What is the ancient Soma or Haoma?

[Varallo]

There's nothing that says what plant Soma/Haoma was, indeed. Still, not all hypotheses are equally supported by the evidence. The first half of Haoma and Harmaline, a serious research work unlike a lot in this field, is quite convincing (I didn't read the second part about linguistic evidence because only someone specialized in linguistics could find it interesting, it's extremely dense). As long as it's not presented as an absolute fact, I think it's an idea worth considering. Speculation is not negative unless it's baseless and/or starts being treated as fact, and it can be the source of new ideas.

I worded my thoughts to strongly, and I agree that speculation is not an negative, but wouldn’t you say the ephedra hypothesis is better grounded and has less pitfalls?

When reading these two articles I am much less inclined to think that the Rue hypothesis is equally valid as to the ephedra (Hom) hypothesis. Both from historical sources and linguistic sources the ephedra hypothesis has the upper hand. The Syrian rue hypothesis seems driven by a kind of confirmation bias, the mystical effects described in the texts are treated as if they must reflect a psychoactive agent, and the evidence is then retrofitted to match that assumption. IMO it should be treated as an interesting but disputed hypothesis rather than as a coequal explanation.

https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/haoma-ii/

https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/haoma-i/

 

[blig-blug]

I worded my thoughts to strongly, and I agree that speculation is not an negative, but wouldn’t you say the ephedra hypothesis is better grounded and has less pitfalls?

It's confirmed during Zoroastrian times, together with pomegranate and rue (which interestingly have traditionally been related to Syrian rue due to the shape of their fruits), but it was considered to be a stand-in for it.

As for ephedra being the original plant, I consider it more likely than other hypotheses such as A. muscaria, but I don't think so. It has been some time since I read Haoma and Harmaline, so I don't remember in full detail why I thought it was a more convincing hypothesis. That book does consider seriously the possibility of ephedra and gives a honest look at the evidence in favor. I'll read it again at some point (the first half), and I recommend you do so if you are interested, I'm not in a position right now to do justice to its hypothesis.

I don't consider it "proves" it or anything of the sort. The hypothesis has some problems, no less the lack of any direct evidence of Syrian rue use in that context. But I consider the claim that the texts don't describe the actual effects of the plant to be an extraordinary claim that requires evidence as well: it's too easy and frequent to interpret poorly understood evidence as "religious symbolism" to make it fit whatever is convenient.

Lastly, the hypothesis that Haoma used to be a different plant is not as arbitrary as it may sound: in India, Soma rituals have used a plant that's not ephedra, a Sarcostemma. So in any case we have at least one situation where the plant used as Soma/Haoma is not the original plant.

I don't expect the question of the identity of Soma/Haoma is ever going to be satisfactorily answered, unless there is some archeological finding that offers direct evidence.