CONSEQUENCES AND UNRELIABILITY IN HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS

Abstract

This article examines the textual discrepancies, omissions, and translational divergences found within the modern Uzbek, Russian, and English translations of the "Avesta", with a specific focus on the Videvdat section. Through a comparative analysis of James Darmesteter’s English translation, Asqar Mahkam’s Uzbek translation, and the Russian edition by E.V. Rtveladze et al., the study explores how variations in translating religious hierarchies (such as the typography of priests and the role of the Zaotar) and socio-economic elements (such as the classification and symbolic purity of dogs) can lead to unreliable historical conclusions. The findings emphasize the critical need for meticulous philological analysis when utilizing translated ancient sources for historical reconstruction.