DIVERSITY IN “AVESTA” TRANSLATIONS: CONSEQUENCES AND THE UNRELIABILITY OF HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS
Published 17-09-2025
Keywords
- Avesta, Videvdat, Zoroastrianism, James Darmesteter, Asqar Mahkam, priest typology, translation studies, ritual dog, Sagdid, ancient Iranian religion, textual discrepancy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Abstract
This article examines the inconsistencies and interpretative discrepancies found in various translations of the Avesta, particularly focusing on the Videvdat (Vendidad) section. By comparing the English translation by James Darmesteter with the Uzbek translation by Asqar Mahkam and the Russian translation by Rtveladze et al., the study highlights significant differences in the treatment of priest typologies and references to dogs in ritual contexts. These disparities, such as the omission or duplication of certain fargards, raise questions about the reliability of historical conclusions derived from different versions of the text. The article also explores how these translation differences can impact our understanding of Zoroastrian ritual practices, religious hierarchy, and socio-cultural values reflected in ancient texts.
References
- 1. Gershevitch, I. (1959)The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge,
- 2. Darmesteter, J.(1898) Vendidad (Vidēvdād) or Laws Against the Demons, Avesta – The Sacred Books of Zoroastrianism, Book 3
- 3. Boqiyev, A. (2015)“First Reflections on the Informational-Technological Map of Written Sources (6th–19th centuries),” Tashkent,
- 4. Avesta,(2001) translated by A. Mahkam, Sharq Publishing, Tashkent5. Rtveladze E.V., Saidov A.Kh., Abdullaev K.V.(2008), Avesta,
- 6. Mills, L.H. and Darmesteter, J. (1898) The Avesta
- 7. Mackenzie, D. N.(1971) A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, Oxford.