From a Cosmic Order (Asha) to Countless Yazatas, or From One Ahura to a Thousand Attributes?

This study examines the structural transformation of the religious system of the ancient Iranian Plateau through the analytical framework of Retroductive Structural Hermeneutics (RSH 2.0). The central tension investigated is the apparent contradiction between the transcendent, singular conception of Ahura Mazda in the oldest Avestan texts, the Gāthās (c. 1500–1000 BCE), and the near-equal veneration accorded to figures such as Mithra and Anahita in the later Yašts (c. 1000–500 BCE). Rather than asking the conventional question of whether Iranian religion was originally polytheistic or monotheistic, this study asks: does the observed proliferation of divine figures in Iranian religious history represent the emergence of independent deities from an originally polytheistic system, or does it constitute the gradual functional dispersion of a primordial cosmic order (Asha) and a supreme authority (Ahura Mazda) into local and functional manifestations over time? This question—"From a Cosmic Order (Asha) to Countless Yazatas, or From One Ahura to a Thousand Attributes?"—constitutes the central axis of the entire study. Through four hermeneutical models and the testing of two competing paradigms, the study demonstrates that the Iranian data cannot be fully explained by unilinear linear developmental templates. The study concludes by leaving 1 the reader at an inevitable threshold, presenting the data and models without imposing a definitive conclusion—a modern application of Socratic dialectics within a comparative civilisational research programme. Keywords: Iranian religion, Ahura Mazda, Asha, Amesha Spenta, Yazata, Mithra, Anahita, Gāthās, Yašts, Retroductive Structural Hermeneutics, RSH 2.0, Functional Distribution of Sacred Authority, Exteriority to the Developmental Axis, Linear Developmental Template, Comparative Civilisational Analysis, Methodological Epoche. Note: This manuscript is released as a preprint to facilitate scholarly discussion and invite constructive feedback. It has not yet undergone formal peer review, and its arguments and conclusions may be revised in future versions.