RESOURCES57, with a supplement by A. Pagliaro in RSO 24 (1949): 120-22. The
main text for late Sasanian law is the digest called the Miitikiin t Haziir
Diitistiin. Until recently the standard edition of this text was The Social
Code of the Parsees in Sasanian Times, or the Miidigiin-i-haziir Dii-
tistiin, pt. I (Bombay, 1901), pt. II (Bombay, 1912) of T. D. Anklesaria.
The most important scholarship on this text is still in the articles of
C. Bartholomae, "Ober ein sassanidischen Rechtsbuch," SHA W 1 (1910),
Abh. 11, and "Beitdige zur Kenntnis der Sassanidischen Rechts," WZKM
27 (1913): 347-74. His series called "Zum sassanidischen Recht,"
SHAW pts. I and n, 9 (1918); pt. Ill, 11 (1920); pt. IV, 13 (1922),
pt. V (1923) contains the text of passages on selected subjects in Pahlavi
script with Latin transcription, German translations, and notes. S. J.
Bulsara's The Law of the Ancient Persians as Found in the "Mat;kan
E Hazar Datastan" or "The Digest of a Thousand Points of Law"
(Bombay, A.Y. 1305IA.D. 1937) has a Latin transcription of Ankle-
saria's text with an English translation containing a fairly obvious
apologetic. This has now been superseded by A. G. Perikhanian's Sa-
sanidskii Sydevnik, "Kniga TI'siachi Sydevnikh Reshenii" (Matakdan
I Hazar Datastan) (Erevan, 1973), which has the Middle Persian text
in Latin transcription with a Russian translation and glossary.
The issue of consanguinous marriage has generated a literature of
its own. The modern Parsi apologetic goes back to D. Sanjana's Next-
of-Kin Marriages in Old Iran (London, 1888) and tends to argue that
the references in Middle Persian texts should be understood in terms
of first-cousin marriage as practiced by Zoroastrians in Islamic and
modern times. Western orientalist scholarship has tended to argue for
a literal interpretation based on the context of passages in Middle
Persian literature that refer to the practice, starting with the articles
by H. Hiibschmann, "Ober die persische Verwandtenheirath," ZDMG
43 (1889): 308-12, with a note by E. Kuhn, p. 618; and E. W. West,
"The Meaning of khvetu-das or khvetudad," SBE 11 (New York,
1901): 389-430. In La famille iranienne aux temps ante-islamiques
(Paris, 1938), A.-A. Mazaheri argued that consanguineous marriage
had been abandoned before the Muslim conquest. This issue was
subsequently picked up by anthropologists such as J. S. Slotkin; "On
a Possible Lack of Incest Regulations in Old Iran," American An-
thropologist 49 (1947): 612-17, based on orientalist literature, while
W. H. Goodenough countered with arguments from the Parsi apol-
ogetic in "Comments on the Question of Incestuous Marriage in Old
Iran," American Anthropologist 51 (1949): 326-28. For Slotkin's