Haoma — the one true spelling, and the forms that fail it
Evidence dossier 190 — Haoma. Every exhibit catalogued, every ruling stated with its grounds.
At a Glance
- Canonical form: Haoma
- Original script: 𐬵𐬀𐬊𐬨𐬀
- Pantheon: Zoroastrian
- Convention: Avestan scholarly transliteration as the liturgies are edited
- False forms on record: 0
- Contested forms: none attested
- Series: The Canonical Register, No. 190 of 548
The Evidence
Exhibit 1 — the attestation. The attested form is 𐬵𐬀𐬊𐬨𐬀, from the tradition's own record. The canonical transliteration is Haoma.
Exhibit 2 — the flattened form. The plain form haoma differs from the canonical Haoma only by convention of display — case, not content. It is acceptable everywhere: in legacy systems, in plain-text citation, in the DNS itself. What is not acceptable is what follows in the register: respellings that change the letters, not just their case.
Exhibit 3 — the physical record. Haoma leaves no temple — his monument is the liturgy. But the soma–haoma debate ties him to material evidence: ephedra remains and pressing apparatus from Bronze Age Bactria–Margiana (the BMAC complex) have been read as soma/haoma paraphernalia, though the identification is contested. Avestan manuscripts from Iran and India transmit the ninth Yašt and the pressing chapters with their directions; Sasanian seals and silverwork show the ritual mortar and the banquet cup in aristocratic use. The modern fire temples of Yazd, Mumbai, and Karachi, where the pounding still sounds, are the cult's living site.
Exhibit 4 — the continuing record. The pressing never ended. Parsi priests in India and Zoroastrians in Iran still perform the Yasna nightly, pounding ephedra where the original mountain plant cannot be had; the botanical identity remains debated — the 'soma–haoma problem', argued from ephedra to harmel to psychoactive candidates.
The Convention's Own History
Every tradition in this register has its own scholarly transliteration standard, built by its own specialists over decades or centuries, and the register follows each on its own terms: Avestan scholarly transliteration as the liturgies are edited. The principle that unifies them is the one the whole project stands on: a name is evidence, and evidence is not negotiable — not for keyboards, not for convenience, not for anyone.
The Protocol's Position
Can the canonical form live in the address bar? Almost always, yes. IDNA 2008 admits every mark this register defends — the DNS stores them as `xn--` punycode and modern browsers render them natively. The real frictions are practical, not legal: some registrars stock only part of the IDN space, so a theoretically valid name can be temporarily unbuyable; and stacked combinations (an acute riding a macron) remain awkward to type on mobile keyboards even where the protocol accepts them.
The project's answer is a ranked ladder, not a compromise: the full restoration first, then attested fallbacks in descending order of completeness. The ladder's lowest rung, plain ASCII, is a vehicle for legacy systems — sanctioned, but never presented as the scholarly form.
The Verdict
Case closed on Haoma: canonical, cited, and defended. The keyboard form haoma is the same name in another register of display — always acceptable. The register's files remain open: if a source surfaces that changes any line of this entry, the entry changes. Until then, the temple at /haoma/ holds the canonical form.
The docket for this ruling: no false forms on the docket; no contested forms attested.
The Register Continues
The register holds 548 entries like this one — each temple with its own ruling. Read the temple's founding dispatch for the story, its Restoration File for the philology, its Resonance File for the industries, or the whole archive end to end.
Continue the register — previous entry: Hanumān (read it) · next entry: Hati (read it).
The Canonical Register is written from the same canonical record as the lexicon itself. If a false form is missing from this page, it is because the evidence does not support calling it false — or because we have not seen it yet. Show us, with a citation, and the register will answer.