It is difficult to establish, beyond a doubt, that the earliest forms of ancient Iranian, Indo-Iranian, and Israelite societies can be called mobile pastoralism. Although, as with many ancient peoples, the specific developmental ‘homelands’ of these societies are difficult to ascertain, this has not stopped scholars from supposing reconstructions of such places, some more probable than others. One of the major sources which lends credibility, to the idea that the ancient Iranians and Israelites lived in societies characterized by mobile pastoralism prior to becoming the settled peoples recognized by history, is the body of references, to mobile pastoral life, in each scriptural canon. Mary Boyce notes the comparison of symbology, in her introduction to one of the Gathas ('song') ascribed to Zarathushtra, Yasna 33: “The symbolism of the pastor or herdsman...appears to be that of the man who nurtures good purpose, since Vohu Manah, Good Purpose, is guardian of cattle. Evidently the symbols of cattle and herdsman were as powerful for the ancient Iranians as those of sheep and shepherd have been for Jews and Christians.”¹ Boyce's comments highlight the significance of comparing these religions: independent of one another, such references might easily be lost in their respective geo-political contexts, but when viewed together, they suggest similar histories and begin to form a semblance of analogous developmental contexts which are more like one another than their respective 'neighbors'. Although a number of theories regarding the likelihood of mobile pastoralism in the respective histories of these societies utilize other evidence², it is the value of this comparison which centers the respective scriptural references to mobile pastoralism as the focus for our present discussion.

There are three important types of scriptural references to mobile pastoralism which we must briefly examine in order to consider the likelihood of this form of society in the respective histories of the ancient Iranians and Israelites: setting, symbolism, and sayings. The first of these three is easily understood in even the most superficial reading of the Zoroastrian Gathas or Hebrew Bible; in the former, it is clearly identified by Jenny Rose: “The setting for the Gathas is presented as that of mobile pastoralism.”³ Rose’s statement could easily applied to the patriarchal and exodus narratives in the Torah and references to a history of mobile society can be found throughout the Hebrew Bible. It is worth noting that, particularly in biblical narratives, the setting of mobile pastoralism is not consistently presented in a positive light. This suggests that, however settled or mobile the authors might have been situated, they didn't universally elevate or vilify such a society.⁴

Returning to Boyce's observation, we can see that the symbol of what Frachetti called “domesticated herd animals”⁵ is present in both texts. Boyce writes:

In his Gāthās Zoroaster himself used it [symbol of the cow] with a range and complexity of meaning which for long baffled modern interpreters; and it is a striking fact that whereas cattle imagery recurs again and again in his verses, there is not a single simile there drawn from tilling the soil—no mention of plough or corn, seedtime or harvest, though such things are much spoken of in the Younger Avesta, gradually, indeed, replacing cattle in the religious symbolism.⁶

The last line is particularly cogent to our discussion as it suggests that the dominance of the symbol of the cow, of mobile pastoralism, predated symbols of settled agriculture in the Zoroastrian texts. In a similar fashion, the Hebrew Bible contains metaphors which make use of imagery that clearly indicates a familiarity with mobile pastoralism. Archaeologist Roland de Vaux writes:

Death, for example, is the cut tent-rope, or the peg which is pulled out, or the tent itself which is carried off. Desolation is represented by the broken ropes, the tent blown down, whereas security is the tent with tight ropes and firm pegs. A nation whose numbers are increasing is a tent being extended. Lastly, there are countless allusions to the pastoral life, and Yahweh or his Messiah are frequently represented as the Good Shepherd.⁷

Understanding the use of symbolism and imagery (associated with mobile pastoralism) in the textual traditions of both Zoroastrianism and Judaism allows us to suppose, among the audience receiving such language, a certain familiarity with the world of a mobile pastoralist society.  

A final type of textual reference must be acknowledged and is directly connected to symbolism: sayings. Such idiomatic references to mobile pastoralism are even more specifically dependent on, and revealing of, an intimate knowledge of the authors and audience with the life of a mobile pastoralist society. Roland de Vaux describes the usefulness of language in revealing history in this way:

Language is more conservative than custom, and Hebrew retained several traces of that [semi-nomadic] life of years gone by. For example, generations after the conquest, a house was called a 'tent', and not only in poetry (where it is frequent) but also in everyday speech. Disbanded soldiers return 'every man to his own tent'...Again, to express 'leaving early in the morning', a verb is often used which means 'to load the beasts of burden'; nomads use the word to say 'striking camp at dawn'.⁸

Like jokes, which are often culturally relative, one must be familiar both with the language and referent social context in order to 'get' the expressions which de Vaux describes. Similarly, Rose explains, in relation to the Old Avesta:

The struggle for sustenance and growth is expressed in poetic idiom, so that the so that the beleaguered ‘soul of the cow’ (geush urvan) can also be understood as the ‘soul of the world'. Just as the cow, under the good husbandry of the cowherd, yields beneficent by-products of butter and milk, so clarity of vision and integrity of word and action promote that which is ‘really real’ (haithya), bringing nourishment and increase to the world, rather than injury and decrease.⁹

Comparing the utilization of references to mobile pastoralism between these two religions reveals each to have had familiarity with that type of society which cannot be easily attributed to poetic creativity or propagandistic invention. It is reasonable to assume that both ancient Iranian and Israelite societies existed in some form of mobile pastoralism in their respective early histories. What implications does this assumption have for our understanding of the potential connections between mobile societies and monotheism? It is to this question which we must next turn.