Editing Haoma (section)

==As a plant==
===In the Avesta===
The physical attributes, as described in the texts of the [[Avesta]], include:
* the plant has stems, roots and branches ({{lang|ae-Latn|[[Yasna]]}} 10.5).
* it has a plant {{lang|ae-Latn|asu}} ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.16). The term {{lang|ae-Latn|asu}} is only used in conjunction with a description of {{lang|ae-Latn|haoma}}, and does not have an established translation. It refers to 'twigs' according to Dieter Taillieu, 'stalk' according to Robert Wasson, 'fibre' or 'flesh' according to Ilya Gershevitch, 'sprouts' according to [[Lawrence Heyworth Mills]].
* it is tall ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 10.21, {{lang|ae-Latn|[[Vendidad]]}} 19.19)
* it is fragrant ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 10.4)
* it is golden-green (standard appellation, {{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.16 et al.)
* it can be pressed ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.1, 9.2)
* it grows on the mountains, 'swiftly spreading', 'apart on many paths' ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.26, 10.3-4 et al.) 'to the gorges and abysses' ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 10–11) and 'on the ranges' ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 10.12)

The indirect attributes (i.e., as effects of its consumption) include:
* it furthers healing ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.16-17, 9.19, 10.8, 10.9)
* it furthers sexual arousal ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.13-15, 9.22)
* it is physically strengthening ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.17, 9.22, 9.27)
* it stimulates alertness and awareness ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.17, 9.22, 10.13)
* the mildly intoxicating extract can be consumed without negative side effects ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 10.8).
* it is nourishing ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.4, 10.20) and 'most nutritious for the soul' ({{lang|ae-Latn|Yasna}} 9.16).

===In present-day Zoroastrianism===
Many of the physical attributes as described in the texts of the Avesta match the plant used in present-day Zoroastrian practice. In present-day preparation of ''parahaoma'' (for details, see [[Ab-Zohr]]),
* the twigs are repeatedly pounded in the presence of a little water, which suggests ancient {{lang|ae-Latn|haoma}} was also water-soluble.
* the twigs have to be imported by Indian-Zoroastrians, who believe that they are, for climatic reasons, not obtainable on the Indian subcontinent.
* very small quantities are produced.

According to Falk, [[Parsi people|Parsi]]-Zoroastrians use a variant of [[Ephedra (plant)|ephedra]], usually ''Ephedra procera'', imported from the [[Hari River, Afghanistan|Hari River]] valley in [[Afghanistan]].{{sfn|Falk|1989|p=86}}

===Botanic identification===
{{main|Botanic identity of Soma-Haoma}}

Since the late 18th century, when [[Anquetil-Duperron]] and others made portions of the Avesta available to western scholarship, several scholars have sought a representative botanical equivalent of the {{lang|ae-Latn|haoma}} as described in the texts and as used in living Zoroastrian practice. Most of the proposals concentrated on either linguistic evidence or comparative pharmacology or reflected ritual use. Rarely were all three considered together, which usually resulted in such proposals being quickly rejected.

[[File:Ephedra distachya.jpg|thumb|200px|A representative of the genus ''[[Ephedra (genus)|Ephedra]].'']]
In the late 19th century, the highly conservative Zoroastrians of [[Yazd]] (Iran) were found to use [[Ephedra (plant)|genus'' Ephedra'']], which was locally known as ''hum'' or ''homa'' and which they exported to the Indian Zoroastrians.<ref>[[James Edward Tierney Aitchison|J.E.T. Aitchison]], "The botany of the Afghan delimitation commission" ''Trans. LinnEan Soc. of London.'', 1888.</ref> The plant, as Falk also established, requires a cool and dry climate, i.e. it does not grow in India (which is either too hot or too humid or both) but thrives in central Asia. Later, it was discovered that a number of [[Iranian languages]] and Persian dialects have ''hom'' or similar terms as the local name for some variant of ''Ephedra''. Considered together, the linguistic and ritual evidence appeared to conclusively establish that {{lang|ae-Latn|haoma}} was some variant of ''Ephedra''.

In the latter half of the 20th century, several studies attempted to establish {{lang|ae-Latn|haoma}} as a [[psychotropic]] substance, basing their arguments on the assumption that proto-Indo-Iranian *{{lang|iir-Latn|sauma}} was a [[hallucinogen]]. This assumption relies on [[Rigveda]] [[wikisource:The Rig Veda/Mandala 8/Hymn 48|Mandala 8, Hymn 48]].  {{harvtxt|Falk|1989}} and {{harvtxt|Houben|2003a}} reject this assumption, positing that ''souma'' was not hallucinogenic.  Considering all 115 hymns dedicated to ''souma'' in whole, rather than the single hymn [[wikisource:The Rig Veda/Mandala 8/Hymn 48|RV 8.48]], and modern usage of ''Ephedra'' by practitioners, Falk and Houben conclude that ''Ephedra'' could be the only logical identity of ''souma''. Moreover, the references to [[entheogen]]ic properties were only in conjunction with a fermentation of the plant extract, which does not have enough time to occur in living custom.

In the conclusion of his observations on a 1999 Haoma-Soma workshop in [[Leiden]], Jan E. M. Houben writes: "despite strong attempts to do away with Ephedra by those who are eager to see *{{lang|iir-Latn|sauma}} as a hallucinogen, its status as a serious candidate for the Rigvedic Soma and Avestan Haoma still stands".{{sfn|Houben|2003a}} This supports Falk, who in his summary noted that "there is no need to look for a plant other than ''Ephedra'', the one plant used to this day by the [[Parsi people|Parsis]]."{{sfn|Falk|1989}}
<!-- NO ADDITIONS. Those belong in the main article at [[Botanic identity of Soma-Haoma]] -->