In my earlier article, “creating is cutting: a conceptual metaphor in Avestan and Pahlavi texts” (Bayani Reference Bayani2025), I analysed three terms – Av. taš-, Av. ϑβərəs- and MP. brēhēnīdan – using Conceptual Metaphor Theory. I concluded that these terms, which refer to various acts of cutting, are employed to describe the stages of Ahurian creation in Zoroastrian texts. Specifically, Ohrmazd, the supreme deity, first cuts off the general form of both his spiritual and material creations from an imaginary primary substance (taš-). Following this, he adds intricate details to these forms through a process akin to sculpting and engraving (ϑβərəs-).Footnote ¹

While the creational metaphorical contexts of the terms were being examined, it was observed that references to the primary substance in the material creation narratives are deliberately excluded in the Avesta (Bayani Reference Bayani2025: 249 ff.). This exclusion gains importance when comparing spiritual creation narratives, where the primary substance – mainiiu- – is explicitly mentioned. Additionally, the analysis of the term ϑβərəs- revealed that details about how Ohrmazd and other high-ranking divinities sculpt and engrave the creation are also not included in the narratives. This adjustment becomes evident when comparing these narratives to the Hindu narratives that describe Mārtāṇda, the prototype of humans, whose flesh was shaped and pieces cut out by the Ādityas to form a human-like figure (Hoffman Reference Hoffman, Glauch, Plath and Ziegler1992: 720).

The main objective of this article is to explore these adjustments and propose potential reasons for such narrative choices. It aims to investigate the following: first, the identification of the imaginary primary substance used in material creation; secondly, the possible changes and transformations this substance underwent during the creation process; and finally, the possible reasons and explanations behind the adjustments in the narratives. By addressing these dimensions, the intention is to underline the role of priests or, more generally, the compiler and authors of the texts, in transforming the Indo-Iranian creation narrative as it entered Zoroastrian texts.

The initial step in identifying the primary source of creation involves examining the motif of cosmic genesis through the body of a primordial sacrificial victim in Zoroastrian texts. This motif, prevalent in Indo-European mythology (Lincoln, Reference Lincoln1975; Reference Lincoln2024), depicts the universe as emerging from the dismembered body, often severed by another divine entity, of a primordial being.Footnote ² In this article, such figures are termed “creational bodies”, defined as human-like beings whose defining characteristic is a body that is dismembered by divine forces to yield various elements of the universe – sky, earth, vegetation, animals and humans – each derived from specific body parts.

As pointed out in my previous article, Christensen’s comparison of Gayōmard with Ymir and Zaehner’s interpretation of Gayōmard as a substitute for YimaFootnote ³ establish him as a pivotal figure in Iranian cosmogony (Christensen Reference Christensen2013: 42ff.; Zaehner Reference Zaehner1961: 136; see Bayani Reference Bayani2025: 243–4). While these views are supported by compelling evidence, the ancient texts further depict Gayōmard as a human prototype whose semen produces the first human couple (GBd 14.5–6)Footnote ⁴ and whose body yields metals (see below). Notably, he is not sacrificed by divine figures but is instead attacked by Ahriman and the demons (see below).

Additionally, as noted in Bayani (Reference Bayani2025), Kreyenbroek reconstructs an Indo-Iranian creation myth in which Varuna forms inert prototypes that are set in motion through sacrifice by Mithra (or Indra in the Rigveda), with Ahriman replacing Indra as a chief demon in the Iranian narrative (Kreyenbroek Reference Kreyenbroek and Hinnells1994: 180). Kreyenbroek posits that the narrative of Ahriman’s assault may have been influenced by Zoroaster’s aversion to an expanding Indra cult and its amoral ethos, which ascribed creative functions to this god.

This theme diverges from the previous one, as only a segment of the universe is fashioned from Gayōmard’s body. However, there is no reason to dismiss the possibility of variants of two distinct creation myths: one that describes the universe as fully formed from a dismembered creational body, and another that emphasizes the invention of specific creations through the sacrifice of corresponding prototypes. Assigning both roles to Gayōmard is not contradictory. As previously noted, Yima initially seems to have fulfilled the role of the creational body, while Gayōmard’s role as a human prototype appears to derive from a different tradition or variant, as elucidated by the texts. The focus here lies primarily on the role itself rather than on the specific figure fulfilling it. In other words, scholarly attention has often centred more on the characters enacting these roles than on the themes and their evolution within Zoroastrian sources. While Gayōmard’s position as the primordial sacrificial being is relatively undisputed, this article aims to identify potential shifts within the narrative structure, suggesting that certain pieces of evidence merit closer examination. Thus, the purpose of this analysis is not to reaffirm Gayōmard’s role but to elucidate the transformation of the theme over time.

In light of the hypothesis that, within pre-Zoroastrian creation narratives, the gods performed the sacrifice of the creational body to bring the cosmos into existence, one piece of evidence appears to have been largely overlooked by scholars. According to the GBd (7.10), Ahriman came upon Gayōmard “then he released hunger upon him, and Ohrmazd stood there against Gan(n)āg-Mēnōg until meat and butter were fed to Gayōmard so that the demons would not tear him apart through starvation”.Footnote ⁵

In this narrative, the act of tearing Gayōmard apart (kirrēnīdan) can be understood as analogous to the sacrificial dismemberment of the primordial cosmic being. Given that the Iranian daēvas and dēwān were derived from Indo-Iranian devá-, meaning “god” that performed the role of sacrificial agents in creation (Mayrhofer Reference Mayrhofer1992: 742),Footnote ⁶ this scene reveals a modified version of the primordial sacrifice narrative where the gods gather around the cosmic being, feeding him before carrying out the sacrificial act. This motif – feeding the primordial victim before it is dismembered by the gods – appears in other mythological traditions, such as Purusha in the Rigveda (10.90.2; Jamison and Brereton Reference Jamison and Brereton2014: vol. 3, 1539) and the Norse myth of Ymir (Sturluson Reference Sturluson1966: 34). However, in the Indian account, Purusha merely consumes food, while in the Norse tradition, the primal cow breastfeeds Ymir, highlighting variations of the motif across these narratives.

Furthermore, it is implausible that Ahriman and the demons could tear Gayōmard apart solely through starvation. The verb kirrēnīdan, as Lincoln (Reference Lincoln1997: 685) has demonstrated, specifically connotes cutting or dismembering in a violent, brutal and unrefined manner, an action typically done by sharp weapons or tools. Additionally, the detailed mention of each body part and the specific metal created from it (GBd 14.3)Footnote ⁷ implicitly indicates Gayōmard’s dismemberment, though the explicit description may have been subject to modifications. The employment of this verb within the narrative underscores both the foundational thematic structure, wherein Gayōmard had been dismembered by the deities, and subsequent adaptations in which Ahriman and the demons violently rend his body.

Within the Zoroastrian worldview, it is significant to note that Gayōmard is a creation of Ohrmazd. The act of sacrifice or dismemberment represents severe harm and injury inflicted upon an Ahurian being, categorizing it as an Ahrimanian deed and underscoring its intrinsic violence. It is plausible that Zoroastrian priests found it unacceptable to endorse a narrative in which the primordial body or prototypes were sacrificed or dismembered by Ohrmazd or other deities. Unlike the case of Mārtāṇda, whose rounded form was modified through scratching and engraving to produce distinct beings, the concept of a divine act involving the dismemberment of Ahura-created flesh to shape individual entities, particularly living beings such as humans and animals, would have been deeply incompatible with the Zoroastrian theological framework.

This notion would have been particularly troubling to Zoroastrian priests, as it implies a transition from Ahurian perfection, represented by flawless prototypes, to a state of fragmented imperfection, symbolized by procreation. Moreover, the suggestion that Ohrmazd or the Beneficent Immortals, esteemed as the most compassionate protectors of creation, could perpetrate a violent, malevolent act against it would have been irreconcilable with their theological principles. Yet the priests could not entirely discard or replace the existing myth, as creation myths hold a central and immutable position in worldviews. Thus, they sought to reinterpret and modify the myth to absolve Ohrmazd and the Beneficent Immortals of any violent role in the act of creation.

To achieve this, Ahriman was introduced as a scapegoat, with the destructive act of dismembering the primordial creational body being attributed to him and his demonic forces as part of their assault on material creation. This reinterpretation is evident in Pahlavi texts, particularly in the Greater Bundahišn (cf. Boyce Reference Boyce1975: vol. 1, 139–41).

Kreyenbroek (Reference Kreyenbroek1993) offers a broader historical framework to explain this theological shift. He suggests that in a pre-Zoroastrian Iranian cosmogony, Mithra played a crucial role as a primordial sacrificer, instrumental in setting the world in motion. In this myth, the cosmos initially existed in a static state: plants were motionless, waters did not flow and celestial bodies stood still. Life and cosmic order only began after a primordial sacrifice, likely modelled on the yasna ritual, that triggered motion, growth and generation.

Within this older tradition, Mithra, closely linked to fire and the sun, was not only the protector (Av. pāiiu-) but also the divine agent who performed the ritual act that animated creation. The sacrifice was portrayed not as violent or evil, but as a sacred act of cosmic activation. Thus, Mithra occupied a foundational cosmogonic role.

However, in Zoroastrian orthodoxy, this transformative role and its accompanying sacrificial act were reinterpreted as follows:

• • The second stage of the cosmogony, characterized by movement, procreation and diversity, was now associated with Ahriman and viewed as a corruption of the ideal, static first creation.

• • Zoroaster’s teachings reframed this stage as the result of an evil incursion, rather than a sacred or beneficial act.

• • Consequently, the creative and animating role once attributed to Mithra was now mirrored in the destructive function of Ahriman.

According to Kreyenbroek, this reinterpretation reflects a deeper theological and ideological shift. He notes that Indra, a later Vedic god, had assumed many of Mithra’s cosmogonic functions in the Indian tradition. In contrast, Zoroaster vehemently rejected Indra, likely because he symbolized a cosmogony grounded in morally ambiguous sacrifice – precisely the type Zoroastrianism sought to overwrite.

Thus, in Kreyenbroek’s view:

• • Mithra originally acted as a cosmic mediator and sacrificer, responsible for setting the world in motion.

• • Zoroastrian doctrine, asserting the ideality of an unmixed first creation, replaced this figure with Ahriman, thereby recasting the narrative in dualistic and moral terms (Kreyenbroek Reference Kreyenbroek1993).

In light of this, the role of the Beneficent Immortals was also transformed: rather than actively shaping the world through sacrifice, they became defenders of creation, striving to limit the damage inflicted by Ahriman. Yet notably, neither Ohrmazd nor the Beneficent Immortals intervene to prevent the dismemberment of Gayōmard by the forces of evil. This narrative inevitably suggests that, even within the Zoroastrian framework, the sacrificial dismemberment of the primordial body remained an indispensable cosmogonic motif, echoing the deep structures of the older Indo-Iranian myth it sought to reinterpret.

Beyond Gayōmard, the Pahlavi texts mention a body known as āsrō-kirb, from which Ohrmazd brings creation into existence. An important narrative in this regard is found in the third book of the Dēnkard, which references āsrō-kirb as a tool (abzār), created by Ohrmazd from endless light. Through this tool, Ohrmazd gathered creation and perfected it within the tool, preparing it for eventual manifestation. The author distinguishes between two distinct tools: one containing spiritual creation and the other material creation, both of which are gathered and completed by Ohrmazd (the third book of Dēnkard; Madan Reference Madan1911: vol. 1, 349).Footnote ⁸

In addition, the sixty-third question of the Dādestān ī Dēnīg (paragraphs 2–3) also mentions āsrō-kirb as having been created by Ohrmazd from endless light. It states that humanity was placed within it and brought into existence from it.Footnote ⁹ Although Molé (Reference Molé1963: 408), in his examination of the text, read the phrase (Anklesaria Reference Anklesaria1958: 125) in the second paragraph as nām ān ī Ohrmazd Footnote ¹⁰ and suggested that it is not merely a tool but rather embodies Ohrmazd himself, he acknowledged the creational role of the body. Furthermore, he distinguished āsrō-kirb from Gayōmard based on Pahlavi texts, viewing āsrō-kirb as more akin to Ohrmazd than to Gayōmard (Molé Reference Molé1963: 406–10). (Shaked Reference Shaked1994: 19–20) also proposed that there may have been a body at the beginning from which creation emerged, or that the universe was initially created as a whole within Ohrmazd himself and subsequently transferred into material form. Therefore, researchers recognize the function of this body as a creational body.

The name of the body, āsrō-kirb, is undoubtedly a learned word, which Duchesne-Guillemin (Reference Duchesne-Guillemin1964) reconstructed in its Avestan form as *āϑrō.kǝhrp-, translated as “the form of fire”, with the Pahlavi rendering of the term as āsaxš kirb (GBd 1.43).Footnote ¹¹ He rejected the readings of Nyberg and Zaehner (asar-kirb) and Molé (Reference Molé1963) (asrōg-kirb, “forme de prêtre”). According to Duchesne-Guillemin (Reference Duchesne-Guillemin1964),Footnote ¹² this body represents an intermediate stage that transitions creation from endless light to the material stage, which explains why the aforementioned narrative referred to it as abzār.

It is important to note that whenever the combination “noun + kirb” appears in Pahlavi texts, it denotes a spiritual entity that has assumed a bodily and physical form, a pattern also evident in the Avesta.Footnote ¹³ Thus, āsrō-kirb, following this same structure, refers to something spiritual that has taken on the form of fire and is named as such – the creational body. The author of the third book of the Dēnkard cites this name from the Avesta, reinforcing the possibility that there was a narrative – likely later than other Avestan narratives – about this body in the lost portion of the Avesta, which may have served as the basis for the narratives found in the Pahlavi texts. In this regard, two chronologically different possibilities can be proposed: (1) the identity and the description of the body had already been excluded in the Avesta; and (2) the authors of Pahlavi texts only preserved the name of the body, intentionally concealing its true identity and detailed description for some reason.

Molé (Reference Molé1963) rightly distinguishes between this body and Gayōmard, and this difference does not extend to their functions, since both are regarded as creational bodies. Thus, we encounter two creational bodies so far: one, Gayōmard, possessing a distinct name and identity yet lacking explicit references to his sacrifice and the division of his body parts in the creation of the world, and the other, āsrō-kirb, whose identity remains obscure but is more directly associated with the creation of the world from its body parts (see below).

In this respect, chapter 46 of the PRDD introduces a unique and revealing narrative about this creational body. In paragraphs 2 and 3, it speaks of a tool that was like a spark of fire and was pure light. Ohrmazd created it from the endless light and made all creation by it. Then he took them inside the body, kept them there for 3,000 years, grew them all and made them better, then created the world from the parts of the body he grew:Footnote ¹⁴ the sky from the head (4), the earth from the foot (5), the water from the tears (11), the plant from the hair (13), the cow from the right hand (15) and the fire from the thought (28). Gayōmard was also created from the clay that was placed inside the earth (Spandārmad) in the form of a fetus, and the people are also from the same clay (36).Footnote ¹⁵

Bailey viewed this account as a unique narrative influenced by foreign sources but did not elaborate on this aspect, limiting his discussion to a comparison of part of the account with ideas from ancient Greek philosophers (Bailey Reference Bailey1943: 121 ff.). Zaehner (Reference Zaehner1955: 136–40), in contrast, compared it to the Rigveda’s Purusha narrative and argued that the Iranians borrowed this motif from Hindu sources, adapting it within the Zoroastrian cosmogony. However, Williams (Reference Williams1990) critiques Zaehner’s view on two main grounds: first, Purusha undergoes sacrificial offering, and second, his body is divided into parts. Neither feature appears in the present account. Furthermore, only two aspects align between the two narratives: the creation of the sky from the head and the earth from the feet. He then presents his own perspective, drawing on the fourteenth chapter of the Greater Bundahišn, which details the origin of metals from Gayōmard’s body parts. He argues that the author of the PRDD adapted this motif from the Gayōmard account to reshape orthodox creation narratives. Since the text does not explain the nature or fate of the body after its division for material creation, he suggests that the author reworked it irregularly based on the formula “x (dām ud dahišn > creation) was created from y (handām ī tan > limb)”. He also notes that the general order of creation in this narrative parallels the Greater Bundahišn account, except that Gayōmard is not created immediately after the cow. He argues that the creation of Gayōmard in this narrative is ambiguous, suggesting that, contrary to Zaehner’s claim of Hindu influence, the narrative combines elements from traditional Zoroastrian myths. According to Williams (Reference Williams1990: vol. II, 203–6), the author reinterpreted Gayōmard as the source of metals and expanded his role to encompass the material world’s origin, thereby reshaping the traditional myth with a fresh perspective.

Zaehner appropriately noted the parallel with Purusha; however, his conclusion invites critique. Williams rightly challenges Zaehner’s emphasis on narrative differences, and his identification of similarities with the Gayōmard story is plausible, though he mistakenly regards this narrative as derivative. Even if we accept his view that this creational body draws upon the Gayōmard pattern, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the author devised these creation details ex nihilo, solely through inventive skill. The correspondences between body parts and cosmic elements, such as the head with the sky, feet with the earth and hair with vegetation, as well as the formula “b was created from a”, have Indo-European precedents (see Lincoln Reference Lincoln1986: 5–7, 11, 175–6).Footnote ¹⁶ Therefore, Williams’s suggestion does not work.

Lincoln’s (Reference Lincoln1975: 139) reconstruction of the Indo-European creation myth demonstrates that the shared structure of the Purusha, Gayōmard and, arguably, āsrō-kirb narratives originates in an Indo-European motif: the sacrifice of the first king by his brother, the first priest. This theme likely evolved in Indo-Iranian cosmogony into the concept of the primordial cosmic being’s sacrifice by the gods. Naturally, as we move further from this ancient source, the narrative’s outward form diversifies. Thus, the Rigveda, by virtue of its greater antiquity, retains a pattern closer to the original than the later Pahlavi accounts. It is not expected that ancient Indo-European and Indo-Iranian myths would retain their complete scenarios over time. Instead, specific details from these myths are often worked into new frameworks, perspectives or ideological orientations with relative ease. This is particularly true given the influences of Zoroastrian theology, Zoroastrian priestly traditions and the variety of sects, which were evidently numerous (Shaked Reference Shaked1994: 20). To fully understand the transformation of Iranian narratives, we must also consider the diversity of ideas, possible late theological activities during the Sasanian period and the consolidation of most Pahlavi texts within the first three centuries of the Islamic era.

After thorough examination, it is evident that the concept of the creational body, rooted in Indo-European and Indo-Iranian mythologies, appears in Iranian narratives in two main forms. First, this idea manifests through the figure of Gayōmard, who, in the original narrative, was likely sacrificed by the gods to form the world. However, the Zoroastrian tradition reinterprets this event, attributing Gayōmard’s dismemberment to Ahriman and the demons, thus associating it with their inherently destructive nature. Additionally, in Zoroastrian accounts, only metals emerge from Gayōmard’s flesh, while humanity originates from his sperm, rather than the entire cosmos arising from his body.Footnote ¹⁷

Moreover, one can perceive traces of this mythological framework in the figure of Yima. His dismemberment by his brother, the triple flight of his x^varenah- (divine glory) and the end of his golden age echo elements of the older Indo-Iranian mythology of *Yemo, the primordial man (see Lincoln Reference Lincoln1975: 129–32).Footnote ¹⁸

The second representation of the creational body introduces a form without specific identity, described simply as a body having the form of fire.Footnote ¹⁹ Unlike Gayōmard, who has a distinct identity and has undergone significant narrative transformations, this body is nameless and faceless in the current Zoroastrian corpus and its narrative, as found in the forty-sixth chapter of the PRDD, strongly parallels ancient Indo-European, particularly Hindu, traditions. This text explicitly describes the creation of the world from the parts of this body. Williams’s (Reference Williams1990) critique of this connection centres on the absence of the body’s fate and the lack of explicit dismemberment, unlike the Hindu model. However, the verb brēhēnīdan, meaning “to cut”, clearly illustrates that Ohrmazd dismembers the body by cutting and distributing its parts. Furthermore, the fate of Purusha, Ymir and similar Indo-European figures is left unstated after their sacrifice because their sole purpose is to facilitate cosmic creation. Once this role is completed and each part has transformed into elements of the cosmos, there is no need to address the body’s fate – nothing of it remains.

The fact that Gayōmard is created through a different process in the forty-eighth chapter of PRDD could be attributed to his own status as an example of the creational body. Creating a creational body from another creational body appears contradictory, complex and ambiguous. Moreover, the separation of Gayōmard and the āsrō-kirb in this narrative could itself be a justification for their function as creational bodies. Now remains the most important question: why has the narrative concerning this body undergone such changes?

A comparison of what has been said about Gayōmard and āsrō-kirb can explain the duality of the concept of the creational body in Iranian narratives as two different types of modification of the priests in the removal, alteration or adjustment of the grotesque act of cutting the creational body by the hands of gods in the original narrative. In the case of Gayōmard, they preserved the identity and name of the body but changed the essence of the narrative so that little trace of the original pattern has remained. Thus, Ohrmazd is absolved of any harm to Gayōmard’s body, while Ahriman and demons are cursed and condemned as the ones violently dismembering (kirrēnīdan) his body. However, their action leads to a good outcome, as humans and metals emerge from his body, indicating that the narrative has been reworked to be consistent with a different ideology (dualistic) than the one that inspired its predecessors (sacrificial). It is worth noting that dēwān play a similar role to that of devās in RV 10.90, but their ethical status has been inverted, making them the villains, rather than the protagonist.

In the case of āsrō-kirb, all visible signs of identity and details related to this body are removed, so unlike Gayōmard, who speaks, sleeps, feels pain and gets hungry, to a great extent he has lost his human-like qualities. In fact, the only thing left of his human-like qualities is his body, which is only mentioned in the Pahlavi texts in relation to its limbs and consequently the creation of the cosmos from them. As we have seen in other sources, there is no mention of the components or details of this body. These changes have significantly reduced the repulsion and evilness of dismembering this body, and therefore we see that the overall structure of the narrative that introduces Ohrmazd as the agent of this dismemberment remains untouched. In this new face, Ohrmazd dismembers an unidentified body that bears no resemblance to the human body at all. Another fundamental change is the removal of direct scenes and descriptions of sacrificing or cutting this body by Ohrmazd, as opposed to similar examples seen in Indo-European narratives.