Haoma is the Avestan name for a plant and its divinity, Mid. Pers. hōm, Sogd. xwm, Pers. and other living Iranian languages hōm, hūm and related forms, Skt. soma, living Indic languages som, soma (Flattery and Schwartz, p. 68 with Table 3; Steblin-Kamenskij, 1972, pp. 138 ff.; Idem, 1987, p. 377; Henning, “Mitteliranisch,” p. 85).
Attempts to identify the proto-Indo-Iranian *sauma- go back more than two centuries, when Western scholars became acquainted through texts with haoma-/soma-. The word denotes something like “that which is pressed, extract” (from Av. hu-, Skt. su-, “press, pound”), and could be applied only by metonymy to a plant yielding that extract. Nor in theory would it necessarily have referred to only one plant, but might have been used for several similar, or even wholly different, plants (cf. Av. pouru.sarəδa-, Y. 10.12). However, if (with Steblin-Kamenskij, 1987, p. 377; Falk, 1989, pp. 77 ff.) we reject the hypothesis that mythic characteristics of the divinity Haoma/Soma governed the choice of a representative plant (so Kuiper, 1970; Windfuhr, 1985), we can accept that striking correspondences in the technical terms and epithets used with reference to haoma/soma point to an extract from a specific plant having been ritually drunk by the common ancestors of the Old Iranian and Old Indian peoples. It is then the (psycho)pharmacological properties of that plant which must explain what is indicated of haoma/soma in the Avesta and Vedas.
The main Avestan source for such indications is the Hōm Yašt (Y. 9-11). Of the gifts prayed for there from Haoma by his worshippers, those which derive from pharmacological effects probably include healing (Y. 9.16, 17, 19; 10.8, 9) and sexual excitation (Y. 9.3-15, 22), and certainly physical strengthening (Y. 9:17, 22, 27), intellectual stimulation (Y. 9:17, 22) and “intoxication” (Y. 9:17; 10:8-cf. Y. 17.6, 14, 19; 11.10). The last word has regularly been used to render Av. maδa- which, with Skt. mada-, has been a keyword for investigations; but neither the Avestan texts nor their Pahlavi renderings (mʾdyšn, Y. 9:17; 10.18, 19, used elsewhere for “coition”; mnyšn “thinking, thought,”, Y. 10:14; omitted, Y. 10:10), yield sufficient evidence for a certain definition of the term. In the Hōm Yašt, the maδa of haoma is described as fraša- “brilliant, bright,” varəziiaŋhuua- “life-invigorating” (Hintze, pp. 134-35), raoxšna- “light,” and rənjiia- “swift” (Y. 10.14, 19). Moreover, Haoma is called “the best for the soul’s journey” (urunaēča pāθmainiiō.təma-, Y. 9:16), and is invoked for the “best existence” (vahišta- ahū-, Y. 9.19; 11.10). It is further said that “all other maδa- are accompanied by Wrath (Aēšma, q.v.) of the bloody club, but Haoma’s maδa- is accompanied by joyous Truth (Aṧa, q.v.)” (Y. 10.8, cf. Yt. 17.5 and, e.g., Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (Chowkamba, ed., 188.8.131.52; see Weber).
Yet since in Nērangestān 12:2 (ed. Kotwal and Kreyenbroek) Av. maδa- (occurring without reference to haoma) is rendered by Pahlavi md, that is, may, “wine,” and since wine and other alcoholic beverages have been widely used in religious rituals, during many researches (surveyed by O’Flaherty down to 1968) there was almost consensus that *sauma was alcoholic, and this interpretation was maintained still by Vasilii Abaev (1975) and Rausing (1987). But there is not enough time during the ritual preparation of haoma/soma for fermentation to take place (nor distillation, which would in any case be anachronistic), and there is no textual evidence for any such process. A case was then made, based on Rig Veda 10.119, for *sauma having been a hallucinogen (but on this as a wrong interpretation of the text, see Falk, 1989, pp. 78-79). In 1921 (see O’Flaherty, pp. 128-29) B. L. Mukherjee proposed hemp, Cannabis sativa/indica, as *sauma. Henrik Samuel Nyberg (pp. 177, 190, 290) independently gave support for this, but Walter Bruno Henning (1951, p. 30), rejecting his theory of Zoroaster’s use of hemp, voiced a modern Western aversion towards psychotropic substances as leading to “physical, mental and moral deterioration.” This, however, ignored the importance of dosage (cf. Taillieu, p. 191). In 1968 Wasson, who had worked on Meso-American psilocybine mushroom cults, proposed another hallucinogen, the fly-agaric mushroom, Amanita muscaria. John Brough (1972, p. 360), again ignoring dosage, argued that the stupor occasionally induced by flyagaric disqualified it from being *sauma, which stimulated warriors. This point was virtually conceded by Wasson (1972), whereas Ilya Greshevitch (1974, p. 50 ff.) pointed out that in moderation this mushroom is a stimulant, and added some ingenious arguments in favor of the identification. Other proposals were for mandrake, Mandragora turcomanica (Khlopin) and ginseng, Panax ginseng (Windfuhr), but these rightly gained little if any support.
As for the plant yielding the extract in modern times, the Brahmans regularly used one of the Sarcostemmas (Asclepiads), which are evidently a substitute for ancient *sauma, since they are plants of warm climates. From the late 19th century it has been known (cf. O’Flaherty, pp. 118, 122) that the Zoroastrians of Yazd use a variety of ephedra which they call huma, hum and which they supply to their coreligionists in India, where ephedras do not grow. The plants flourish, however, in Inner Asia, the Indo-Iranian borderlands and Persia. Gradually it was discovered that in a number of living Iranian languages and dialects ephedras are known as hōm or some similar term, and that in the Indic languages of Gilgit and Kāferestān (Nurestān) they are called som, soma. Together linguistic and ritual evidence seemed decisive.
In 1989 it was partially questioned, however, in a fully documented study by the botanist David S. Flattery, with linguistic support from Martin Schwartz. Flattery still held *sauma to have been an hallucinogen, and argued (p. 75) that the effects attributed to haoma/soma in the texts did not correspond to those provoked by ephedrine alkaloids extracted from ephedra. Therefore, ephedra must have been mixed with another psychotropic agent, one inducing visions. In Vd. 14.4 (cf. Y. 68.1) it is indicated that haoma was pressed together with a plant called haδānaēpātā- (q.v.), a word of disputed meaning. In the known Zoroastrian rite a pomegranate twig is used, but this must be a substitute for the original plant, which Flattery proposed to identify as harmel (mountain/wild rue), Peganum harmala. This is known in Iranian languages as sepand, esfand, sven, forms all derived from Av. spənta- “holy.” It yields the β-carboline alkaloids harmaline and harmine, whose reported sleep-inducing (side) effect might, combined with ephedrine, have “facilitated the experience of visions”; and because of the holiness of harmel, he saw this as the essential haoma, that called dūraoša (q.v.; Flattery and Schwartz, pp. 63-64 and n. 28), with ephedra as the less effective ingredient. This hypothesis was open to strong objections, notably that no convincing reason can be found for an abandoning of the easily available harmel. Moreover, although Iranian Zoroastrians make much use of rue (now more often in the form of garden rue, Rue graveolens) they do not crush it or associate it in any way with haoma rituals.
In the same year (1989) Harry Falk in an important article argued that the essential effect sought from soma/haoma was not hallucinatory, but precisely that produced by ephedrine, namely inducing alertness and awareness. He cited as evidence the previously overlooked use of soma in the highly esteemed night-time Atirātra ritual as both a sleep-preventing drink for the priests and a stimulating offering to Vṛtra-fighting Indra. The alkaloid ephedrine is somewhat milder yet more prolonged in action than adrenaline, and may be changed to metamphetamin or an analeptic amine by elimination of the hydroxyl group (OH) on the side chain (Ito, 1995, n. 1). The basic alkaloid is water-soluble and, because of climactic conditions, its full effect could be enjoyed only in situ, i.e., in the mountainous borderlands between India and Greater Iran, where the ephedrine-yielding species of ephedra (Ephedra gerardiana, procera, and intermedia) grow. This limited distribution of potent ephedra would explain the post-Vedic question put to the soma vendor, whether his merchandise was harvested on mount Mūjavat (cf. Falk, 1989, p. 87). Interestingly, a side-effect of ephedrine, the hindering of urination, coincides with the priestly fear to die of urine-retention (ámeha, cf. Falk, 1989, p. 83, n. 27).
There seems no doubt that the haoma depicted in the Hōm Yašt is a normal, chlorofyll-bearing plant: apart from its stock color epithet “yellow, golden, green” (Av. zairi- and zairi.gaona-, cf. Skt. hari-) this is suggested most strongly by the mention of “stems, shoots and branches” (Av. varəšajīš, frasparəγə̄, frauuāxšə̄, cf. Pahl. ēwan, spēg, tāg, Y. 10.5). Haoma is further called “having tender/pliant ąsu(s)” (Av. nąmyąsu-, Y. 9.16) or “having tasty ąsu(s)” (Gershevitch, 1974, p. 48; pure soma, however, is not “sweet,” Skt. mádhu-, but “sharp, astringent,” Skt. tīvrá-, cf. Falk, 1989, p. 83). This ąsu- (cf. Skt. aṃśu-) is exclusively accorded to haoma/soma and has therefore been taken for the actual name of the *sauma-yielding plant (Brough, 1972, p. 337), but more probably it denotes a “twig” (cf. Pahl. tāg in Y. 10.2). In favor of the fly-agaric theory “stalk” (Wasson, 1968, pp. 44 f.) and “fibre"/“flesh” (Gershevitch, 1974, p. 48, 74-75; Windfuhr, p. 701) were proposed, but this ignores the expressed necessity of pounding the ąsu/aṃśu (see Brough, 1972, p. 338), which seems relevant only in the case of fibrous or hard plant material (twigs, roots, seed). Both haoma and soma are accorded fragrance (Av. hubaoiδi-, Y. 10.4, cf. Skt. surabhintara-) and a mountainous location; the additional reference to river valleys in Y. 10.17 is probably only a poetic way of saying “all haomas, wherever they may be” (Brough, 1972, p. 343; cf. also Rig Veda 9.6.28, and the river Aṃśumatī-, RV. 8.96.13-15). Reality has been sought in haoma’s epithet “tall” (Av. bərəzant-, Y. 10.21, Vd., 19.19; cf. Falk, 1989, p. 86, who relates it to the tree-like Ephedra procera) and in the anthropomorphic appearance of the plant (Windfuhr, pp. 704, 712). Such speculations and the overall unscientific character of the scriptural descriptions confine the contribution of descriptive features in a botanical identification of *saoma to that of mere touchstones.
Vasilii Ivanovich Abaev, “Contribution à l’histoire des mots: 1. Vieil-iranien hauma- et le nom eurasien du houblon,” tr. Jacques Veyrenc, in Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Émile Benveniste, Collection Linguistique publicée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris 70, Paris, 1975, pp. 1-3.
Harold W. Bailey, “Vedic kṣumpa- and connected data,” in Shivram Dattatray Joshi, ed., Amṛtadhārā: Professor R. N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume, Delhi, 1984, pp. 17-20.
John Brough, “Soma and Amanita muscaria,” BSOAS 34, 1971, pp. 331-62.
Idem, “Problems of the ‘Soma-Mushroom’ Theory,” in Indologica Taurinensia 1: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi indologici, Torino, 26-29 aprile 1971, 1972, pp. 21-32.
James Darmesteter, Etudes iraniennes, 2 vols., Paris, 1883.
Rahul Peter Das, “On the Identification of a Vedic Plant,” in G. Jan Meulenbeld and Dominik Wujastyk, eds., Studies on Indian Medical History: Papers Presented at the International Workshop on the Study of Indian Medicine Held at the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 2-4 Sept. 1985, Groningen Oriental Studies 2, Groningen, 1987, pp. 19-42.
Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, “Haoma proscrit et réadmis,” in Marie-Madeleine Mactoux and Evelyne Geny, eds., Mélanges P. Lévêque I: Religion, Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 367, Centre de Recherches d’Histoire ancienne 79,1988, pp. 127-31.
H. Falk, “Soma I and II,” BSOAS 52, 1989, pp. 77-90.
David Stophlet Flattery and Martin Schwartz, Haoma and Harmaline: The Botanical Identity of the Indo-Iranian Sacred Hallucinogen “Soma” and Its Legacy in Religion, Language, and Middle Eastern Folklore, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1989; reviewed by Gherardo Gnoli in East and West 39, 1989, pp. 320-24, and by K. Mylius, in IIJ 35, 1992, pp. 45-48.
Ilya Gershevitch, “An Iranist’s View of the Soma Controversy,” in Philippe Gignoux and Ahmad Tafazzoli, eds., Mémorial Jean de Me-nasce, Louvain, 1974, pp. 45-75.
Gherardo Gnoli, “Lichtsymbolik in Alt-Iran: Haoma-Ritus und Erlöser-Mythos,” Antaios 8, 1967, pp. 528-49.
Idem, “On the Iranian Soma and Pers. sepand ‘Wild Rue’,” East and West 43, 1993, pp. 235-36.
Walter Bruno Henning, Zoroaster: Politician or Witch-Doctor? Ratanbai Katrak Lectures 3, (1949), Oxford, 1951.
Almut Hinze, ed. and tr. with commentaries, Zāmyād Yašt/Der Zam-yād-Yašt, Wiesbaden, 1994.
M. Hutter, “Weltliche und geistliche Berauschung: die Bedeutung von Haoma im Zoroastrismus,” Mitteilungen für Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 11, 1996 (pub. 1997), pp. 187-208.
G. Ito, “An Interpretation of Yasna 32:14,” Orient 25, 1989, pp. 43-50.
Idem, “Nāsatya-: Ašvin- and the Yaθā ahū vairyō prayer,” Orient 30-31, 1995, pp. 98-107.
Igore Nikolaevich Khlopin, “Mandragora turcomanica in der Geschichte der Orientalvölker,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 11, 1980, pp. 223-31.
Firoze M. Kotwal and Philip G. Kreyenbroek (with contributions by James Russell), eds. and trs., The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān II, Stud. Ir., Cahier 16, Paris, 1995.
Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper, “Was the Putīka A Mushroom?” in Shivram Dattatray Joshi, ed., Amṛtadhārā: Professor R. N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume, Delhi, 1984, pp. 219-27.
S. Mahdihasan, “Soma, in Light of Comparative Pharmacology, Etymology and Archaeology,” Janus 60, 1973, pp. 91-102.
Idem, “A Persian Painting Illustrating Ephedra, Leading to Its Identity as Soma,” Journal of Central Asia 8, 1985, pp. 171-75.
Idem, The History and Natural History of Ephedra as Soma, Islamabad, 1987.
Henrik Samuel Nyberg, Irans forntida religioner, tr. Hans Heinrich Schaeder as Die Religionen des Alten Iran, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-aegyptischen Gesellschaft 43, Leipzig, 1938, repr. Osnabrük, 1966; tr. Sayf-al-Din Najmābādi as Dinhā-ye Irān-e bāstān, Tehran, 1360 Š./1981.
W. D. O’Flaherty, “The Post-Vedic History of the Soma Plant,” in Robert Gordon Wasson, Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality, New York, 1968, pp. 95-147.
B. L. Mukherjee, “The Soma Plant,” JRAS, 1921, pp. 241 ff.
Idem, The SomaPlant, Calcutta, 1922.
G. Rausing, “Soma,” Orientalia Suecana 36-37, 1987-88, pp. 125-26.
I. M. Steblin-Kamenskij, “Flora iranskoĭ prarodini (etimologiceskie zametki),” Etimologiya, Moscow, 1972, pp. 138-39.
Idem, review of Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, 2 vols., Acta Iranica 24-25, in BSOAS 50, 1987, pp. 376-78.
R. Stuhrmann, “Worum handelt es sich beim Soma?” IIJ 28, 1985, pp. 85-93.
Dieter Taillieu, “Old Iranian haoma-: A Note on Its Pharmacology,” Acta Orientalia Belgica 9, 1994 (pub. 1995), pp. 187-91.
Robert Gordon Wasson, ed., Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality, Ethno-Mycological Studies 1, New York, 1968; reviewed by Franciscus B. J. Kuiper, in IIJ 12, 1970, pp. 297-85.
Idem, “Soma of the Aryans: An Ancient Hallucinogen?” Bulletin on Narcotics 22, 1970, pp. 25-30.
Idem, “Soma: Comments Inspired by Professor Kuiper’s Review,” IIJ 12, 1970, pp. 286-98.
Idem, “The Soma of the Rig Veda: What Was It?” JAOS 91, 1971, pp. 169-86.
Idem, Soma and the Fly-Agaric. Mr. Wasson’s Rejoinder to Professor Brough, Botanical Museum of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., November, 1972.
Idem, “Soma Brought Up-to-Date,” JAOS 99, 1979, pp. 100-105.
Albrecht Weber, ed., The Çatapatha-Brahmaṇa in theMādhhyandina-çākhā . . . , Belin and London, 1855; 3rd ed. Varansi, 1964.
Gernot L. Windfuhr, “Haoma/Soma, the Plant,” in Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, 2 vols., Acta Iranica 24-25, Leiden, 1985, I, pp. 699-726.
Originally Published: December 15, 2003
Last Updated: March 6, 2012
This article is available in print.
Vol. XI, Fasc. 6, pp. 659-662