Burning the Avesta

[jan]

In Michael Wood's Footsteps of Alexander, Michael suggests that Alexander is hated by the followers of the Zororastrian faith because he had burned the holy book, The Avesta. Can anyone elaborate on this act of burning? Why it was done? How it was done? And if a reason is known for the burning? Thanks, Jan

[Polyxena]

Hi Jan,How nice to see your post after some time. As I know, there are 3 main texts (parts) of the Avesta: some older liturgic texts and hymns to Ahuramazda - written by Zarathustra (1400-1200 BC) ; some "younger" or "new" hymns and liturgic texts - written after him and some prose ritual texts and myth .... but there must have been other texts. Also, there are some texts in Middle Persian that seem to be composed at the end of the fourth century BC in the time of Alexander the Great (likely written after he had destroyed some of them). The reason of his action could have been the same as the reason for burning of Persepolis or could have been sth. more... an expression of his revolt towards the Zoroastrian holy priests (they rose their people in revolt against him) and the proclamation of the Buddhism (which was behind his famous speech about "The Brotherhood of Man").Regards, Poliksena

[Dr. Pal]

Dear Poli,I was rather surprised by your reference to Buddhism and your statement >>The reason of his action could have been the same as the reason for burning of Persepolis>The reason of his action could have been the same as the reason for burning of Persepolis>The reason of his action could have been the same as the reason for burning of PersepolisThe reason of his action could have been the same as the reason for burning of PersepolisThe reason of his action could have been the same as the reason for burning of Persepolis

[nick]

The common scientific view is that the "written" Avesta never existed as such during Alexander's age. Persian religion comes from an oral tradition. This is consistant with other observations about Ancient Persia as a (well advanced) culture without a tradition in writing.In general Zoroastrianism is believed to have begun writing down the Avesta around the 6th century AD (under the influence of Muslim domination). But one should check Wieseh+¦fer and e.g. Briant.It is my personal view that Alexander never burned the Avesta simply because the book was not yet there. That doesn't mean that I do not respect the tradition that says that he did. In my view the alleged "burning of the Avesta" has become the symbolic act that describes how great Alexander's influence was on the demise of Achaemenid culture.Regards -
Nick

[susan]

I think that the Bactrian nobility had connections with Zoroastrianism that have not been fully examined in the context of Alexander's invasion. I came across a text that spelt Oxyartes as Oaroastra - this may well be a mis-spelling, but I wondered if we have been overlooking the close connection between the Achaemenids, the Persian nobility in Bactria and the religion. From memory, Darius I's parents, Hystaspes & atossa, were from Bactria and were famous as the first converts to Zoroastrianism; Darius's wife Atossa's sister was named Roxane, and Darius I's sons were all closely connected with Bactria.I think the story of the burning of the Avesta is garbled; as you say, Nick, it wasn't written down then, but fire did play a big part in their religion and it may be that a ceremony was mistakenly remembered. I think Alexander attempted to play a carefully-thought out 'hearts & minds' campaign by allying himself with existing religions, and Zoroastrianism was no different.Susan

[nick]

Hi Susan -But I think the Zarathustra religion was different! Although we have evidence in our sources that e.g. Alexander was happy to identify Egyptian Ammon with Zeus and the town of Nysa in India with the voyage of Dionysus - there is nothing in our sources that is pointing towards the same affection towards Persian dieties (or: diety - Mazda-Ahura, or Ahura Mazda, or Mithras).As I see it: Zoroastrianism was a monotheistic faith. That was something incomprehensible to Alexander and the Greeks.There really is a big difference in his approach towards polytheistic faiths (Egypt, India) compared to his approach towards monotheistic Persia.Regards -
Nick

[Dr. Pal]

Dear Nick and Susan,Yes I would agree that he did not really burn the Avesta but his hostility towards Zoroastrianism is beyond doubt. The name Spitamenes speaks volumes about his religion. Nick it is not only the monotheistic trend but there is a tendency towards absolutism which he may have resented. Both Hellenism and Buddhism advocated the GÇ£Middle WayGÇ¥. Are you aware that Gomata had the same hostile attitude towards Zoroastrian religion?A very important point overlooked by modern authors on Persia is that the southeast region of Iran was part of Greater India in the fourth century BC. This is why Alexander celebrated his GÇÿvictory against the IndiansGÇÖ at Kahnuj in Carmania. Who were the Daivas who were attacked by Xerexes? Frye alone considers the possibility that they could have been Indians within Persia. Toynbee had a much broader view. Ancient India and Iran overlapped territorially. I have written in my book that Darius-II was a Nanda king of the Indian texts. The very strong affinities between the Veda and the Avesta or that between Vedic Sanskrit and Old Persian show that India and Iran comprised a single cultural unit. The tone of conciliation of Firdausi is in unison with the pacifism of the Mahabharata. The ethos of poets and thinkers like Jalaluddin Rumi, Omar Khayyam, Saadi, Hafeez, Attar and others is strikingly Indian. The Buddhist call for harmony and brotherhood accords perfectly with the canon of the Sufis who are mainly from the Karman area. Baluchistan (Mlechchasthan), a primary area for Indian culture, penetrates deep inside Persia. The name of Machates, king of Persia echoes Magadha. This is India on wheels.RegardsDr. Pal

[Polyxena]

Hi Dr. Pal,I don't believe that ATG was personaly involved in the Indian religion at that time. Under my opinion, he was only fascinated by its propagators from one side and hostile to everything connected with the Achaemenid rule from the other. His goal was clear - to put an end to the Achaemenid power and because they were Zoroastrians and the Brahmans (their holy priests) rose the people against Alexander and his army and called him "The accursed" he chose the "other side" - the Buddhism. I don't think he was personally involved in this religion nor he knew more about their rules. This is very simple: the Buddhism was a reaction against the Brahminism. That's why I've stated that the reason for the "possible" burning of Avesta could have been the same as the reason for burning of Persepolis - or another sign that the Achaemenid rule has been terminated.
Furthermore, the only obvious proof that ATG hasn't been envolved in Buddhism was the fact that he didn't give up animal food and wine - oposite of their rules.Regards, Poliksena

[susan]

Yes, you're right.I've thought of another interpretation - since the Avesta was not written down, maybe the destruction of the Avesta means the destruction of the priests who held the oral tradition ? The ending of the Sogdian revolt was very bloody, so if the Zoroastrian priests were seen as the instigators, then they would have been destroyed - maybe burned in their temples - and so the tradition started.For people who want to read more about Zoroatrianiasm and its history, there's quite an interesting article at
http://www.chuckiii.com/Reports/History ... shtmlSusan

[jan]

No, this particular book was supposed to exist, being of a special kind of parchment and written in gold. It is the burning of the bookitself which had angered the followers of the religion when it was allegedly burned. I recall the number 112 associated with this, but I am drawing on memory now. While this may be another of those folktales told by his adversaries, it has some semblance of truth in it if it is even spoken of today. Thanks for the input. I appreciate it.

[Dr. Pal]

Dear Poli,I have not said that Alexander had become a Buddhist and animal food is eaten by many Buddhists all over the world. Only some sects forbid it. I have written that Kanika in the famous GÇ£Maharaja Kanaika lekhaGÇ¥ (letter to the Great King Kanika) is Alexander, not Kanishka, as is generally assumed. In this letter the philosopher Matrcheta exhorts Maharaja Kanika not to kill animals during hunting. The sixteenth century historian Taranatha says clearly that Kanik is not Kanishka. You can find this under the heading GÇÿMatrchetaGÇÖ in the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Regards,Dr.Pal

[jan]

Dear friends,I must correct myself. The Avesta was composed of 12,000 calf skins in which the writing was in gold.I had hoped to learn if any one of you knew more about that which is found on page 117 of the book by Michael Wood, Footsteps of Alexander.I wonder at how long it took to burn 12,000 calf skins. It seems like a tremendous task to me. Jan

[marcus]

Hi Nick,But if it was monotheism that caused Alexander a problem, why did he not give the Jews a hard time?I'd be more inclined to think it was because it was Persian than because it was monotheistic.As I've been re-reading Green, he gives some interesting points about the destruction of Persepolis - basically, that Al wanted the Magi to recognise him as the Achaemenid heir, and the destruction of the city was partially a reaction to their unwillingness to do so... which might correspond to the anti-Zoroastrianism?All the bestMarcus