Hubbry Logo
DaevaDaevaMain
Open search
Daeva
Community hub
Daeva
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Daeva
Daeva
Daeva
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Zoroastrianism
Primary topics
Divine entities
Scripture and worship
Accounts and legends
History and culture
Adherents
Related topics
icon Religion portal

A daeva (Avestan: 𐬛𐬀𐬉𐬎𐬎𐬀 daēuua) is a Zoroastrian supernatural entity with disagreeable characteristics. In the Gathas, the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian canon, the daevas are "gods that are (to be) rejected". This meaning is – subject to interpretation – perhaps also evident in the Old Persian "daiva inscription" of the 5th century BC. In the Younger Avesta, the daevas are divinities that promote chaos and disorder. In later tradition and folklore, the dēws (Zoroastrian Middle Persian; New Persian divs) are personifications of every imaginable evil. Over time, the Daeva myth as Div became integrated to Persian mythology.

Daeva, the Iranian language term, shares the same origin of "Deva" of Hinduism, which is a cognate with Latin deus ("god") and Greek Zeus. While the word for the Vedic spirits and the word for the Zoroastrian entities are etymologically related, their function and thematic development is altogether different. Originally, the term was used to denote beings of cultural folklore which predate use in scripture.

Equivalents for Avestan daeva in Iranian languages include Pashto, Balochi, Kurdish dêw, Persian dīv/deev.[1] The Iranian word was borrowed by Old Armenian as dew, Georgian as devi, Urdu as deo, and Turkish as dev [2] with the same negative associations in those languages. In English, the word appears as daeva, div, deev, and in the 18th century fantasy novels of William Thomas Beckford as dive.

It has been speculated that the concept of the daevas as a malevolent force may have been inspired from the Scythian gods.[3]

Academic issues

[edit]

Problems of interpretation

[edit]

Old Avestan daēuua or daēva derives from Old Iranian *daiva, which in turn derives from Indo-Iranian *daivá- "god", reflecting Proto-Indo-European *deywós with the same meaning. For other Indo-European derivatives, see Dyeus. The Vedic Sanskrit cognate of Avestan daēuua is devá-, continuing in later Indo-Aryan languages as dev.

Because all cognates of Iranian *daiva have a positive connotation, but "no known Iranian dialect attests clearly and certainly the survival of a positive sense for [Old Iranian] *daiva-",[4] in the 19th- and 20th-century a great deal of academic discussion revolved around questions of how Iranian daeva might have gained its derogatory meaning. This "fundamental fact of Iranian linguistics" is "impossible" to reconcile with the testimony of the Gathas, where the daevas, though rejected, were still evidently gods that continued to have a following.[4] The same is true of the daiva inscription, where the daiva are the gods of (potential) rebels, but still evidently gods that continued to have a following.

The issue is related to the question of how Zoroaster's own contribution to Iranian religion might be defined. In the older early/mid 20th-century view (so-called reform hypothesis), in which Zoroaster was perceived to be a revolutionary reformer, it was assumed that the daevas must have been the "national" gods (see comparison with Indic usage, below) of pre-Zoroaster-ian Iran, which Zoroaster had then rejected.[5] This attribution to Zoroaster is also found in the 9th/10th-century books of Zoroastrian tradition,[6] and Gershevitch[7] and others following Lommel[8] consider the progression from "national" gods to demons to be attributable to the "genius of Zoroaster".[4] Subsequent scholarship (so-called progressive hypothesis) has a more differentiated view of Zoroaster, and does not follow the unprovable assumption that prehistoric Iranian religion ever had "national" gods (and thus also that the daevas could have represented such a group), nor does it involve hypothetical conjecture of whose gods the daevas might/might not have been. While the progressive hypothesis gives Zoroaster credit for giving Iranian religion a moral and ethical dimension, it does not (with one notable exception[9]) give Zoroaster credit for the development of the daevas into demons. It assumes that the development was gradual, and that a general distrust of the daevas already existed by the time the Gathas were composed.[4]

In comparison with Vedic usage

[edit]

Although with some points of comparison such as shared etymology, Indic devá- is thematically different from Avestan daēva.[citation needed]

While in the post-Rigvedic Indic texts the conflict between the two groups of devas and asuras is a primary theme, this is not a theme in either the Rigveda nor in the Iranian texts,[citation needed]

..."returning I protect the kingdom which awaits me" (from asuras)

— Dr. H. R. Vemkata Rao, Rig veda Smhita – Part 20

and therefore cannot have been a feature of a common heritage. The use of Asura in the Rigveda is unsystematic and inconsistent and "it can hardly be said to confirm the existence of a category of gods opposed to the devas". Indeed, RigVedic Deva is variously applied to most gods, including many of the asuras. Likewise, at the oldest layer, Zoroastrianism's daevas are originally also gods (albeit gods to be rejected), and it is only in the younger texts that the word evolved to refer to evil creatures. And the Zoroastrian ahuras (etymologically related to the Vedic asuras) are also only vaguely defined, and only three in number.

Moreover, the daemonization of the asuras in India and the daemonization of the daevas in Iran both took place "so late that the associated terms cannot be considered a feature of Indo-Iranian religious dialectology".[4] The view popularized by Nyberg,[10] Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin,[11] and Widengren[12] of a prehistorical opposition of *asura/daiva involves "interminable and entirely conjectural discussions" on the status of various Indo-Iranian entities that in one culture are asuras/ahuras and in the other are devas/daevas (see examples in the Younger Avesta, below).

In scripture

[edit]

In Zoroaster's revelation

[edit]

In the Gathas, the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and credited to Zoroaster himself, the daevas are not yet the demons that they would become in later Zoroastrianism; though their rejection is notable in the Gathas themselves. The Gathas speak of the daevas as a group, and do not mention individual daevas by name. In these ancient texts, the term daevas (also spelled 'daēuuas') occurs 19 times; wherein daevas are a distinct category of "quite genuine gods, who had, however, been rejected".[5] In Yasna 32.3 and 46.1, the daevas are still worshipped by the Iranian peoples. Yasna 32.8 notes that some of the followers of Zoroaster had previously been followers of the daevas; though, the daevas are clearly identified with evil (e.g., Yasna 32.5).

In the Gathas, daevas are censured as being incapable of discerning truth (asha-) from falsehood (druj-). They are consequently in "error" (aēnah-), but are never identified as drəguuaṇt- "people of the lie". The conclusion drawn from such ambiguity is that, at the time the Gathas were composed, "the process of rejection, negation, or daemonization of these gods was only just beginning, but, as the evidence is full of gaps and ambiguities, this impression may be erroneous".[5]

In Yasna 32.4, the daevas are revered by the Usij, described as a class of "false priests", devoid of goodness of mind and heart, and hostile to cattle and husbandry (Yasna 32.10–11, 44.20). Like the daevas that they follow, "the Usij are known throughout the seventh region of the earth as the offspring of aka mainyu, druj, and arrogance. (Yasna 32.3)".[13] Yasna 30.6 suggests the daeva-worshipping priests debated frequently with Zoroaster, but failed to persuade him.

In the Younger Avesta

[edit]

In the Younger Avesta, the daevas are unambiguously hostile entities. In contrast, the word daevayasna- (literally, "one who sacrifices to daevas") denotes adherents of other religions and thus still preserves some semblance of the original meaning in that the daeva- prefix still denotes "other" gods. In Yasht 5.94 however, the daevayasna- are those who sacrifice to Anahita during the hours of darkness, i.e., the hours when the daevas lurk about, and daevayasna- appears then to be an epithet applied to those who deviate from accepted practice and/or harvested religious disapproval.[14]

The Vendidad, a contraction of vi-daevo-dāta, "given against the daevas", is a collection of late Avestan texts that deals almost exclusively with the daevas, or rather, their various manifestations and with ways to confound them. Vi.daeva- "rejecting the daevas" qualifies the faithful Zoroastrian with the same force as mazdayasna- ('Mazda worshiper').[6]

In Vendidad 10.9 and 19.43, three divinities of the Vedic pantheon follow Angra Mainyu in a list of demons: Completely adapted to Iranian phonology, these are Indra (Vedic Indra), Sarva (Vedic Sarva, i.e. Rudra), and Nanghaithya (Vedic Nasatya). The process by which these three came to appear in the Avesta is uncertain. Together with three other daevas, Tauru, Zairi and Nasu, that do not have Vedic equivalents, the six oppose the six Amesha Spentas.

Vendidad 19.1 and 19.44 have Angra Mainyu dwelling in the region of the daevas which the Vendidad sets in the north and/or the nether world (Vendidad 19.47, Yasht 15.43), a world of darkness. In Vendidad 19.1 and 19.43–44, Angra Mainyu is the daevanam daevo, "daeva of daevas" or chief of the daevas. The superlative daevo.taema is however assigned to the demon Paitisha ("opponent"). In an enumeration of the daevas in Vendidad 1.43, Angra Mainyu appears first and Paitisha appears last. "Nowhere is Angra Mainyu said to be the creator of the daevas or their father."[15]

The Vendidad is usually recited after nightfall since the last part of the day is considered to be the time of the demons. Because the Vendidad is the means to disable them, this text is said to be effective only when recited between sunset and sunrise.

In inscriptions

[edit]

Old Persian daiva occurs twice in Xerxes' daiva inscription (XPh, early 5th century BC). This trilingual text also includes one reference to a daivadana "house of the daivas", generally interpreted to be a reference to a shrine or sanctuary.

In his inscription, Xerxes records that "by the favour of Ahura Mazda I destroyed that establishment of the daivas and I proclaimed, 'The daivas thou shalt not worship!'"[16] This statement has been interpreted either one of two ways. Either the statement is an ideological one and daivas were gods that were to be rejected, or the statement was politically motivated and daivas were gods that were followed by (potential) enemies of the state.[17]

In tradition and folklore

[edit]

In Zoroastrian tradition

[edit]

In the Middle Persian texts of Zoroastrian tradition, the dews are invariably rendered with the Aramaic ideogram ŠDYA or the more common plural ŠDYAʼn that signified "demons" even in the singular.

Dews play a crucial role in the cosmogonic drama of the Bundahishn, a Zoroastrian view of creation completed in the 12th century. In this text, the evil spirit Ahriman (the middle Persian equivalent of Avestan Angra Mainyu) creates his hordes of dews to counter the creation of Ormuzd (Avestan Ahura Mazda). This notion is already alluded to in the Vendidad (see Younger Avestan texts above), but only properly developed in the Bundahishn. In particular, Ahriman is seen to create six dews that in Zoroastrian tradition are the antitheses of the Amahraspands (Avestan Amesha Spentas).

Mirroring the task of the Amesha Spentas through which Ahura Mazda realized creation, the six antitheses are the instrument through which Angra Mainyu creates all the horrors in the world. Further, the arch-daevas of Vendidad 10.9 and 19.43 are identified as the antithetical counterparts of the Amesha Spentas. The six arch-demons as listed in the Epistles of Zadspram (WZ 35.37) and the Greater Bundahishn (GBd. 34.27) are:[18]

  • Akoman of "evil thought" opposing Wahman/Bahman of "good thought" (Av. Aka Manah versus Vohu Manah)
  • Indar that freezes the minds of the righteous opposing Ardawahisht of "best truth" (Av. Iṇdra versus Asha Vahishta).
  • Nanghait of discontent opposing Spendarmad of "holy devotion" (Av. Nanghaithya/Naonghaithya versus Spenta Armaiti)
  • Sawar/Sarvar of oppression opposing Shahrewar of "desirable dominion" (Av. Saurva versus Kshathra Vairya)
  • Tauriz/Tawrich of destruction opposing Hordad of "wholeness" (Av. Taurvi versus Haurvatat)
  • Zariz/Zarich who poisons plants opposing Amurdad of "immortality" (Av. Zauri versus Ameretat)

These oppositions differ from those found in scripture, where the moral principles (that each Amesha Spenta represents) are opposed by immoral principles. This is not however a complete breach, for while in the Gathas asha—the principle—is the diametric opposite of the abstract druj, in Zoroastrian tradition, it is Ardawahisht, the Amesha Spenta that is the hypostasis of asha, that is opposed to by Indar, who freezes the minds of creatures from practicing "righteousness" (asha). Greater Bundahishn 34.27 adds two more arch-demons, which are not however in opposition to Amesha Spentas:[18]

  • Xeshm of "wrath" opposing Srosh of "obedience" (Av. Aeshma versus Sraosha)
  • Gannag menog, the "foul death" or "stinking spirit", opposing Hormazd (Gannag menog is unknown in the Avesta, and Hormazd is Ahura Mazda).

Also mirroring Ormuzd's act of creation, i.e., the realization of the Amesha Spentas by his "thought", is Ahriman's creation of the dews through his "demonic essence". Other texts describe this event as being to Ahriman's detriment for his act of "creation" is actually an act of destruction. Ahriman is the very epitome (and hypostasis) of destruction, and hence he did not "create" the demons, he realized them through destruction, and they then became that destruction. The consequence is that, as Ahriman and the dews can only destruct, they will ultimately destroy themselves (Denkard 3). As the medieval texts also do for Ahriman, they question whether the dews exist at all. Since "existence" is the domain of Ormuzd, and Ahriman and his dews are anti-existence, it followed that Ahriman and his dews could not possibly exist. One interpretation of the Denkard proposes that the dews were perceived to be non-existent physically (that is, they were considered non-ontological) but present psychologically.[19] (see also: Ahriman: In Zoroastrian tradition)

For a different set of texts, such as the Shayest ne shayest and the Book of Arda Wiraz, Ahriman and the dews were utterly real, and are described as being potentially catastrophic. In such less philosophical representations, the dews are hordes of devils with a range of individual powers ranging from the almost benign to the most malign. They collectively rush out at nightfall to do their worst, which includes every possible form of corruption at every possible level of human existence. Their destructiveness is evident not only in disease, pain, and grief but also in cosmic events such as falling stars and climatic events such as droughts, cyclones and earthquakes. They are sometimes described as having anthropomorphic properties such as faces and feet, or given animal-like properties such as claws and body hair. They may produce semen, and may even mate with humans as in the tale of Jam and Jamag (Bundahishn 14B.1).

But with the exception of the Book of Arda Wiraz, the dews are not generally described as a force to be feared. With fundamental optimism,[20][21] the texts describe how the dews may be kept in check, ranging from cursing them to the active participation in life through good thoughts, words and deeds. Many of the medieval texts develop ideas already expressed in the Vendidad ("given against the demons").

A fire (cf. Adur) is an effective weapon against the dews, and keeping a hearth fire burning is a means to protect the home. The dews are "particularly attracted by the organic productions of human beings, from excretion, reproduction, sex, and death".[20] Prayer and other recitations of the liturgy, in particular the recitation of Yasht 1 (so Sad-dar 57), is effective in keeping the demons at bay.[22] Demons are attracted by chatter at mealtimes and when silence is broken a demon takes the place of the angel at one's side.[23] According to Shayest-ne-Shayest 9.8, eating at all after nightfall is not advisable since the night is the time of demons. In the 9th century rivayats (65.14), the demons are described as issuing out at night to wreak mayhem, but forced back into the underworld by the divine glory (khvarenah) at sunrise.

The Zoroastrianism of the medieval texts is unambiguous with respect to which force is the superior. Evil cannot create and is hence has a lower priority in the cosmic order (asha). According to Denkard 5.24.21a, the protection of the yazatas is ultimately greater than the power of the demons. The dews are agents ("procurers—vashikano—of success") of Ahriman (Avestan Angra Mainyu) in the contests that will continue until the end of time, at which time the fiend will become invisible and (God's) creatures will become pure. (Dadestan-i Denig 59)

But until the final renovation of the world, mankind "stands between the yazads and the dēws; the [yazads] are immortal in essence and inseparable from their bodies (mēnōg), men are immortal in essence but separable from their bodies (moving from gētīg to mēnōg condition), but dēws are mortal in essence and inseparable from their bodies, which may be destroyed."[20]

In addition to the six arch-demons (see above) that oppose the six Amesha Spentas, numerous other figures appear in scripture and tradition. According to Bundahishn XXVII.12, the six arch-demons have cooperators (hamkars), arranged in a hierarchy (not further specified) similar to that of the yazatas. These are "dews [...] created by the sins that creatures commit." (Bundahishn XXVII.51)

  • Akatash of perversion (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Anashtih "strife" (e.g., Chidag Andarz i Poryotkeshan 38)
  • Anast that utters falsehood (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Apaush and Spenjaghra who cause drought (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Araska of vengeance (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Ashmogh of apostasy (Avestan Ashemaogha)
  • Az of avarice and greed (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Buht of idolatry (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Bushasp of sloth (Avestan Bushyasta) (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Diwzhat (Av. Daebaaman), the deceiver, the hypocrite
  • Eshm of wrath (Avestan Aeshma) (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Freptar of distraction and deception (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Jeh the whore (Avestan Jahi) (e.g., Gbd III)
  • Mitokht (also Mithaokhta) of scepticism and falsehood (e.g. Gbd XXVII)
  • Nang of disgrace and dishonor (e.g., Dadestan-i Denig 53)
  • Nas or Nasa (Avestan Nasu) of pollution and contamination (e.g., GBd XXVII)
  • Niyaz causes want (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Pinih of stinginess and who hoards but does not enjoy its hoard (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Rashk (Avestan Areshko) "envy" (e.g. Denkard 9.30.4)
  • Sij who causes destruction (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Sitoj that denies doctrine (e.g., Dadestan-i Denig 53)
  • Spazg of slander (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Spuzgar, the negligent (e.g., Andarz-i Khosru-i-Kavatan)
  • Taromaiti of scorn (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Varun of unnatural lust (e.g., Gbd XXVII)

Other entities include:

  • Aghash of the evil eye (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Astwihad of death (Avestan Asto-widhatu or Asto-vidatu) (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • [Azi-/Az-]Dahak (Avestan Azi Dahaka), a serpent-like monster king. (e.g., J 4)
  • Cheshma who opposes the clouds and causes earthquakes and whirlwinds (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Kunda, the steed that carries sorcerers (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Uta who brings about sickness through food and water (e.g., Gbd XXVII)
  • Vizaresh that fights for the souls of the dead (e.g., Gbd XXVII)

The most destructive of these are Astiwihad, the demon of death that casts the noose of mortality around men's necks at birth, and Az, who is most capable of destroying the "innate wisdom" of man. Az is thus the cause of heresy and blinds the righteous man from being able to discern the truth and falsehood.

In the Shahnameh

[edit]
Akvan Div throws Rustam into the Caspian Sea.

A list of ten demons is provided in the Shahnameh:[24] Besides the afore-mentioned Az "greed", Kashm "wrath" (Avestan Aeshma), Nang "dishonor", Niaz "want", and Rashk "envy", the epic poem includes Kin "vengeance", Nammam "tell-tale", Do-ruy "two-face", napak-din "heresy", and (not explicitly named) ungratefulness.

Some of the entities that in the Middle Persian texts are demons, are in the Shahnameh attributes of demons, for instance, varuna "backwards" or "inside out", reflecting that they tend to do the opposite of what they are asked to do. Although Ferdowsi generally portrays divs as being distinct from humans, the poet also uses the word to denote "evil people".[24]

One of the more popular stories from the Shahnameh is that of Rostam and the Dīv-e Sapīd, the "white demon" of Mazandaran, who blinds Rostam's men (who are then cured with the blood of the demon's gall).

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Daeva

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A daeva (Avestan: daēuua) is a malevolent entity in , typically rendered in English as "" or "," serving as an adversary to and aligned with the destructive spirit Angra Mainyu. These beings embody chaos, falsehood, and moral corruption, actively promoting disorder and tempting humans toward evil actions such as violence and impurity. In Zoroastrian scripture, daevas are explicitly rejected in worship, as seen in the opening of the liturgy, which declares allegiance to while denouncing the daevas. Linguistically, the term daeva is cognate with the Sanskrit deva (meaning benevolent deity), reflecting an inversion in Zoroastrian theology where pre-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian gods were recast as demonic forces by the prophet Zarathushtra to emphasize monotheistic devotion to Ahura Mazda. This shift is evident in the Gathas, the oldest Zoroastrian texts, where daevas are criticized as promoters of the "Lie" (druj), in opposition to truth (asha). Over time, in later Avestan and Middle Persian literature like the Vendidad and Bundahishn, daevas evolve into more defined demons associated with specific vices, diseases, and natural calamities, ultimately destined for defeat in the cosmic battle between good and evil. Prominent daevas include Aeshma-daeva, the demon of wrath and violence who incites conflict and pursues souls; Aka Manah, embodying evil thought and sensual temptation; and Indra, representing apostasy and rebellion against divine order. These entities are countered by benevolent yazatas (worshipful beings) such as (obedience) and through ritual recitations like the prayer, which repels their influence. In Zoroastrian cosmology, daevas assault creation at its inception, spawning impurities, but they are prophesied to be sealed away or annihilated at the end of time by and his archangels, the Amesha Spentas.

Etymology and Origins

Etymology

The term daeva derives from the Proto-Indo-Iranian root daiva-, which originally signified a "" or "divine being," reflecting a shared inheritance from the Proto-Indo-European deiwos denoting heavenly or divine entities. This early meaning is evident in pre-Zoroastrian contexts where daiva- functioned as a neutral or positive term for powers. In Old , the form evolves to daēuua-, marking a semantic shift toward malevolent entities, likely influenced by Zoroastrian reforms that redefined these beings as adversaries to the divine order. This contrasts sharply with the deva-, which retains its positive connotation as "" in Vedic traditions, highlighting a phonetic and ideological divergence during the Indo-Iranian split around 2000–1500 BCE; the Avestan spelling features a long vowel ē and diphthong uua, while simplifies to e and a. Cognates appear across other , demonstrating continuity in form despite varying semantics. In , it manifests as daiva-, denoting false gods or demons, while in Sogdian, δyw (dyw) carries dual senses of demons and celestial beings, reflecting regional . Scythian, as an Eastern Iranian language with sparse attestation, likely employed a similar daiva- form for divine or supernatural figures, consistent with broader Iranian usage. The earliest attestations of daēuua- occur in Old Avestan texts, such as the Gathas, dated to approximately 1500–1000 BCE, where the term begins its transition from divine to pejorative usage.

Indo-Iranian Comparisons

In Vedic Hinduism, the term deva refers to a class of benevolent deities, often depicted as shining or divine beings worthy of worship, prominently featured in the Rigveda as gods associated with natural forces and cosmic order. Examples include Indra, the storm and warrior god who wields the thunderbolt to defeat chaos, and Varuna, the sovereign of the cosmic waters and upholder of ṛta (universal truth). These devas were central to rituals and hymns, embodying positive divine attributes in a polytheistic framework. In contrast, exhibits a striking inversion, where daevas—cognate with the Vedic devas—are reclassified as malevolent demons or false gods opposed to the supreme deity and the ethical ahuras. This shift is attributed to Zoroaster's reforms, which rejected the worship of daevas, such as , portraying them as agents of falsehood (druj) and servants of the destructive spirit Angra Mainyu, while elevating ahuras like as benevolent yazatas. The etymological root, denoting "shining ones" from proto-Indo-Iranian origins, underscores this theological reversal. Shared mythological motifs between the traditions reveal proto-Indo-Iranian elements, particularly in the portrayal of daevas/devas as or deities linked to atmospheric powers and conflict. For instance, the figure of /Vrtrahan appears in both as a slayer of chaos-bringing serpents, reflecting common Indo-Iranian archetypes before the divergence. Hypotheses on the religious suggest it arose from Zoroaster's monotheistic and dualistic innovations around 2000–1500 BCE, possibly influenced by socio-political factors such as priestly power struggles, migrations following environmental changes like the drying of the Sarasvati River, and conflicts over ritual authority among Indo-Iranian groups. These reforms, initially resisted but later adopted by patrons like , marked a deliberate break from polytheistic daeva veneration toward an ethical cosmology centered on .

Scriptural References

In the Gathas

The Gathas, comprising the oldest portion of the corpus and attributed to the prophet himself, are composed in the second millennium BCE, with scholarly estimates ranging from c. 1500 to c. 600 BCE based on linguistic and historical analysis. These 17 hymns, embedded within the liturgy, form the foundational theological texts of , where the term daeva first appears in a pejorative sense, denoting beings rejected in favor of exclusive devotion to . In this early framework, daevas are portrayed not as nonexistent entities but as misguided or malevolent forces that embody error and opposition to divine order. In Yasna 32, Zoroaster explicitly denounces the daevas as "false gods" or "liars," accusing them of choosing the path of deceit (druj) over truth and righteousness (asha), thereby leading humanity astray through delusion and harmful actions. This hymn emphasizes their role in fostering evil thoughts and deeds, positioning them as adversaries who corrupt moral choice and societal harmony, in direct contrast to Ahura Mazda's sovereignty. Similarly, Yasna 45 reinforces this rejection by equating the daevas with wicked mortals who spurn Ahura Mazda, portraying them as creators of falsehood who fail to uphold cosmic truth. Here, Zoroaster proclaims the supremacy of the Wise Lord, urging followers to discern and align with asha against the daevas' erroneous ways. The concept of daevas leading humanity astray is vividly illustrated in Yasna 30.6, where they are depicted as having chosen the Worst Mind (akōm anghem) due to infatuation, resulting in violence, destruction, and the spread of druj—the Lie that undermines asha's order. This verse underscores the daevas as cosmic adversaries who, through their own flawed deliberation, afflict the world and entice humans toward moral ruin, establishing a dualistic theology where truth triumphs over deceit. In the Gathic worldview, daevas thus represent not only theological rivals but active agents of chaos, bound to druj in opposition to the harmonious principles upheld by Ahura Mazda.

In the Younger Avesta

In the Younger Avesta, daevas are portrayed as a class of malevolent demons or wicked genies that disrupt cosmic order, human well-being, and religious observances, serving as adversaries to Ahura Mazda and the forces of asha (truth and order). These texts, including the Yashts and Vendidad, expand on the earlier rejection of daevas found in the Gathas by depicting them as agents of chaos often acting in concert with the druj, the personification of the Lie and deceit. The Vendidad, literally meaning "Law Against the Daevas," functions as a ritual manual outlining purity laws and exorcistic practices to counter daevic influences, emphasizing their role in causing impurity, disease, and moral corruption. Rituals in the Younger Avesta are central to combating daevas, with specific prayers invoked for protection and expulsion. For instance, the Airyaman Ishyo ( 54.1), a potent to the Airyaman, is described as the greatest spell that smites the strength of Angra Mainyu's creatures, including daevas, sorcerers (yatu), and witches (pairika), thereby shielding the faithful from daevic assaults and promoting healing. Such rituals, often involving recitations during liturgies like the , reinforce the priestly framework for maintaining ritual purity against daevic incursions. Daevas are frequently linked to natural and cosmic evils in these scriptures, embodying disruptions like and plague. In the Tishtrya Yasht (Yasht 8), the daeva Apaosha appears as the demon of , manifesting as a to battle the rain-bringing Tishtrya for three days and nights, thereby withholding rain and causing arid desolation until Tishtrya prevails through ritual support from the faithful. Similarly, the associates daevas with plagues and environmental decay, prescribing countermeasures such as the Barashnum purification rite to expel their polluting effects. The Younger Avestan texts, comprising the bulk of the surviving , represent compositional layers spanning from approximately the 9th century BCE to the CE, with scholarly debate on precise ; major components like the Yashts date to c. 625–225 BCE, while the is later, from the Parthian period (c. 141 BCE–224 CE). These developments, evident in the poetic Yashts and prosaic , illustrate a growing cosmological framework where daevas symbolize tangible threats amenable to ritual intervention.

Historical and Epigraphic Evidence

Achaemenid Inscriptions

The Achaemenid inscriptions, dating from the 6th to 4th centuries BCE, provide early epigraphic evidence related to Zoroastrian religious , with the term daiva appearing in specifically during the reign of as a symbol of illicit or foreign religious practices within the vast empire spanning modern-day and beyond. These texts, primarily trilingual in , Elamite, and Babylonian , were commissioned by kings to legitimize their rule through religious , portraying daiva as a form of rebellion against the supreme deity Ahuramazda. In this context, daivas were linked to the gods of conquered peoples, such as those in or Media, whose cults were reframed as demonic or erroneous to assert Persian orthodoxy and imperial unity. A pivotal reference appears in Xerxes I's "Daiva Inscription" (XPh), found on stone tablets at , the ceremonial capital, composed around 480 BCE. The text recounts how, by Ahuramazda's favor, Xerxes eradicated a daivadana (daiva-house or ) in a distant land where daivas were worshipped, proclaiming: "Afterwards, by the grace of Ahuramazda I destroyed that sanctuary of demons, and I proclaimed: 'The demons shall not be worshipped!' Wherever previously daivas had been worshipped, there I worshipped Ahuramazda." This inscription portrays daivas as emblems of idolatrous foreign cults among subjugated populations, destroyed to enforce monotheistic loyalty to Ahuramazda across the empire. Comparable rhetoric appears in related texts at Naqsh-e Rustam, Xerxes' tomb site, where daivas symbolize deviant practices subdued by royal decree, reinforcing the Achaemenid narrative of conquest as divine purification. Linguistically, the Old Persian term is rendered as daiva (plural daivā), cognate with Avestan daēuua but inverted in valence to denote malevolent entities rather than divine beings, highlighting the Zoroastrian reformulation of earlier Indo-Iranian deities. These inscriptions thus illustrate state-sponsored suppression of daiva cults as a tool for ideological control, tying religious conformity to the empire's expansion and the subjugation of diverse ethnic groups' traditional gods.

Post-Achaemenid Inscriptions

In the Parthian period (ca. 247 BCE–224 CE), epigraphic references to daeva or its cognates are rare, reflecting the limited corpus of Parthian inscriptions, which primarily consist of royal dedications and coin legends without explicit mentions of demonic entities. This scarcity contrasts with the more abundant Sasanian evidence, where the term evolves into the form dēw, denoting malevolent demons opposed to the Zoroastrian divine order. During the early Sasanian era, rock reliefs at sites like Naqsh-e Rajab and Naqsh-e Rustam depict (r. 224–242 CE) in investiture scenes and victories over foes, with the defeated figures—such as the Parthian king Artabanus IV—symbolizing the broader Zoroastrian triumph over daevas as adversaries of , continuing the ideological rejection seen in earlier . Accompanying inscriptions, including those of the high priest at Naqsh-e Rajab (ca. 270 CE), explicitly reference dēw in the context of suppressing demonic influences, stating that the "dens of the demons [gilistag ī dēwān]" were destroyed and converted into seats for the righteous. Kartir's texts, inscribed in across multiple sites, describe how dēw and their worshippers were "struck" (snāh) and diminished, aligning with Zoroastrian orthodoxy that positioned daevas as embodiments of falsehood (druj). These Sasanian inscriptions, often part of royal and priestly dedications to fire temples and divine entities, illustrate the term dēw as a central element in religious propaganda from the CE onward, emphasizing the eradication of daeva cults to affirm imperial legitimacy. For instance, Kartir's Naqsh-e inscription boasts of his role in making the dēw "untrustworthy" (abār akirēnīd) and routing their influences alongside other non-Zoroastrian practices. Similar phrasing appears in his text, where dēw are grouped with idols (but) as targets of , underscoring a syncretic crackdown on residual pre-Zoroastrian elements. Among non-Zoroastrian groups, evidence of persisting daeva veneration—retaining the term's original positive connotation as "god"—survives in Kushan epigraphy (ca. 1st–3rd centuries CE). Kushan rulers, blending Iranian and Indian traditions, adopted titles like devaputra ("son of god") in inscriptions such as the Mathura lion capital (year 11 of Kanishka, ca. 127 CE), where the king is hailed as mahārāja rājātirāja devaputrasya Kāṇiṣkasya, invoking deva as a divine patron rather than a demon. This usage, echoed in over two dozen Mathura and Gandhara pillar inscriptions, highlights the survival of Indo-Iranian daeva cults outside Zoroastrian orthodoxy, often syncretized with local deities like Shiva or Nana. Archaeological contexts from 300 BCE to the CE, including sites in eastern and , provide indirect support for daeva-related practices through artifacts and structures predating full Zoroastrian dominance. For example, Bactrian temple remains at Ai Khanum (ca. 300–150 BCE) and later Kushan sanctuaries at Hadda (1st–3rd centuries CE) yield votive objects and altars possibly linked to syncretic cults involving daeva-like figures, while Sasanian-era seals from (3rd–7th centuries CE) depict bound demons resembling dēw in ritual subjugation scenes. By the late Sasanian period, such evidence wanes as consolidated, with dēw firmly entrenched in as symbols of conquered evil.

Role in Zoroastrian Cosmology

Daevas as Adversaries

In Zoroastrian cosmology, daevas form a central component of the forces aligned with Angra Mainyu, also known as , the destructive spirit who opposes Mazda's orderly creation of the through (truth and cosmic order). Angra Mainyu created the daevas as demonic counterparts to the Amesha Spentas, the archangels embodying key aspects of asha, to mirror and undermine their benevolent roles. As embodiments of chaos and druj (the Lie), daevas actively seek to undermine the material world and its harmony, serving as Angra Mainyu's minions. This adversarial role originates in the scriptures, where daevas are depicted as agents of disruption from the religion's foundational texts. At the dawn of creation, Angra Mainyu and the daevas assaulted the newly formed world, corrupting its purity and introducing death, disease, and impurity, thereby initiating the "" (gumezishn) of good and evil that characterizes the current age. Within the dualistic framework of , daevas function as tempters who lure humans toward actions, words, and thoughts, thereby perpetuating moral disorder in the cosmic struggle between . They embody vices such as wrath (aesma) and encourage idolatry or falsehood, contrasting sharply with the ethical imperatives promoted by to foster righteousness and purity. This influences human choices, drawing individuals into Angra Mainyu's domain and exacerbating the "" (gumezishn) of good and evil in the world. Eschatologically, daevas play a pivotal role in the anticipated final confrontation, where they will be decisively defeated during , the ultimate renewal of creation. At this climax, and his allies will eradicate evil, purifying the world through a cataclysmic battle that seals the daevas' fate and restores universal harmony, ensuring the triumph of over druj. Daevas stand in stark opposition to yazatas, the benevolent divinities worthy of who assist in upholding cosmic order and combating chaos. While yazatas represent virtues and aid in rituals to repel , daevas are reviled as demonic entities, unfit for and emblematic of the forces to be overcome for spiritual salvation.

Specific Daeva Figures

In Zoroastrian scriptures, , known in as Akem Manah and translated as "Evil Mind," serves as a principal daeva embodying , bad thoughts, and moral corruption. This entity is depicted as the root cause of evil intentions, infiltrating human minds to inspire wrath and discord, directly opposing the (Good Mind). In texts like the , Aka Manah is listed among the chief daevas created by Angra Mainyu, functioning as an agent that instills vile thoughts and hinders righteous action, with references in Denkard 3.255 and 3.33 emphasizing its role in perverting human purpose. Further, 32.3 identifies the daevas, including Aka Manah, as progeny of evil thinking, underscoring their adversarial nature in the cosmic struggle. Aeshma, the daeva of wrath and fury, is portrayed as a violent wielding a bloody mace or spear, inciting bloodlust and brutality among mortals. In the , Aeshma stirs armies to rage and embodies destructive fury, as seen in 57.25 where it is invoked against in rituals for protection. 27.1 and 57.31-32 further describe Sraosha's triumph over Aeshma, highlighting the daeva's role in promoting chaos and its defeat through divine intervention. texts like the reinforce Aeshma's fearsome power, associating it with widespread devastation if unchecked, and linking it to the demon's influence over earthly creatures. Indra-daēuua represents a degraded counterpart to the Vedic god , recast in Zoroastrian lore as a daeva tied to and the abandonment of religious duties. This figure tempts humans away from observance of the sacred rites, such as wearing the sacred shirt and , positioning it as a to Angra Mainyu in corrupting . The 19.43 enumerates Indra among the chief daevas to be repelled, emphasizing its role in fostering and moral deviation. 32.3 alludes to such daevas, including Indra, as deceivers who freeze minds from . Saurva and Nāonghaithya appear as paired daevas associated with death, oppression, and discontent in the Younger Avesta. Saurva, embodying misrule and tyrannical desire, promotes , drunkenness, and corrupt governance, as detailed in the 28.8-10. Nāonghaithya, the daeva of dissatisfaction, incites abandonment of faith and inner turmoil, often invoked alongside Saurva in purification rites to drive away their influence. Both are named in 10.9-10 as chief daevas to be banished during cleansing ceremonies, and 32.3 links them to the broader progeny of evil that deceives humanity.

In Later Traditions

Zoroastrian Exegesis and Texts

In Middle Persian Zoroastrian literature from the Sassanid (3rd–7th century CE) and post-Sassanid (8th–9th century CE) eras, daevas are extensively elaborated upon in exegetical texts known as the Zand, which provide interpretations and expansions of terms, portraying daevas as malevolent entities central to the cosmic dualism between . These commentaries, compiled during a period of intense theological systematization under Sassanid patronage and preserved amid post-conquest challenges, transform the daevas—originally divine beings rejected in favor of —into demonic adversaries actively opposing ethical and ritual order. The , a key cosmological text likely redacted in the 9th century CE, depicts daevas as fallen beings directly created by (Angra Mainyu), the destructive spirit, to counter Ohrmazd's (Ahura Mazda's) beneficent creations. In this framework, spawns six chief daevas—Akoman (evil mind), Andar (envy), (tyranny), Naikiyas (dissatisfaction), Tairev (disease), and Zairik (poison)—along with subordinate demons, forming a hierarchical structure that mirrors and inverts the Amesha Spentas (holy immortals). These daevas initiate the assault on the material world, embodying chaos and corruption from the outset of creation, as the daevas rally with the cry, "Rise up, O Father of us!" to wage war against divine order. In the , the most comprehensive Pahlavi encyclopedia of Zoroastrian knowledge compiled around the 9th century CE, daevas are portrayed as insidious obstacles to ethical living, deceiving humans into sin and aligning with the forces of wickedness. Texts within the describe daevas like Akoman instigating evil thoughts, wrath, and misrule, while figures such as Zohak represent tyrannical daevas who corrupt rulers and societies, urging adherents to combat them through good deeds and adherence to the faith. Sinners' souls are said to join the daevas after death, reinforcing their role as eternal tempters that undermine moral progress and divine harmony. Exegetical expansions in these Pahlavi texts further detail daevas' antagonism, drawing on foundations to explain their demotion from potential divinities to demons, a shift attributed to their rebellion against Ahura Mazda's sovereignty. In the context of purity laws, Pahlavi commentaries on the emphasize daevas' polluting influence on rituals; for instance, they are said to congregate at dakhmas (exposure sites for the dead), spreading impurity and disease that defiles sacred spaces and participants. Physicians must first treat daeva-worshippers to hone skills without risking Zoroastrian purity, underscoring daevas' association with ritual contamination that demands rigorous purification rites to restore sanctity.

In Epic Literature and Folklore

In Ferdowsi's , composed between approximately 977 and 1010 CE, daevas are reimagined as "divs," malevolent monstrous entities that serve as allies to the tyrannical king , aiding him in his despotic rule and the oppression of humanity through acts of sorcery and violence. These divs are depicted as formidable adversaries to heroes like , who ultimately defeats Zahhak, binding the demons to his cause in a narrative that underscores themes of cosmic disorder and heroic triumph over evil. For instance, divs such as the White Div (Div-e Sepid) of Mazandaran appear as chieftains commanding hordes of lesser demons, embodying brute strength combined with cunning deception in battles against the hero . These 10th-century CE portrayals in the represent a synthesis of Zoroastrian with pre-Islamic , transforming the ancient daevas from divine adversaries into grotesque, often anthropomorphic monsters that populate a mythical landscape of mountains, deserts, and hidden realms. This blending is evident in the epic's integration of oral traditions, where divs not only wage war but also hoard treasures and enchant objects, drawing from indigenous tales that predate formalized Zoroastrian texts while retaining echoes of their scriptural malevolence. In Iranian and Central Asian folk tales, divs evolve into shape-shifting tricksters who embody chaos through deception rather than mere destruction, often luring travelers into traps or assuming human forms to sow discord in villages and nomadic camps. Exemplified by figures like the Akvan Div, who deceives by hurling him into the sea under the guise of aid, these beings appear in oral narratives collected across regions from to the steppes, where they test human wit and morality in stories emphasizing resilience against guile. Medieval Persian stories further illustrate syncretism between divs and Islamic jinn concepts, with divs adopting attributes of invisible, fire-born spirits capable of possession and illusion, as seen in post-11th-century compilations like the One Thousand and One Nights adaptations and regional dastans. In these traditions, divs and jinn intermingle as ethereal tricksters or tormentors, blurring Zoroastrian origins with Arabian folklore to create hybrid entities that haunt ruins and wastelands, often outwitted by pious heroes invoking divine protection.

Scholarly Interpretations

Interpretive Challenges

The study of daevas in texts is hampered by ambiguities in the surviving , which exhibit significant orthographic and phonetic variations due to the script's lack of standardized rules for representing sounds. readings show inconsistencies in and vocalization, complicating precise philological reconstruction; these variants, often listed without regard to classes in early editions like Geldner's, reflect diverse phonetic traditions among priestly reciters. The loss of pre-Zoroastrian oral traditions further obscures efforts to reconstruct the of daeva worship, as the corpus was transmitted orally for centuries before its fixation in writing around the Achaemenid period, allowing local variants to proliferate across regions and potentially altering nuances in daeva-related hymns. This extended oral phase, spanning from composition to Sasanian-era manuscripts, means that earlier, fluid interpretations of daevas as part of Indo-Iranian ritual practices are irretrievably fragmented, with no direct access to pre-reformist recitations. Scholars debate whether daevas were originally neutral or benevolent spirits in pre-Zoroastrian Iranian religion, later demonized by Zoroaster's reforms, or if they were always portrayed as adversarial forces in the Gathas; in the oldest texts, daēuuas are described as "gods that are to be rejected" rather than fully demonic entities, suggesting a gradual pejoration, though the scarcity of non-Gathic evidence fuels ongoing contention. This interpretive tension arises from the ideological of the Gathas, where daevas represent a condemned , but their precise pre-Zoroastrian status remains elusive without corroborating archaeological or epigraphic data. Translating the term "daiva" in Achaemenid bilingual inscriptions, such as Xerxes' XPh at , presents additional challenges, as its form carries a negative connotation akin to daēuua-, denoting "false gods" or "demons," yet the exact referent—whether foreign cults, Iranian deities like , or symbolic chaos—remains disputed due to the inscription's ideological ambiguity and lack of archaeological confirmation for targeted destructions. Interpretations range from historical accounts of specific suppressions (e.g., in or ) to ahistorical royal propaganda enforcing Zoroastrian orthodoxy, with the unidentified "land of daiva" adding to the philological uncertainty in trilingual contexts.

Evolution in Comparative Religion

In the 19th century, comparative religion scholars, including , emphasized the Indo-Iranian religious inversion as a pivotal development in ancient religious history, wherein the Vedic devas—celestial deities—were recast as malevolent daevas in , reflecting a between priestly factions over ritual practices and cosmology. This inversion, where Iranian ahuras supplanted daevas as benevolent forces while Vedic asuras assumed demonic roles, underscored broader Indo-European mythic divergences and influenced early theories on migrations and ethical dualism. The daeva concept extended its influence into later dualistic traditions, notably , where Zoroastrian daevas were adapted as infernal entities like the demon Mdzainya-daeva, embodying chaos within Mani's syncretic cosmology of light versus darkness. Similarly, in , the Zoroastrian daeva —chief demon of wrath and carnal desire—influenced the figure of (or Ashmedai), a of demons prominent in the and Talmudic lore, where he obstructs human unions and exemplifies Persian demonological impact on post-exilic Jewish beliefs. In 20th- and 21st-century scholarship, daevas have featured in reinterpretations of Zoroastrian dualism through feminist lenses, portraying figures like the female daeva Druj (embodiment of the Lie) as symbolic of gendered oppositions between chaos and order, challenging patriarchal readings of feminine evil in religious . Ecologically oriented analyses recast daevas as adversaries to natural harmony, aligning their destructive roles with modern concerns over in Zoroastrian cosmology, though traditional views emphasize ritual purity over explicit ecological mandates. Scholarly discussions also highlight underexplored dimensions, such as daevas' echoes in modern occultism as archetypal forces of and in Bactrian Buddhist syncretism, where Zoroastrian demonic motifs may parallel asura hierarchies amid Greco-Iranian cultural exchanges. Recent studies (as of 2025) further explore daevas in contexts like verbal aggression in Zoroastrian faith declarations, positive attitudes in Central Asian , and influences on Nabataean Arabian .

References

  1. https://www.avesta.org/zglos.html
  2. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/44270/research.pdf?sequence=1
  3. https://www.avesta.org/dhalla/history3.htm
  4. https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Mythology/gods_goddesses.htm
  5. https://www.academia.edu/43814750/Ahura_Origin_and_Etymology
  6. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/daiva-old-iranian-noun/
  7. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/indo-iranian-religion/
  8. https://www.academia.edu/42922149/The_double_senses_of_Sogdia_dyw
  9. https://www.dnzt.org/images/BOOKS-PHOTOS/ENGLISH%20BOOKS/Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices-MaryBoyce.pdf
  10. https://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/zoro.pdf
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339484332_Early_Vedic_Schism-Indo-Iranian_Split_and_Rise_of_Zoroastrianism
  12. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gatha-Zoroastrian-literature
  13. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gathas-i-texts/
  14. https://zoroastrians.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/the-gathas-of-zarathustra-insler-1975.pdf
  15. https://www.avesta.org/yasna/yasna.htm
  16. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/avesta/
  17. https://sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe23/ka.htm
  18. https://sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe23/ka2.htm
  19. https://sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe04/index.htm
  20. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/daiva-old-iranian-noun
  21. https://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm
  22. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kartir
  23. https://www.livius.org/articles/place/naqs-e-rajab/naqs-e-rajab-investiture-relief-of-ardasir-i/
  24. https://www.avesta.org/mp/kz.html
  25. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kushan-02-inscriptions
  26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44252391
  27. https://www.avesta.org/mp/bundahis.html
  28. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1406&context=etd
  29. https://www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-sci/jas170521/07_9692jas170521_60_65.pdf
  30. https://www.avesta.org/mp/grb.htm
  31. https://www.avesta.org/denkard/dk3s1.htm
  32. https://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd7sbe.htm
  33. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/iranian-studies/article/serpents-and-sorcery-humanity-gender-and-the-demonic-in-ferdowsis-shahnameh/DF529C81D33372DA508568B891956612
  34. https://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/lsj160219/02_34352lsj160219_5_9.pdf
  35. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/div/
  36. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/iranian-studies/article/trickster-archetype-in-the-shahnama/4205B19730F72D471CBE88E1AC1CA2C6
  37. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/shah-nama-06-dastan/
  38. https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Mythology/div.htm
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323208522_Avestan_Research_1991-2014_Part_I
  40. https://oraltradition.org/early-zoroastrianism-and-orality/
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283433959_The_Daeva_cult_in_the_Gathas_An_ideological_archaeology_of_Zoroastrianism
  42. https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/bitstream/123456789/11722/1/some-thoughts-xerxes-daiva.pdf
  43. https://www.academia.edu/13928787/The_Devas_The_Asuras_and_Gilgamesh_Exploring_the_Cross_Cultural_Journey_of_the_Myths
  44. https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.187154/2015.187154.Researches-In-Manichaeism_djvu.txt
  45. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/873-aeshma-asmodeus-ashmedai
  46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25188404
  47. https://journal.equinoxpub.com/JSRNC/article/view/10230
  48. https://www.academia.edu/86350965/Greek_Buddhism_Early_religious_contacts_in_Greco_Bactrian_and_Indo_Greek_Kingdoms
  49. https://journals.akademicka.pl/cis/article/view/5833/5421
  50. https://theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei/article/view/1234
  51. https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/jemahs/article/13/3/274/402888/Aspects-of-Zoroastrian-Traditions-in-Nabataean
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.