¹ The present research is based on some data collected for my PhD dissertation “Xwaršēd e Māh Yašt: Gli inni avestici al Sole e alla Luna. Testo critico con traduzione e commentario storico-religioso” (Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 1990). In this article I abbreviate the titles of selected Avestan texts: Any. = Nērang ī Ātaxš; S. = Sīh-rōzag; Ny. = Niyāyišn; Nk. = Nērang ī kustīg; Vyt. = Vištāsp Yašt; Y. = Yasna; Yt. = Yašt.

² Note that Ny. 1.16–17 correspond to the concluding formulae of the Mihr Yašt, which start from the end of Yt. 10.145. A more detailed description of Ny. 1 and 3 is given in the following note.

³ See the detailed analysis of Ny. 5.5, offered by Schlerath, Bernfried, Awesta-Wörterbuch: Vorarbeiten, vol. 2, Konkordanz (Wiesbaden, 1968), ix–x.Google Scholar

⁴ See Schlerath, Awesta-Wörterbuch, 2: 117–20. The textual condition of the Xwaršēd Niyāyišn is as follows: Ny. 1.1: the expression nəmasə t occurs also in other places (Any. 3; Ny. 1.19), but the formula ahura mazdā θrīsci parō aniiāiš dāmąn seems to be unparalleled. Lines C and D (according to Taraf's edition [Taraf, Zahra, Der Awesta-Text Niyāyiš mit Pahlavi- und Sanskritübersetzung (München, 1981), 18],Google Scholar here and in the following references) follow the pattern of Yt. 10.51: aməa spəṇta vīspe huuarə.hazaoš. The following lines (E–H) do not apparently depend on other attested sources. Ny. 1.2 (= Nk. 1): in the case of A–B–C cf. Y. 0.14; for D cf. Y. 11.19; for E cf. Y. 27.14. Ny. 1.3: fərastuiiē … = Y. 11.17 and Y. 0.4. Ny. 1.4: fərā v … = Y. 11.18, Y. 0.5. Ny. 1.5: nəmō … = Y. 68.22. According to the edition of Dhalla (Dhalla, Maneckji N., ed. and trans., The Nyaishes or Zoroastrian Litanies: Avestan Text with the Pahlavi, Sanskrit, Persian and Gujarati Versions [New York, 1908], 12–22),Google Scholar it is here that three Gāhs (Hāuuani-, Rapiθßina-, Uzaiieirina-) should be inserted. Ny. 1.6 = Yt. 10.7. Ny. 1.7: A–B = Yt. 19.35; C = Yt. 10.113; D is the typical formula of invocation to the Sun, and its witness is not significant. Ny. 1.8: lines A–B–C–E have been derived from Yt. 8.12 (see Panaino, Antonio, ed. and trans., Tištrya, Pt. 1, The Avestan Hymn to Sirius [Rome, 1990], 1: 38),Google Scholar but they follow a different order; C presents a bold mistake (nominative instead of an accusative, see below); D depends on Yt. 8, but an invocation in yazamaide to tištriiō raēuu x^varənaŋ^vh, patently wrong (nominative instead of an accusative), is never attested in the Tištar Yašt; cf. again Yt. 8.12 with a sound grammar and the line C (tištriiaeiniiasca yazamaide) with respect to Ny. 1.8, on the contrary, with the same error (tištriiaeiniiō yazamaide). For F cf. Yt. 8.2 and passim; G–H–I–J = S. 2.21 (cf. Y. 72.10); for K–L–M–N–O cf. Fr.W. 5.2 (see Westergaard, Niels L., ed., Zendavesta or the Religious Books of the Zoroastrians [Copenhagen, 1852–54], 333).Google Scholar Ny. 1.9: A = Y. 16.1; B = Y. 16.2; C = Y. 71.23; D = Y. 71.23; E = Y. 72.9; F = Y. 2.6; G = Y. 25.4; H = Y. 27.14. Ny. 1.10: A–B–C = Y. 1.23 (frauuarāne … frasastaiiaēca (including Gāh 1.1, from hauuane = B–C (see Geldner, Karl F., ed., Avesta: The Sacred Books of the Parsis, 3 vols. [Stuttgart, 1886–96], 2: 40;Google Scholar Taraf, Niyāyiš: 34–37.121); D–E = Gāh 2.1 (idem); F–G = Gāh 3.1; line H of the invocation to the Sun (cf. Y. 22.24); I–J = Y. 3.25. We must note that Ny. 1.10 is identical to Yt. 6.0. Ny. 1.11–16 = Yt. 6.1–6. Ny. 1.17 = Yt. 6.7; A = Y. 27.13; B = Y. 72.6; C = āfrīnāmī to the Sun. Ny. 1.18: A = aəm vohū (Y. 27.14); B = Y. 68.11; C = Y. 68.11; D = aəm vohū. Ny. 1.19: another series of ritual prayers: A = xšnaoθra …; B = staomi …: C = aəm vohū; D = C; etc. With the exception of the parallel passages attested in Ny. 1 and Yt. 6, the composition of the Xwaršēd Yašt seems to be late and based on the aggregation of passages of different origins. The only passage seriously worthy to be considered original to a certain extent occurs in Ny. 1.1, although the inspiration of the tradition of the Mihr Yašt is evident. Ny. 1.2–3 depend on Y. 11.17–18, after which it appears Ny. 1.5, corresponding to Y. 68.22. There is no doubt about the derivation of Ny. 1.6 from the Mihr Yašt, st. 7, while the following paragraph is the fruit of a mixture of two groups of passages, respectively derived from Yt. 19 and Yt. 10. Ny. 1.8 is an imitation of Yt. 8 in the first part, but it contains a repetitive litany with a lot of grammatical mistakes. It seems that the redactor of this text desired to offer an invocation to Tištriia mentioning all his epithets, but in that case he used the verb yazamaide in order to govern the name and the epithets of such a yazata without any distinction between the accusative and nominative cases. This is an important piece of evidence about the actual linguistic abilities of the composers of these Niyāyišns, which shows the pedantic and uncritical use of the material at their disposal. The evident subordination of this text with respect to the corpus of the Yašts is then clear. The insertion of the different Gāhs in Ny. 1.8 can be connected again with the Yašts, because their presence is usual in the introductory paragraph of the Avestan hymns. The textual conditions of the Māh Niyāyišn, with the exception of the parallel passages occurring also in the Māh Yašt, do not show any originality: Ny. 3.1 = Ny. 3.3 = Yt. 7.1. Ny. 3.2–9 = Yt. 7.0–7. Ny. 3.10 follows Vyt. 6 with minor differences and textual variations. Ny. 3.11, in the case of A–B and of part of C, basically follows Vyt. 7, while C (in part) and D (in part too) can be easily connected with Vyt. 8. Ny. 3.12 is an assemblage of ritual prayers (aəm vohū …).

⁵ See now Panaino, Antonio, “Chronologia Avestica,” in Panaino, Antonio and Sadovski, Velizar, Disputationes Iranologicae Vindobonenses (Vienna, 2007), 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Introductory stanzas, on the contrary, are attested in the Pahlavi, Pāzand, Sanskrit, Persian and Gujarati translations. See Dhalla, Nyaishes, 3, 66, 82, 112, 134.

⁷ Darmesteter, James, Le Zend-Avesta, vol. 2 (Paris, 1892), 331–34;Google Scholar Wolff, Fritz, trans., Avesta: Die heiligen Bücher der Parsen (Strassburg, 1910), 153, 164;Google Scholar Lommel, Hermann, Die Yäšt's des Awesta übersetzt und eingeleitet (Göttingen, 1927), 8–12.Google Scholar According to Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta, 2: 295, the Little Sīh-rōzag with its genitival formulae should also have been inserted in other prayers, as, for instance, in the case of the introductory formula of the Yašts, where it depends on xšnaoθra. See Mirza, Hormazdyar K., “Interpolations in Pazand Prayers,” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, 50 (1983): 96–102.Google Scholar On the Sīh-rōzags see Hartman, Sven, “La disposition de l'Avesta,” Orientalia Suecana, 5 (1956): 30–78,Google Scholar and the PhD dissertation by Enrico G. Raffaelli, “Il Sīh-rōzag e la sua traduzione medio-persiana: Un'analisi filologica e storico-religiosa” (Università di Napoli “L'Orientale” and École Pratique des Hautes Études, 2004). Raffaelli, in a recent lecture (“Reflections on the Structure of the Sīh-rōzag,” presented at the conference “Poets, Priests, Scribes and [E-]Librarians: The Transmission of Holy Wisdom in Zoroastrianism,” Salamanca, September 2–5, 2009), has shown that such a prayer “is parallel to some passages of the Yasna, that, supposedly, the Sīh-rōzag was originally meant to replace. From this original function, the Sīh-rōzag later developed into an autonomous text.”

⁸ Schlerath, Awesta-Wörterbuch, 2: 3, 48.

⁹ Schlerath, Awesta-Wörterbuch, 2: 48.

¹⁰ Geldner, Avesta, 2: 157.

¹¹ Jean Kellens, “Considérations sur l'histoire de l'Avesta,” Journal asiatique, 286, no. 2 (1998): 471n40) remarks that the manuscript tradition of Yt. 10.0 presents two variations: a short formula, which is proper of the sade manuscripts, and a long one, proper of the mixed manuscripts, where the influence of the Niyāyišns redaction was stronger. In any case, the long formula derives from Y. 1.3 and similar. In the above quoted article by Kellens, the author corrects his previous hypothesis (Kellens, Jean, “Commentaire sur les premiers chapitres du Yasna,” Journal asiatique, 284, no. 1 (1996): 69),CrossRefGoogle Scholar where he stated that the earliest copyists of the Yašt manuscripts were still in condition to discriminate between different formulae at their disposal.

¹² Hoffmann, Karl, Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, ed. Narten, Johanna, 3 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1975), 1: 316 ff.,Google Scholar with regard to the Yasna, and Humbach, Helmut, “Beobachtungen zu der Überlieferungsgeschichte des Awesta,” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 31 (1973): 109–22,Google Scholar for the Yašts and the Widēwdād, have demonstrated, thus developing some intuitions already suggested by Geldner (Avesta, 1: xlix ff.), that the extant Avestan manuscripts derive from a Stammhandschrift, dating back to the ninth/tenth century BCE. Presently, the discussion about the so-called Sasanian Archetype is much more complicated, but I am still convinced that a redaction of the Avestan ritual sources after the fall of the Sasanian period is very improbable. For the discussion see Kellens, Jean, “Avestique,” in Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Schmitt, Rüdiger (Wiesbaden, 1989), 32–55;Google Scholar Kellens, “Considérations,” 451–519; Hoffmann, Karl, “Zum Zeicheinventar der Avesta-Schrift,” Aufsätze, 1: 316–26;Google Scholar Hoffmann, Karl and Narten, Johanna, Der sasanidische Archetypus: Untersuchungen zur Schreibung und Lautgestalt des Avestischen (Wiesbaden, 1989).Google Scholar

¹³ According to Darmesteter (Zend-Avesta, 2: 332), the concluding formula practically transforms the Yašt into a kind of abbreviated Yasna, or better into a special Yasna in honour of the particular yazata to whom the text has been dedicated.

¹⁴ This does not mean, as Kellens has shown (“Considérations,” 471n40), that in the extant manuscripts we cannot find examples of direct influences of the Niyāyišns formulae on those transcribed in the Yašts (e.g. in the already mentioned case of Yt. 10.0), but this phenomenon happens only in the mixed manuscripts, where both traditions were copied. This situation cannot be dated back to the Sasanian Archetypus.

¹⁵ Kellens, Jean (“Promenade dans les Yašts à la lumière de travaux récents,” Annuaire du Collège de France 1998–1999. Résumé des courses et travaux, 99 [1999]: 685–705,Google Scholar in particular p. 704) rightly noted that “la fixation quasi définitive des Yašts est elle-même antérieure à la rédaction des textes du genre ratauuō vīspe qui ont servi à élaborer ce calendrier.” See also Kellens, “Considérations,” 506–8, 511–12.

¹⁶ See now Antonio Panaino, “The Age of the Avestan Canon and the Origins of the Ritual Written Texts,” Poets, Priests, Scribes and (E-)Librarians: The Transmission of Holy Wisdom in Zoroastrianism. Salamanca, 2th–5th September 2009, ed. Alberto Cantera (in press).

¹⁷ Note that the text of the Niyāyišns, although printed in the same volume of the Avesta Aufgabe containing also the Yašts (vol. 2), was placed before that of the hymns. So the direct reference to the text of the litanies was quite natural.

¹⁸ See note 7. See also Lommel, Yäšt's, 8–12.

¹⁹ See note 7. See also Lommel, Yäšt's, 8–11.

²⁰ Wolff, Avesta, 153; Lommel, Yäšt's, 9; cf. also Ny. 1.10. Lommel, Yäšt's, 9n4, remarks that Darmesteter (Zend-Avesta, 2: 334n6) assumed that other two recitations were performed in the nocturnal Gāhs aiβisrūθrima- and ušahina- (according to Y. 1.6 and 7), but this statement was not confirmed by Geldner's Aufgabe.

²¹ Lommel, Yäšt's, 11–12. See Schlerath, Awesta-Wörterbuch, 2: 118.

²² Darmesteter, Zend-Avesta, 2: 332, 356–57. See Schlerath, Awesta-Wörterbuch, 2: 44–45.

²³ See Geldner, Avesta, 1: xliv–xlvi.

²⁴ See Darmesteter, Zend-Avesta, 2: 691, 697, 700, 702, 705; see Dhalla, Nyaishes, 227n1.

²⁵ See Boyce, Mary and Kotwal, Firoze M., “Ātaš Niyāyišn,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, 3: 6–7.Google Scholar

²⁶ See, for instance, the edition of the Niyāyišns by Dhalla (Avestan, Pahlavi, Pāzand, Sanskrit, New Persian and Gujarati) and that by Taraf (Avestan, Pahlavi and Sanskrit).

²⁷ Today, if we ask a Zoroastrian priest to recite most of the hymns, he would frequently prefer to read their text. At least, this has been my personal experience in Mumbai.

²⁸ See note 12.

²⁹ Geldner, Avesta, 1: 8; Geldner, Karl F., “Awestalitteratur,” Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, ed. Geiger, Wilhelm and Kuhn, Ernst, 2 vols. (Strassburg, 1896–1904), 2: 1–74,Google Scholar in particular p. 8 (see also Geldner, Karl F., “Avesta Literature,” trans. Mackichan, D., Avesta, Pahlavi, and Ancient Persian Studies in Honour of the Late Shams-ul-Ulama Dastur Peshotanji Behramji Sanjana [Strassburg, 1904], 1–82,Google Scholar in particular p. 1; Kellens, “Considérations,” 479, 511).

³⁰ This, in fact, is the title of the work edited by Dhalla: The Nyaishes or Zoroastrian Litanies.

³¹ Out of the 21 hymns only 19 can be directly associated with the calendar. In fact, the two final hymns, the Hōm and Wanand Yašts, have no direct relation with the names of the days. Furthermore, although we might assume that the Ohrmazd Yašt was connected not only with the day of Ohrmazd, but also with the three days of the “Creator,” named Day in Pahlavi (as suggested by Lommel, Yäšt's, 5) and that also the hymn to the Aməa Spəṇtas (see Belardi, Walter, Studi mithraici e mazdei [Rome, 1977], 154n2)Google Scholar was used on four occasions during each month, we would not obtain a complete correspondence between hemeronyms and Yašts.

³² The second Yašt is actually consecrated to the Aməa Spəṇtas, but there is no day exactly dedicated to these entities as a group. In the hymn to Vaiiu, named Rām Yašt, the real connection with Rām and the Wind is not clear at all. We find a similar problem also in the case of the Aštād Yašt, which in reality was dedicated to the x^varənah-, although the inclusion of the first kardag concerning the Avestan mountains probably justifies the choice of such a title. See the discussion in Panaino, Antonio, “Gli Yašt dell'Avesta: metodi e prospettive,” Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese, 30 (1992): 159–84.Google Scholar

³³ See also Kellens, “Considérations,” 505–12.

³⁴ Kellens, “Considérations,” 513 and passim.

³⁵ More precisely Sīh-rōzag ī xwurdag and Sīh-rōzag ī wuzurg.

³⁶ The presence of the genitival formula (aθrō …) in Ny. 5.5–6, finds a simple explanation if we consider it as an insertion from para. 9 of the little Sīh-rōzag. Such a solution, already suggested by Darmesteter (Zend-Avesta, 2: 705n3), is the simplest and at the same time very fitting. It is also supported by the evidence that these paragraphs were anticipated in the Niyāyišn from the formula in xšnaoθra. For other solutions (i.e. genitive translated as an accusative), see Taraf, Niyāyiš: 153nn3–4, and 154n1. The evident dependence from the Sīh-rōzag shows that it is really far-fetched to suppose that the following paragraphs, similar to those of Y. 62.1–10, originally depended on the Niyāyišn corpus.

³⁷ See Panaino, Antonio, “Uranographia Iranica I: The Three Heavens in the Zoroastrian Tradition and the Mesopotamian Background,” Au carrefour des religions: Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux, ed. Gyselen, Rika (Bures-sur-Yvette, 1995), 205–25.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Panaino, Antonio, “Calendars. i. Pre-Islamic Calendars,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, 4: 658–68;Google Scholar “Calendars. iv. Other Modern Calendars,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, 4: 675–7, and the up-to-date contributions by Blois, François de, “The Persian Calendar,” Iran, 24 (1996): 39–54,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and by me (Panaino, Antonio, “G. Schiaparelli e la storia dei più antichi sistemi calendariali iranici,” Atti del seminario di studi sul tema: “G. Schiaparelli storico della astronomia e uomo di cultura”, Milano, 12–13 maggio 1997, Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, ed. Panaino, Antonio and Pellegrini, Guido [Milan, 1999], 99–148;Google Scholar “Quelques réflexions sur le calendrier zoroastrien,” Iran: Questions et connaissances. Actes du IVe congrès européen des études iraniennes; organisé par la Societas Iranologica Europaea, Paris, 6–10 septembre 1999, vol. 1, La période ancienne, ed. Philippe Huyse [Paris, 2002], 221–32).

³⁹ Panaino, “Gli Yašt,” passim.

⁴⁰ We must note that, although Darmesteter, James (Études iraniennes, 2 vols. [Paris, 1883], 2: 286–92Google Scholar [Khoršed Yasht], 292–303 [Māh Yasht]) edited as Yašts 6 and 7 three Avestan texts attested in the manuscripts L12, Fonds Burnouf V and L25, accompanied respectively by a Pahlavi, a Sanskrit and a Persian translation, they cannot be considered as mutilated versions of the corresponding Niyāyišns. It is worth recalling that Geldner too, although in a less explicit form, rejected Darmesteter's solution. Actually, he used manuscripts L12 and L25 only for the edition of the Niyāyišns, not for that of the Yašts. Geldner (Avesta, 1: ix), for instance, described manuscript L12 as containing the Xwaršēd, Māh and Ātaxš Niyāyišns, and manuscript L25 (p. x) as containing the five Niyāyišns, while he did not use the third manuscript at all (see below). Thus, although Geldner (Avesta, 1: xiin1) had received some direct information by Darmesteter himself about the Paris Collection, and he also well knew Darmesteter's Études Iraniennes (which are expressly quoted at p. xlviii), he made limited use of it (only eight manuscripts). With close regard to the manuscript Fonds Burnouf, number 5, belonging to the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, Geldner's position is unclear. In fact, he took into consideration, among the Paris manuscripts, those belonging to the collection of Anquetil Duperron (Geldner, Avesta, 1: xii), but he did not mention in his catalogue any manuscript P5, referring only to another ms, P14 (n. 5 of the same “Fund”; see Geldner, ibid.), which, although it contains the Niyāyišns, presents a Pahlavi translation, not a Sanskrit one, as we should expect if the manuscript had been that one under discussion. P14, originally a copy by J. Olshausen, thus, has nothing to do with the manuscript number 5 of the Founds Burnouf, which, at least from what we can deduce, was not used by Westergaard (Zendavesta, 14–15) and Geldner as well. On the contrary, Bharucha, Sheriaji Dadabhai (Collected Sanskrit Writings of the Parsis: Consisting of Old Translations of Avestâ and Pahlavi-Pâzend Books as Well as Other Original Compositions; with Various Readings and Notes, Pt. 1, Khorda Avestâ-Arthaḥ [Bombay, 1906], VIII)Google Scholar closely followed Darmesteter's opinion, so offering grounds to the existence of a Xwaršēd Yašt and a Māh Yašt in an isolated Sanskrit version.

With regard to these manuscripts we can summarize the most important data:

• a) Manuscript L12 belongs to the “East India Office Library” (EIOL) of London (incorporated into the British Library); it is presently available: Xorda Avesta (Avestan and Pahlavi); 18.7 x 13.6 cm; 119 folios with numbers in Gujarati; 113–16 blank folios; from 11 to 14 lines each page. It contains: Introductory prayers, the Niyāyišns 1, 3, 5; Yt. 1, the two Srōš Yašts and both Sīh-rōzags, occasional explanatory glosses in Persian. The Colophon is at p. 102 in Persian, and it is dated on the fifteenth day of the fourth month of the year 1124 (AY) = 1755 CE. The name of the scribe is blotted out (see Maneckji N. Dhalla, “Iranian Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1912): 387–98, in particular p. 391).

• b) Manuscript 5 of the Fonds Burnouf, Avestan and Sanskrit (Supplément persan 1668, Bibliothèque Nationale de France): 36.5 x 15.5 cm; 94 folios (in the microfilm I have), numbered with Arabic figures; the number of lines for each page changes from 15 to 19; half-bound; ductus of the second half of the eighteenth century. On p. 1 it presents the title written by Eugène Burnouf himself: “Fragments zend et Parsis, given as a gift to Burnouf by Manakja Cursetjee in the month of December 1841.” This manuscript is given the number 2266 by Blochet, Edgar in his Catalogue des manuscrits persans de la Bibliothèque nationale, 4 vols. (Paris, 1905–34): 4, 211–12.Google Scholar Blochet assumed that it contained both the Xwaršēd Niyāyišn and the corresponding Yašt, which is nonsense; then, it is followed by the Māh Yašt (in Avestan plus the Sanskrit translation). For the rest, it contains the Ātaxš Niyāyišn (in Avestan with Sanskrit translation and Persian glosses; Yt. 1 (Avestan, Sanskrit and Persian glosses, not complete); Āfrīnagān ī Dahmān (Avestan and Sanskrit with Persian glosses), the Frawardīn Yašt only with chapters 49–52, which constitute the fourth chapter of the Āfrīnagān ī Gāθā, plus chapters 156–57 (see Geldner, Avesta, 2: 270, in the Apparatus criticus of para. 4, but with reference to other manuscripts) Then, the Āfrīnagān ī Gāhānbār (Avestan and Sanskrit), the Dhup Nīrang to be recited for the souls of the dead, when the perfumes have been offered to the fire; and finally the Patēt of Ādurbād ī Mahrspandān, in Pāzand and Sanskrit translation. Unfortunately, I do not have at my disposal the previous catalogue edited by Blochet, Edgar, Catalogue des manuscrits mazdéens (zends, pehlvis, parsis et persans) de la Bibliothèque nationale (Besançon, 1905).Google Scholar

• c) Manuscript L25 (EIOL), presently visible (Avestan and New Persian); 24.7 x 14.2 cm; 85 folios, numbered in Persian; 15 lines each page. It contains: Introductory Prayers, the 5 Niyāyišns, Yt. 1, Gāhānbārs, the Gāθās and the Dahmān Āfrīnagān; written by Dastur Kāvus of Surat in 1223 AH = 1808 CE (see Dhalla, “Iranian Manuscripts,” 397; Unvala, Jamshedji M., Collection of Colophons of Manuscripts Bearing on Zoroastrianism in Some Libraries of Europe [Bombay, 1940], 99).Google Scholar

⁴¹ As I did in my edition of these two Yašts, it would be better to include in the critical apparatus the pertinent variants deriving from both traditions, that of the Yašts and that of the Niyāyišns.

⁴² See Dhalla, Nyaishes, ix.

⁴³ “Considérations,” 508. See also Kellens, “Commentaire,” 85, 94.

⁴⁴ See Panaino, Antonio, “L'inno avestico a Vanant,” Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese, 28 (1989): 21–30.Google Scholar