Document Type : Research Paper

Author

• Seyed Mehdi Mousavinia

Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Neyshabur, Neyshabur, Iran.

Abstract

Abstract
Zoroaster is one of the most prominent and influential figures in the history of ancient Iran. Despite the importance of comprehending Zoroaster’s life history toward a better understanding of the cultural development processes of Iranian society, a variety of proposed dates from the Neolithic period to the Achaemenid period testifies to the difficulty of conducting research on this issue. The variety of proposed dates that had been derived from classical sources, Pahlavi texts and literature of the Islamic period were later regulated by linguistic studies and archaeological data. In this research, based on linguistic studies, an attempt has been made to examine and evaluate the archaeological data of the second and first millennia BCE of the Central Asia, with the aim of verifying the feasibility of their connection with the Zoroastrian religion. In this regard, the raised question is: to what extent can we establish a connection between the developments of the second millennium BCE in the eastern Iranian milieu and the emergence of Zoroaster? Moreover, what information does the archaeological data of the Iron Age of Central Asia provides about Zoroastrianism? In order to answer the proposed questions, library research methods (encompassing archaeological field reports) with a descriptive-analytical approach have been used. The results of this research show that during the late Bactrian-Margiana culture and the beginning of the Iron Age, certain cultural developments were taking place simultaneously, which could be evaluated and interpreted in the context of Zoroastrianism based on linguistic studies and archaeological data. The Bactrian-Margiana and Early Iron Age cultures had declined and a new culture with different socio-cultural traditions had emerged. The similarity of the class system of this period with the system reflected in the Gathas, shows that the idea that the Gathas’ society is the same as the Early Iron Age society of Central Asia seems logical and also emphasizes the religious developments aspect. It is possible to connect the aforementioned developments in the context of South Central Asia with the emergence of a new religion and prophet. A prophet who probably appeared in the east of the Iranian milieu in ca. 1700-1500 BCE and became the founder of one of the oldest and most influential religions of the ancient world.
Keywords: Zoroaster, Iron Age, Central Asia, Burial Custom, Fire Temple.
 
1. Introduction
One of the most complex issues in Iranian studies concerns the wide range of speculations regarding the life and chronological setting of Zoroaster. An examination of classical sources (Pliny, N.H. 30.1.3; Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 46–7; Laertius, I.1.2), Zoroastrian religious texts (Le Livre d’Ardā Vīrāz, 1.1–4; Vizidagiha-i Zādisparam, 25.12; Bundahišn, 22.240), and works by authors of the Islamic period (Masʿūdī, 1966: 415; Bīrūnī, 2010: 56; Mojmal al-tawāriḵ, 2010: 14) reveals that proposed dates for Zoroaster’s lifetime range from ca. 6000 BCE to the Achaemenid period. This question assumed a more systematic form with the linguistic analysis of the Gathas and their comparative study with the Rigveda (Boyce, 1979: 18; Gnoli, 1980: 174–178; Kreyenbroek, 2016: 13–25). If Zoroaster’s origins are to be located in the eastern regions of Greater Iran, as suggested by linguistic studies of the Gathas (Amouzgar & Tafazzoli, 1991: 21, 111), then archaeological data from Central Asia, considered alongside linguistic evidence, may contribute to informed hypotheses concerning his historical context. Although archaeological research has yielded limited direct evidence linking specific cultural traditions to religious doctrines, socio-political transformations during the transition from the Bactrian-Margiana Archaeological Complex to the Yaz culture may, in some cases, be interpreted in light of evolving religious ideologies. The advanced urban society of the Bactrian-Margiana culture, characterized by complex social and economic hierarchies and long-distance trade networks, declined between 1700 and 1500 BCE and was succeeded by the Yaz culture, with its attendant structural changes, around 1500–1300 BCE. In this later cultural horizon, villages replaced urban centers, and intricate urban hierarchies gave way to simpler socio-economic systems based on rural agriculture and pastoralism. Concurrently, ceramic traditions and mortuary practices underwent significant modification, with burial customs assuming a more standardized and integrated form. Given the close association between mortuary practice and religious belief, the departure from typical Bactrian-Margiana burial traditions and the emergence of relatively uniform mortuary customs under the Yaz culture suggest the possibility of religious transformation across southern Central Asia. Moreover, certain burial practices of this period appear to anticipate later Zoroastrian traditions. Notable examples include (1) the disappearance of inhumation graves and (2) the increasing practice of exposing corpses in open air. The discovery of architectural and material evidence interpreted as related to fire temples within the Yaz cultural sphere (Pidaev, 1974: 33–35; Askarov, 1982; Boucharlat, 2014: 10) further strengthens the argument for a tangible connection between this cultural milieu and emerging Zoroastrian traditions. In the present study, an effort has been made to reassess the historical context of Zoroaster through a critical examination of classical sources, Zoroastrian religious literature, and Islamic-period historiography, in conjunction with linguistic scholarship and archaeological data. The research proceeds from the assumption that the extensive social, economic, and cultural transformations observable during the transition from the Bactrian-Margiana culture to the Yaz culture—and the subsequent association of the Yaz cultural horizon with Zoroastrianism—reflect processes of religious development, including the adaptation and transformation of certain religious elements inherited from the Bactrian-Margiana tradition.

2. The archaeological data
Following the decline of the Bactrian-Margiana Archaeological Complex and the emergence of a cultural horizon characterized by handmade and painted ceramics, diverse mortuary practices became widespread across southern Central Asia, some of which may be interpreted within the framework of later Zoroastrian traditions. (1) In one category, corpses were interred in a relatively simple manner, occasionally wrapped in a shroud-like covering. In certain cases, human bones appear to have shifted after deposition, likely due to decomposition occurring within a confined or covered space. This pattern has been documented at Early Iron Age sites such as Dzharkutan, Kuchuk-tepe, and Dal’verzin, and at Ulug-depe during the Middle Iron Age (Bendezu-Sarmiento & Lhuillier, 2015: 283–284). At Kuchuk-tepe, bodies were placed upon a layer of pebbles (ibid.: 299), a practice reminiscent of the Zoroastrian injunction that a corpse should not come into direct contact with the soil. Evidence for the use of shrouds has also been reported in historical-period Zoroastrian burials in Central Asia (Kurkina, 2005: 62; Baratov, 2013: 33; Mousavinia, 2023: 24–35), continuing into the late Islamic centuries (Azargoshasb, 1969; Mousavinia, 2023: 143–148). (2) A second mortuary tradition involved collective burials, either simultaneous or successive. In some cases, remains were recovered as scattered bone fragments. This practice has been identified at Early Iron Age sites such as Dal’verzin and Dzharkutan (Bendezu-Sarmiento & Lhuillier, 2015: 290–298), and at Geokchik-depe in the sixth and seventh centuries BCE (Lecomte, 2005: 465; Mashkour, 1998: 209). (3) Another category consists of shallow surface graves containing limited human bone fragments, some bearing cut marks. Examples have been documented at Dzharkutan and Dashly 30 (Early Iron Age), at Ulug-depe (Middle Iron Age), and at Edatguly (sixth–seventh centuries BCE) (Bendezu-Sarmiento & Lhuillier, 2015: 283–302). (4) Secondary burial practices have also been recorded, indicating that the Xwaršēd Nigerišn rite was likely performed in open-air contexts before bones were gathered and redeposited in pits, either individually or collectively. This practice has been reported at Dzharkutan (Sellier & Bendezu-Sarmiento, 2013), at Chust and Tujabuguz (Early Iron Age), and at Tepe Zargaran during the Achaemenid period (Bendezu-Sarmiento & Lhuillier, 2015: 297–303). (5) In certain cases, scattered human bone fragments—likely resulting from the performance of Xwaršēd Nigerišn—have been discovered at Early Iron Age sites such as Dal’verzin and Tujabuguz (Bendezu-Sarmiento & Lhuillier, 2015: 303), as well as at Geokchik-depe (Lecomte, 2005: 466). This practice continued from the Early to the Middle Iron Age at Ulug-depe (Bendezu-Sarmiento, 2006) and is also attested in the Achaemenid period at Shortepa (Bendezu-Sarmiento & Lhuillier, 2015: 303).
In addition to burial customs, archaeological evidence interpreted as Zoroastrian fire temples has been reported from Central Asia. Monumental ritual structures first appear in the Bronze Age (Boucharlat, 2014: 10) at sites such as Togolok 21 and Gonur (Sarianidi, 1998) and continue into the Middle Iron Age at Topaz Gala Depe (Wagner, 2014), Tillya Tepe (Sarianidi, 1989), Pachmak Tepe (Pidaev, 1974: 33–35), and Pshaktepa (Askarov, 1982). Although attributing the Bronze Age examples directly to Zoroastrianism remains problematic, consideration of the broader Middle Iron Age context in Central Asia—particularly in conjunction with contemporaneous mortuary traditions—permits a more substantiated discussion of the possible Zoroastrian character of such structures from approximately 1100 BCE onward.
 
3. Conclusion
One of the most complex issues in Iranology concerns the study of Zoroastrianism and the attempt to situate Zoroaster’s lifetime within the vast chronology of ancient Iran. Clarifying this question constitutes a crucial step toward establishing a more precise historical framework, which in turn enables a more accurate evaluation of archaeological data and a deeper understanding of the cultural developments of the period and its aftermath. Although accounts of Zoroaster’s life appear in classical sources, Pahlavi texts, and Islamic-era literature, the first systematic scholarly efforts to reconstruct his historical context were grounded in linguistic analysis. The close linguistic affinity between the Gathas and the Rigveda, together with philological dating, suggests that this oldest portion of the Avesta originated in northeastern Iran and was likely composed around 1700–1500 BCE. Concurrently, archaeological evidence from Central Asia has illuminated additional dimensions of early Zoroastrian traditions. The identification of fire temple structures at sites such as Topaz Gala Depe, Tillya Tepe, Pachmak Tepe, and Pshaktepa, dating to the Middle Iron Age, indicates that 1100 BCE may represent the latest plausible date for Zoroaster’s lifetime. Conversely, the diversity of burial traditions associated with the Xwaršēd Nigerišn rite, attested from approximately 1500 BCE onward, suggests that his historical context may extend several centuries earlier. Notably, this chronological horizon corresponds with linguistic assessments of the Gathas and the dating of their archaic vocabulary.
This period coincides with substantial socio-cultural transformations in Central Asia, some of which may be interpreted in light of evolving religious ideologies. The decline of the Bactrian-Margiana Archaeological Complex and the emergence of the Yaz culture marked a transition from urban centers to village-based settlement patterns, from complex urban hierarchies to simpler rural systems grounded in agriculture and pastoralism, alongside the appearance of new ceramic traditions and increasingly standardized burial practices. The divergence of this emerging culture from Bactrian-Margiana traditions, together with the growing uniformity of mortuary customs, may plausibly reflect processes of religious transformation. Furthermore, parallels between the tripartite social structure reflected in the Gathas and the social organization characteristic of Early Iron Age Central Asia lend support to the argument that the society described in the Gathas corresponds broadly to that archaeological horizon, underscoring the likelihood of significant religious developments during this era. Within this broader South Central Asian context, it is therefore plausible to associate these transformations with the emergence of a new religious movement and its prophetic founder—likely active in the eastern Iranian cultural sphere around 1700–1500 BCE—who would come to be regarded as the originator of one of the most ancient and influential religions of the premodern world.

Keywords

• Zoroaster
• Iron Age
• Central Asia
• Burial Custom
• Fire Temple