http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== Daeva From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation , search *Daeva* (/daēuua/, /daāua/, /daēva/) is the Avestan language term for a particular sort of supernatural entity with disagreeable characteristics. In the Gathas , the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian canon, the /daeva/s are 'wrong gods' or 'false gods' or '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 BCE. In the /Younger Avesta /, the /daeva/s are noxious creatures that promote chaos and disorder. In later tradition and folklore, the /dēw/s (Zoroastrian Middle Persian ; New Persian /div/s) are personifications of every imaginable evil. Contents [hide ] * 1 Origin and development o 1.1 Etymology o 1.2 Problems of interpretation o 1.3 In comparison with Vedic usage * 2 In scripture o 2.1 In Zoroaster's revelation o 2.2 In the Younger Avesta * 3 In inscriptions * 4 In tradition and folklore o 4.1 In Zoroastrian tradition o 4.2 In the Shahnameh * 5 See also * 6 References * 7 Bibliography [edit ] Origin and development [edit ] Etymology Old Avestan /daēuua/ or /daēva/ derives from Old Iranian /*daiva/, which in turn derives from Indo-Iranian /*devá-/ "god," reflecting Proto-Indo-European /*deiu̯ó/ with the same meaning. For derivatives in a European context, see Tyr . The Vedic Sanskrit cognate of Avestan /daēuua/ is /devá -/, continuing in later Indic languages as /dəv/. Equivalents in Iranian languages include Old Persian /daiva/, Middle Persian /dēw/, New Persian /dīv/ and Kurdish /dêw/ (giant , monster ). The Iranian word was borrowed into Armenian as /dew / and Georgian as /devi /. [edit ] Problems of interpretation While it is likely that the /daeva/s were once the "national" gods of pre-Zoroastrian Iran ,^[1] "no known Iranian dialect attests clearly and certainly the survival of a positive sense for [Old Iranian] /*daiva-/."^[2] This "fundamental fact of Iranian linguistics" is "impossible" to reconcile with the testimony of the Gathas, where the /daeva/s, though rejected, were still evidently gods that continued to have a following.^[2] This essential contradiction has yet to be conclusively explained. Given the fragmentary and discontinuous information in the sources, it is an extremely difficult issue. In general, "rejection of the [/daeva/s] is linked to Zoroaster's reform"^[3] and Gershevitch^[4] and others following Lommel^[5] consider the progression from "national" gods to demons to be attributable to the "genius of Zoroaster."^[2] [edit ] In comparison with Vedic usage Although with some points of comparison such as shared etymology, Indic /devá-/ is thematically different from Avestan /daēva/. In the RigVeda (10.124.3), the /deva/s are the "younger gods", in conflict with the /asura/s , the "older gods". There is no such division evident in the Zoroastrian texts. In the later Vedic texts, the conflict between the two groups of /deva/s and /asuras / is a primary theme. This theme is attested to in Iranian texts as well, viz. the /daeva's/ in conflict and opposition to Ahura-mazda and /ahura's/ generally, with the well-known linguistic transfer of the Vedic "s" to the Iranian "h" ('ahura' to 'asura', as in the etymology of the very word "Hindu", which Iranians used to classify the people living beyond the Indian "Sindhu" river in northwest India.) The Zoroastrian /ahura/s (again etymologically related to the Vedic /asura/s) are only vaguely defined and only three in number. Similarly, 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 /deva/s." Indeed, RigVedic /deva/ is variously applied to most gods, including many of the /asura/s. This confusion may stem from the historical origins of both Zoroastrian and Vedic cultures, which shared a very similar language and perhaps culture, and only later split into opposition with one another. (see Rigvedic_deities ). Moreover, the demonization of the /asura/s in India and the demonization of the /daeva/s in Iran both took place "so late that the associated terms cannot be considered a feature of Indo-Iranian religious dialectology."^[2] The view popularized by Nyberg,^[6] Duchesne-Guillemin^[7] and Widengren^[8] 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 /asura/s//ahura/s and in the other are /deva/s//daeva/s (see examples in the Younger Avesta , below). There is also some mention of ocean Churning by Daeva and asura in Puranas Samudra manthan . [edit ] In scripture [edit ] In Zoroaster's revelation In the Gathas , the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and believed to have been composed by Zoroaster himself, the /daeva/s are not yet the demons that they would become in later Zoroastrianism. In these pre-historic texts, where the term occurs 19 times, the /daeva/s are a distinct category of "quite genuine gods, who had, however, been rejected."^[1] In /Yasna / 32.3 and 46.1, the /daeva/s are still worshipped by the Iranian peoples. /Yasna/ 32.8 notes that some of the followers of Zoroaster had previously been followers of the /daeva/s. In the Gathas, the poet censures the /daeva/s as being incapable of discerning truth (/asha -/) from falsehood (/druj-/). They are consequently in "error" (/aēnah-/), which led them to have accepted the bad religion. Simultaneously, the Indo-Iranian legacy of the /daeva/s as beneficent gods is still evident in numerous expressions that appear in both Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit. Furthermore, although the /daeva/s are described as being incapable of proper discernment, they are never identified with the /druj/ itself. The /daeva/s are never themselves /druj/ "false" or /dregvant/ "of the lie." The conclusion drawn from such ambiguity is that, at the time the Gathas were composed, "the process of rejection, negation, or demonization of these gods was only just beginning, but, as the evidence is full of gaps and ambiguities, this impression may be erroneous."^[1] Although the /daeva/s are clearly identified /with/ evil (e.g., /Yasna/ 32.5), they are not identified /as/ evil. They deceive mankind and themselves, but they are not /aka mainyu/ (literally "evil spirits," "evil minds;" /aka/ is the Avestan word for "evil"). In Yasna 32.4, the /daeva/s 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 /daeva/s that they follow, "the /Usij/ are known throughout the seven regions of the earth as the offspring of /aka mainyu,/ /druj,/ and arrogance. (/Yasna/ 32.3)."^[9] /Yasna/ 30.6 suggests the /daeva/-worshipping priests debated frequently with Zoroaster, but failed to persuade him. The Gathas only speak of the /daeva/s as a group. The hymns also do not mention the individual /daeva/s by name. Although the polemic against the /daeva/s is a major theme in the Gathas, in other older sections of the Avesta the /daeva/s are not mentioned at all. [edit ] In the Younger Avesta In the Younger Avesta , the /daeva/s are unambiguously hostile entities. In contrast, the word /daevayasna-/ (literally, "one who sacrifices to /daeva/s") 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 /daeva/s lurk about, and /daevayasna-/ appears then to be an epithet applied to those who deviate from accepted practice and/or harvested religious disapproval.^[10] The /Vendidad /, a contraction of /vi-daevo-dāta/, "given against the /daeva/s," is a collection of late Avestan texts that deals almost exclusively with the /daeva/s, or rather, their various manifestations and with ways to confound them. /Vi.daeva-/ "rejecting the /daeva/s" qualifies the faithful Zoroastrian with the same force as /mazdayasna-/ ('Mazda worshiper').^[3] 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 (Shiva ), and Nanghaithya (Vedic Nasatya ). The process by which these three came to appear in the Avesta is uncertain. Together with three other /daeva/s, 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 /daeva/s 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 /daeva/s" or chief of the /daeva/s. The superlative /daevo.taema/ is however assigned to the demon Paitisha ("opponent"). In an enumeration of the /daeva/s in Vendidad 1.43, Angra Mainyu appears first and Paitisha appears last. "Nowhere is Angra Mainyu said to be the creator of the /daeva/s or their father."^[11] 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. [edit ] In inscriptions Old Persian /daiva/ occurs twice in Xerxes' /daiva inscription/ (XPh, early 5th century BCE). This trilingual text also includes one reference to a /daivadana/ "house of the /daiva/s", 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!'"^[12] This statement has been interpreted either one of two ways. Either the statement is an ideological one and /daiva/s were gods that were to be rejected, or the statement was politically motivated and /daiva/s were gods that were followed by (potential) enemies of the state.^[13] [edit ] In tradition and folklore [edit ] In Zoroastrian tradition In the Middle Persian texts of Zoroastrian tradition, the /dew/s are invariably rendered with the Aramaic ideogram /ŠDYA/ or the more common plural /ŠDYAˀn/ that signified "demons" even in the singular. /Dew/s 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 /dew/s 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 /dew/s that in Zoroastrian tradition are the antitheses of the /Amahraspand/s (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-/daeva/s 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:^[14] * /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. Indar versus Asha Vahishta ). * /Nanghait/ of discontent opposing /Spendarmad/ of "holy devotion" (Av. Naonhaithya/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:^[14] * /Xeshm/ of "wrath" opposing /Srosh/ of "obedience" (Av. Aeshma versus Sraosha ) * /Gannag menog/, the "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 /dew/s 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 /dew/s can only destruct, they will ultimately destroy themselves (/Denkard/ 3). As the medieval texts also do for Ahriman, they question whether the /dew/s exist at all. Since "existence" is the domain of Ormuzd, and Ahriman and his /dew/s are anti-existence, it followed that Ahriman and his /dew/s could not possibly exist. One interpretation of the /Denkard/ proposes that the /dew/s were perceived to be non-existent physically (that is, they were considered non-ontological) but present psychologically.^[15] (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 /dew/s were utterly real, and are described as being potentially catastrophic. In such less philosophical representations, the /dew/s 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 /dew/s are not generally described as a force to be feared. With fundamental optimism,^[3] ^[16] the texts describe how the /dew/s 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 /dew/s, and keeping a hearth fire burning is a means to protect the home. The /dew/s are "particularly attracted by the organic productions of human beings, from excretion, reproduction, sex, and death."^[3] 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.^[17] Demons are attracted by chatter at mealtimes and when silence is broken a demon takes the place of the angel at one's side.^[18] 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 /Rivayat/s (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 /yazata/s is ultimately greater than the power of the demons. The /dew/s 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 /yazad/s and the /dēw/s; the [/yazad/s] 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 /dēw/s are mortal in essence and inseparable from their bodies, which may be destroyed."^[3] 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 /yazata/s . These are "/dew/s [...] 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 (Av. /Asto-widhatu/) (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. [edit ] In the Shahnameh A list of ten demons is provided in the /Shahnameh /:^[19] Besides the afore-mentioned /Az/ "greed", /Kashm/ "wrath" (MP: /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 /div/s as being distinct from humans, the poet also uses the word to denote "evil people."^[19] 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 but who are then cured with the blood of the demon's gall. [edit ] See also * Wekufe * Asura [edit ] References 1. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ ^/*c*/ Herrenschmidt & Kellens 1993 , p. 599. 2. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ ^/*c*/ ^/*d*/ Herrenschmidt & Kellens 1993 , p. 601. 3. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ ^/*c*/ ^/*d*/ ^/*e*/ Williams 1996 . 4. *^ * Gershevitch 1975 , pp. 79-80. 5. *^ * Lommel 1930 , pp. 88ff. 6. *^ * Nyberg 1938 , p. 96. 7. *^ * Duchesne-Guillemin 1953 , pp. 27-28. 8. *^ * Widengren 1954 , p. 15,29. 9. *^ * Dhalla 1938 , p. 21. 10. *^ * Herrenschmidt & Kellens 1993 , pp. 599-600. 11. *^ * Duchesne-Guillemin 1982 , p. 672 12. *^ * Kent 1937 , p. 297. 13. *^ * Herrenschmidt & Kellens 1993 , p. 600. 14. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ Stausberg 2002 , p. 324. 15. *^ * Shaked 1967 , p. 264. 16. *^ * Stausberg 2004 , p. 77. 17. *^ * Stausberg 2004 , p. 16. 18. *^ * Stausberg 2004 , p. 19. 19. ^ ^/*a*/ ^/*b*/ Omidsalar 1996 . [edit ] Bibliography * Dhalla, Maneckji Nusservanji (1938), /History of Zoroastrianism/, New York: OUP . * Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques (1982), "Ahriman", /Encyclopaedia Iranica/, *1*, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 670–673 . * Gnoli, Gherardo (1993), "Daivadana", /Encyclopaedia Iranica/, *6*, Costa Mesa: Mazda, pp. 602–603 . * Gershevitch, Ilya (1975), "Die Sonne das Beste", in Hinnels, John R., /Mithraic Studies. Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies/, *1*, Lantham: Manchester UP/Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 68–89 . * Herrenschmidt, Clarisse; Kellens, Jean (1993), "*Daiva" , /Encyclopaedia Iranica/, *6*, Costa Mesa: Mazda, pp. 599–602, http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v6f6/v6f6a026.html . * Kent, Roland G (1937), "The Daiva-Inscription of Xerxes", /Language/ *13* (4): 292–305 . * Lommel, Hermann (1930), /Die Religion Zarathustras nach dem Awesta dargestellt/, Tübingen: JC Mohr . * Omidsalar, Mahmoud (1996), "Dīv" , /Encyclopedia Iranica/, *7*, Costa Mesa: Mazda, http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f4/v7f473.html . * Shaked, Saul (1967), "Notes on Ahreman, the Evil Spirit and His Creation", /Studies in Mysticism and Religion/, Jerusalem: Magnes, pp. 227–234 . * Stausberg, Michael (2002), /Die Religion Zarathushtras, Vol. 1/, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer . * Stausberg, Michael (2004), /Die Religion Zarathushtras, Vol. 3/, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer . * Widengren, Geo (1965), /Die Religionen Irans/, Die Religion der Menschheit, Vol. 14, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer . * Williams, Alan V (1989), "The Body and the Boundaries of Zoroastrian Spirituality", /Religion/ *19*: 227–239 . * Williams, Alan V (1996), "Dēw" , /Encyclopaedia Iranica/, *7*, Costa Mesa: Mazda, http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f3/v7f357.html .