Mary Boyce never practiced field archaeology. Nevertheless, more than any specialist of Zoroastrianism who preceded her and many who followed, she was aware of the importance of archaeological documentation, especially for periods and regions where the dearth of textual sources is extreme. She was also careful about quelling overly hasty enthusiasm for Zoroastrian ritual interpretation of material remains. Many of her contributions drew the atten contributions, the influence they exerted on the approach of archaeologists, and also the additions and corrections which are now required by the subsequent accumulation of material. 1) The article “On the Zoroastrian temple cult of Fire” (1975), which, among other consequences, put an end to the long- standing theory of the fire altars burning in particularly conspicuous places; 2) The article “Iconoclasm among the Zoroastrians” (same year), still valid for Iran itself but now to be revised as far as Central Asia is concerned; 3) The ethnographic observations made during her field experience in the Zoroastrian villages near Yazd (1963–64), which are often relevant for the interpretation of details of past funerary customs and structures, as well as pilgrimages. Illustrations of pertinent archaeological and iconographic documents are included in the article.tion of archaeologists and prompted them to question their preconceptions. This paper examines several of these