Talk:Faravahar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
	This article does not have an importance= rating.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I changed two spellings: the variant fravahr to the more common alternate fravashi and sepanta mainyu to spenta mainyu. I'll expand this whole article later. Khirad 15:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Faravahar a Zoroasterian symbol?

Please explain that to me how come the Zoroasterian symbol could be found in Daruis (I) relief? Isn't that right the Daruis lived about 500 years before Zaroast? -- the previously unsigned comment was from Poosad 11:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Zarathustra (Zoroaster) was around before Darius I. According to this section, Zoroaster is believed to have lived around 1000 BC. Darius I on the other hand is known to have lived from c. 549–485 BC, which puts him approximately 500 years after Zoroaster.
  Moreover, Faravahar might not always have been a Zoroastrian symbol. As explained in the second paragraph of Faravahar, it is entirely possible that the Farvahar was initially simply a symbol of royal power. -- Fullstop 09:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1st, thanks for your response.

trust me! I'm a Persian (Iranian), and I'm crazy about my ancient history, Zarathustra that basically spell Zartosht or Zardosht in modern persian (Farsi) and called Zartokhshtra in avestan that means "Yellow Camel" ("Zard=Yellow, Shtra(Shotor)=Camel") because the father of the zartosht had a big covey of yellow camels and born in the Ray city near by Tehran, capital of Iran, However at the age of darius (that basically calls Dariush) people even speak and write in a different language and script called spikelike script (khat e mikhi), but at the age of the Zartosht (in the Ashkanid dynasty) the script was Avestan (Avesta ee). and I'm sure every body knows that the avesta is from Zartosht. so there is no doubt that Zartosht lived long after Darius or Achaemenid Empire and infact Zartosht lived after attacks of Alexander and Greeks (Solukids). Nima ,Nee 14:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)poosadNee 14:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Um, I don't quite see how the spelling of Zartosht (or who his father was, or where his father was born) are relevant to your initial question as to whether Zoroaster lived before Darius I (or not). Nonetheless,...

With respect to your conclusion that Zartosht must have lived after Darius I because a) "avesta is from Zartosht" and b) the Avesta was written during the Sassanid era...

1. Zartosht didn't write the Avesta. Only the Gathas are attributed to him, and these have been linguistically dated to around 1000 BC. The texts of the Avesta as we know them were written during Sassanid times, but they existed in another other form before then.
2. when/how the texts of the Avesta were written has nothing to do with when the texts were composed. The language (not the script) of the Avesta was almost extinct by the time of the Sassanids.

And incidentally,...

a) The script (not the language) of the Sassanid's used to write the Avestan language was called Din dabireh (see Avestan alphabet). Din dabireh might not have been the first script used to write the Avestan language.

b) The "spikelike script" you refer to is called "cuneiform". Like "din dabireh", cuneiform is only a script - not a language. Cuneiform was used to write several languages, including the four used in Darius' Behistun Inscription.

I suggest you review the articles referred to in both this and my previous comment - in particular this and the first sentence of this.

-- Fullstop 08:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

my point was about avestan script not avesta itself, and sassanid used Phlavi script and avestan used before ashkanid (If you want I can name some books from sassanid in Pahlavi script) by the way if we agree that Zartosht lived in 1000BC that means he lived bfore Achaemenid Empire, that on that time Elamit and Mads dynesties were rulling Iran (Persia). There was no exact script on that time and people used drawing instead of writing ( as you can find it now in Pasargad right next to the cuneiform script that Cyrus made it). if Zartosht existed in the Achaemenid age, the kings were Zoroasterian and even the national religion, however there was in the Sassanid age that for the first time king reported a national religion that was Zoroasterian (as you can find it in Shahnameh Ferdosi and even find out about Ashkanid,...) So Zartosht lived in Ashkanid age.( and you know that Ashakid dynesty were not Persian, and they were Partian) Nee 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The word

Faravahar is in Pahlavi and Faravashi is in Avestan and it's NEVER called Frohar or Frouhar... even in modern Persian (Farsi) for some one who knows Persian I suggest to take a look at http://www.bonyad-neyshaboor.com/ and find some REAL and TRUE refferences and reports. Nee 22:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Forouhar - as in Leila [1] or Dariush [2]. NEVER is quite a strong statement, I know several Iranians who spell it Forouhar but pronounce is Fravahar (I have no idea why) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.153.71.99 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 June 2007.

There are numerous variations, and numerous transliterations of each. Subject to which dialect is spoken (and which variant of the various Middle Iranian languages that dialect was influenced by) each vowel may be dropped or replacaced by 'a' or 'o' or 'e' (and 'u') or 'ae' or 'oa' or 'ou', not to mention the long and short forms of each, the open or close forms of those, and the aspirated form of some of them. In addition, some of the consonants have variations too.

To put it in perspective, try pronouncing "frwr" while inserting vowels at will. Any and all of the ways you can come up with to pronounce that with exactly three syllables will be "correct". Now additionally treat 'r' and 'w' as ambiguous (for example, 'w' as 'w','v','u','uu' (vocalic glide) plus the various long and aspirated forms), and see how many more variations you can come up with. Those too are also all "correct".

As you see, there is no one single "correct" way to pronounce the word, leave alone render it in latin characters.

-- Fullstop 08:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)