Some remarks about the Zoroastrian ceremony of cutting a new kusti according to two Persian Rivāyat manuscripts and two of the oldest Avestan manuscripts
p. 357-364
Résumés
Le Nirang-e Kusti-ye Now Buridan est la cérémonie de tissage et de coupe d’une nouvelle kusti, fabriquée sur un métier à tisser. Bien que cette cérémonie ait aujourd’hui une forme unique, selon quelques manuscrits des Rivāyats, il existait par le passé des récitatifs différents. Ceux-ci présentent des divergences dans les récitations et dans les séquences rituelles. Les textes ne fournissent toutefois pas de nombreux indices. Cet article explore ces divergences, en essayant de les mettre en perspective.
The Nirang-e Kusti-ye Now Buridan is the ceremony of weaving and cutting a new kusti from the loom. While this ceremony has currently a standard form, according to several Rivāyat manuscripts, there are different accounts of this ceremony, including different recitations of this prayer and different ritual sequences, without providing many clues. This paper attempts to explore and present these divergences.
Texte intégral
1The kusti is the sacred girdle worn by the Zoroastrians.1 This item has been one of the most essential pieces of garment used by them, which they receive in a ceremony of initiation and coming of age known as Navjōte (“new birth”)2 in India and as Sudre-puši (“putting on the sacred undershirt”) in Iran. The kusti and the sacred undershirt (sudre)3 worn under it, represent the symbol of faithfulness to the Zoroastrian religion. There are two major prayers concerning the kusti: 1. the Nirang-e Kusti Bastan (= NKB, “the prayer of tying the kusti”), a prayer recited on daily bases, each time the kusti is untied or tied back up;4 2. the Nirang-e Kusti-ye Now Buridan (= NKNBr, “the prayer of cutting a new kusti”), a lesser-known prayer (including its ceremony) which describes how the kusti is cut after being woven and sanctified. The latter will be the focus of the present paper.
2The word for the sacred girdle appears seldom in Avestan as aiβiiā̊ŋhana (e.g., in Yasna 9.26 and Yašt 1.17), from a preverbed form that means “to be wrapped around” (<Av. aiβi + √yāh-).5 Nevertheless, this term does not appear in later Zoroastrian literature with this designation, except for the Avestan loanword in the Pahlavi exegesis <ʾywbyʾnghn’> ēbyānghan6 (or aiwayāhan). Despite of this, the term for the sacred girdle is attested in the earliest Zoroastrian manuscript (K7), the oldest surviving manuscript containing the text of Nirang-e Kusti-ye Now Buridan, with the Pahlavi form <zʾmk’> zāmak,7 while in later Pahlavi references it is seen as <kwstyk’> kustīg (cf. Persian kušti,8 Gujarati kustī).
3Modi (1937, 174) describes the weaving of the kusti as being done historically by the women of priestly families, even though later on it was also done by laywomen.9 Regardless, in both cases the kusti had to be blessed and cut by a priest in a ceremony. Modi further describes the kusti as being made of 72 threads, which represent the 72 chapters of the Yasna.10 During the process of weaving, when the kusti reaches about 30 cm long it is removed from the loom and given to the priest to be blessed and cut. Once the ceremony is finished, the kusti is returned to the weavers and the remaining part of it is knitted. The end-product will have at each end 3 tassels, and each contains 24 threads. According to Modi (1937, 176) and the two consulted Rivāyat manuscripts, these 24 threads represent the 24 chapters of the Visperad and the sum of all tassels, which are six, represent the six Gāhānbārs. The NKNBr is the central prayer for cutting the kusti off the loom, in a ceremony by the same name. During the ceremony of NKNBr this prayer can be inserted in between other prayers, such as the Srōš Bāǰ, the Ahuna Vairiia and a combination of others (see below Table 3, regarding ritual sequences).
4The manuscripts used in this paper belong to two different types of sources: 1. the Avestan manuscripts K7 (a miscellaneous codex)11 and E1 (a Xorde Avesta codex);12 2. the manuscripts BU29 and SP46,13 which are both compiled (Persian) Rivāyats.14
5Manuscript K7 dates back to the year 637 A.Y., which according to Baar corresponds to 1288 AD.15 The NKNBr appears in fol. 106v of this manuscript without any ritual instruction, after that, we can find a Visperad and other Nirangs without any thematic connection with the NKNBr.16 The title of this prayer appears as Avesta-ye Zame Boridan in Persian and Abastāg Zāmag Burīdan (<ʾp̄stʾk zʾmk blytn’>) in Pahlavi. Regarding the manuscript E1, it dates back to 1601.17 It contains the text in fol. 493r after three blank pages and it is followed by Āfrīn-e Gāhambār bā Paywand. In this manuscript, the title of the prayer is given in Pāzand as Nīraṇg Kustī Burīδәn, and there is a line in Persian containing some brief ritual instructions post recitation of the prayer at the end of the text.
6In regard to the Rivāyat manuscripts, the NKNBr appears in two different forms in BU29 (vol. 1): the first in fol. 119v-120r (see Appendix 2) and the second in fol. 120r (see Appendix 3). In SP46 (also in the two forms), it appears twice: the first ones are in fol. 42r-42v and the second in 153v-154r. In both manuscripts the titles appear in Persian as Nirang-e Kusti-ye Now Buridan and these texts contain some ritual instructions before, in the middle and at the end of the prayers.
7As previously stated, each of the Avestan manuscripts presents only one instance of this prayer, which is different between K7 and E1, while the two Rivāyat manuscripts show two different forms of this text consecutively, the first similar to ms. E1 (referred to as T1 [text 1] here) and the second similar to K7 (referred to as T2). In this paper, first the textual differences between T1 and T2 will be presented, as well as comparing them to the same texts in the manuscripts K7 and E1. Then, the ceremonial variations that surround each of these texts will be taken into consideration as presented in the Rivāyat manuscripts.
8The first edition of the text NKNBr (cf. T2), was done by Westergaard in 1852– 1854 (= FrW1).18 In early 20th century Antia (1909, 177) also published an edition of this text in his Pâzand Texts, which shares common sources with the other variant, here called T1. The table below shows the textual differences as presented in each manuscript in the Avestan prayer:19

9 As it can be observed, there are clear differences between the two Avestan texts (T1 and T2) of the NKNBr, which also appear in the Rivāyat manuscripts. While T1 shares common sources with the version provided in ms. E1, T2 shares them with the text in ms. K7. Texts sharing common sources with both T1 and T2 have been used for the modern editions. Westergaard inclines towards manuscripts of the T2 type while Antia’s edition is done with those of T1 type. For a comparison, the table below (Table 2) displays the final-product of each aforementioned editor: Together with the Avestan textual divergences, there are clear differences in the ritual instructions that surround T1 and T2. All three testimonies from the manuscripts BU29 (1 [2 × versions]) and SP46 (2 [2 × versions]) show that there is a specific set of ritual sequence to each text. In the table below (see Table 3), these divergences could be observed. As it was mentioned previously, the text from ms. E1 contains a brief Persian ritual instruction at the end,20 therefore it has also been included in this table for comparison.
| NKNBr. by Westergaard, cf. T2 | NKNBr. by Antia, cf. T1 |
|
vohū. manaŋha. hacimnō. aṣ̌āca. yā. vahišta.
xṣ̌aϑrāca. yā. vairiia. frā. staōtәm. vacō. yesnīm. azarәmiia. vaca. mruiiā̊ nәrәbiiasca. nāiribiiasca. aṣ̌aōnō. zaraϑuštrahe. |
vohū. manaŋhe. yestәštō. aṣ̌oca. yā. vaŋhišti.
xšaϑrāca. yā. vairiia. frastuitәm. vacō. yeštәm. ažirmaiiae. vaca. saruiiā̊. niarәbūasca. nairibūasca. aṣ̌ōnō. zaraϑuštra. |
|
mrūiδi.
vacō. zaraϑuštra. ahmākәm. yasnāica. vahmāica. yat̰. amәṣ̌anąm. spәṇtanąm. yaϑa. te. aŋhәn. yaštā̊. āpō. yaštā̊. uruuarā̊. yaštā̊. aṣ̌aōnąm. frauuaṣ̌aiiō. yaštā̊. mainiiauuaca. yazata. yaēca. gaēiϑiia. fraϑβaršta. vaŋ́hazdā̊. aṣ̌auuanō |
marot̰.
vacō. zaraϑuštra. ahmākәm. īsnāica. vahmāica. yat̰. amәšnąm. spәaṇtanąm. aϑā. tǝ̄. aŋhan. yaštā̊. āpō. yaštā̊. uruuarā̊. yaštā̊. aṣ̌aōnąm. fruuaṣ̌iiō. yasra. mainiiūm. yazata. aiiaŋhe. hәϑaiiā. vәrәšta. vaṇŋhuzdā̊. aṣ̌anō. |

note21
10As it could be seen, the ritual corresponding to T2 is much longer. It starts with Srōš Bāǰ, and later a portion of this prayer is repeated again. In addition, T2 has three Ahuna Vairiias while T1 has only one. On the other hand, by comparing T1 to the ritual instructions from E1, it is seen that, except by the final Aṣ̌әm Vohū, the rest is almost the same. It is remarkable that at the end of the text from E1, it is specifically instructed to conclude the ritual with the Pāzand formula starting with kәrba mažd, while in the two Rivāyat manuscripts, this instruction is not given but it should be assumed. In fact, it is well known that in most ceremonies the concluding formula of ahmāi raēšca (Y68.11) is ended with this Pāzand formula.
11One thing that these ritual instructions have all in common is the moment where the kusti is cut. They all mention the recitation of the Ahuna Vairiia until the word š́iiaōϑananąm, and then the kusti is cut with a sharp knife, then the rest of the Ahuna Vairiia is recited. As expected, the word š́iiaōϑana- “action” indicates the climax, the moment for the most important action, in most Zoroastrian ceremonies, for example at the moment of pressing the haōma or while tying the second and third knots of the kusti in the ritual of NKB.22
12As it has been shown, there were two texts for the same ceremony, which are attested in two of the oldest Avestan manuscripts and both appearing in the Rivāyat manuscripts as well. Currently, only one of them is used (the Avestan text of T2) to perform the ceremony of NKNBr. Concerning the Avestan texts, there are some differences between T1 and T2, e.g. yeštәštō vs. hacimnō, yeštәm vs. yasnәm, mraōt̰ vs. mruiδi, etc. Furthermore, the epistolary exchanges regarding the ritual questions between Indian and Iranian Zoroastrian communities, i.e., the Rivāyat manuscripts, testify not only the existence of these two texts, but also it suggests a different set of ritual sequences for each of them, one longer and more complex (T2) and the other much shorter (T1). Finally, it should be further investigated whether other Avestan texts and ceremonies present a similar problem, why the Rivāyats show these different texts and, specially, whether these texts (and their corresponding ceremonial sequences) had one, two or more possible variants depending on the geographical location and/or their contexts. This question has to be related with the problem of the “correct” (let us say linguistically) interpretation of the texts: how is it possible to derive a version hardly grammatically understood (see T1) from the text which shows a more “(acceptable, grammatically) correct” version and which is presently used for this ceremony (see T2)? Was there just a corrupted simplified version (with a minor ritual [T1]) of T2 or were there already two different versions since ancient times? Until the present times, the study of the Rivāyat manuscripts has largely been neglected in Avestan studies. Due to the nature of these manuscripts, which are not classified as neither liturgical nor scatological, they testify a different angle of the Avestan texts (in most cases with their ritual instructions) and their problems. This paper has attempted to present one of these many problems. Consequently, taking the Rivāyat manuscripts into consideration when producing the next modern edition of the Avesta is indispensable.
Annexe
Appendix 1: Manuscripts used in the present paper
BU29: Rivāyat manuscript of the Bombay University Library in Mumbai. Unpublished digitalized images in the Avestan Digital Archive (ADA).
E1: Xorde Avesta of the First Dastur Meherji-rana Library in Navsāri (= F4 in Dhabhar 1923, 23). Facsimile edition in: Kotwal & Hintze 2008. Unpublished digitalized images in ADA.
K7: Xorde Avesta of Det Kongelige Bibliotek in Copenhagen. Unpublished digitalized images in ADA.
K30: Rivāyat manuscript of the Det Kongelige Bibliotek in Copenhagen. Digitalized images available online at: www.kb.dk/manus/ortsam/2009/okt/orientalia/object65997/da/.
MU: Rivāyat manuscript of the collection of Ervad Manockji Rustomji Unvala. Facsimile edition in Unvala 1922.
SP46: Rivāyat manuscript of the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris. Microfilmed version.
Appendix 2: The first version (T1) of the NKNBr in ms. BU29 (fol. 119v-120r)

©Avestan Digital Archive
Appendix 3: The second version (T2) of the NKNBr in ms. BU29 (fol. 120r)

©Avestan Digital Archive
Notes de bas de page
1 For a recent article about the term kusti (with bibliography), see Choksy & Kotwal 2014.
2 For another meaning as “new priest” (<Av. nauua- zaōtar-), see Modi 1937, 169.
3 In the Rivāyat mss. (e.g., MU, K30 and SP46), the sudre has also been referred to as nime, nimæk, or zir kusti.
4 Choksy 1989, 55–61. References of the manuscripts used in this paper are given in Appendix 1.
5 Pirart 2004, 225; Stausberg 2004a, 9–29; Choksy & Kotwal 2014.
6 This reading appears in MacKenzie 1971, 30.
7 The word zāmak is etymologically related to the Persian word jame, which means “garment (in general)” and not just “belt”.
8 In Persian, it appears also as košti, kosti, and kusti, the latter being the usual term that I have used in the present paper. About its etymology, see Modi 1937, 173–174; Choksy & Kotwal 2014.
9 Boyce 1977, 236–37.
10 Modi 1937, 175; cf. Hodivala 1920, 103.
11 Including, for example, some exegetical Avestan-Pahlavi texts together with other liturgical texts.
12 About the classification of manuscripts called Xorde Avesta “little Avesta”, see recently Andrés-Toledo 2015, 2930.
13 The code BU refers to Mumbai (Bombay) University Library and the code SP to the collection of Suppléments Persans of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (Paris).
14 The epistolary exchange that took place between the Zoroastrian communities of Iran and India concerning religious practices between the 15th and the 18th century. The ensemble of these epistles are known as “Rivāyats” (Arabic term that means “narrations”). For a classification of them, see Vitalone 1987.
15 Baar 1944, XIII. According to him, Westergaard read the date as 627 A.Y. (۶۲۷), i.e. 1268 AD, while in fact it was 637 A.Y. (۶۳۷), hence Baar tries to correct the date and he proposes 1288 AD. In any case, there should not be 20 years of difference between these two dates, but the correct date should be 1278.
16 Baar 1944, XI–XX.
17 Kotwal & Hintze 2008, 1. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the folios containing the NKNbr were presented in a different handwriting.
18 Westergaard 1852–1854, 331.
19 The Avestan texts are the same as in ms. BU29 with minor orthographical differences, while the ritual instructions are identical in both manuscripts.
20 The translation of the final line of manuscript in Persian reads as “One Aṣ̌әm Vohū, Ahuna Vairiia until š́iiaōϑananąm, cut the Kusti, the rest of Ahuna Vairiia, ahmāi raēšca, kәrba. mažd”.
21 yasnәmca. vahmәmca. aōjasca. zauuarәca. āfrīnāmi. sraōšahe. aṣ̌iiehe. taxmahe. tanumąϑrahe. darši.draōš. āhūiriiehe.
22 This may be the case even when striking the deadly blow during supposed animal sacrifices in the Avestan long liturgy, see Cantera 2014b, 28.
Auteur
-
Hamid Moein
Université de Liège
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Comparer en histoire des religions antiques
Controverses et propositions
Claude Calame et Bruce Lincoln (dir.)
2012
Sacrifices humains
Perspectives croisées et représentations
Pierre Bonnechere et Renaud Gagné (dir.)
2013
Le porc en Égypte ancienne
Mythes et histoire à l’origine des interdits alimentaires
Youri Volokhine
2014
Fabriquer du divin
Constructions et ajustements de la représentation des dieux dans l’Antiquité
Nicole Belayche et Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge (dir.)
2015
Henri Hubert et la sociologie des religions
Sacré, Temps, Héros, Magie
Jean-François Bert (dir.)
2015
Dévotion et légitimation
Patronages sacrés dans l’Europe des Habsbourg
Marie-Élizabeth Ducreux (dir.)
2016
Démons iraniens
Actes du colloque international organisé à l’Université de Liège les 5 et 6 février 2009 à l’occasion des 65 ans de Jean Kellens
Philippe Swennen (dir.)
2015
Aux sources des liturgies indo-iraniennes
Céline Redard, Juanjo Ferrer-Losilla, Hamid Moein et al. (dir.)
2020
Ce que peuvent les pierres
Vie et puissance des matières lithiques entre rites et savoirs
Thomas Galoppin et Céline Guillaume-Pey (dir.)
2021
