OverviewThe history of Zoroastrian women stretches back
at least two thousand years. The focus of this entry
is on Zoroastrian women living in Iran, a society
that became Muslim in its majority. Today there are
possibly twenty thousand Zoroastrians in Iran. It
examines their situation from ancient times to the
present, with special consideration of women’s role
in religious ceremonies.
Historical evidence
Until the end of the second millenium B.C.E. and
the beginning of the first millenium B.C.E., in what
is today Iran, conditions for women were relatively
superior compared to subsequent developments.
There is written evidence from the ancient province
of Ilam (which includes today’s Khuzistan) and the
love stories of Shàhnàma(Book of Kings) also sug-
gest the favorable position of women (Mazdàpùr,
1975).
In Gàhàn, the oldest and most authentic section
of the Avista (Avesta, the central scripture of
Zoroastrianism), versified by Zoroaster himself,
women and men are invited to perform religious
and social duties together and the promise of salva-
tion extends to both sexes. In other sections, Avista
addresses both women and men (Yasnà35, 6). The
book salutes and prays for both men and women.
Nonetheless, the patriarchal structure of social
institutions is clearly expressed in Avista and other
ancient Iranian writings. The frequency with which
Avista addresses men and the heavier duties
ascribed to them makes apparent men’s pre-emi-
nence in the social hierarchy. By studying ancient
texts and graphic archeological remains, we can
trace through history this male superiority, which
reached its zenith after the establishment of Islam
in Iran.
The title dènak places the grandmother as the
head of the dynasty in the Sasanian tablets. The
names of queens and goddesses are also mentioned
here and there. We know of the female royal titles
dukhshìand wis-dukht(Benveniste 1966, 24–50,
Brosius 1998, 183–4) and other noble and religious
titles in the Soghdian language as well. Sasanian lay
women had signets that testified to their economic
activity. Royal women had their own assistants and
property. Nevertheless, these indications of female
Zoroastrian Women
high status gradually give way to male values.
The Sasanian family, or dùdag, has an intricate
structure, from the extended family in antiquity to
the modern nuclear family. At the head of the fam-
ily was dùdag-sàlàr, invariably a male. Women and
children were in his custody. He represented the
family to the outside world and society to his
household. Existing manuscripts present him as the
owner of properties and even of family members
whom he had the right to sell. This contradicts the
rights of women and children to property men-
tioned by some sources. Either the laws were not
consistent or refer to special circumstances. From
Vandìdàd (Fargard 15:11, 13, 15), it appears that a
woman was sometimes in the custody of her father,
husband, brother, or son, and sometimes free, or
khawd-sàlàr. A khawd-sàlàrwoman could appear
before a court of law as a witness or serve as a judge
(Mazdàpùr 1990, 80–1).
In Sasanian society there were many kinds of
marriage, for example, pàdikhshàzanìh, stùr zanìh,
ayòkèn zanìh, and chakar zanìh. In pàdikhshà
zanìh, the consent of the woman and the family
head are required. Her sàlàris her husband or his
father. She could, under certain conditions, become
her husband’s absolute equal – hanbàaz. Such a
marriage was sexual, economic, and ceremonial. It
was considered eternal. Stùr zanìh(and a particular
type of it, ayòkèn zanìh) was strictly ceremonial
with an economic component. When a girl with this
kind of nominal marriage married, her real mar-
riage was called chakar zanìh. A woman’s second
marriage was also called chakar zanìh, but had no
economic implications. She was still eternally wed
to her first husband, and her actual husband could
adopt one or several of her children. A boy who was
born from a pàdikhshàzanìhor stùr zanìh mar-
riage, or was a padìriftag (stepson), could reach
dùdag sàlàrìat the age of 15. If a pàdikhshàyìhwife
remarried after her husband’s death, the man in the
second marriage was not called her husband unless
the authorities agreed to it and allowed him to be
the sàlàrof the family.
These intricate relationships needed explanation
even in the Pahlavìtexts from the ninth century
C.E., for example, Ravàyat-i umìd ashawahishtàn,
where their ambiguity subjected them to inquiry.
This evolving trend has resulted in the modern
nuclear family in the Zoroastrian community.