapters, Vr.–, con-
tains invocations of the Ratus, lit. ‘articulations’, ‘regulators’, protectors and exemplary ex-
ponents of various spheres of the Universe and the Ritual:

• The invocation formula reads, ‘I invoke (you) down, I fulfill the sacrifice, o Ratus of
X and of Y’.

... The series of litanies containing this invocation formula is to pronounce to the
following catalogue of groups of divine elements from the Avesta (Yasna with Vı̄sprad in-
tercalations), for which the Veda—e.g. BaudhGS .; see below, §...—provides strong
parallels:

. The dimensions of “the Mental and the Material” as fundamental categories of

Zoroastrianism, to which in Vedic lists the fundamental Indic categories “Movable
and Immovable” correspond.
. Aquatic animals, those living in the earth, “the flying ones, the ones living in free-
dom, the ones living in the pasture”: the Vedic parallel mentions “Aquatic animals
and reptiles.”
. The Periods of time (containing also a list of seasons) correspond to the lists of
“Places, Periods of time, Worlds” in the Vedic catalogue.
. The unity of Ahura Mazdā and ZaraTuštra, as God and his Priest-Prophet/Seer,
with the Priests of Avestan ritual—its Vedic pendant is the list item “Gods and . is s /
R̊
Seers.”
. The parts of the [liturgical!] Avesta, the Sacred Words applied as ritual formulae
(esp. the Gāthās)—as their correspondence, the Vedic list ends with Bráhman, the
Sacred Word applied as ritual formula (!).


Velizar Sadovski

. the ‘Mental and Material’ (fundamental Zoroastrian categories) (Vr.. and Vr..)
→ cf. Ved. “Movable and Immovable”: §...()
. Aquatic animals, those living in the earth, the flying ones, the ones living in free-
dom, the ones living on the pasture (Vr.. and Vr..)
→ cf. Ved. Aquatic animals and Reptiles: §...()
. the Periods of time (+ list of Seasons) (Vr.. and Vr..)
→ cf. Ved. “Places, Periods of time, Worlds”: §...()
. Ahura Mazdā and ZaraTuštra, God and Priest-Prophet/Seer (Vr.. and *Vr..),
as well as the Priests of Avestan ritual (Vr..) (see also Sadovski forthcoming b)
→ cf. Ved. Gods and . is s /Seers: §...()
R̊
. the parts of the (ritual!) Avesta, the Sacred Words applied as ritual formulae (esp.
Gāthās) (Vr..– and Vr..–)
→ cf. Ved. Bráhman, Sacred Word(s) applied as ritual formula(e): §...()

... This fixed list of multiple litanies is cyclically repeated in the Avestan liturgy, just
as in the Vedic ritual. Moreover, the Avestan Yasna liturgy contains the common Indo-
Iranian ritual and mythological topos of the “ divinities,” presented as ratus of the Uni-
verse.
... The structures in the Veda parallel to these Avestan catalogues develop in the ar-
chaic traditions of the liturgy of the RV (Khilas) to popular rites with invocations of the
rtus, the ‘articulations’, ‘regulators’, sections of the Universe or ‘seasons’ of time. Signifi-
˚
cantly, this happens e.g. in the ritual sequence dedicated to the souls of Ancestors (pitar-s;
see Krick : with n.  and literature); compare the rituals dedicated to the Avestan
frauuaš.i-s and the Avestan idea of ratu-fri- ‘the satisfaction of the Ratus’.
... The Vedic sacrificial mantras addressed to the (!) Vāstos.patis, the ‘Lords of the
Dwelling(-Place)’, in the domestic ritual of the sanctification of a newly erected house ac-
cording to the Baudhāyana-G h ya-Sūtra—the vaiśvadeva- ritual of BaudhGS .—contain
r̊
the same invocation formulae, distributed as litanies within  oblations. The ritual is per-
formed in the middle of the house and pronounced to the same groups of divine entities as
in the Avestan list (see above, §...):

. Earth, Intermediate Space, Sky

. Sun, Moon
. Asterisms/Naks.atras (cf. TB ...; TĀ ..; ..)
. Waters, Plants (Herbs) and Trees (for this triad, e.g., also VS..)
. The Movable and Immovable (fundamental Vedic categories)
. Aquatic animals and Reptiles
. The Places, Periods of time, Worlds

Cf. Cantera a:ff. and b:ff. as well as the editions of the texts concerned (Kellens , , ,
, , Redard and Kellens ).

On the Vedic house-building ritual and its deeply demiurgic aspects that make it parallel to rituals of sanctification
and purification of the Universe see e.g. Hillebrandt , Renou , Bodewitz –, Gonda  and , Oberlies
, and Sadovski :ff., esp. –, with regard to various catalogues contained therein.

Up to this part of the complex catalogue, cf. the items set in bold case with the lists of elements in the cosmological
catalogues quoted above in §... and esp. in §.. Items – of the Vedic list correspond to analogous Avestan items
in other lists of the Vı̄sprad and Yasna, too, cf. Sadovski forthcoming c.


 Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I

. The Gods and . is s R̊

. The Vasus, Rudras, and Ādityas (three classes of gods listed together also otherwise)
. Indra, B h aspati, Prajāpati
r̊
. And, as culmination, the creative Sacred Word, (the) Bráhman.

Thus this demiurgical formulary dedicated to All Gods “begins with the genius of the house
and, after addressing important objects and beings that belong to the inanimate and animate
world, ends with individual gods the last of which is, by way of climax, the ‘biunity’ Prajāpati
and Brahman (Prajāpati is there simply sarvam. brahma)” (cf. Gonda :, with reference
to ŚB....).
The parallels between the ritual catalogues and their individual items cannot be greater
and follow, moreover, in the same arrangement:

Avestan list Vedic list

() the “Mental and Material”
() Aquatic animals, those living in
the earth, etc.
() Periods of time (+ list of Seasons)
() Ahura Mazdā and ZaraTuštra, God
and Seer; priests of Avestan ritual
() Gāthās, Sacred Word(s) as ritual
formulae
() the “Movable and Immovable”
() Aquatic animals and Reptiles
() Places, Periods of time, Worlds
() the gods and seers (for priests of
Vedic ritual s. RV[-Kh])
() Bráhman, Sacred Word as ritual
formula(e)

II.B. Recursive liturgical lists in the Fire cult

. As we have seen, the Vedic-Avestan catalogic parallels consist not only in individual con-
cepts and forms but comprise entire ritual modules and their arrangement.
.. The Avestan liturgy opens and closes with lists of the so-called Ratu- (‘articula-
tions’), both ‘regulators’ and ‘spheres of arrangement’ of the Right Cosmic Order.
... One of them is the central liturgical catalogue of ‘All Ratus’, Avestan vı̄spe ratauuō
(> Vı̄sprad) and ratauuō vı̄spe mazišta. The list of the Thirty-Three Deities it contains struc-
turally corresponds to another list, the one of the Thirty-Three Ratus (‘articulations’) of
the ritual texts of the Avesta (cf. in detail Sadovski forthcoming c). Here, cosmology and
ritualism meet in the numerical expression of (totality and) significance by means of the
sacred number , typical both of Iranian and (as we have seen in §§...–...) of Indic
traditions.
... Another remarkable Ratu- catalogue is that of the essential sacred constituents of
the Fire ritual, “Fire list” for short, which appears in crucial positions within the liturgy, i.e.
at the beginning and at the end of the Avestan Yasna:


Deities coupled also at RV ..; ..; .. etc.; cf. Gonda :, , ; for sequences of names in -pati
see also Kāt.hGS .. In the Avestan list of § cf., as a corresponding structural element (a syntagma of genitive +
paiti-), Y.. šoiθrahe paiti-!


Velizar Sadovski

. “We worship you, the Fire (Ātar), the righteous, the son of Ahura Mazdā, Ratu of
Rightness,
. (as one who is/goes) together with the libations (zaoθras), (as one who is/goes) to-
gether with the girdle (of ritual initiation), we worship the sacrificial straw (bar s- e
man-), the one spread out in accord with Rightness,
. we worship (the) ‘Grandson of Waters’ (Apam ˛ Napāt ),
. we worship (the) Nairiia-saµha- (‘the one who has/gives the praise of men’).
. We worship the heroic yazata- Dāmōiš Upamana.
. We worship the souls of the ones passed away, which (are) the frauuaš.is of the righ-
teous ones.

... Note also that in the context of the Fire-worship at the end of the Avesta (see the
stanza quoted above, vss. –), the Fire is explicitly linked to the ‘souls of the ones passed
away’ of the people from the clan or the major (Mazdāyasnian) community.
.. The Vedic text parallel to the Avestan Ratu- catalogue of §... comes from the RV
apocrypha (Khila) and is a “list of lists” itself. The so-called Rtuyāja-Prais.ādhyaya – (from
˚
the RV-Kh.(.), edited and translated by Minkowski :ff.) contains (a) the List of
Priests elected and required to explicitly make their choice for their respective functions
within the Haoma ritual (Sadovski forthcoming c); (b) the ‘Fire list’.
... The basic catalogue (Vedic “Fire list”) corresponds to the Avestan list, both in its
items and in their arrangement:

. Let the Libator (Hotar, cf. the repeated mention of the zaoθras in the Av. text) wor-
ship (the) Fire (Agni), kindled with fuel, with good fuel, on the navel of the earth,
at the center of what is agreeable, on the top of heaven, on the place of nourishment.
Let him partake of the ghee. Hotar, worship.
. Let the Hotar worship (the) Tanū-napāt (‘the Grandson of [one’s own] body’),
the child of Aditi, the protector of the world. Today let the divine (Tanū-napāt )
anoint with sweet nectar the paths for the gods that the gods follow. Let him partake
of the ghee. Hotar, worship.
. Let the Hotar worship (the) Narā-śaṁsa (‘the one who has given/gives the praise
of men’), praised by men, leader of men. May (Narā-śaṁsa) be provided with a vapā
through (his) cows, powerful through (his) heroes, the first to arrive through (his)
chariots, golden through (his) gold. Let him partake of the ghee. Hotar, worship.
. Let the Hotar worship (the [very first hymn of the RV. starting with the words])
“Agnim Īl.e” (6= Minkowski :: ‘Let the Hotar worship Agni as the nourish-
ments’). The nourished one [missing in transl.!], the god, the messenger, the wise,
the bearer of offerings, being praised, should bring the gods here. May the god aid
this yajña, this invocation of the gods. Let him partake of the ghee. Hotar, worship.
. Let the Hotar worship the sacrificial straw (barhis). Let (the barhis), forming a
good cushion, soft as wool, spread out in all directions, a good seat for the gods at

For a systematic use of ‘rightness’ for Avestan aš.a-, Ved. rtá-, and of ‘wrongness’ for Av. druj-, Ved. druh-/drogha-
˚
see the practice of Martin Schwartz (e.g. :ff., ).

This cultic mention of the very first words of the first verse of the first stanza of the first man.d.ala of the first and
oldest Sam . hitā of the Veda corresponds nicely to the worship of the “textual Ratus” of the older Avesta.


 Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I

this yajña. Let the Vasus, Rudras, and Ādityas sit down on it today. May it be pleasing
to Indra. Let (the barhis) partake of the ghee. Hotar, worship.

... This basic catalogue occurs in the beginning of a complex “list of lists” in the Rtu- ˚
yāja- litany attested in the RV apocrypha (Khila). In the following table we see stanzas –
from a total of  stanzas of the entire litany:

Cycle  ( stanzas) Cycle  (further  stanzas)

() Agni
() Tanū-napāt
() Narā-śaṁsa
() Agnim Īl.e
() Barhis () Barhis
() Heavenly Doors () Heavenly Doors
() Dawn-and-Night () Dawn-and-Night
() The two Nourishers [cf. (Agnim)
Īl.e!]
() Strength-and-Offering
() Hótārau, Pótārau () Hótārau, Pótārau, Nes.t.ārau
() The Three Goddesses—Il.ā, Sarasvatı̄, () The Three Goddesses—Il.ā, Saras-
Bhāratı̄ vatı̄, Bhāratı̄
() Tvas.t.ar () Narā-śaṁsa
() Vanaspati () Vanaspati
() Barhis
Cycle  (+ stanzas)
()–() Agni (NB: () svā´ ha ‘hail’)
() Agni ()–() Agni-and-Soma ()
Agni () Agni-and-Soma
(A) Vanaspati () Vanaspati (A)
Vanaspati
() Agni Svis.t.ak t r̊ () Agni Svis.t.ak t —From  on: repeti-
r̊
tive litanies

Remarkably, the Rtu-yāja- litany of the RV-Kh has the same number as the  stanzas
˚
of the Avestan Yasna liturgy, and a similar name to the one of Avestan Visprad liturgy,
Rtu-yāja- meaning ‘worship of the Rtus’! After the basic list, we observe a series of cyclic
˚ ˚
item repetitions, very similar to the repetitions of entire lists in Vı̄sprad and Yasna ritual

On the concept of Ved. rtú- see Renou , Krick : and passim, Minkowski :–, with lit.; on its
˚
Indo-Iranian roots and the formal and conceptual relation with Av. ratu- Sadovski forthcoming c, concerning rtú- and˚
ratu- both as basic concepts of taxonomy ‘τ£ξις; taxonomically relevant (articulation of) order/arrangement/ratio’ and
in its specific meanings, e.g. related to ritual regularity/calendar ‘(regular) period’, or ‘item of various length’ (cf. in
detail MacDonell and Keith , s.v.), including ‘(regular) period of ritual cyclicity’, ‘season’ (on number and related
metaphors cf. Gonda :f., f.; Krick :–), ‘mensis’ both as ‘month’ and ‘menstrual period’ (Slaje ),
as well as in instrumental (sing./plur.) rtúnā ‘according to the order/rank’ and especially as a taxonomic ‘section’, ‘(se-
˚
quential) unit’, both of procedures and of texts of ritual poetry, in comparison with Av. hāiti- ‘binding; sewing; section’,
Ved. párvan- (∼ párur-/-s.-) ‘joint, articulation’.


Velizar Sadovski

quoted above. The core of the crucial “Cycle ” in the left column of Table  (nos. –)
is built, again, out of our list: ) Fire, ) Tanū-napāt , ) Narā-śaṁsa, ) Agnim Īl.e,
) barhis. Up to no. , we have the same catalogues of divine objects of worship as in
the  litanies of the āprı̄- hymns of the RV+ (see below, §). Then offerings to Soma and
Agni follow that build a “Cycle ” of a further + stanzas (the additional , the so-called
‘svā´ ha’ stanza, represents, just as in the āprı̄- hymns, the mystic unit beyond the wholeness
of the otherwise  elements of the closed cycle.) From no.  onwards previously listed
elements are harmonically repeated and form a “Cycle ” of a further  stanzas, starting with
the barhis and ending with Agni the Maker of Good Offering (Svis.t.akrt). ˚
... The detailed analysis of the Indic and the Iranian lists allows the following con-
clusion. The two parallel lists exhibit practically the same divine/cosmic entities and ritual
items. Thus the Avestan kernel list consists of Fire, Sacrificial Straw (Bar sman), the deity e
Apam ˛ Napāt ‘Grandson of Waters’, and the deity Nairiiō.saµha ‘Praise of Men’. The Vedic
parallel consists of Fire, the deity Tanū-napāt ‘Grandchild of the Body’, the deity Narā-śaṁsa
‘Praise of Men’, and the Sacrificial Straw (Barhis). Beside the essential parallels between the
divine, cosmic entities and ritual items in the t u-/Ratu- litanies, the basic catalogues follow
R̊
the same basic order, as summarized below (differing positions are indicated in parentheses
after the item):

Avestan list: Vedic list:

Vı̄sprad ./Yasna .– RV-Kh.(.)/Rtuyāja-Prais.ādhyaya
˚
() Fire (Ātar) () Fire (Agni)
() Bar sman
e () Barhis ()
() Apam˛ Napāt () Tanū-napāt ()
() Nairiiō.saµha () Narā-śaṁsa ()

... Moreover, the Fire lists also evince one and the same ritual contextualization. In the
Vedic Ritual, every sacrifice is opened with a rite concerning the Fire/Agni (cf. in detail We-
ber :ff., :ff.). Before the main types of sacrifices start, a series of ‘pre-sacrifices’
(pra-yāja-) take place, dedicated to Fire, to his various aspects as well as to other deities. The
numbers vary (cf. Weber : with n. ):

• There are  pre-sacrifices for the normal sacrificial Ved. rituals—a number to which in
the Avesta the  entities of the Fire list correspond, viz. in the list of Y.. quoted
above, since the objects of worship there are : Fire, the bar sman-, Apam ˛ Napāt-,
e
Nairiiō.saµha-, and Dāmōiš Upamana-.
• Alternatively, there are  pre-sacrifices for the cāturmāsya- sacrifices,


This approach of adding a mystical surplus number is very similar to what happens with cycles of  sacred ele-
ments to which a th is added, said to represent Prajāpati as a mystic, transcendental magnitude that goes beyond
the number of completeness. Regarding this and similar expressions of the idea of completeness in numeric form see
Gonda :– et passim and cf. Sadovski : and , with literature. The same phenomenon can be observed
in closed/finite lists whose “numerical expression of totality” is blown up by introducing a transcendental element, such
as including Prajāpati as the th month in lists of the  months of the year, e.g. JB . ‘the -fold year adds to itself
the intercalary month as th item’. On the (Brāhman.a) material concerning such lists see Gonda : and ff., to
which evidence I would now add AVP (edited by Griffiths ) ..d and ..b.


 Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I

•  or  pre-sacrifices for the animal sacrifice (of the type whose yājya- formulae are
called āprı̄-!),
• or  pre-sacrifices, in the same context (Schol. ad KātyŚS. ....–); cf. the case
of the rtu-yājas in which the originally  grahas have been increased to  in order to
˚
correspond to the (later/classical) idea of rtú- as ‘season’.
˚

... The order can be decisive for making the difference between the individual clans,
especially the second position of the list, a topic to which we now turn.

. The question of which deity is addressed in the second pre-sacrifice is decisive for the self-
identification of the clans and families of the Vedic priests and poets. Thus we arrive at those
ancient RV texts which contain some of the best (but so far ignored) parallels between the
Veda and the Avesta—the Āprı̄- litanies. These highly archaic rituals are attested for every
single family of the Family Books, RV –, but also for all four Vedic Sam . hitās, including
the Atharvaveda.
.. In the Āprı̄- litanies in the g veda-Sam
. hitā, there appear the same lists of eleven
R̊ 

deities which we have just met in the Avesta and the Rtu-yāja- liturgy of the RV apocrypha:
˚
first, Fire; second, the deity Tanū-napāt; third, the deity Narā-śaṁsa; fifth, the Sacrificial
Straw (Barhis). Below is the “Eleven items list” (containing the basic catalogue) in the Āprı̄
litanies (RV+) as compared with the lists in the t u-yāja- liturgy (and their Avestan pen-
R̊
dants).

. Agni (standard order of the list: e.g. RV .)

. Tanū-napāt
. Narā-śaṁsa (no.  or , cf. e.g. RV .)
. Agnim Īl.e (or a formation of the root ı̄d.-)
. Barhis
. Heavenly Doors
. Dawn-and-Night (or in reverse compound order)
. Hótārau (in elliptical dual; alias Pótārau)
. The Three Goddesses (or, explicitly named:) Id.ā, Sarasvatı̄, Bhāratı̄
. Tvas.t.ar
. Vanas-pati
. “The final acclaim”: Svāha call, as the surplus element in the “Eleven items list”

The twelfth element at the end of the List of the Eleven, the sacred call svāha ‘hail!’, is just
like in the + stanzas of Cycle  in the Rtu-yāja- litany.
˚
.. Furthermore, the Āprı̄ hymns of the RV, often considered as representatives of alter-
native or/and older liturgical types, (then) incorporated into the solemn ritual or “private”
rites, occur especially (a) in rites of animal sacrifice (Oldenberg :., Gonda :ff.,
etc.), and (b) in common liturgical activities within clans of hostile families for the purpose

Regarding the complete representatives of the āprı̄-sūkta- genre in the whole RV-Sam
. hitā, see, in Man.d.ala , RV
., , ; Man.d.ala , RV .; Man.d.ala , RV .; Man.d.ala , RV .; Man.d.ala , RV .; Man.d.ala , RV .;
Man.d.ala , RV ., . Cf. the parallel AVŚ . (with AVP parallels; see below). In addition, there are certain
āprı̄-sūkta- ‘imitations’, e.g. RV ..


Velizar Sadovski

of reconciliation of the clan, with reference to a common ancestor cult (van den Bosch )
and as a representation of the “common seed.”
.. For an example of an Āprı̄- hymn, in which the above-mentioned lists can be ob-
served in their context, I would like to refer to the Atharvaveda versions of Āprı̄ litanies
which simultaneously show how such rituals, with certain structural changes, have been
further adapted to be used in magical practice, too—AVŚ ..– (Whitney and Lanman
:.f.):

. Uplifted becomes his fuel, uplifted the bright burnings of Agni, most brilliant; of
beautiful aspect, with his son,
[.] son of himself (Tánūnápāt ), ásura, many-handed,
. A god among gods, the god anoints the roads with honey (mádhu), with ghee.
. With honey he attains the sacrifice, pleased, the praised of men (Nárāçáṁsa),
Agni the well-doing, the heavenly impeller (Savitár), having all choice things.
. Here he cometh with might (çávas) unto the various ghees, praising, he the carrier,
with homage,
 [c]. Agni, unto the spoons, at the sacrifices (adhvará), the profferings (prayáj). [.] May
he sacrifice his greatness, Agni’s [ . . . ].

. Furthermore, from a comparative perspective the structure of Āprı̄- hymns reminds us

very strongly of the litanies of the Avesta. Since three forthcoming studies (Sadovski forth-
coming a, b, and c) are dedicated to various aspects of this comparison, in the present con-
text I will limit myself to some highlights specifically concerning lists and catalogues. In the
Yasna and the Visprad liturgies, four identical elements appear in such lists.
.. Remarkably, instead of the Vedic deity Tanū-napāt-, in the Avestan context the old
Indo-Iranian deity Apam ˛ Napāt- occurs: ‘We worship the Fire, the Sacrificial Straw, Apam ˛
Napāt, Nairiiō.saµha. We worship the souls of the ones passed away’.
... We see here the same usual suspects as in the Vedic context. Both in Indic and
in Iranian Apam ˛ Napāt- is an (independent) aquatic deity which increasingly becomes a
hypostasis of Fire (Ved. Agni-, Av. Ātar-) as the mystic ‘Grandson’ of Waters. It is onto-
logically connected with two Indo-Iranian notions: with the Fire’s brilliance, Ved. várcas-,
Av. var cah- ‘sparkling’, and with śr´ı̄-, Av. srı̄- ‘magnificence, majesty, etc.’; see especially
e
Proferes  and af Edholm  (‘splendour’ both as ‘brightness, lustre, luminosity’ and
as ‘pre-eminence, glory, majesty, beauty’). In Vedic its essential characteristics also are śúci-
‘glowing, gleaming’ and téjas- ‘sharpness; brilliance’.
Therefore, this deity is deeply connected with the concept of xšaθra- ‘(sacred) royalty/
kingship’ and is himself called xšaθriia- ‘ks.atr˘ı̄ya-’. The concepts of brilliance quoted above

Relevant studies of Tanū-napāt- are, e.g., Weber :– and Bosch :ff., ff.; cf. Oberlies :, 
with literature showing the link between Tanū-napāt- and the Southern Fire of the classical Vedic ritual, Daks.in.āgni-,
as ‘grandson of (Agni’s own) body’. As representation of the Southern Fire, Tanū-napāt- is connected with the idea of
the Daks.in.āgni- (Jātavedas-) and the Āhavanı̄ya- (Vaiśvānara-) fires as descendants-of-the-body of the Home Fire par
excellence, the Gārhapatya, from which the substance for the second and the third fire is transferred (Agni being thus
considered to beget his own offspring, son and grandson!).

Critical newer diachronic studies are Oettinger , Oberlies :– andf., and Proferes ; most recently,
af Edholm .


 Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I

have been interpreted as the brilliance of sacred kingship; in the Veda, nevertheless, they
primarily belong to the sphere of Agni as Fire-god of ritual, identified with typical forms
of sacer-dotium such as the liturgical functions of Hotar, Brahmán and Purohita. Compare
the invocation (from the Yasna Introduction, Y.“”.): ‘I invite for worship the high Lord,
the one connected with (sacred) kingship, the shining one, Apam ˛ Napāt’. A second parallel
is attested precisely in the Fire stanza at the end of the Avesta which corresponds to the
stanza from the Avestan pre-sacrifice (Y..). Detailed evidence and analysis in Sadovski
forthcoming c.
... An essential feature of the Avestan Apam ˛ Nápāt- is his presence in ritual in two
crucial places of the rtú- composition, in which Fire and Waters are in immediate contact,
˚
namely:

a. at the very beginning, during the liturgical process of the transubstantiation of the
common straw, daily fire and waters to ritual Straw, Fire and Waters—to become
during the ceremony the Straw of the feast of gods, the Fire, Son of Ahura Mazdā,
hosting the gods on this Straw, and the Waters among whom he grows up—just like
the Vedic Agni does; and
b. at its very end, in the context of the “return back on/to the earth”; as well as
c. at the break of the day.

.. The Indo-Iranian deity Av. Nairiiō.saµha-, Ved. Narā-śam

. sa- ← narāṁ śaṁsa-


< *Hnarām ćámsa- (also Nr-śaṁsa-/Śaṁsa-)—is strongly connected with the cult of the
˚
ancestors. Thus, in Vd.., the souls of righteous Zoroastrians go to Ahura Mazdā and
unite with Nairiiō.saµha-:

. Satisfied, the souls of the ones full of Rightness go forth

in the direction of Ahura Mazdā,
in the direction of the Am š.a Sp n.tas
e e
in the direction of seats made of gold,
in the direction of the House of Praise,
the dwelling-place of Ahura Mazdā,
the dwelling-place of the Am š.a Sp n.tas,e e
the dwelling-place of the ones full of Rightness.
. The men, the ones full of Rightness, get together,
Nairiiō.saµha gets together (with them);
the messenger of Mazdā Ahura,
say (=i.e.), Nairiiō.saµha:
By yourself call down to you, o ZaraTuštra,
this creation, which (is the one) of Ahura Mazdā.

There is a very similar compositional situation in the Vedic Rtuyāja- context, viz. in the main collection, the one of
˚
the RV-Kh, as well as in “longer” rituals whose structure is expandable like the one of the Avestan Yasna as transmitted
in the liturgical mss. and described by Cantera (b) and Kellens (, , , , and ); see Sadovski
forthcoming a.

The historical studies most relevant to Indo-Iranian are Oldenberg :.ff. (in his discussion with Hillebrandt
:ff.) and Oberlies :, f., and  n. .

His relation to the Fire is clearly perceivable e.g. in RV ...


Velizar Sadovski

Interestingly, one of the main divergences between the ritual traditions of the individual
Vedic clans is the question of who comes in the second position of this cultic list:

a. Most Vedic poets invoke here Tanū-napāt- before Narā-śaṁsa-.

b. The reverse order, Narā-śaṁsa- before Tanū-napāt-, appears only in the collections of
the clans of the Vāsis.t.has, Śaunakas, Ātreyas.
c. The Avestan text shows the combination Apam ˛ Napāt-+Nairiiō.saµha-(!), a feature
that opens the possibility of grouping the Avesta with Vedic texts of specific clans,
perhaps in connection with the well-known but still not well understood fact that
ZaraTuštra is called āθrauuan- (< *āθauruuan-). For detailed analysis of the position
of these modules within the Vedic and the Avestan liturgical corpora see Sadovski
forthcoming a.

.. Such evidence from two of the most ancient and well attested Indo-European tra-
ditions gives rich material for brainstorming from a contrastive and typological perspective,
taking into consideration similar phenomena e.g. from Mesopotamia and ancient Asia Mi-
nor, where the textual and ritual genres in question are abundantly present and parallelisms
expected. Thus, our reciprocally fertilized meta-knowledge of these complex data may lo-
cate still more pieces both of genealogical comparison and of multilingual and multicultural
vicissitudes showing the diffusion of mutually fertilized knowledge (or at least cultural mi-
gration with common “wandering motifs”) in the ancient East—and beyond.
In this larger context, the evidence of the Indo-Iranian poetry explored by Alexander
Lubotsky and his school show how ritual texts (formulae and larger sequences) and ritual
practices from the Avestan tradition that now can be better contextualized within the litur-
gical context of the corpus can be linked and even compared module by module to data from
Vedic ritual literature—exhibiting, in a non-trivial way, “un-common places” of common
structures, identical catalogues, and, in some cases, formula-by-formula, routine-by-routine,
and even word-by-word correspondences (in what Louis Renou used to call the “grammar
of ritual”) on an intra- but also inter-linguistic level within and between the Old Indic and
Old Iranian traditions.

References

af Edholm, Kristoffer. . “Royal splendour in the waters: Vedic Śr´ı̄- and Avestan Xvar - e
nah-.” Indo-Iranian Journal :–.
Bodewitz, Henk. –. “Atharvaveda Sam . hitā ,: The building of a house.” Annals of
the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute –:–.
Caland, W., and V. Henry. –. L’Agnis.t.oma: Description complète de la forme normale du
sacrifice de Soma dans le culte védique.  vols. Paris: Leroux.
Cantera, Alberto. a. “Die Staota Yesniia der textuellen ratu des Visparad.” In Zara-
thushtra entre l’Inde et l’Iran, ed. by Éric Pirart and Xavier Tremblay, –. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
———. b. Review of Kellens . Kratylos []:–.
———. . “The Old Avestan texts in the Vı̄dēvdād and Visparad ceremonies.” In Le sort


 Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I

des Gâthâs et autres études iraniennes in memoriam Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, ed. Éric
Pirart, –. Leuven: Peeters.
———. a. Vers une édition de la liturgie longue zoroastrienne: Pensées et travaux prélimi-
naires. Leuven: Peeters.
———. b. “Repetitions of the Ahuna Vairiia and animal sacrifice in the Zoroastrian long
liturgy.” Estudios Iranios y Turanios :–.
———. a. “The ‘Sacrifice’ (Yasna) to Mazdā: Its antiquity and variety.” In The Zoroas-
trian Flame: Exploring Religion, History and Tradition, ed. by Alan Williams, Sarah Stew-
art, and Almut Hintze, –. London: Tauris.
———. b. “A substantial change in the approach to the Zoroastrian Long Liturgy:
About J. Kellens’s Études avestiques et mazdéennes.” Indo-Iranian Journal :–.
Durkheim, Émile, and Marcel Mauss. –. “De quelques formes primitives de classifica-
tion: Contribution a l’étude des représentations collectives.” Année Sociologique  []:
–.
———. . Primitive Classification. Transl. and ed. by Rodney Needham. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Geldner, Karl Friedrich. –. Avesta: The Holy Books of the Parsis.  vols. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Gonda, Jan. . Change and Continuity in Indian Religion. The Hague: Mouton.
———. . Vedic Ritual: The Non-solemn Rites. Leiden: Brill.
———. . On the Structure of Multipartite Formulae in Vedic Rites and Ceremonies. Torino:
Jollygrafica.
———. . Prajāpati and the Year. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Griffiths, Arlo. . The Paippalāda Sam . hitā of the Atharvaveda: Kān.d.as  and . Groningen:
Forsten.
Griffiths, Arlo, and Alexander Lubotsky. –. “To heal an opened wound: With a plant.”
Die Sprache []:–.
Hillebrandt, Alfred. . Ritual-Litteratur: Vedische Opfer und Zauber. Strassburg: Trübner.
———. . Vedische Mythologie. Vol. : Us.as, Agni, Rudra. Breslau: Koebner.
Jamison, Stephanie W., and Joel P. Brereton. . The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry
of India.  vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kellens, Jean. . “Commentaires sur les premiers chapitres du Yasna.” Journal Asiatique
:–.
———. . Études avestiques et mazdéennes. Vol. : Le Ratauuō vı̄spe mazišta (Yasna . à
., avec Visprad  et ). Paris: Boccard.
———. . Études avestiques et mazdéennes. Vol. : Le Hōm Stōm et la zone des déclarations
(Y.–Y., avec les intercalations de Vr à ). Paris: Boccard.
———. . Études avestiques et mazdéennes. Vol. : Le long préambule du sacrifice (Yasna  à
., avec les intercalations de Visprad  à ). Paris: Boccard.
———. . Études avestiques et mazdéennes. Vol. : L’acmé du sacrifice: Les parties récentes
des Staota Yesniia (Y.–Y) avec les intercalations de Visprad  à  et la Dahmā Āfriti
(Y–). Paris: Boccard.
———. . “Retour aux premiers chapitres du Yasna.” Estudios Iranios y Turanios :–.


Velizar Sadovski

Krick, Hertha. . Das Ritual der Feuergründung (Agnyādheya). Vienna: Verlag der Öster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Lelli, Duccio. . “The Paippalādasam . hitā of the Atharvaveda and the royal rituals.” In
The Volatile World of Sovereignty in India and Beyond, ed. by Tiziana Pontillo, –.
Delhi: DK Printworld.
Lincoln, Bruce. . Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
———. . Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual, and
Classification. nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lubotsky, Alexander. . Atharvaveda-Paippalāda: Kān.d.a Five. Text, Translation, Com-
mentary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lubotsky, Alexander, and Arlo Griffiths. Forthcoming. Atharvaveda-Paippalāda: Kān.d.a
Four. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony, and Arthur Berriedale Keith. . Vedic Index of Names and
Subjects.  vols. London: Murray.
Minkowski, Christopher Z. . Priesthood in Ancient India: A Study of the Maitrāvarun.a
Priest. Vienna: De Nobili.
———. . “School variation in the text of the Nivids.” In Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts,
ed. by Michael Witzel, –. Cambridge, MA: Department of Sanskrit and Indian
Studies, Harvard University.
Oberlies, Thomas. . Der Rigveda und seine Religion. Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen.
Oettinger, Norbert. . “Zum Verhältnis von Apam ˛ Napāt- and Xvar nah- im Avesta.”
e
In Zarathushtra entre l’Inde et l’Iran, ed. by Éric Pirart and Xavier Tremblay, –.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Oldenberg, Hermann. . Die Religion des Veda. rd ed. Stuttgart: Cotta.
———. . Kleine Schriften. Ed. by Klaus J. Janert.  vols. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Panaino, Antonio. Forthcoming. “Indo-Iranian origins of the Avestan priestly collegium.”
Panaino, Antonio, and Velizar Sadovski. Forthcoming. Disputationes Iranologicae Vindobo-
nenses III. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Proferes, Theodore. . Vedic Ideals of Sovereignty and the Poetics of Power. New Haven:
American Oriental Society.
Redard, Céline, and Jean Kellens. . Études avestiques et mazdéennes. Vol. : La liquidation
du sacrifice (Y  à ). Paris: Boccard.
Renou, Louis. . “La maison védique.” Journal Asiatique :–.
———. . “Védique r.tú-.” Archív orientální :–.
Sadovski, Velizar. . “Dichtersprachliche Stilmittel im Altiranischen und Altindischen.
Figurae elocutionis, I: Stilfiguren der Ausdrucksweitung.” In Indogermanica: Festschrift für
Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien, dem verehrten Jubilar
dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag, ed. by Günter Schweiger, –.
Taimering: Schweiger.
———. . “Epitheta und Götternamen im älteren Indo-Iranischen: Die hymnischen Na-
menkataloge im Veda und im Avesta (Stilistica Indo-Iranica, I.).” In: Disputationes Ira-


 Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies and Liturgical Practices I

nologicae Vindobonenses I, ed. by Antonio Panaino and Velizar Sadovski, PAGES. Vienna:
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
———. . “Ritual formulae and ritual pragmatics in Veda and Avesta.” Die Sprache :
–.
———. . “Ritual spells and practical magic for benediction and malediction in Indo-
Iranian, Greek, and beyond (Speech and performance in the Avesta and Veda, I).” In
Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in memoriam Jochem Schindler (–), ed.
by Velizar Sadovski and David Stifter, –. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften.
———. . “Structure and contents of lists and catalogues in Indo-Iranian traditions of
oral poetry (Speech and performance in the Veda and Avesta, II).” In Indic across the
Millennia: From the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan. Proceedings of the Linguistic Section,
th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September st –th, , ed. by Jared S. Klein
and Kazuhiko Yoshida, –. Bremen: Hempen.
———. . “‘The columns of t a’: Indo-Iranian lexicon and phraseology in the ritual poe-
R̊
try of the Avesta, Veda and beyond.” In Miscellanea Indogermanica: Festschrift für José
Luis García Ramón zum . Geburtstag, ed. by Daniel Kölligan, Ivo Hajnal, and Katharina
Zipser, –. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Inns-
bruck.
———. Forthcoming a. “On the ‘Long Liturgy’ of the Avesta and its Vedic ritual parallels:
Structures, formulae, ritual activities.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft.
———. Forthcoming b. “Wortkombinatorik, Wortbildung und Ritualkontext im Avesta
und dem Veda.” Historische Sprachforschung.
———. Forthcoming c. “Knowledge of magic – Magic of knowledge.” In “Knowledge to
Die For”: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschafts-
geschichte, Berlin , ed. by Florentina Badalanova-Geller, –. Leiden: Brill.
———. Forthcoming d. “Speech and performance in the Veda and Avesta, IV.” In * t amanas-,
R̊
t avacas-, t adipi-* – ‘Of Right Thoughts, Right Speech, Right Writings’: In Honour of Prof.
R̊ R̊
Rüdiger Schmitt, ed. by Velizar Sadovski and Karin Stüber. Vienna: Verlag der Österrei-
chischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
———. Forthcoming e. “Textual structure and intra-/intertextuality in Vedic and Avestan
liturgies.” In Multilingualism and the History of Knowledge, vol. : Multilingualism and
‘Listenwissenschaften’: Festschrift for Gebhard Selz, ed. by Jens E. Braarvig, Markham J.
Geller, Velizar Sadovski, and Klaus Wagensonner. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Schwab, J. . Das altindische Thieropfer. Erlangen: Deichert.
Schwartz, Martin. . “Coded sound patterns, acrostics, and anagrams in Zoroaster’s oral
poetry.” In Studia Grammatica Iranica: Festschrift für Helmut Humbach, ed. by Rüdiger
Schmitt and Prods Oktor Skjærvø, –. Munich: Kitzinger.
———. . “How Zarathushtra generated the Gathic corpus: Inner-textual and intertex-
tual composition.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute []:–.
———. . “Encryptions in the Gathas: Zarathushtra’s variations on the theme of vliss.”
In Religious Themes and Texts of Pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia: Studies in Honour of


Velizar Sadovski

Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the Occasion of His th Birthday on th December , ed. by
Carlo G. Cereti, Mauro Maggi, and Elio Provasi, –. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
———. . “On Haoma, and its liturgy in the Gathas.” In Proceedings of the th Confer-
ence of the Societas Iranologica Europæa, Held in Ravenna, – October , vol. : Ancient
and Middle Iranian Studies, ed. by Antonio Panaino and Andrea Piras, –. Milan:
Mimesis.
———. . “Pouruchista’s Gathic wedding and the teleological composition of the Gathas.”
In Exegisti monumenta: Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams, ed. by Werner Sun-
dermann, Almut Hintze, and François de Blois, –. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Slaje, Walter. . “Rtú-, rtv(i)ya-, ārtavá-: Weibliche ‘Fertilität’ im Denken vedischer
˚ ˚
Inder.” Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society :–.
Tremblay, Xavier. . “Le Yasna  Fšūš¯ Maθra
e ˛ haδaoxta.” Annuaire du Collège de France
–:–.
———. . “Annexe I–II.” In Études de linguistique iranienne: In memoriam Xavier Trem-
blay, ed. by Éric Pirart, –. Leuven: Peeters.
van den Bosch, Lourens P. . “The Āprı̄ hymns of the R . gveda and their interpretation.”
Indo-Iranian Journal :–, –.
Veldhuis, Niek. . “Elementary education at Nippur.” Doctoral dissertation, University
of Groningen.
Watkins, Calvert. . “Two tokens of Indo-Iranian hieratic language.” In: Indogerma-
nica: Festschrift für Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien,
dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag, ed. by Günter
Schweiger, –. Taimering: Schweiger.
Weber, Albrecht. . “Ueber Haug’s Aitareya-Brâhmana.” Indische Studien :–.
———. . “Collectanea über die Kastenverhältnisse in den Brâhman.a und Sûtra.” Indische
Studien :–.
Whitney, William Dwight, and Charles Rockwell Lanman. . Atharva-Veda Saṁhitā.
 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

