Ideological Systems of the Sasanian Period and Funerary Structures

Abstract
Funerary structures and remains are among the few cultural materials that reveal extinct cultures’ views of death. The information drawn from these materials, however, is indirect in nature. In the case of historical cultures, literary sources can nonetheless complement archaeological data in exploring the subject. Sasanian Ērānšahr represents a spatiotemporal horizon for which evidence of funerary traditions and structures is available. Therefore, examining the material culture and texts related to the subject offers potential progress to Sasanian Studies that has remained relatively overlooked. This article undertakes ideological reconstructions based on those sets of data. It seeks to answer whether the available evidence allows for identifying the ideological systems of the groups that constructed different types of burials. Given the current state of knowledge, the author assumes it is problematic to distinguish between various religions, let alone different Zoroastrian sects of the era. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and drawing on material culture and primary sources, this research addresses burial typology and spatial distribution. It infers the religious information implied by the data under examination. Each burial type offers certain possibilities for extracting data regarding the various ideological systems behind them. Based on the available evidence, apart from the Nestorian population, identifying structures associated with other minorities is problematic. Pits and cairns that do not accord with the conditions of urgent burial are not Zoroastrian. Traces of ideological minorities may also be sought in some examples of ‘rock-cut niches’ and ‘portable astōdāns’. However, diverse kinds of astōdān signify the coping mechanisms of groups residing in different areas with distinct topography and accessible resources for making Zoroastrian ossuaries. Moreover, ‘rock-cut niches’ and ‘towers of silence’ are claimed to demonstrate the continuity, and yet transformation, of the age-old Zoroastrian tradition of entombment in the Sasanian period.
Keywords: Burial, Sasanian Period, Zoroastrianism, Entombment, Vīdēvdād.
 
Introduction
Funerary remains are one of the few aspects of material culture that archaeologists may undoubtedly regard as reflecting past societies’ attitudes toward death. However, information derived from fragmentary evidence is indirect. In the case of historical cultures, however, texts can also serve as a complementary source of information in this field. Sasanian Ērānšahr lends itself to such a study given the recent archaeological discoveries and available primary sources that present data about different funerary methods and practices in that spatiotemporal horizon. Hence, an interdisciplinary examination of available datasets related to those traditions at an inter-regional scale across the Sasanian realms can represent a progressive step in Sasanian scholarship that has yet to be taken. The present research seeks to answer whether the available evidence allows for identifying the ideological systems of the groups that constructed different burial types. Given the current state of knowledge, the author considers it problematic to distinguish between various religions, let alone different Zoroastrian sects of the era. However, some burial structures identified so far may be regarded as non-Zoroastrian – in the orthodox sense of the word. In these cases, one encounters traces of minority groups living in different areas, while some types of structures appear compatible with Zoroastrian laws of purity. Therefore, employing a descriptive-analytical method and drawing on cultural materials and primary sources (particularly the Vīdēvdād, Dādestān ī Dēnīg, and the Syriac Acta Martyrum), this study discusses the typology of funerary structures and their spatial distribution, and explores the possible links between these structures and the documented religious systems.
One of the chief challenges of this research is the scarcity of systematic funerary archaeology projects that have included the excavation of burials and the archaeometric analysis of structures, human remains, and artifacts inside them. Another issue is the dearth of primary sources in general, and particularly the lack of sources presenting inclusive perspectives on various minority groups and their burial practices. This means that the few available documents are mainly limited to two sets of texts: those presenting an interpretation of Zoroastrianism supported by the Sasanians, and late-antique Christian literature and East Syrian hagiographical texts, which are not impartial but inform us about certain Nestorian dioceses in the Sasanian realms and the extent of conversions to Christianity.
 
Burial Typology and Implications for Ideological Systems
‘Pit burials’ constitute a category once considered uncommon in the Sasanian period. However, their discovery in scattered areas across the imperial territories disproved this view and indicated that fieldwork projects were simply scarce. This type also appears to be in stark contrast with the official Zoroastrian burial laws.
Conversely, examples of astōdān are among the funerary remains that are most commonly associated with Zoroastrianism. Given their diversity, this type can be subdivided into distinct groups: cubic architectural astōdāns built from gypsum; so-called pillar ossuaries carved from stone, which would have been fixed into holes cut into cliffs; and portable terracotta and stone astōdāns. Finally, to allow for the possibility of finding ossuaries made of other materials and in view of the secondary burial practices at Qumis, a ‘miscellaneous’ subdivision should also be considered.
Another type includes specimens of terracotta jar burials, sarcophagi, and ceramic and gypsum coffins. These cases are predominantly reported from western regions of the Sasanian realm. Archaeometric analysis of the torpedo jars from the Bushehr peninsula proved them to be astōdāns, while some examples from Susa are claimed to contain articulated bones related to a primary burial practice. Moreover, the attestation of at least one Christian interment in a jar, now held at the British Museum, further complicates the picture.
Entombment in rock-cut niches represents a later continuation of an age-old Zoroastrian tradition, with specimens documented particularly in the Southern and Central Zagros regions, as well as in the Khuzestan lowlands and on Kharg Island. At present, Christian specimens bearing a cross on their entrance facade are to be excluded as anomalies, given their rarity.
‘Cists’ are another funerary structure of the era that accords with Zoroastrian practice. In the Fars region particularly, their spatial distribution mirrors that of rock-cut niches. The few Middle-Persian inscriptions refer to both types as dahmag.
Archaeological finds and literary evidence indicate that ‘towers of silence’ originated in the Sasanian period. However, architectural differences between the excavated examples from the Sasanian and Middle-Islamic periods and the Qajarid specimens have sparked scholarly debate about whether the former group should be identified as such.
Finally, ‘cairns’ exhibit the widest range of all the types mentioned, both geographically and functionally. However, funerary cairns became more widespread during the first millennium BCE. These structures are particularly common in southeastern Iran and the highlands of Fars and Bakhtiyari.
The Vīdēvdād contains passages (Fargards 3–8) concerning the bans and punishments for inhumation. These rather detailed discussions in the most important Zoroastrian text regarding funerary rites, together with the widespread archaeological findings, signify that the tradition was not rare – if not common – in the Sasanian period. It is worth noting that Fargard 7 of this source permits underground burial under urgent conditions, such as extreme weather and darkness. However, such graves must have a bed consisting of a layer of ash or cowpat and be covered by stone slabs or bricks. These references have two implications for our understanding of pit burials in this era: first, one must be cautious about ruling out examples of pit burials and cairns as non-Zoroastrian; second, structures that do not meet the Vīdēvdād’s urgency criteria may be confidently identified as non-Zoroastrian. This is particularly true for cairns, whose considerable size and number in some areas attest to their commonality and the labour and time required for their construction – points that contradict the above-mentioned urgency theory.
Rock-cut niches, cists, sarcophagi, and portable stone receptacles are all carved from a single block of rock, are lidded (at least in many cases), and in some examples referred to as astōdān/astōdāna and dahmag. These features accord with the description of an ossuary in Zoroastrian texts.
 
Conclusions
Each burial type offers certain potential for extracting data regarding the various ideological systems behind them. Apart from the Nestorian population, identifying the structures associated with other minorities is problematic given the present state of research. Some examples of ‘portable astōdāns’ and ‘rock-cut niches’ indicate the use of Zoroastrian funerary practices by non-Zoroastrians. Moreover, pits and cairns that do not meet the conditions of urgent burial are not Zoroastrian.
On the other hand, one may examine the continuity, and transformation, of age-old Zoroastrian traditions in the case of ‘towers of silence’ and ‘niches’. While the former type has undergone architectural changes that could reflect shifts in funerary praxis, the latter may signify that entombment became more common in Late Antiquity and was not inevitably limited to the elites. Finally, the varied classes of ossuaries reflect the efforts of populations in different geographical zones to follow Zoroastrian purity laws using the topography and local natural materials available in their environment.