365bet娱乐

This research has pointed out some new features of the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉. Even if it is not possible to trace a complete historical profile of this group, we have proof of their constant presence on Indian soil over the centuries. Despite the lack of concrete evidence before the second century A.D. (since we cannot put a date on when the mention of the Magas was inserted into the 惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补 and the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉), and no real proof that the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas actually came from the Iranian world, they were and still are convinced that they possess peculiar Iranian features鈥攖o the extent that other sources, like the Buddhist ones, equate them with the Persians. In fact, beside their association with Iran, there is no other indication of close-kin relationships among the Magas in literature; for this reason, I think that this group, who pretended to come from Iranian lands, simply assimilated to the Persians who were in rule at that time, i.e. the Sasanians. In any case, this is very important for the affirmation and maintenance of the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya tradition, i.e. that they have founded their identity on their Iranian peculiarities. We cannot establish whether the Iranian and Mazdean features mentioned and described in the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉 came directly from Iranian culture, but they have certainly survived in the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya tradition until the present day. The 补惫测补峁単补, which is probably their most distinctive element, has characterized various aspects of their tradition (iconographical, ritual, linguistic, mythological etc.), and let them maintain their unique identity, although they have assimilated perfectly to Hinduism.

They clearly consider themselves Hind奴s, and they actually have almost no knowledge of Iranian religious and cultural practices, even though they claim to possess Iranian features and to come from Iranian lands. Furthermore, the contemporary communities define Zoroastrians as a sub-group of the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas, even though they have only superficial knowledge about the Zoroastrian cult (e.g., they know the name of Zarathu拧tra and that Zoroastrians worship fire).

Due to their avowed status as foreigners, and probably because of their ownership of land given to them by northern rulers, they have not been universally recognized as 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉. Obviously, they do not consider themselves different from other 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 in terms of their main ritual practices, sacred knowledge and Hind奴 habits, but they have based their identity on being outsiders. This is extraordinary, especially in the context of the Indian Br膩hma峁噄cal social system, which is closed and rigidly linked to caste status.

艢膩kadv墨p墨yas are strictly endogamic and adhere to the gotra system for their marriage policies. They indeed follow the typical rules of the Br膩hmanical class. In fact, even in the Pur膩峁噄c myth, it is stated that in 艢腻办补诲惫墨辫补, people were divided into four classes, which had never mixed together (cf. 厂腻尘产补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 26, 31b/叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 139, 74b: [鈥�] na te峁Ｄ佱箖 蝉补峁僰补谤补岣� ka艣cid var峁嚹伵況amak峁泃a岣� kvacit //). Probably, this clarification was inserted into the text in order to legitimize the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 within Indian society. Especially in later poems, the attempts to bestow (even divine!) legitimacy on these 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 is evident. There could have been various reasons for this; in any case, we have a definite attestation of their presence in northern India. We do not know their precise historical and geographical coordinates, but we can presume that at a certain period, they were socially prominent and perhaps even influential at court, to the extent that they had to justify their presence in India. Furthermore, as stated previously, they were also believed to come from outside, probably from Iranian lands, exactly like the northern rulers of India in the first centuries A.D.: the 艢补办补蝉, 碍耻峁Ｄ佱箛补蝉, 贬奴峁嘺蝉, and later the Persians themselves.

This is the answer to the first question I posed to myself at the beginning of my research on the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas: as a foreign cult, do they exhibit peculiar features, or have they been totally absorbed by Hinduism over the centuries? Both answers are actually correct. Even though they have completely integrated as Hind奴s鈥攁nd perhaps were even the protagonists of the Saura branch of Hinduism, at least so long as the sun cult survived independently in North India鈥攖hey still maintain their uniqueness. Today they are still the main sun-worshippers in the northern regions, but they also specialize in the 辫奴箩腻 of other divinities (especially 艢颈惫补 and 顿耻谤驳腻). They have normalized their peculiarity, lending their distinctive features to the sun cult as well.

The second question addressed their origin: did they really come from outside India, perhaps from Iranian lands? Everything鈥攆rom their calendar, explained by 痴补谤腻丑补尘颈丑颈谤补, to the lexical elements contained in the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉鈥攕uggests that they had genuine connections with Iranian lands in the past. In any case, nowadays the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas, or at least the majority of them, are convinced that they have Iranian origins. Even if this is a case of invention of tradition, we may presume that the process had already taken place in ancient times, since this 鈥榠nvention鈥� dates back at least to the first centuries A.D. (taking into account that Ptolemy mentions the Magas鈥攁nd that the name 鈥�Maga鈥� itself recalls Iranian roots鈥攊n the second century). We have discussed the fact that, even in later texts like the Magavyakti, even if there is no clear etymological connection with Old Iranian roots, there is still a strong connection with the modern Iranian world. Their origin, their sun worship and peculiar objects like the 补惫测补峁単补 are the core of their identity; in this sense, even if they are not historically accurate, they actually do represent their past.

My third question centered on the possibility of establishing the historical background of their alleged migration and their presence on Indian soil. We have already anticipated the complexity of reconstructing their history, especially because of the scarcity of sources. Moreover, we cannot be sure about the dating of the Pur膩峁噄c texts; even the late poems containing declarations of authorship are not completely reliable. We have very little information for establishing a historical context, and even the sources we have offer insufficient content for reconstructing the contemporary historical events. For this reason, if no new information or evidence emerges, I fear that we will never be able to obtain a complete historical profile of this community. Nevertheless, their continuous presence throughout the centuries is documented and undeniable. Perhaps it is more appropriate to talk about a history of 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya religious tradition and customs that have been preserved since ancient times. Unfortunately, new generations of 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas are no longer interested in their customs, and they have no knowledge of their history; the risk is that, in fifty years, the only remnant of their tradition will be their names.

A general overview of the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya cult and its history, including all the sources, may distract us from paying due attention to the details and context of each text. On the other hand, adopting a multi-faceted approach focused on details means risking an overarching purpose and cohesion鈥攍ike the well-known Buddhist story of the blind men touching the elephant (厂耻迟迟补辫颈峁璦办补, Udana VI, 4, 66鈥�69), each of whom imagine the animal鈥檚 complete appearance based solely on the one part of his body they were touching. These opposing, but valid approaches can be reconciled if the research remains focused on the continuity of the elements of the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya tradition. Working on all the sources that mention the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas, even if we cannot date them with precision, maintains the continuity and the traces of their presence over the centuries; moreover, the analysis of the details reinforce how the central elements of their cult and legendary migration have been transmitted up to the present day. Operating simultaneously on both a general and a specific level allows us to draw a complete picture of their customs, which鈥攚hile it is perhaps not historically precise, even if we are able to roughly establish the historical context of the various sources鈥攕peaks to a long-term continuity.

The results of this research reveal a nuanced tradition, rich in diverse elements, from Mitra (Mithra)ic cult to traditional Hind奴 features intermingled with Iranian elements. Perhaps because of these peculiarities, the fascinating 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya tradition has survived until the present; the hope is that, propelled by its unique features, it can last into the future.