Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
It is about three-quarters of a century since the maryannu (maryanni) of Mitanni and its dependencies, appearing in Hittite and Egyptian records of the second millennium B.C., were first discussed in connexion with the IndoIranians. In 1910 H. Winckler interpreted the word as a title belonging to Aryan infiltrators from the north, who had come to form an aristocracy among the Hurrians; and he recorded the suggestion by F. C. Andreas connecting it with Vedic márya ‘ young man, man, hero ’. Subsequently W. F. Albright presented a carefully documented case for considering the maryannu to be primarily ‘chariot-warriors’, arguing that from about 1700 to 1200 B.C. ‘chariots played the same role in warfare that cavalry did later, and the chariot-warriors occupied the same social position that was held by the⃛ feudal knights of the Middle Ages’. He further pointed out, with regard to Vedic márya, that a semantic development from ‘young man’ to ‘warrior’ is widely attested. Thereafter R. T. O'Callaghan adduced yet more evidence from Egyptian and cuneiform sources to confirm that ‘from the mid-fifteenth century to the midtwelfth century B.C., and from the Mitanni kingdom down through Palestine beyond Ascalon, the term maryannu is to be understood primarily as a noble who is a chariot-warrior’. The area was one where Indo-Aryan names occur at about the same period; and in the fourteenth-century Kikkuli treatise from Boghaz-köy, on the training of chariot-horses, Indo-Aryan technical terms appear. There were solid grounds therefore for thinking that Indo-Aryans, bringing with them horses from the Asian steppes, had played a leading part in developing chariotry in the Near East at that time, and that it was this which enabled a group of them to become locally dominant there.
1 ‘Die Arier in den Urkunden von Boghaz-köi’, OLZ, 1910, 289–301.Google Scholar
2 ibid., p.291 with n. 1.
3 ‘Mitannian maryannu, “chariot-warrior”, and the Canaanite and Egyptian equivalents’, Archiv für Orientforschung, 6, 1931, 217–21.Google Scholar
4 ibid., p. 220.
5 ibid., pp. 220–1.
6 Aram Naharaim, a contribution to the history of Upper Mesopotamia in the second millennium B.C., Analecta, Orientalia, 26, Rome, 1948, 51–69; ‘Google ScholarNew light on the Maryannu as “Chariot-Warriors”’, Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung, I, 1951, 309–24.Google Scholar
7 art. cit., pp. 320–1.
8 SeeKammenhuber, A., Hippologia hethica, Wiesbaden, 1961.Google Scholar
9 Littauer, M. A. and Crouwel, J. H., Wheeled vehicles and ridden animals in the Ancient Near East, Handbuch der Orientalistik, ed. Spuler, B., VII.1.2.B.1., Leiden, 1979.Google Scholar
10 ibid., pp. 4–5.
11 ibid., pp. 51–5.
12 ibid., pp. 56–9.
13 ibid., pp. 83–4, with bibliography in n. 48.
14 ibid., pp. 136–7 with n. 133:‘The earliest indisputable evidence of horse domestication is from the Neolithic Sredni Stog culture in the Dnieper and Don basins where, already in the second half of the fourth millennium B.C.Û [the horse] mayÛ have been ridden—for herding at least, a supposition strengthened by the presence of antler objects resembling later ones positively identified as cheekpieces of bits’, ibid., p.25 (with n.48 for bibliography). See also ibid., pp. 11–12, for suggested reasons why riding was slow to supersede driving in warfare.
15 For a bibliography of recent discussions see ibid., p. 71, n. 93.
16 See most fullyGening, V. F., ‘Le champ funéraire de Sintachta et le problème des anciennes tribus indo-iraniennes’, Sovetskaja Arxeologija, 1977 (4), 53–73Google Scholar (in Russian with French summary). (I am indebted to my colleague Dr. Frantz Grenet for his kindness in translating the Russian text for me.) A pot from a Timber Grave burial near Saratov on the lower Volga, of the same period, has a crudely incised representation of a two-wheeled vehicle with four-spoked wheels, drawn by bovid(s) (only one animal is shown), see Galkin, L. L., ‘A vessel of the Timber-Grave culture⃛’, Sovetskaja Arxeologija, 1977 (3), 189–96 (in Russian with French summary); cf. Littauer-Crouwel, op. cit., p. 70.Google Scholar
17 On the disk-shaped cheekpiece known in the second millennium from the Levant, eastern Anatolia, Egypt and Transcaucasia, see Littauer and Crouwel, op. cit., p. 87. The bone ones were probably originally used with bits made of thong, sinew or the like, all-metal bits being first attested in the fifteenth century B.C. (ibid., pp. 88–9).
18 The wheels have 10 or 12 spokes; for references to discussion of them see Littauer-Crouwel, op. cit., p. 54, n. 26.
19 See, with references, Boyce, M., A history of Zoroastrianism (Orientalistik, Hb. d., ed. Spuler, B., i.viii.l.2.2A), Leiden, 1975,Google Scholar
20 SeeGeldner, K. F., Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., 1885, xvm, 653–4, cited byGoogle Scholarapud, D. P.SanjanaGeiger, W., Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in ancient times, tr. Sanjana, , London, 1885, II, 64Google Scholar (= the Eng. version, revised by the author, of his Ostiranische Kultur im Alterthum, Erlangen, 1882); Eduljee, H. E., ‘The date of Zoroaster’, J of the K R Cama Oriental Institute, 48, 1980, 103–60; Boyce, op. cit., pp. 109 ff.Google Scholar (modified in Zoroastrians, their religious beliefs and practices, revised 3rd repr., London 1987, 14–15)Google Scholar; ‘On the antiquity of Zoroastrian apocalyptic’, BSOAS, XLVII, 1, 1984, 57–75Google Scholar, esp. 74–5.
21 ‘Indo-European culture, with special attention to religion’, in Polomé, E. C. (ed.), The Indo-Europeans in the Fourth and Third Millennia, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1982, 170. (I am indebted to Dr. Bruce Lincoln for his magnanimity in drawing my attention to this article, and to Dr. Gernot Windfuhr for his kindness in procuring for me a xerox copy of it, the book not being readily available even in the U.S.A.)Google Scholar
22 SeeBoyce, M., ‘The bipartite society of the Ancient Iranians’, Societies and languages of the Ancient Near East, Studies in honour of I. M. Diakonoff, ed. Dandamayev, M. A. et al., Warminster, 1982, 33–7;Google Scholar‘Avestan people’, Encyclopaedia Iranica, IIGoogle Scholar, s. v. On the terms nar-and vāstrya-in Y.40.3 see Narten, J., Der Yasna Haptanhāiti, Wiesbaden, 1986, 276–9.Google Scholar
23 op. cit., II, 64 (where, writing in the nineteenth century, Geiger used the term ‘farmer’ instead of ‘pastoralist’).
24 Y. 49.4.
25 Lind, 1938.
26 For references and discussion see ibid., pp. 22 ff.
27 See ibid., pp. 9 ff.
28 Yt.19.56, 82;cf. Yt.5.41; Yt.9.18, 22.
29 Yt.9.30.
30 Kellens, J., ‘L'Avesta comme source historique: la liste des Kayanides’, Acta Antiqua Scientiarum Hungaricae, xxiv, 1976, 31–49, has sought to disprove the historicity of those presented in Zoroastrian tradition as Vištāspa's forbears; but his arguments appear flawed by a lack of understanding of some of the characteristics of oral literature. For other criticisms of his interpretation seeGoogle ScholarGnoli, G., Zoroaster's time and homeland, Naples, 1980, 233–4.Google Scholar
31 op. cit., pp. 30 ff. (where he sets together and discusses, though with a good deal of speculative matter, all the Av. occurrences of the word).
32 For the passages see Wikander, ibid., pp. 24 ff.
33 loc. cit. in n. 2.
34 art. cit. in n. 3, p. 220.
35 350p. cit., pp. 110 f.
36 As Irans forntida religioner, Stockholm, 1937; tr. into German by H. H. Schaeder, Leipzig,1938.Google Scholar
37 Frankfurt-am-Main, 1934.
38 His name is henceforth abbreviated to W.
39 Henceforth abbreviated to p.-I.-I.
40 cf. the minatory remarks by Frankfort, H., ‘The problem of similarity in Ancient Near Eastern religions’, The Frazer Lecture, 1950, Oxford, 1951, 7–8.Google Scholar
41 op. cit., p.75.
42 ibid., p.76, cf. p. 94.
43 ibid., p. 84.
44 ibid., pp. 84–5, cf. p. 31.
45 cf. Geiger, op. cit. in n. 20, I, P. 59.
46 This expectation is implicit in the funerary observances of both Zoroastrians and Hindus, see, e.g., Caland, W., Altindische Ahnencult, Leiden, 1893Google ScholarBoyce, , Hist Zoroastrianism I, 122Google Scholar ff. (with references).
47 op. cit., p. 64.
48 This phrase occurs in a Phi. gloss to Vd.l.52, seeSpiegel, F., Avesla ⃛ in Grundtexte sammt der Huzvāresch-Übersetzung, l, Vienna, 1853, p.93Google Scholar, 11. 18–19; Anklesaria, B. T., The Pahlavi Vendidad, Bombay, 1949, 174.Google Scholar
49 Dēnkard VIII.25.1 (ed. Sanjana, Vol. XVI, pp. 8/6). Cf. Zand ī Vahman Yašt (ed. B. T. Anklesaria), VII.II.
50 Notably Dumézil, Notably G., who welcomed W.'s study as supporting his own controversial theory of a tripartite social division among all I.-E. peoples from proto-Indo-European times, and who dedicated to him his own Aspects de la fonction guerriére chez les Indo-Européens (Paris, 1956);Google Scholar G. Widengren, who has regularly alluded to the ‘Mannerbund’ in his numerous works on Iranian religion and culture; and more recently Gnoli, G., Zoroaster's time and homeland, 181,Google Scholar 186, 190, 196–7, 228;De Zoroastre à Mani, Paris, 1985, 28.Google Scholar
51 University of California Press, 1981.
52 Oxford, 1972.
53 This is L.'s summary (op. cit., p. 10) of A., Hultkrantz's hypothesis, expounded by Hultkrantz himself in ‘An ecological approach to religion’, Ethnos, 31, 1966, 131Google Scholar–50, and ‘Ecology of religion: its scope and methodology’, Review of Ethnology, 4, 1974, 112–12.Google Scholar
54 Kingship and the gods; a study of ancient Near Eastern religion as the integration of society and nature, Chicago, 1948, 163.Google Scholar
55 loc. cit.
56 op. cit., p. 382 n.
57 Priests, warriors and cattle, 10–11.
58 His notes are in general rich in bibliographical data; and on p. 13, nn. 1,2 and 4, he gives references to the main studies of the three tribes concerned.
59 op. cit., p. 16.
60 ibid., pp. 16 ff., p. 19.
61 ibid., p. 17.
62 ibid., p. 19.
63 ibid., pp. 20–2.
64 ibid., p. 30–1.
65 ibid., p. 39.
66 ibid., p. 42.
67 ibid., p. 173.
68 ibid., pp. 15–16.
69 ibid., p. 24.
70 ibid., pp. 24–7.
71 ibid., p. 26.
72 ibid., pp. 39–40.
73 ibid., p. 45.
74 loc. cit.
75 ibid., pp. 43–4, 31–2.
76 ibid., pp. 45–6.
77 ‘Although meat is much desired, no cattle are [otherwise] killed for their meat alone’ (ibid., p. 43).
78 A ‘giant meat feast’ also, among the Nuer and Masai, follows some weeks after the youths’ initiation ceremony (ibid., p. 27); but this can be seen as strengthening them for their part in raiding generally.
79 ibid., p. 46.
80 ibid., p. 32.
81 loc. cit.
82 ibid., p. 31
83 ibid., p. 33.
84 Diagram, ibid., p. 35
85 ibid., p. 31.
86 Diagram, ibid., pp. 37, 38.
87 ibid., p. 38.
88 Priests presumably also own cattle, since they are the basis of wealth; but L. in fact tells us very little about the priests.
89 op. cit., p. 39.
90 ibid., pp. 42–3.
91 ibid., p. 50.
92 ibid., p. 11.
93 ibid., p. 51.
94 ibid., pp. 53 ff.
95 ibid., pp. 51–2
96 ibid., p. 51, n. 7.
97 Oldenberg, H.Die Religion das Veda, 2nd ed., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1917, repr. 1970, 132Google Scholar; Benveniste, E.and Renou, L., vṛtra Vṛθragna, Paris, 1934, 168 ff.Google Scholar
98 op.cit., pp. 96, 129–30.
99 ‘Viṣṇu et les ūt ā travers la rẻforme zoroastrienene’, JA, 1953, 18–24.
100 e.g. Yt. 13. 101–44.
101 See, e.g.,Macdonell, A.A., A Vedic reader, Oxford, 1917, repr, 1951, 21–30.Google Scholar
102 Grammatically fravaśi is feminine, but wheather this means that the spirits were regarded as female is not certain, cf. Malandra, W.W., An introduction to Ancient Iranian religion, University of Minnesota Press, 1983, 103. A tentative identification of winged female fingures in spandrels at Tāq-i Bustān (illustrated by E. Herzfeld, Am Tor von Asein, Berlin, 1920, pl. XXXVII b) as fravaṠis can harldy be used as evidence.Google Scholar
103 See, e.g.Yt. 13. 49, 66, 67.
104 ibid., v. 52.
105 ibid., vv. 65–8.
106 Yt. 13, 14, 43, are also cited in this connexion (see L., op, cit., p. 130, where the more significant vv. 65–8 are ignored); but thest appear to be relatively late verses, composed when the activitied of the fravaṛis were being assimilated to those of the gods, and so included cosmic powers. It is highly unlikely that the beliefs reflected in them go back to the p. –I, –I, period.
107 L., ibid., p. 129.
108 Yt, 13.27,31,33,35,40,69–72.
109 See Wizīdag‛hā İ Zādspram, B.T. Anklesaria, Bombay, 1964, III. 3 (asp-bārag);cf. Greater BundahiṤn, ed. and tr. by B.T. Anklesaria, Bombay, 1956, vi. A.3.
110 See. e.g. Yt. 5.13 (Where is mixture of duals and plurals suggests a revision, changing a two-to a four-horse chariot), 120.
111 Littauer and Crouwel, op. cit, in n. 9, p. 113.
112 op.cit., pp. 179–84.
113 ibid., p. 51.
114 ibid., p. 51, n.6.
115 ibid., pp. 60–3.
116 ibid., p. 61. For its rejection on philological grounds see S. Wikander, Feuerpriester in Kleinasien und Iran. Lund. 1946, 12–14. There is no reason to suppose that fire was of predominant cultic importance in the p. –i, –, I, period.
117 ibid., pp. 61–2.
118 ibid., pp. 63–9.
119 ibid., p. 64. L. clearly draws on a cared index for his detailed and bibliographically useful notes; and not seldom his references are to works which deal indeed with what he is discussing but do not necessarily (though this is not indicated) support his conclusions.
120 ibid., p. 66, n. 100.
121 See M. Boyce, ‘Ảṡ-zōhr’, JRAS, 1966, 100 ff., expecially pp. 103 with n. 5, 106; and cf.‘BīBī Shahrbāaū and the lady of Pārs’. BSO AS, XXX, I, 1967, 42–3.
122 op. cit., p. 65.
123 ibid., p. 68.
124 ibid., pp. 49 ff., with diagram, p. 69.
125 ibid., 96–133.
126 e.g. for the werewolf hypothesis he offrs, pp. 125, 126 n. 100, a new and wholly unacceptable translation of Y.9.18 (cf. above, p. 515) as ‘the enmity of all enemies… of the young warriors [Mairya–]who have two paws and of heretics, of wolves who have two paws and who have four paws’, and he takes literally, p. 125, the evidently metaphorical use of vṛka-in RV 2.23.7.
127 'Männerbund, 60.
128 op. cit., p. 62.
129 ibid., p. 127.For further literature on aēṠma se Gnoli, Zoroaster's time and homeland, 244 (to p. 185).
130 L. assumes (ibid., p. 128) that the capacity to be seized by such fury, to go berserkr, was necessarily the result of some years of professional training; but the Icelandic sagas alone disprove this.
131 ibid., pp. 122 ff.
132 ibid., p. 132.
133 ibid., p. 101.
134 ibid., p. 131.
135 cf. Bartholomae, Air, Wb., 84, s.v. aipi.jatay–.
136 op.cit., p. 149.
137 ibid., pp. 149 f.
138 op. cit., pp. 143–8
139 ibid., p. 151.
140 ibid., p. 154.
141 ‘The myth of the Boine' Lament’, Journal of indo-European Studies, 3, 1975, 337–62.
142 G. Dumϋzil, Les dieux souverains des Indo-Europϋens, Paris, 1977, 9.127, n. I; G.Gnoli, Zoroaster' time and homeland, 243 (to p. 181); H.P. Schmidt, from and meaning of Yasna 33, America Oriental Society, Essay no, 10, New Haven, 1985, 18.
143 As. L. himself points out, Essay, Priests, warriors and cattle, 8, with nn. 38–40, parallels on the social plane between the Indo-Iranians and modern cattle-Keeping African tribes have previously been briefly drawn by a number of scholars, both archaeologists and Iransists..
