“Fracas over farohar”
I believe one could reach such a conclusion only if King Darius had pointed at the winged bust and expressed: "This is my God, Ahura Mazda.” Although no one can conclude with certainty what the winged bust signified in that era, by considering historical evidence as well as religious texts, we can say that it most probably did not signify Ahura Mazda for the following reasons:
Nowhere in the Gathas has God been envisioned in any physical form, but rather as an abstract entity that is realized in the mind. Nowhere in the later Avestan writings is Ahura Mazda presented in physical shape. In some Yashts, pre-Zoroastrian deities like Anahita and Mithra (Meher) are presented in human form, but the writers of Hormuzd Yasht certainly knew the abstract nature of Ahura Mazda and did not imbue God with physical manifestation.
One should not ignore the words of Herodotus: "Persians made no statue of god because they considered it folly to visualize Him in human form... Unlike our religion (Greeks), the Persian religion is not anthropomorphic (described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes).” The suggestion by some authors that personification of God by the Persians occurred soon after Herodotus’ report to the contrary is not acceptable. For an abrupt reversal of a religious tradition, a great religious event and virtually a new advent would be required, but no such evidence has been recorded during that era. Other Greek historians have also substantiated Herodotus’ report.
The religious tenets of Darius based on his inscriptions were closer to the teachings of Zarathushtra than those of other Achemenid kings. There is no evidence that he offered blood sacrifices for his God. Thus, he does not attribute his accomplishments to sacrifices and rituals but because "I was not aggressor, deceitful, cruel and perfidious” and "I did not desire injustice to an orphan or a widow.”
French thinker Arthur de Gobineau simply calls the farohar icon "the symbol of royalty” while Persian historian Abdollah Shahbazi argues that it is not God but the khwarnah or farah (fortune) of the king. In the much younger Avesta in the Zoroastrian canon, the Sasanian king is regarded as the holder of (Farr-e-Izadi) or divine glory. In the Gathas, the word "farr” with such a connotation does not exist. However, "khwarnah,” which in contemporary Persian has evolved as "kwarah” and "farah” is cited in the later Avesta and purported in general terms to be glory and light. Swedish scholar Henrik Samuel Nyberg contends that Darius, in his inscriptions, alludes to "farmana,” a divine force equated with fravahar. As in later scriptures, not only all creatures, but Ahura Mazda Himself possess fravahar or fravashi, therefore this bust is the fravahar of Ahura Mazda and not Ahura Mazda Himself.
The winged bust is thought to be a modified version of an Assyrian symbol which had been borrowed from the Egyptians. Prof Ebrahim Pour Davood maintained that it was transferred and engraved by the Assyrian architects and masons who were invited to Persia for the construction of Persepolis.
Fravahar or fravashi in younger Avesta reflects the essence of God that dwells in every single human being and all creation and promotes all toward perfection. It emanates from God’s fravahar, is not tainted by evil and after death returns to God. Although the word fravahar is not mentioned in the Gathas, the concept of advance toward divinity, achieving wholeness and immortality and joining God through attainment of the divine attributes, has been repeatedly taught.
Dr DARYOUSH JAHANIAN
djahanian@gmail.com
Kansas City, USA
London based independent researcher on Zoroastrianism Farrokh Vajifdar explains:
It’s my turn to be surprised — at the writer’s disregard of the visual and textual evidence precisely chiselled on the Behistun tableau, and on the Persepolis/Parsa and Naqsh-i Rustam reliefs. The Great King’s Old Persian texts culminate at several junctures with his acknowledgements to Auramazda/Ahura Mazda, and to Him alone, for the bestowal of kingship through the will/grace of his sole deity. The lands of his burgeoning empire became his by grace of Auramazda. He administers justice throughout "by grace/favor of Auramazda.” His moral qualities are inculcated by Auramazda. Nowhere does he allude to any fravashi.
Darius sought Auramazda’s help in victory over the troublesome rebel priest Gaumata (who he later slew!), thereafter becoming ruler over the 23 named imperial lands. His Behistun inscription proceeds with the suppression of several rebel pretenders in various regions — all through Auramazda’s favor. The captured impostors are strung out in comic strip fashion for the Great King’s inspection, pending his decision on their fate. Fravashis are still absent!
The Great King uses the term vashna for the deity’s will/grace/favor: it is cognate (related in origin) with the Gathic vasa khshayas in describing Ahura Mazda’s ruling at will. Here one sees the connexion of khshathra, "rule; power; sovereignty, authority, etc,” vashna, as noted, and the again disputed token of kingship — the ring of authority to rule held forth by the mystery figure within the winged symbol. It is the deity who confers the authority to rule upon Darius. There is, of course, more to be adduced as proof that the figure is Auramazda and none other.
The modern Persian word shah resulted from Old Persian khshay-; the terms for khvar(a)na are khoreh and farr. Perhaps my critic could spare time instead in studying the accompanying text where Darius states "I turn myself quickly to Auramazda that this (testament) is true, not false...” Should he have disrespectfully pointed as well? Also, who, what and where is the uncreated Mazda’s fravashi?
The objector appears uncertain over who is empowered to confer kingship. Fravashis do not have this authority; Auramazda indisputably does, and Darius accordingly tells us who it is emerging from the winged disc. His appeal is constantly and exclusively to his sole deity, recognized as sole giver of several boons and noble qualities listed on the Behistun and Naqsh-i Rustam rocks. The reliefs say it all: Auramazda confers legitimacy to rule (raised right hand, with the left holding forth the ring of sovereignty) to which Darius dutifully responds with his own raised right hand.
Concerning the figural representation of the abstract deity, what does Jahanian make of the very human depictions of an equestrian Ormazd by various Sasanian monarchs at Naqsh-i Rustam below the Achemenian rock tombs? They hold forth the khshathra towards the earthly kings. The Sasanian king Narseh receives the investiture diadem (crown) from Anahita’s hand. At the Taq-i Bustan site’s (mid-) Sasanian relief panel one sees both Mihr/Mithra and Ormazd/Ahura Mazda. None of these Sasanian reliefs bear winged discs (fravashis, farohars) of any description.
Herodotus crops up, as well he might, since he was a Persian subject with first-hand information from the western Magi. And indeed there are no figural representations of Ahura Mazda in the ancient West Asia Minor region of Ionia (he never mentions the Persian deity nor Zarathushtra by name, nor did he visit Persia proper to examine Behistun, Persepolis or Naqsh-i Rustam). What he very clearly writes is that the Persians adopted and adapted foreign customs were deemed superior to their own.
Among the borrowings was from the iconography at Sar-Pol-i Zohab of some 1,700 years before Darius the Great. Its painstaking depiction of the captured rebels of the time shows a star deity (proto-Ishtar?) leading a row of rebels, stripped naked and tethered together through rings pierced through their noses. Anubanini, king of the highland Lullubi tribes, has his foot trampling a vanquished rebel. The connexion and basic similarities with Behistun, Darius, Gaumata, assorted insurrectionists, and Auramazda cannot go unnoticed.
Did the writer never pause to think why it was that Zarathushtra deliberately omitted all mention of this ancient ancestor worshipping religious symbol? He did not require the 74 names of Ahura from the colorless Hormazd Yasht to delineate Mazda, nor the 101 names so cherished by Parsis. A deeper investigation into the Gathic "pantheon” — no Mithra; no Anahita! — uncovers the real reason: Zarathushtra directed his worship towards his sole deity Mazda, his only worthy Ahura.
Another red herring, no doubt, on the part of those too bothered to acknowledge the devotional unity of the Gathas. For Zarathushtra to get his teachings widely understood, he refers to Mazda’s eyes, hands, tongue, mouth, and to His fathering of His own abstract entities: anthropomorphic — yes?