Next Article in Journal
Selkea! Memories of Eating Non-Kosher Food among the Spanish–Moroccan Jewish Diaspora in Israel
Previous Article in Journal
Love’s Limits in Paul of Tarsus and Seneca the Younger
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Eschatologia Iranica I: From Zoroastrian Cosmos to Abbasid Madīnat al-Salām: A Journey through Utopia and Heterotopia †

Center for Religious Studies (CERES), Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany
In the memory of my colleague and friend Mohsen Zakeri (28 March 1954–20 July 2024).
Religions 2024, 15(10), 1170; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15101170
Submission received: 19 July 2024 / Revised: 26 August 2024 / Accepted: 9 September 2024 / Published: 26 September 2024

Abstract

:
The history of imperial dynasties in West Asia is replete with examples of remarkable urban foundations. Two notable instances are the Sasanian Ardašīr-xwarrah and the Abbasid Madīnat al-Salām, which can be classified as cosmic cities or heterotopias. This article examines the utopian foundations of these heterotopias. To this end, it analyzes four religious and imperial spaces: the representation of the earth and sky in the Zoroastrian cosmography, Yima’s Vara according to the Avestan texts, Ardašīr-xwarrah, and finally, Madīnat al-Salām. This investigation aims to ascertain the extent to which the spatial characteristics of each of these spaces have been utilized in the production of the subsequent architectural forms. Similarly, it examines the development of the cosmological and eschatological paradise in relation to the Achaemenian and Sasanian royal gardens. The theoretical framework of this study is based on Michael Foucault’s notion of heterotopia, which has been further developed by Henri Lefebvre’s theory of space. The conceptual metaphor theory offers a cognitive linguistic foundation for elucidating the projections of utopias and heterotopias onto one another. To this end, the article focuses on the conceptual metaphor GOD IS A KING.

1. Theoretical Framework

The history of imperial dynasties in West Asia is replete with examples of remarkable urban foundations. Two such instances stand out: Ardašīr-xwarrah (Glory of Ardašīr) at the emergence of the Sasanian dynasty and Madīnat al-Salām (City of Peace) located in the urban complex of Baghdad at the advent of the Abbasid caliphate. In a recent publication, I endeavored to demonstrate the similarities and differences between these two cities beyond the mere form of their surrounding walls as a perfect circle. The comparison led to the conclusion that Madīnat al-Salām imitates the principles of spatial representation established by Ardašīr-xwarrah, even where its spatial realizations differ from those of the Sasanian capital.
This paper will attempt to provide an answer to the question of why these two emperors invested so much in founding such excellent cities. One can simply discern the answer in the demonstration of royal power or proclamation of the political program, as the scholarship currently assumes.1 I suppose that there is more than just a political dimension in the spatial order of these cities. By emphasizing their religious aspects, I seek to promote consideration of whether Madīnat al-Salām has directly emulated Ardašīr-xwarrah or, alternatively, whether both cities represent or, more accurately, instantiate a transcendent space. The answer to this question will lead us to the Zoroastrian cosmology and another Iranian ideal space, Yima’s Vara.
The theoretical framework of my investigation is threefold. The first component is Michel Foucault’s notion of heterotopia. In order to differentiate such spaces from simple real spaces, Foucault (1984) divides the spaces that are both connected and contradictory to real places into two groups. On the one hand, there are utopias:
“Utopias are sites with no real place. They are sites that have a general relation of direct or inverted analogy with the real space of Society. They present society itself in a perfected form, or else society turned upside down, but in any case these utopias are fundamentally unreal spaces”
In contrast to utopias, Foucault posits the concept of heterotopias, which he defines as follows:
“[…] real places—places that do exist and that are formed in the very founding of society—which are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted. Places of this kind are outside of all places, even though it may be possible to indicate their location in reality”
Foucault postulates the existence of heterotopias in nearly all cultures, albeit in varying forms. As examples of heterotopias, Foucault cites locations for menstruating women, retirement homes, psychiatric institutions, prisons, brothels, and oriental gardens.
Foucault’s binary code of real/unreal, which differentiates between ordinary spaces and utopias, is problematic. It can be argued that utopias are as much a part of the socio-cultural realities as are ordinary spaces. This is even more urgent when dealing with the religious field, in which a distinction between the real and the unreal cannot be made on the meta-linguistic level. For Foucault, the distinction between the two types of space hinges on whether human beings are able to perceive them. However, the (social) existence of a space and, thus, its reality is independent of human perception. The aforementioned issue necessitates the replacement of this code within Foucault’s theory, which, in turn, leads us to the second component of my theoretical framework: Lefebvre’s theory of space. In his La production de l’espace, Henri Lefebvre (1974), a French philosopher and sociologist, attempts to construct a theoretical unity between three fields: physical, mental, and social (Lefebvre 1991, p. 11). He shifts the object of interest from “things in space to the actual production of space” (Lefebvre 1991, pp. 36f., 90). He emphasizes the process of production with the axiom “(Social) space is a (social) product” (Lefebvre 1991, p. 26). From these considerations, Lefebvre (1991, pp. 33, 38–40) arrives at a conceptual and analytical spatial triad:
  • Spatial practice (physical): It especially includes places, as well as spatial relations, which are characteristic of any social formation. As a perceived space, it connects the places of everyday life, private life, work, and leisure.
  • Representations of space (mental): They are linked to the order and knowledge, and to signs and codes. As conceived space or conceptualized space, it is the province of scientists, spatial planners, and technocrats. It constitutes the dominant space in any given society.
  • Representational space (social): They are linked to the hidden side of social life and embody complex symbolism. As a space directly lived through its associated images and symbols, it is of direct relevance to users and inhabitants. It overlaps with physical space and uses its objects symbolically.
Lefebvre maintains that the perceived, the conceived, and the lived spaces are in a dialectical relationship and that this triadic relationship cannot be reduced to a dyadic one. The components of this triad—spatial practice, representations of space, and representational spaces—correspond to the components of the triad physical, mental, and social, respectively. The socially constituted meaning is ascribed to the first two forms of spaces in the representational space. In other words, this latter space constitutes the semantic space. Thus, space is not merely produced by spatial practice or architectural design but also by the semantics ascribed to it.
The triadic space proposed by Lefebvre offers a potential replacement for the binary code real/unreal as posited by Foucault in his concept of heterotopia. Rather than considering the dichotomy of real/unreal or realized/unrealized space, it is more fruitful to ascertain whether spatial practice, the physical field, is involved in the production of the space in question. In other words, it is necessary to determine whether the produced space is perceptible or not. The distinction between utopian and ordinary spaces thus shifts from the dichotomy of real/unreal to that of perceptible/not perceptible.
In his text on heterotopia, Foucault presents some classifications of these spaces, which are not pertinent to the present discussion and will not be addressed here. Instead, I propose a further binary classification for heterotopias that is useful for the treatment of suggested Iranian and Islamic spaces. Heterotopias can be divided into two groups according to their relationship to the utopia they imitate and to the perceived space from which they diverge: (a) utopian spaces that have been made perceptible and (b) perceived spaces that have been utopianized. The heterotopias of the first group attempt to instantiate a utopia as a perceived space. In contrast, the heterotopic spaces of the second group idealize an existent perceived space until it can no longer be considered a usual space. If we understand heterotopias as spaces situated between utopias and the ordinary perceived spaces, then these two groups differ in the departure point of their production: the utopia imitated in the heterotopia or the physical space idealized into a heterotopia.2 By this consideration, we reflect not only on the produced space but also on its historical process of production. This process is inscribed into the produced space, as Lefebvre asserts:
“The historical and its consequences, the ‘diachronic’, the ‘etymology’ of locations in the sense of what happened at a particular spot or place and thereby changed it—all of this becomes inscribed in space. The past leaves its traces; time has its own script. Yet this space is always, now and formerly, a present space, given as an immediate whole, complete with its associations and connections in their actuality. Thus production process and product present themselves as two inseparable aspects, not as two separable ideas”
Accordingly, the two types of heterotopias may result from the chronological process of space production, whether an ideal image, a utopia, exists first and then a heterotopia emerges based on this image, or whether a perceived space that is considered a heterotopia exists and then a utopia is produced that is based on this space. In the concept of celestial paradise, these two types of heterotopias are inextricably intertwined (see below).
The interconnection between celestial and terrestrial paradises, and between their owners, god and king, provides the foundation for the third and final component of my theoretical framework: the conceptual metaphor theory. Initially proposed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980) and refined and extended by numerous cognitive linguists, including Zoltán Kövecses (2004, 2005, 2010, 2020) and Gerard Steen (2007), the theory posits that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical, and metaphor is pervasive not only in language but also in thought and action (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, p. 3). This theory defines conceptual metaphor as the process of construing or conceiving a more abstract (non-familiar) concept (target domain) in terms of a more concrete (more familiar, more physical) one (source domain). The first example provided by Lakoff and Johnson is the conceptual metaphor argument is war, accompanied by a number of linguistic expressions in everyday language that exemplify it. “argument is partially structured, understood, performed, and talked about in terms of war” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, p. 5). Thus, conceptual metaphors should be distinguished from the metaphorical expressions that make them explicit in language, which are referred to as linguistic metaphors. Construing or structuring the target domain through a source domain is accomplished through a set of mappings, i.e., systematic correspondences between the constituent conceptual elements of both domains. Linguistic metaphors that manifest a conceptual metaphor conform to these mappings. While some conceptual metaphors may be perceived as universal, others are culture-specific (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, pp. 3–5; Kövecses 2010, pp. 3–14).
The specific conceptual metaphor that will be the focus of this discussion is god is a king. This implies that the more abstract concept of god is partially construed and structured in terms of the more concrete and familiar concept of king. This leads to the conception of god as a ruler and, for example, the expectation of believers’ obedience to him. In the domain of Iranian languages, there are several prominent manifestations of this conceptual metaphor: The metaphorical use of “lord” (xwadāy) for god in Middle Persian, as in many other languages, resulted in its lexicalization in New Persian as “god”.3 The following set of mappings may be considered between these two domains:
Source: king Target: god
kingly political structuredivine organization (pantheon)
king’s ministersubordinate deities
king’s relation to his subjectsgod’s relation to his believers
the dress of kingthe dress of god
the residence of kingthe abode of god
king’s production god’s creation
Conceptual metaphors are unidirectional. This means that the mappings typically proceed from the elements of the more concrete concept to the more abstract one. This is also frequently observed in linguistic metaphors. Words and expressions from the source domain in verbal and non-verbal language serve to denote the target domain. Once a conceptual metaphor is established, we may encounter linguistic expressions that denote the source domain through the target domain. Early Sasanian kings referred to themselves as bay “god” and claimed a divine nature or origin for themselves (čihr az yazdān “whose nature/origin is from gods”). In this manner, the source domain king is partially restructured in terms of the target domain god.
The final two mappings of the conceptual metaphor god is a king will be discussed in this section. These mappings demonstrate correspondences between the king’s spatial production and god’s creation. To this end, I will discuss four ideal spaces: two utopias and two heterotopias. The initial space to be considered is the representation of the earth and the entire world in Zoroastrian cosmology, as presented in the Avestan sources and partly in the Pahlavi literature. I will proceed to the second utopia, Yima’s Vara, a mythical shelter conceived on the border between heaven and earth. I will then advance to a heterotopia, Ardašīr-xwarrah, the magnificent Sasanian capital, which was founded by Ardašīr, the founder of the dynasty, in the third century. Madīnat al-Salām, the glorious Abbasid capital built by al-Manṣūr in the eighth century, shortly after the founding of the Abbasid caliphate, constitutes the last heterotopia. For each space, I will demonstrate the similarities between it and the preceding spaces and how it is depicted as a paradisiac space through its architectural characteristics or how it is denoted as such in textual sources.

2. Earth and Sky in the Antique Zoroastrian Cosmography

The Iranian antiquity has not transmitted to us any cosmological text. In order to study the ancient Zoroastrian cosmology, we are limited to the allusions to it in the Avestan corpus. Although the Avestan texts do not explicitly attest to the form of the earth, we have passages at our disposal that evince the conception of the earth as a flat, broad, and circular surface in the Zoroastrian worldview.4 The circular form of the earth is also attested in Yt 19.43, where an analogy is drawn between heaven and earth on the one hand and chariot and wheel on the other. According to Yt 19.43, Kǝrǝsāspa states: “I am a minor, not yet of full age. When I come of age I will make the earth into my wheel, I will make the sky into my chariot!” (Hintze 1994, p. 24). This image may indicate that the Zoroastrians imagined the earth to be round, analogous to the wheel of a chariot.5
The Old Iranians seem to have imagined the round plane of the earth, similar to their Old Indian counterparts, as encompassed by a body of water called Raŋhā, parallel to Old Indic Rasā. Although this circumstance is not explicitly stated in the Avestan texts, it can be inferred from a few passages (Rezania 2017, pp. 184–87). The Avestan sources do not provide enough information about the position of the mountains on the earth in the Avestan cosmography. It is only possible to speculate as to whether this included a central mountain, as Meru in the Old Indian tradition, and/or an encircling mountain chain, as Yt 19.16 suggests (Rezania 2017, pp. 176–80). In contrast, the Pahlavi literature portrays a high mountain at the center of the earth and a mountain chain encircling its border.
Another noteworthy characteristic of the earth in the Zoroastrian cosmography is its triadic division, which is attested in Y 11.7.7 The precise form of this division, however, is not explicitly specified in the texts. One might infer this form from Yima’s triadic extension of the earth.8 It is reasonable to assume that Yima retained the earth’s geometrical form in each of his extensions. One could tentatively conclude that the entire circle of the earth comprises a central circle, the original earth before its extension by Yima, and three concentric rings surrounding it (see Figure 1).
Avestan cosmological speculations, similar to those of Old Indian tradition, include the so-called egg cosmology, which represents the cosmos as an egg. The Avestan cosmography seems to depict the sky as a stony dome over the earth.9 This results in a representation of the earth and the sky similar to a semi-ellipsoid (Rezania 2017, pp. 160–62).
Before progressing from Yima’s extension of the earth to his construction of Vara, it is worth noting that the cosmographic picture of the earth is a dialectical production, utilizing representations of space and representational space (semantic space). The spatial practice is merely included in this production. The Zoroastrian cosmological earth is, therefore, in the words of Lefebvre, much more a conceived space than a perceived one. Consequently, it is reasonable to consider this a utopia. Its geometric form is indicative of its conceived perfection.

3. Yima’s Vara

The second chapter of the Wīdēwdād (the Anti-Demonic Law) recounts a myth about Yima, ascribing to him a paradisiac kingdom and the construction of an escape space called Vara. Before examining these two utopian spaces, it is inevitable to distinguish between the two historical periods, antiquity and late antiquity, in regard to Yima’s figure in Iranian mythology. As scholarship has unambiguously shown, Yima constitutes the first king and the first mortal in the Indo-Iranian mythical tradition.10 The representation of this prototypical king in Zoroastrianism seems to have undergone some substantial reworkings depending on its relationship with the kingship, changing from supportive kings in the Achaemenid (and Sasanian) period to the often hostile caliphs of the early Islamic time.11 It is, therefore, imperative to differentiate between Yima’s more negative portrayals in the later Zoroastrian literature, specifically in the ninth- and tenth-century Pahlavi books, and his ambivalent representation in the Avestan texts.12 Bruce Lincoln (2012b = 2021, pp. 17–33) aptly shows that positive characterization of Yima goes in line with Achaemenid imperial program to represent the king as a savior, who has to re-implement the prototypic paradisiac state in the immanent empire, a “schema in which an original state of perfect unity is lost, after which a leader is divinely chosen to restore as much unity as possible” (Lincoln 2012b, p. 25; 2021, p. 27). He posits that the negative representation of Yima in the Zoroastrian tradition, in both the Avestan and Pahlavi literature, reflects the tension between the two ideologies of whether divinely chosen kings or priests are responsible for restoring the original perfection.13 The articulation of Yima’s myth, which was presumably (re)compiled in the Achaemenid period, is likely the result of considering him to be the prototypical king. His rejection of the responsibility towards daēnā, i.e., rejecting the prophetical role14 and becoming a prototypical king, and also his subsequent actions as depicted in his myth, represent him as a prototypical king who instantiates a sample of the perfect, transcendent world on the immanent earth.15 These include the following:
  • His multiplication and promotion of the creatures in his kingdom, which led to a situation in which there was no longer sufficient room for the creatures on the earth, and thus, he had to expand the earth three times. An ideal Achaemenid king did this for his territory as well. This territorial expansion provides a potential explanation for the placement of Yima’s myth after the first chapter of the Wīdēwdād, which offers a mytho-historio-geographical depiction of Iranian regions.
  • His selection of the best samples of each species.
  • His construction of Vara to temporarily overcome the hard troubles of the immanent world.
While Yima’s initial action fosters multiplicity, both of his subsequent acts contribute to unity, re-exemplifying the original paradisal state ruled by unity. The rest of this section will focus on Yima’s final action.
At the end of Yima’s golden age, Ahura Mazdā informs him that a severe winter is imminent, which will result in disastrous destruction, rendering the living beings extinct in the following spring. In order to provide shelter for the creatures, Yima was commanded to construct a Vara to house flora, fauna, and humans. In my book on the Zoroastrian spatial conception, I discussed the architecture and spatial order of Vara, its function, place, form, and size in detail. I will summarize the results here.16 A circle with a radius of 1.4 km forms the base area of the Vara, surrounded by a body of water. In accordance with Ahura Mazdā’s instructions, Yima divides his Vara into a central circle and a periphery encompassing three concentric rings. Furthermore, Yima constructs a series of “passages” (pǝrǝtu-) in each concentric ring: nine in the outer ring, six in the middle, and three in the inner one. This results in an almost radial-concentric division of the base area, although the exact configuration of the radial alleys is uncertain (see Figure 2). Yima populates each alley in the outer ring area with 1000 individuals, each in the middle with 600, and each in the inner ring with 300. This results in a population density, which shrinks from the outer to the inner ring, thereby establishing a hierarchical social structure. Consequently, it can be postulated that there is a discernible increase in social status from the outermost zone to the center. Moreover, it can be assumed that the central circle of Vara remains unpopulated or reserved for a limited group of individuals. The Zoroastrian Vara, similar to its ancient Indian counterpart, was likely conceived as a mountain cave situated at the summit of Hukairiia, marking the border between the terrestrial and celestial realms (Rezania 2017, pp. 212–15). A rock, therefore, forms the roof of Vara’s surface. Consequently, the entire three-dimensional Vara can be represented as a semi-ellipsoid. Accordingly, the architectural similarities between Yima’s Vara and the earth and sky created by Ahura Mazdā can be observed as follows:
  • The circular outline of the surface;
  • The division into center and periphery;
  • The triadic division of the periphery;
  • The surrounding body of water;
  • The stony dome over the surface;
  • The semi-ellipsoid-like three dimensional space.
These similarities allow us to compare Yima’s construction of Vara and Ahura Mazdā’s creation of earth and sky. Not only Yima’s re-instantiation of Ahura Madā’s creation but also its placement at the summit of Hukairiia at the border of the earth and the sky represent Vara as an idyllic space. Its position and its reproduction of the cosmic space result in a partial fractal, whereby the spatial pattern of the cosmos can be found on a smaller scale within itself. The self-similarity of the cosmos implies a similarity between Ahura Mazdā and his creature, Yima. Yima’s creation, thus, cannot be anything other than an ideal space, similar to Ahura Mazdā’s creation. The Avestan texts are not reticent in portraying the beatific state of Yima’s kingdom and his Vara in vivid terms, such as a kingdom devoid of cold or heat, illness or destruction, old age or death, aridity or desiccated vegetation, thirst or hunger, and any sign of Evil Spirit.17 They, moreover, highlight the richness of life in these two spaces and claim the most beautiful life for their inhabitants, along with an extensive perception of the temporal duration.18 Of significance is Yima’s role as the king of the world of the dead in Old Indian tradition, a role that is partly reflected in his Avestan attribute xšaēta- “shining, brilliant”.19 Yima’s movement at noon and toward the lights (V 2.10) and, thus, towards the south is consistent with the association of paradise with this direction (Boyce 1968, p. 204; Tzatourian 2012, p. 210). In this context, the narration alludes to green meadows (V 2.26, 34), a significant element of earthly and heavenly paradises (Güntert 1923, pp. 317, 370–72). Most significantly, the paradisiac state of Yima’s Vara is represented by a triadic joy of seeing, smelling, and tasting, where the beauty of inhabitants and animals, the fragrance of the plants,20 and the good taste of the foods are all celebrated (V 2.27f., 35f.). Descriptions like these parallel the depiction of the free soul’s encounter with the vision-soul in the Hādōxt Nask. Such representations of Yima’s kingdom persist in the Pahlavi literature.21 With its three hierarchical ring zones around the most prestigious center, Vara resembles the four-storied paradisiac space of Zoroastrianism, which is reached by free-soul’s four steps: good thoughts, good words, good deeds, and finally, beginningless/endless lights (HN 2.15).22 Of particular interest is the simile employed in Dk 7.1.24, which compares Yima’s realm with Ohrmazd’s abode: kard gēhān pad xwašīh ciyōn garōdmān “He made the world like the heaven in its pleasure”. We can thus assert that Yima’s Vara constitutes a utopia conceived through spatial representations and imbued with semantics through representational space.

4. Ardašīr-xwarrah

The archaeological excavations have yielded valuable insights into the architectural characteristics of Ardašīr-xwarrah (see Figure 3), allowing for a direct comparison with the two utopias described above. Ardašīr-xwarrah shares the first four common characteristics, listed in the previous section, with the other two spaces. Moreover, Ardašīr’s and Yima’s constructions have the following features in common:
  • The radial-concentric division of the periphery;
  • An uninhabited center;
  • The hierarchization of the ring zones with descending social status from the center to the periphery;
  • A surrounding enclosure.
If we assume that Zoroastrian cosmography in the third century CE included a high mountain in the center of the earth (Hukar) and a mountain chain encircling it (Harburz), two other spatial features can be added to the list of shared characteristics between the structure of the earth and the architecture of Ardašīr-xwarrah.
Among the treatises in historical geography from the Islamic period, Ibn al-Balkhī (1921, p. 138), the author of a local history and geography of Persis in the first decades of the 12th century, expresses the perfection of the circle of Ardašīr-xwarrah’s surrounding wall “as drawn with compasses”. Given the high costs of producing a perfect circular wall,23 it is reasonable to assume that the circular wall served an aesthetic and/or symbolic function. Another architectural feature of Ardašīr-xwarrah is the presence of multiple surrounding walls. The Avestan equivalent of Old Persian paradai̯dā- is attested as a hapax legomenon in V. 3.18, where it is used in the instruction for the discrimination of corpse keepers’ places. Provided there is no textual contamination in this regard, the declension of the word pairi.daēza- in the plural indicates that the selected plot should be encircled at least three times since Avestan declension has three numbers: singular, dual, and plural. The demarcation of Ardašīr-xwarrah from its surrounding area through a triple enclosure, two enclosing the entire city and one encircling the city center, seems to have been conducted in accordance with the Zoroastrian rules of demarcation (Rezania 2017, pp. 62–69). It is not my intention to place undue emphasis on this single piece of evidence. It is, however, striking that both Ardašīr-xwarrah and Madīnat al-Salām (see below) exhibit three surrounding walls. Ardašīr-xwarrah also incorporates an additional thin polygonal wall, situated about four kilometers away from the city center, which encompasses the gardens surrounding the city proper.
The most significant spatial characteristic of Ardašīr-xwarrah that renders it a heterotopia is its specific radial-concentric division. The peripheral ring zone surrounding the city center was divided into 20 radial sectors. Consequently, the polygon of the outermost wall was twenty-angled. The central circle beside the 20 radial sectors, or the center of the twenty-angled polygon beside its angles, yields 21 areas or points in the city. The construction of an aqueduct wall outside the polygonal wall, oriented precisely towards the center, resulted in 21 radii outside the polygonal wall. The increased number of radii to 21 outside the polygonal area indicates a conscious use of the number 21 in the layout of the city. This figure represents one form of the Zoroastrian perfect divisions, represented as the number of the words in the prayer Ahunawar, the most praised Zoroastrian prayer, as the number of books in the Sasanian Avesta to come and as the number of the names attributed to Ahura Mazdā in Yt 1.7f., in addition to his proper name. Correspondingly, the architecture of the city represents the structure of the Zoroastrian sacred text. According to V 19.9, the most sublime Zoroastrian prayer, presumably the Ahunawar, was created for the timeless time or eternity. The prayer’s existence prior to Ahura Mazda’s creation is explicitly expressed in its Young Avestan commentary. In Y 19.1f., Zarathustra inquires which prayer was already existent before the creation of the six archetypes. The Ahunawar is the answer according to Y 19.3. This prayer, thus, is presented as timeless, eternal, and transcendent. By its architecture, Ardašīr-xwarrah, hence, instantiates a transcendent form in the immanent world, spatializing an ideal state, a utopia, in the perceived space and, in doing so, producing a heterotopia.
We are allowed to compare the programmatic goals of the prototypical king of Iranians, Yima, and the founder of the Sasanian Empire because the kings of this latter dynasty followed the Achaemenians and attempted to re-install their kingship on the earth. Yima seems to have represented the ideal king for the Achaemenid kings (see above). An anecdote in the Middle Persian text Kārnāmag ī ardašīr ī pābagān (“The Ardašīr’s Chronicle”) evinces a relationship between the Zoroastrian prototypical king, Yima, and the first Sasanian king. The text recounts that Ardašīr, while fleeing with the Parthian king’s favorite maid and riding on a horse, had been observed being followed by a large and agile ram. Upon hearing this, Ardawān, who was in pursuit of Ardašīr, asked his religious advisor to provide an interpretation of the scene. The ram was understood to represent the xwarrah of sovereignty (xwarrah ī xwadāyīh), according to the consultant. On the following day, the ram is said to have sat on the back of Ardašīr’s horse. Ardawān’s advisor interpreted this as an indication that the royal xwarrah (xwarrah ī kayān) had reached Ardašīr. Carlo Cereti reasonably alludes to Yima’s xwarrah in this context: “The important role played by xwarrah also fits well in the Zoroastrian context. The Kar-nāmag [sic!] represents the xwarrah, which in Yima’s legend […] is depicted as a falcon, in the form of a ram (warrag)” (Cereti 2011). Ardašīr is granted the kingship upon the arrival of the xwarrah, analogous to his prototype, Yima, who holds his kingship as long as the xwarrah stays with him. The name of Ardašīr’s city also serves to highlight the significance of the xwarrah for his kingship and the capital of his kingdom. It is, thus, not far-fetched to consider Ardašīr-xwarrah a re-exemplification of Yima’s utopia. As Yima’s reproduction of the cosmic space in his Vara results in a partial fractal, Ardašīr’s reproduction of earth’s spatial order in his capital, i.e., the center of the world, yields the same geometric pattern. To this end, Ardašīr-xwarrah not only resembles god’s earth and Yima’s Vara but also reproduces their relationship in the immanent space.
Dietrich Huff (2008, 2014) made the case that Ardašīr demonstrates his centralist agenda for the Sasanian dynasty to come in its capital. In light of Lincoln’s assertion that the Iranian king bears the responsibility for re-establishing the original perfection, Huff’s hypothesis could be extended that Ardašīr-xwarrah was also a reproduction of an original perfect realm, which restores the original unity in the form of concentric circles, distinguished from the mundane world by multiple walls and, thus, a paradise on the earth. By founding Ardašīr-xwarrah as a perfect city, the first Sasanian ruler presented himself to his subjects as an ideal king and his kingdom, characterized by its capital, as the re-establishment of the original divine abode on the earth.
Four cardinal streets divide Ardašīr-xwarrah into four areas. This may allude to the founder’s status as the king of the four corners of the world.24 In earlier scholarship, the four corners of the kingdom were considered to be parallel to the four rivers of the Biblical paradise, crossing at its central mountain.25 This aligns with the aforementioned conceptual metaphor god is a king, which includes, among others, the following mapping: the structure of god’s abode corresponds to the structure of the king’s capital or empire. It is, thus, important to consider the possibility of a correspondence between the four rivers of paradise and Ardašīr-xwarrah. The Ardašīr’s Chronicle, previously referenced, mentions four streams in the construction of the capital following Ardasīr’s victory against Ardawān:26 “He made a city, called Ardašīr-xwarrah, dug a big lake, brought water via four streams from it, and founded a fire”.27 The quadripartite division of earthly gardens in the Iranian tradition extends to the medieval Islamic period.28 The quadripartite division of Ardašīr-xwarrah, its four cardinal streets and four streams, may thus allude to four corners of the world and the four rivers of the paradise. In this way, Ardašīr’s capital may re-instantiate a Four Garden.
In the absence of a foundation charter for Ardašīr-xwarrah, which could provide us evidence for the king’s construction aims, I am compelled to resort to the inscriptions of the Achaemenians, who served as a model for the Sasanian kings. Lincoln and Canepa aptly point out the cosmological significance of the term fraša- in the Susa foundation inscription. Darius asserts that by constructing the palace, he made a wonder (frašam kṛtam), “an ontological and material foretaste of the wonders of the earth after the ‘Wonder Making’ of the Renovation (Av. frašō.kərəti-). […] the Persian palaces are literally and figuratively a ‘paradise’ on earth” (Canepa 2018, p. 306). It would not be far-fetched to ascribe a similar ideology to Ardašīr in his implementation of Ardašīr-xwarrah, the (re-)instantiation of god’s or prototypic king’s utopia in his heterotopia.

5. Madīnat al-Salām

In the aforementioned forthcoming publication, which examines the architectural relationship between Madīnat al-Salām (see Figure 4) and Ardašīr-xwarrah (Rezania forthcoming), I identify some twenty common features in the architecture of both capitals. Considering their architectural differences, the article demonstrates that in the majority of cases, Madīnat al-Salām has reused the spatial representational principles of the Ardašīr-xwarrah. These similarities encompass the shared features among the Zoroastrian cosmos, Yima’s Vara, and Ardašīr-xwarrah, as outlined in the previous section, with the exception of the triadic division of the periphery (the third item in the list). The division of Madīnat al-Salām’s periphery is radial-concentric, but it only has two concentric rings. It can be argued that the stony dome over the surface (feature number 5 in the list of the section on Vara above) is represented by the dome of the caliph’s palace at the center of the city (see below). In this manner, the architectural design of Madīnat al-Salām alludes to the Iranian cosmos, specifically the earth, through its circular outline, moat, surrounding walls, central tower, and turquoise dome, which parallel the earth plain, Raŋhā, Harburz, Hukar, and the stony sky. The Islamic tradition has incorporated some of these Iranian components into its cosmology. Harburz, the world-encircling mountains, is represented in the Islamic cosmography as Mount Qāf.29 The material and color associated with Qāf, chrysolite or emerald and turquoise, tie it to the sky (Wendell 1971, pp. 120–22).
Similar to Ardašīr-xwarrah, the layout of the religious sacred text was represented in Madīnat al-Salām’s architecture. Instead of the 20 radial divisions beside the center, a total of 21 sections in Ardašīr-xwarrah, 113 towers were presumably erected on the enclosure wall of Madīnat al-Salām. The 113 towers of Madīnat al-Salām’s wall beside its central tower may have symbolized the 114 Suras of the Qur’an. In doing so, Madīnat al-Salām projects the structure of the Islamic heavenly book on the earth in a manner similar to how Ardašīr-xwarrah does it with the Zoroastrian sacred prayer. In this worldview, the structure of beatific spaces resembles the heavenly structure of the sacred text.
Analogous to Ardašīr-xwarrah, the triple surrounding walls of Madīnat al-Salām produced a paradisiac space. It can be argued that the outer wall of the round city was probably not intended for defense, given that the inner wall was crenelated, higher, and stronger (al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī 1985, p. 73). If this assumption holds true, it implies that the outer wall served a more symbolic purpose than a protective one. Due to the lack of sources, however, this remains speculative. In light of the city’s pronounced symbolic nature, it is plausible to propose that the total number of its walls symbolizes the concept of paradise.
In the previous section, it was argued that Ardašīr-xwarrah did not only spatialize the sociopolitical plan of its founder but also instantiated a utopia. Consequently, it can hardly be accepted that al-Manṣūr constructed his remarkable round city by merely emulating the design of military camps.30 A significant degree of ideological speculation may have played a prominent role in its design. The historical geographers of the period do not hesitate to apply their narratological devices to depict Madīnat al-Salām (represented by its urban context, Baghdad) as a perfect city. In his Kitāb al-buldān, al-Yaʿqūbī (1892, 233f.) begins his geographical exploration with Baghdad, justifying this as follows:
“I am starting with Iraq since Iraq is the center of the world and the navel of the earth and I am mentioning Baghdad since it is located in the center of Iraq and it is a unique city in the East and the West regarding its expanse, greatness, buildings, prosperity, amplitude of water and weather”.31
al-Yaʿqūbī (1892, p. 234) and Yāqūt (1866–1873, 1:p. 686) laud Baghdad’s climate, the uniqueness of its place, and its location at the center of the world, deduced from mathematical calculations (!).32 Yāqūt (1866–1873, 1:pp. 684–93) dedicates more than half of his extensive entry for the lemma baghdād to the extolling its virtues, in both verse and prose. He refers to Baghdad as “mother of the world and mistress over the countries” (Yāqūt 1866–1873, 1:p. 677; Bayānī 1377, pp. 121–24). According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Abū ʿUthmān ʿAmr b. Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ has expressed Baghdad’s greatness as follows:
“I have seen the great cities, including those noted for their durable construction. I have seen such cities in the districts of Syria, in Byzantine territory, and in other provinces, but I have never seen a city of greater height, more perfect circularity, more endowed with superior merits or possessing more spacious gates, or more perfect faṣīls than az-Zawrāʾ, that is to say, the city of Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr”33.
Similarly, al-Yaʿqūbī (1892, p. 238) accentuates the singularity of Madīnat al-Salām as the only round city in the entire world, and al-Maqdisī (1877, p. 119) identifies it as the most outstanding city globally.
Another strategy employed to portray Baghdad as a magnificent city was to link its architectural components to the glorious or remote past. According to the historical narratives, al-Manṣūr consulted with Khālid b. Barmak regarding the use of spolia from Ctesiphon for the purpose of constructing his new capital in Baghdad (for references, see Rezania, forthcoming). It is irrelevant whether or not Baghdad’s engineers reused spolia from Ctesiphon. What is significant is that the narration glorifies Baghdad by linking it to a glorious past. al-Ṭabarī (1879–1901, p. 321), moreover, states that al-Manṣūr permitted the transportation of five gates from Wasit, constructed by al-Hajjāj b. Yusuf, to Madīnat al-Salām. Four of these gates were installed on the inner wall of the city, while the final gate was utilized as the outer entrance to the central palace. These gates, however, had a longer mythical history. They are narrated to date from Solomon’s time, when he built the city al-Zandaward and “the shayṭâns at Solomon’s command made five gates of iron for it, ‘such that no man living today could fabricate their like’” (Wendell 1971, p. 113).
Historical narrations associate Baghdad with the concept of eternity, the transcendent time, by various means. According to the ex post constructed horoscope of the city, an astrologer predicted that no caliph would die a natural death in Baghdad.34 Furthermore, Islamic historiographers do not merely reiterate this prophecy; they also attempt to verify it by listing the places of death of various caliphs following al-Manṣūr outside of Baghdad (Eisenstein 1985).
The paradisiac state of al-Manṣūr’s capital is indicated above all by calling it “paradise”. The city was variously referred to as Jannat al-ard, “Paradise of the earth”, and Madīnat as-salām,35 “City of Peace”, both of which refer to the Qurʾanic terms for paradise, Jannat,36 “Garden”, and Dār as-salām,37 “House of Peace”. A poet from the time of caliph al-Maʾmūn calls it “paradise on earth” in his praise of Baghdad (al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī 1985, p. 68). Al-Manṣūr also called his second palace with a spacious garden outside the city “paradise”. It bore the title al-Khuld (al-Ṭabarī 1879–1901, pp. 274, 379) “eternity”, with the following exemplary rationale: “The palace of al-Mansūr was named al-Khuld because of its likeness to Jannal al-khuld “the Garden of Eternity”, and because it commanded remarkable view and revealed superior planning and magnificent architectural construction” (al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī 1985, p. 75; Lassner 1970, p. 55). As this narration states, the term khuld is reminiscent of the Quranic terms Jannat al-khuld (25:15) and Dār al-khuld (41:28) and, thus, ties al-Mansūr’s construction to paradise.38 Another palace on the banks of the Tigris in the southern part of Baghdad and a palace of al-Muʿtazid (pp. 279–89/892–902) were called al-Firdaus, another Qurʾanic name for paradise39 with an Iranian origin (see n. 51 below).
The palace of Al-Manṣūr, situated at the center of the round city, was distinguished by a magnificent dome, whose apex stood at a height of ca. 40 m above the earth. This architectural feature led to the palace being known as al-Qubbat al-khaḍrāʾ (Ibn Rustih 1890, p. 108). As the sky is referred to as al-khaḍrāʾ due to its color (Ibn Manẓūr 1300–1307, vol. 4, p. 1183), this name alludes to the sky. The green/turquoise color, moreover, links Madīnat al-Salām’s center and, by extension, the entire round city to paradise. According to the Qurʾan (18:31), the inhabitants of paradise will be wearing “green garments” (thiyūb khuḍr).40 This color is of particular significance in Islamic tradition, so much so that Muʿāwiya’s I Dome in Damascus, al-Hajjāj’s Dome in Wasit, and the Dome of Madīnat al-Salām were referred to as qubbat al-islām “the Dome of Islam”.
Another element of the paradisiac representation of both Ardašīr-xwarrah and Madīnat al-Salām in the Islamic accounts is the accentuation of the beauty of their surrounding gardens and especially their perfumes. al-Iṣṭakhrī (1870, p. 124) asserts that at each gate of Madīnat al-Salām, there are gardens one parasang long. Moreover, he (al-Iṣṭakhrī 1870, 152f.) lists different perfumes of Gūr, i.e., Ardašīr-xwarrah (Schwarz 1896–1936, p. 58). al-Maqdisī (1877, p. 442) lauds the gardens, perfumes, and beauty of Baghdad. Perfumes, moreover, serve as a conduit between the two cities. For a considerable period following the Sasanian era, traders transported the renowned rose water of Ardašīr-xwarrah to Baghdad. By highlighting the themes of gardens and perfumes, these texts subtly allude to the sensory pleasures of heaven. As already expressed in the Avestan text Hādōxt Nask, they include three senses in the Iranian tradition: fragrant smell, good taste, and beautiful look.41
Historical treatises attempt to suggest that the appearance of Madīnat al-Salām as an extraordinary city was predicted for a long time before its construction. Ibn al-Faqīh (1885, 162f.) presents the city’s glory by recounting an event from the Sasanian period that foretold the city’s construction near Ctesiphon:
“[…] long before the fall of the Sasanian Empire, a mysterious light used to hover over the site, but disappeared when approached. It was reported to Kisra, who passed on the problem to his seers (kahana) and sages (ulamāʾ). Their verdict was: ‘A town shall be built on this site, whose people shall bring about the destruction of the Persians’”
The construction of a paradisiac city was thus inscribed in the celestial sphere and could be read from the stars. The depicted time for the foundation of Madīnat al-Salām was, therefore, a deliberate point in time, which the most competent court astrologers, Naubakht and Mashallah, calculated Rabīʿ al-awwal of 141 (al-Yaʿqūbī 1892, p. 238). It is irrelevant whether or not astrologers had determined the time point of the construction of the palatial city. Significant is the textual representation of its foundation as a predefined divine act. Al-Ṭabarī provides another prophetic narration related to the foundation of the city:
“On the way for searching a comfortable settlement, one of caliph’s commanders needed medical treatment. In their conversation the physician responds: ‘In one of our books we find it written that a man named Miqlāṣ will build a city called al-Zawrā’.42 As Caliph hears the physician’s statement says: ‘By God, I’m that very man! I was called Miqlāṣ as a lad but then the name for me fell into disuse’”43.
As Lassner (1965, 138f.) points out, this narration should be considered a literary motif, “which Muslim authors used to glorify the building programs of the Caliph”, as it is similarly reported for other buildings as well.44 Such a prediction, however, represents the construction of the caliph as the realization of a divine plan in the mundane space.
In the aforementioned publication on the relationship between Madīnat al-Salām’s and Ardašīr-xwarrah’s architecture (Rezania, forthcoming), I discussed some ties between Madīnat al-Salām and its Iranian background. It is certain that the Islamic authors were reluctant to depict any link between the capital of the Islamic caliphate and the “pagan” Iran. Numerous passages, however, attest to this link. One such example is the name of the metropolis, baghdād. It is well-known that the name is much older than al-Manṣūr’s capital45 and was given to a city in Mesopotamia with a group of Aramaic-speaking Nabateans as its most populous inhabitants. The etymology of the name is uncertain. One hypothesis suggests that it is derived from the Old Persian term baga-dāta-, meaning “set/founded by God” (Kennedy 1988). As Christopher Beckwith (1984, p. 152, n. 4) aptly expresses, “whatever the age, original form, and original meaning of the name, the only relevant factor is that the Arabs—and no doubt the local inhabitants before them—considered it to be Persian, and so explained it”. Of importance for my discussion is thus its folk-etymology, how some Islamic authors46 understood it to consist of bagh, meaning “idol” (Ar. ṣanam) or “god”, and dād, as a personal name or in the sense of “given; gift”. They compare it with baghistān, which they translate “house of idols”. Among these sources, the Mafātīḥ al-ʿulūm of Abī ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad Khwārazmī, composed shortly after 977 (Bosworth 2010), provides a significant piece of evidence on the etymology of baghdād. It is, therefore, worthy of quotation in its entirety:
“Baghistān is the house of idols and bagh is the idol, and that is how Baghdad is called, i.e., “the gift of the idol”, according to al-Aʾṣmaʿī. The reason is that they call king bagh. They are leader and lord, and king of China is thus called bagh-pūr, i.e., the son of the king”.
In his book Taṣḥ īḥ al-faṣīḥ, Ibn Durustawaih states that al-Aʾṣmaʿī erred in what he mentioned about the etymology of baghdād because the Persians were not idol-worshippers, but it is bāgh-dād, bāgh is the orchard, and dād, a person name.
This is an erroneous invention of Ibn Durustawaih and a blatant mistake, as bagh means, according to Persians, “the god; the lord; the king”, and they used to worship idols and be blessed by them. They call the idol bagh and the house of idols baghistān. I believe that the Persians used to worship them and depict them in the images of kings and leaders. Baghdad, supposedly, means “the king’s gift” (Khwārazmī 1895, p. 115f.).
This excerpt firstly demonstrates that the name of Baghdad and the city itself were intimately connected to the Iranian past, at least in the minds of Islamic scholars. Secondly, the quotation entails a few manifestations of the conceptual metaphor god is a king. Considering the designation of kings as bay (<OP baga-) in the early Sasanian Middle Persian inscriptions and as theós in the Greek ones, Khwārazmī is not wrong in giving the meaning “the god; the lord; the king” for bagh. From his perspective, the border between a creation by a god and a foundation by a king blurs in Baghdad. It is equally a gift from god and a gift from the king.
None of the abovementioned pieces of evidence substantiate the perception or representation of Madīnat al-Salām/Baghdad as an earthly paradise by itself alone. When considered collectively, they demonstrate how the Muslim authors attempted to highlight its magnificence and heavenly character, portraying it as a paradise on earth; in other words, a heterotopia, which makes god’s paradise perceptible in the immanent world. Wendell (1971, p. 122) elucidates this symbolic function of Baghdad in ample words:
“As ruler of the colossal ʿAbbasid Empire, al-Manṣur re-enacted the role of the ancient kings before him, and in fact the role of the original Creator who had set the paradigm for all ages to come, when he founded his new city to symbolize not only the change of dynasty, but a divinely decreed sovereignty over the world. The plan of Baghdad is really nothing less than an Islamic mandala worked out on the huge scale of urban architecture. It is certainly a schematic representation of the world—essentially that of the Sasanian monarchs—in purely formal, aniconic terms”.

6. Ardašīr-xwarrah as a Representational Space in Textual Sources

Archaeological investigations attest to the existence of two monumental buildings in the central area of Ardašīr-xwarrah: a high tower with a square layout at the center of the city circle as the symbol of sovereignty and a fire-temple in the form of four-Ivan-chamber. Historical sources from the Islamic period, however, identify the four-Ivan-chamber in the central court of Ardasīr-xwarrah’s as Ardasīr’s palace.47 As these authors were likely aware of the Sasanian–Islamic principle that closely linked architectural design for government and religious buildings, they expected to find both types of structures in close proximity within the central court of Ardašīr-xwarrah. The central court of Madīnat al-Salām encompassed representatives of both sovereignty and religion alike. Similar to Ardašīr-xwarrah, a high building with a square layout was located at the center of Madīnat al-Salām, but this domed structure served as al-Manṣūr’s palace. A mosque constructed in accordance with the architectural principles of the prophet’s mosque in Medina bordered the caliph’s palace. Consequently, these historical authors postulated the existence of a fire on the apex of the high tower of the city. It is uncertain whether the functions of the tower and the Ivan-chamber building were correctly known or whether they were already conflated at the time of Madīnat al-Salām’s foundation. Additionally, the extent to which the architecture of this palatial city and the use of Ivan-chamber construction as a prominent Sasanian palace architecture contributed to the confusion among historical geographers remains unclear.
The historical relationship and/or structural similarity of both cities has been reflected in the historical geographers’ descriptions of Ardašīr-xwarrah. Interestingly, they represent the two constructions of Ardašīr-xwarrah, the monumental tower and the fire-temple, as one and the same building, blending their architectural characteristics. In some instances, they portray Ardašīr-xwarrah’s tower as a domed structure.48 Archaeological investigations, however, indicate that a dome was lacking from the tower. Its description as a tower with a dome resembles the central high building of the caliph’s palace, which was known for its elaborate dome. Therefore, it can be assumed that the historical geographers looked back at Ardašīr-xwarrah with the architecture of Madīnat al-Salām in mind. This post-Baghdadian historical projection of Madīnat al-Salām onto Ardašīr-xwarrah re-spatializes the Sasanian heterotopia on the basis of the Islamic one and strengthens its utopian character by allowing it to more closely resemble Madīnat al-Salām.

7. God’s Creation and King’s Foundation, King’s Garden and God’s Paradise

The resemblance of extraordinary places to the cosmos is a well-known phenomenon with roots in antiquity. Herodotus’ description of the Median royal city of Ecbatana evokes the concept of a cosmic city. He reports of a city with seven circuit walls, increasing in height from the outer to the inner rings. They were covered in different colors, the two innermost ones in silver and gold, reminiscent of the moon and the sun. Hans Peter l’Orange compiled numerous examples of cosmic cities in his seminal work, Iconography of Cosmic Kingship. Despite the necessity for a re-evaluation of the data used in his survey conducted 70 years ago, his concept of the cosmic city (l’Orange 1953, pp. 9–14) remains as useful as before. The phenomenology of religion also emphasized the importance of cosmic cities. Mircea Eliade posits that sacred places recreate an image of the cosmos (imago mundi); territories, cities, and temples reconstruct celestial archetypes.49 However, this phenomenological view on political and religious spaces requires a revision.
Rather than representing the transcendent and immanent spaces in a unidirectional dependency, I propose that they conceptually stand in a reciprocal mirroring relation. It is not only the earthly space that mirrors the heavenly one; rather, the transcendent space is produced by mirroring an immanent magnificent space. In line with Eliade, Lincoln aptly demonstrates that the glorious palaces of Susa and Persepolis were designed to embody a utopian vision of a united, peaceful, and pleasing space known only from divine creation. In this context, Lincoln refers to Achaemenid paradai̭dā as “a space separated from mundane reality by encircling walls. Plants and animals of every species flourished there”.50 Lincoln notes that paradises “were sites where the condition God originally intended for all humanity had been recovered and put on display”.51 The Old Persian term paradai̭dā- and its equivalents in different languages52 denote “a state—and place, regularly identified as a garden—of absolute harmony, perfect satisfaction, and eternal peace”.53 Lincoln is correct in his assertion that such royal spaces exemplify the cosmos and god’s creation. With regard to the concept of paradise, however, Lincoln’s assumption regarding the Achaemenid palaces is more applicable to the Sasanian and Abbasid heterotopias. The relationship between Achaemenid gardens and god’s paradise was inverse, as Jan Bremmer astutely depicts: beginning from the earthly royal gardens of the Achaemenid Empire, developed in different stages, and finally projected on god’s garden by the Greek translation of the Hebrew Gan Eden in paradeisos.54 Kingly gardens, thus, are not a secondary instantiation of god’s paradise55 but rather that god’s paradise is a secondary reproduction of royal gardens. In this manner, the divine utopia is conceptually conceived on the basis of the perceived aristocratic gardens.56 One feature of the royal gardens is their exclusive accessibility to a limited group of individuals, namely the members of the royal family. Similarly, a restricted group of individuals, delineated according to religious tenets, gain access to god’s garden as an eschatological realm. The inaccessibility of royal gardens may thus have been a significant factor in their subsequent representation as a divine paradise.57
We can assume that these gardens provided sensory satisfactions that the Zoroastrian eschatological narrations promised in the hereafter (see above): tasteful products of their plants and trees58 and fragrant smell and visual beauty of their luxurious flowers. The precise date and location at which paradai̭dā acquired a cosmological connotation is uncertain. According to Wolfgang Fauth (1979, p. 6), this occurred as early as the era of Cyrus, the Great, as evidenced by the fact that his tomb was located in a paradai̭dā, Pasargadae.
In the first millennium CE, the relationships that Lincoln addresses for the Achaemenid era prevail. As his Achaemenid predecessors, Ardašīr reproduces the transcendent cosmological space, which exists only as a conceived and semantic representational space, as a perceived space in the immanent world. As his Sasanian forerunner, al-Manṣūr re-instantiates divine creation in Madīnat al-Salām. Both emperors exhibited the divine plan in their cities, as represented in their sacred texts. The mapping between god’s abode and the king’s pleasant space is evidently present in the Sasanian and Abbasid periods (Fauth 1979, p. 8). A Parthian Manichaean text narrates Mani’s encounter with a Sasanian ruler, Mihršāh, presumably Šābuhr’s I. brother: “He had a garden, very fine and wonderfully spacious, the like of which no other man had ever possessed”. As Mani approached Mihršāh, who was enjoying his meal in his garden, Mihršāh asks him: “In the paradise of which you speak, is there a garden such as mine?”.59 This passage directly compares god’s paradise (wahišt) with the ruler’s garden (bōδēstān). Furthermore, it appears to contrast the function of kings and prophets. It states: “In wondrous power (varž) he [Mani] showed him the Paradise of Light with all gods, deities and the immortal Air of Life, and a garden with all kinds (of things) and other desirable sights there”. While the king is responsible for bringing the god’s paradise down to earth through the construction of a paradisiacal garden, the prophet is tasked with showing (nimūdan) the earthly people god’s paradise and leading them up there. The king presents the god’s utopian paradise through a heterotopia, while the prophet presents it through a paradisiacal vision. The Iranian tradition values the communicational means of both the king and the prophet; Manichaeism, however, depreciates the king and his function.
David Stronach (1990b, p. 178) presents a comparable perspective on the historical evolution of the eight gardens of paradise. He acknowledges that the Abbasid palatial gardens likely drew their inspiration from the Quranic conception of eight gardens of paradise. He, however, poses the immediate question about the origin of the Quʾranic concept and highlights the existence of doubled fourfold gardens in Sasanian Iran. The evidence for this last hypothesis is admittedly slight, and a definitive assessment is not possible. If the archaeological evidence supports the existence of such octopartite gardens in pre-Islamic Iran, it is difficult to resist Stronach’s compelling argument that the image of the Sasanian royal garden initiated the Quranic concept. This process again implies the production of a transcendent utopia based on a perceptible immanent space, which is then elevated to a heterotopia in a second step.
In his fifth-century work, the Greek lexicographer Hesychius of Alexandria provides the following definition of the term οὐρανóς: “The Persians (called) ‘heavens’ the royal palaces and the halls, of which the coverings were made round” (Panaino 2004a, p. 572, also pp. 563–72; l’Orange 1953, p. 22). This lexicographic definition evinces the metaphorical mapping between the king’s palace and the god’s heaven, and it is evident that the circular form was regarded as the ideal form of kingly and heavenly spaces. As l’Orange (1953, p. 13) aptly puts it, this cosmic ideology represents the king as the sun amongst other heavenly bodies in a manner that places him at the center of his vassals and satraps. This reflection suggests that the king should be situated at the center of the city, as was the case in Ecbatana, according to Herodotus, and in Madīnat al-Salām. In contrast, we know from Sasanian cities that the king’s palace was located outside the city. This fact seems, at first glance, to contradict the spatial order of the cosmic city. Scholars justify this placement by referring to security reasons. Without disclaiming this important point, I would like to emphasize the religious dimension of the absence of the king in his city. This phenomenon can be understood through the conceptual metaphor god is a king. As god is transcendent and not (always) present to his immanent subjects, the king represents himself as to some extent transcendent, represented in the city by a replacement, a royal tower in Ardašīr-xwarrah or a royal column in Weh-Šabuhr.

8. Conclusions

The preceding discussion elucidated the interrelationship between four extraordinary spaces: the Zoroastrian cosmos and Yima’s Vara as utopia and Ardašīr-xwarrah and Madīnat al-Salām as heterotopia. The Zoroastrian cosmology presents a perfect picture of the cosmos. It is not possible to ascertain the origin of this utopian production. In other words, it is impossible to determine which terrestrial spaces have been used as models for the creation of this utopia. As the creation of Ahura Mazdā, this utopia served, directly or indirectly, as a model for the three kingly productions. As a prototypical king, Yima reproduces Ahura Mazdā’s utopia in the center of his Vara. This implies that the structure of the cosmos has been replicated within itself and results in a partial fractal structure for the cosmos. Ardašīr seems to have taken Ahura Mazdā’s creation as a model, analogous to Yima. His magnificent capital, Ardašīr-xwarrah, instantiates both Ahura Mazdā’s cosmos and Yima’s Vara. As a legitimate king, he repeats the actions of the prototypic king of his tradition and simultaneously exemplifies the actions of his superior god. Ardašīr produces a perceived space based on utopias, which were produced through representations of space and representational space. In doing so, he produces a heterotopia that makes a utopia perceptible. Madīnat al-Salām seems to strictly follow the spatial rules of Ardašīr-xwarrah. As a reproduction of a heterotopia, it does not merely reproduce a perceived space; it also re-instantiates the Zoroastrian utopias. In a manner analogous to Ardašīr-xwarrah, Madīnat al-Salām is thus not merely a capital for a new dynasty; it is the exemplification of god’s perfect abode in a perfect city. The time of Ardašīr-xwarrah as a perceived space was limited. At a certain point in history, the city ceased to be a heterotopia and became a utopia. Since this moment, the historical sources have reproduced the utopian Ardašīr-xwarrah by resorting to the known Madīnat al-Salām and projecting some of its spatial aspects onto Ardašīr-xwarrah (see Figure 5). The transitions between these four utopias and heterotopias are comparable to those between the celestial paradise and the terrestrial royal paradises. The latter paradises were initially tangible, perceived spaces, which kings and aristocrats have aesthetically idealized. They thus became utopianized perceived spaces. These gardens served as a model for god’s garden, both in terms of spatial representations and naming. Since the advent of this utopia, the terrestrial paradises became heterotopias once again, albeit in the form of utopian spaces that were perceived (see Figure 6).

Funding

This research has been conducted in the framework of the CRC 1475 “Metaphors of Religion”, funded by the German Research Foundation—SFB 1475—Project ID 441126958.

Data Availability Statement

The original data presented in the study are openly available in MPCD (Zoroastrian Middle Persian: Digital Corpus and Dictionary) at mpcorpus.org and CAB (Corpus Avesticum Berolinense) at cab.geschkult.fu-berlin.de.

Acknowledgments

I would like to sincerely thank my colleagues Nikita Artemov, Neda Mohtashami, and Yusef Saadat for their precious comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this text.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes

1
In regard to Ardašīr-xwarrah see esp. (Huff 2008, 2014).
2
As an example of the former group, we can mention Maltese temple architecture, in which the ancestral dwelling, a utopia, is used as a model for the architecture of the heterotopic space, the temple complex (Wunn 2014, 31f.). Conversely, the Hittites utopianize the capital of their empire, Hattusa, a real place, through the ritual act to be performed exclusively for the purpose of their own enhancement (Hutter 2014, pp. 140–45). Darius’ tomb, a heterotopia in itself, was built according to the model of his palace (Huff 2014, pp. 192–94 with n. 102 and Figure 27). It can thus be described as a “palace of the afterlife”. It is therefore a utopianized heterotopia; see (Rezania 2014, p. 14).
3
For a description of this lexicalization process see (Shayegan 1384).
4
The three adjectives repeatedly attributed to the earth in the Avestan texts are: paθana- “flat”, skarǝna- “round”, and dūraē.pāra- “with far borders, broad”; see Yt 10.95 = 99, 5.38, 17.19, V 19.4, Aog 66, and (Rezania 2017, p. 180).
5
Another piece of evidence for the circularity of the earth is its representation in the egg-cosmology; see below.
6
The first part of this verse reads: “The first mountain to arise, o Spitāma Zaraϑuštra, on this earth (was) the lofty Haraitī; the whole of it extends around both up to the western lands and (up to) the eastern (lands)” (Hintze 1994, p. 13).
7
Y 11.7: “[…] as he bound the villainous Turian Fraŋrasiian, who was encased in iron in the middle third of this earth”.
8
One might think that Yima’s triadic extension of the earth results in its tetradic division. However, the Zoroastrian literature sometimes count and sometimes do not count the main component in the entire list. Yt 1.7f., for example, list 20 names for Ahura Mazdā, which result beside his proper name, ahura- mazdā-, a list of 21 components; for the significance of this figure see below. The standardized sevenfold list of Amǝṣ̌a Spǝṇtas, however, consists of Ahura Mazdā and six other dieties.
9
Yt 13.2 ~ V 5.25: “Through their wealth and their glory, I (scil. Ahura Mazdā) hold apart, O Zarathustra, that heaven which is above, shining and visible from afar, which encompasses this earth from above and all around, like a bird its egg; it stands spiritually, firmly together, with wide boundaries, in the form of glowing *iron, shining on all thirds (of the earth)”.
10
See (Güntert 1923, pp. 395–404), which has hardly lost any of its appeal even after a century, (Christensen 1917–1934, 2: esp. 45; Humbach 2002, 2004; Panaino 2004b; Kellens 1988; Lincoln 1981a, pp. 67–95), but see also (Kellens 1984, n. 19) below.
11
To consider is for example the difference between his direct dialogue with Ahura Mazdā according to the Avestan narration and his interrogation with Zarathustra in PRDd 31.C1.
12
Yima’s ambivalent depiction in some Avestan passages should not be neglected, however. They make him responsible for the first lie; see Yt 19.34. It is possible that Zoroastrian scholars of the early Islamic period accentuated the negative representation of Yima that was already present in their tradition.
13
According to Lincoln (1981a, pp. 37–48, 134–62), this exemplifies a general tension between priests and warriors representing themselves as responsible for providing salvation, an old-age topic in the Indo-Iranian history, rooted in the ecology of their tribe. It seems that the post-Sasanian tradition more strongly attempts to demonstrate the superiority of priesthood to the kingship.
14
The Avestan terms used here initiated many discussions; to mention only few of them see (Cantera 2012; Panaino 2015). Even if the exact meanings of the terms are unknown, we can concur in their function with Lincoln (2012b, p. 23 = 2021, p. 25) that the text represents two competing means to re-establish the primordial perfection on earth, king or priest.
15
In this regard, see (Panaino 2020, para. 14): “With his refusal of an immediate beatification (=the union with his most beautiful feminine double), he accepted his duty for the sake of humanity and of Ahura Mazdā’s project against the demons”.
16
See (Rezania 2017, pp. 207–24; Panaino 2012); I abstain from detailed philological discussions here, which interested readers can find in these references and in other publications mentioned there.
17
See V 2.5, 29, 37, Y 9.5, Yt 9.10, 15.16, 17.30, 19.32f. The negation of non-pleasant characteristics of life serves as a powerful linguistic device utilized by religious traditions to depict the idealized state of paradise; see (Lincoln 1980).
18
See V 2.8, 12, 16, 17, 41, and (Lincoln 2012b, 26f.; 2021, p. 29).
19
See (Oberlies 2012, p. 75); according to (Kellens 1984), Yima differs from his Indian counterpart in that he has the responsibility to restore immortality, whereas the Indian Yama is the king of the dead. We, however, find a particular reference to immortality provided by Yama for his people in RV 1.83.5, reflected also in Dk. 3.227; see (Lincoln 1981b, p. 235, n. 66).
20
The significance of the fragrance for garden is exemplified by a designation for garden in Middle Iranian as “place of fragrance” (Middle Persian bōyestān, Parthian bōδestān, Sogdian βwδstʾn).
21
See MX 27.24-6, Dk 3.229, Dd 38.19, GBd 32.10.
22
The Pahlavi literature renders this tetradic division of paradisiac space as a wahišt with three hierarchical zones and above it garōdmān, the abode of Ohrmazd; see e.g., DMX 6.9-12 and 56.13m AWN 7.1-10.1.
23
From a geometrical point of view, it can certainly be claimed that a surrounding wall in a circular form is the most efficient form in respect to the proportion of the perimeter of the surrounding wall to the surface of surrounded area. We, however, should not neglect the high costs of producing a perfect circular wall.
24
For the representation of this concept in the Achaemenian period see Daraeios’ inscriptions DPh, DHa, and (Rezania 2017, 118f).
25
26
The name Fīrūzābād, presumably with the meaning “constructed through a victory”, probably alludes to this narration. It is worthy highlighting that the name Fīrūzābād is not a name given first to the city (or area) by the Buyid ruler ʿAżd-al-Daula (933–1062), but is already attested in the seventh century; see (Mittertrainer 2020, p. 70).
27
KAP 4.17: šahrestān-ēw ī ardašīr-xwarrah xwānēnd kerd ud ān ī wazurg war kand ud āb čahār ǰōy aziš āwurd ud ātaxš ō war nišāst; see also (al-Iṣṭakhrī 1870, p. 124; 1340, p. 110).
28
See (Stronach 1989; 1990a; 1990b, 177f., Figure 4f). According to (Schimmel 1991, p. 178), cahār-bāgh (“Four Garten”), alludes to the four rivers of paradise with the tomb at the confluence of them. It is worthy referring to the significance of streams and waterways in the Achaemenian paradai̯dās; see (Hultgård 2000, p. 5).
29
Al-Bīrūnī holds the existence of this cosmologic belief among Muslim for granted: “The mountain Ḳâf, as it is called by our common people, is with the Hindus the Lokâloka. […] Similar views are held by the Zoroastrians of Sogdiana, viz. that the mountain Ardiyâ surrounds the world” (al-Bīrūnī 1887, 124f.; 1910, p. 249).
30
31
According to Muḥammadī Malāyirī (1394, pp. 194–99), al-Yaʿqūbī implicitly pursues the Sasanian tradition of the historical geography, according to which Iraq was considered as “the Heart of the Empire.”).
32
He writes “Its air is more nutritious than any air, its water is fresher than any water, and its breeze is gentler than any breeze. Among the moderate regions, it is just like the center of the circle” (Yāqūt 1866–1873, p. 686).
33
34
35
36
See e.g., (Surah 4:57, 9:72, 16:31, 20:76, 26:147, 37:43, 44:52, 52:17, 61:12, and 68:34).
37
See (Surah 6:127 and 10:25).
38
On comparison of this palace and paradise see also (Ibn al-Jauzī 1342, p. 12).
39
See (Surah 18:107 and 23:11); also (Wiet 1971, p. 28; Kennedy 1988).
40
41
(Kellens 1995, p. 26) highlights the role of smell in the communication with gods. (Hultgård 2000, pp. 30–32) sees traces of the idea of garden in several Zoroastrian eschatological narratives. Regarding the role of senses in the eschatology, see also GBd 28.4, in which the head of the human body is likened to garōdmān “the highest heaven”, makes ears, nose, and mouth but not eyes responsible for receiving sensory pleasure.
42
This name is given to al-Manṣūr’s capital as well (al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī 1985, p. 77; Lassner 1970, p. 56) with the meaning “the crooked.” There are different reasons why Madīnat al-Salām has been designated as such (see Lassner 1970, p. 245, n. 45). Lassner rejects these reasons and suggests: “The most plausible explanation, however, is the one that indicates that the name is derived from the system of bent entrances built into the outer gateways of the famous wall system” (Lassner 1980, p. 167).
43
44
For these narratives see (Lassner 1965, 138f., n. 22f).
45
al-Yaʿqūbī (1892, p. 237), for example, writes that al-Manṣūr sent in 140 h.q. his son, Mahdī, for a battle. Having stayed in a place, he asked for its name. “Baghdad is the name” was the answer. He said: “That is the city which my father, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, wanted to found as he informed me.” In connection with al-Manṣūr’s investigations for the place of his city, al-Ṭabarī (1879–1901, p. 277) writes: “The scouts’ selection fell upon a place called Baghdad, a village on the bank of the Ṣarāt”.
46
47
48
49
50
(Lincoln 2019, p. 101; 2021, p. 152). For probable pre-Achaemenian models of Persian gardens see (Fauth 1979; Tuplin 1996, pp. 80–88); for samples of Achaemenid enclosed gardens in Pasargadae, Persepolis, and Susa see (Tuplin 1996, pp. 88–90).
51
(Lincoln 2019, p. 102; 2021, 156f). Lincoln understands bāji “portion” not simply as the portion due to the King but as a portion to restore the primordial happiness in its unity. In this regard, the tributary scene depicted on the stairways of Apadāna palace in Persepolis is the representation of an immanent moment of the original transcendent unity restored by bringing the immanent multiplicity together (Lincoln 2012a, pp. 117–23); see also (Lincoln 2019, p. 97, n. 51; 2021, p. 152, n. 52).
52
E.g., Median *paridaiza, Akkadian pardēsu, Elamite partetaš, Greek paradeisos, Hebrew and Aramaic pardēs, Soghdian prδyz, Khwarezmian prδyzk, Armenian partēz, Syriac pardaysā, Arabic farādīs and firdaus, New Persian pālīz, Kurdish pārēs (Hasandūst 1393, 2:618f..)
53
(Lincoln 2019, p. 102; 2021, p. 157); The dashes used by Lincoln in this sentence conceals a basic event structure metaphor: states are locations (Kövecses 2010, 162f.). By this, the Achaemenid paradise is not just a beautiful garden but the spatialization of a perfect state.
54
(Bremmer 2008, pp. 35–55; 2016); Regarding the early stage of the term, he writes: “Secondly, early Iranian ‘paradise’ had no fixed meaning. It could be a storage-place, vineyard, orchard, stable, forest or nursery of trees. Evidently, it was a kind of vox media of which the most prominent element was the enclosure. Thirdly, none of these descriptions closely fits the Garden of Eden yet” (Bremmer 2008, p. 39). This accords with the Avestan evidence, where the term denotes a contaminated space encircled with multiple enclosures. According to (Bremmer 2008, p. 52), the translator(s) chose paradeisos because this term much better “conjured up the image of a royal park worthy of Jahweh” than a Greek term like kêpos. This again shows a manifestation of the conceptual metaphor god is a king. It is worthy mentioning that paradai̭dā or pardēs has not been used at all in the Zoroastrian texts to denote the heaven. Presumably, paradai̭dā/pardēs was for Zoroastrians as earthy as kêpos was for the Greeks and therefore not worthy of Ahura Mazdā. The Armenian translation of the Bible (Hultgård 2000, p. 21 supports this suggestion. It uses partēz in the general meaning “garden” but used another Iranian loan word, draxt “tree”, to denote the eschatological paradise.)
55
I do not mean, however, that the Achaemenian paradai̭dās did not include any religious dimension. As (Hultgård 2000, p. 19) suggests, cultivation was a Zoroastrian virtue, on which the third chapter of the Wīdēwdād emphasizes.
56
(Hultgård 2000, p. 27) calls this process “Eschatologisierung des Paradies-Gartens”. For eschatological connotations of the name given to one Achaemenid garden, vispa-šiyāti (“All-Happiness”), see (Lincoln 2003, 153f.; 2019, p. 102, n. 55; 2021, p. 157, n. 56) with further references.
57
See (Amrhein 2015), who posits a correlation between artificiality, accessibility, and sacrality.
58
Briant (1996, pp. 213–16) and Hultgård (2000, p. 6) see a relationship between paradeisos and the king’s table.
59
M 47/1 in (Sundermann 1981, 102f.); translation after (Klimkeit 1993, 211f.); see also (Fauth 1979, p. 8; Piras 2023).

References

  1. al-Balādhurī, Abul-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā b. Jābir. 1866. Kitāb futūḥ al-buldān. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje. Lugduni Batavorum: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  2. al-Bīrūnī, Abu-l-Raiḥān Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. 1887. Kitāb fī taḥqīq mā li-l-hind min maqūla maqbūla fil-ʿaql aw marḏūla. Edited by Carl Eduard Sachau. London: Trübner. [Google Scholar]
  3. al-Bīrūnī, Abu-l-Raiḥān Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. 1910. Alberuni’s India. An Account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India about A.D. 1030. 2 vols. Translated by Carl Eduard Sachau. London: Trübner. [Google Scholar]
  4. al-Iṣṭakhrī, Abī Asḥaq Ibrāhīm. 1340. Masālik va mamālik. Tarjumi-yi fārsī-yi Masālik al-mamālik az qarn-i 5/6 Hijrī. 9 vols. Edited by Īraj Afshār. Majmūʿi-yi mutūn-i fārsī. Tehran: Tarjuma va nashr-i kitab. [Google Scholar]
  5. al-Iṣṭakhrī, Abī Asḥaq Ibrāhīm. 1870. Kitāb masālik al-mamālik. 1 vol. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje. Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  6. al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. 1985. Taʾrīkh Baghdād awmadīnat al-salām mundhu taʾsīsihā ḥattā sanat 463 h. 15 vols. Reprint of Cairo 1931. Bairūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyya. [Google Scholar]
  7. al-Maqdisī, Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir. 1899–1916. al-Badʾ wa-l-taʾrīkh. Edited by Clement Huart. Paris: Leroux. [Google Scholar]
  8. al-Maqdisī, Shams al-dīn Abī ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Abī Bakr. 1877. Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-ʾaqālīm. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje. Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum 3. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  9. al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr. 1879–1901. Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk. 3 vols. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  10. al-Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad b. Abū Yaʿqūb. 1892. Kitāb al-buldān. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  11. Amrhein, Anastasia. 2015. Neo-Assyrian Gardens: A Spectrum of Artificiality, Sacrality and Accessibility. Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes 35: 91–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barrie, Thomas. 1996. Spiritual Path, Sacred Place. Myth, Ritual, and Meaning in Architecture. Boston: Shambhala Publications. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bayānī, Shirvīn. 1377. Tīsfūn va Baghdād dar guzar-i tārīkh. Tehran: Dībā. [Google Scholar]
  14. Beckwith, Christopher I. 1984. The Plan of the City of Peace: Central Asian Iranian Factors in Early ʿAbbâsid Design. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38: 143–64. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bosworth, Edmund. 2010. Mafātīḥ Al-ʿulūm. In Christian-Muslim Relations 600–1500. Edited by David Thomas. Leiden and Boston: Brill. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Boyce, Mary. 1968. Rapithwin, Nō Rūz, and the Feast of Sade. In Pratidānam: Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Jan C. Heesterman, Godard H. Schokker and V. I. Subramoniam. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, pp. 201–15. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bremmer, Jan N. 2008. Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 8; Leiden and Boston: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bremmer, Jan N. 2016. The Birth of Paradise: To Early Christianity, via Greece, Persia and Israel. In The Cosmography of Paradise: The Other World from Ancient Mesopotamia to Medieval Europe. Edited by Alessandro Scafi. London: The Warburg Institute, vol. 27, pp. 9–30. [Google Scholar]
  19. Briant, Pierre. 1996. Histoire de l’empire Perse: De Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris: Fayard. [Google Scholar]
  20. Canepa, Matthew P. 2018. The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE-642 CE. Oakland: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cantera, Alberto. 2012. Yima, son vara- et la daēnā mazdéenne. In Yama/Yima: Variations indo-iraniennes sur la geste mythique. Edited by Samra Azarnouche and Céline Redard. Publications de l’Institut de Civilisation Indienne; Paris: Collège de France, vol. 81, pp. 45–66. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cereti, Carlo G. 2011. Kārnāmag ī Ardasīr ī Pābagān. Encyclopædia Iranica 15: 585–88. Available online: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/karnamag-i-ardasir (accessed on 5 April 2024).
  23. Christensen, Arthur. 1917–1934. Les types du premier homme et du premier roi dans l’histoire légendaire des iraniens. Archives D’études Orientales 14; 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  24. Creswell, Keppel A. C. 1940. Early Islamic Architecture. Volume II: Early ʿAbbāsids Umayyads of Cordova Aghlabids, Ṭūlūnids, and Samānids A.D. 751–905. New York: Hacker Art books. [Google Scholar]
  25. Eisenstein, Herbert. 1985. Vom Tode der Kalifen. Eine Prophezeiung. Acta Orientalia 46: 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  26. Eliade, Mircea. 1954. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. New York: Harper Torchbooks. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fauth, Wolfgang. 1979. Der königliche Gärtner und Jäger im Paradeisos. Beobachtungen zur Rolle des Herrschers in der vorderasiatischen Hortikultur. Persica 8: 1–53. [Google Scholar]
  28. Foucault, Michel. 1984. Des Espaces Autres. Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité 5: 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Foucault, Michel. 1986. Of Other Spaces. Translated by Jay Miskowiec. Diacritics 16: 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gerster, Georg, David Stronach, and Ali Mousavi, eds. 2009. Irans Erbe: In Flugbildern von Georg Gerster. Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie; Sonderbände der Antiken Welt. Mainz: Von Zabern. [Google Scholar]
  31. Güntert, Hermann. 1923. Der arische weltkönig und heiland. Bedeutungsgeschichtliche untersuchungen zur indo-iranischen religionsgeschichte und altertumskunde. Halle: Niemeyer. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hasandūst, Moḥammad. 1393. Farhang-e rīše-šenāḫtī-ye zabān-e fārsī. 5 vols. Tehran: Farhangestān. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hintze, Almut. 1994. Zamyād Yašt: Introduction, Avestan Text, Translation, Glossary. Iranische Texte 7; Wiesbaden: Reichert. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hirsch, Hadas. 2020. Clothing and Colours in Early Islam. Anthropology of the Middle East 15: 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huff, Dietrich. 2008. Formation and Ideology of the Sasanian State in the Context of Archaeological Evidence. In The Sasanian Era. The Idea of Iran. Volume III. Edited by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and Sarah Stewart. London: Tauris, pp. 31–59. [Google Scholar]
  36. Huff, Dietrich. 2014. Das Plansystem von Ardašīr-xwarrah: Agrarkolonisatorisches Großprojekt und gebautes Staatsmodell eines von Gott gegebenen Königtums. In Raumkonzeptionen in antiken religionen. Beiträge des internationalen symposiums in Göttingen, 28. und 29. Juni 2012. Edited by Kianoosh Rezania. Philippika: Altertumswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, vol. 69, pp. 153–210. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hultgård, Anders. 2000. Das Paradies: Vom Park des Perserkönigs zum Ort der Seligen. In La Cité de Dieu = Die Stadt Gottes. 3. Symposium Strasbourg, Tübingen, Uppsala 19–23 September 1998 in Tübingen. Edited by Martin Hengel, Siegfried Mittmann and Anna M. Schwemer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, vol. 129, pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  38. Humbach, Helmut. 2002. Yama/Yima/Jamšēd, King of Paradise of the Iranians. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 26: 68–77. [Google Scholar]
  39. Humbach, Helmut. 2004. Yima/Jamšēd. In Varia Iranica. Edited by Carlo G. Cereti, Beniamino Melasecchi and Farrokh Vajifdar. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, pp. 45–58. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hutter, Manfred. 2014. Grenzziehung und Raumbeherrschung in der hethitischen Religion. In Raumkonzeptionen in antiken religionen. beiträge des internationalen symposiums in Göttingen, 28. und 29. Juni 2012. Edited by Kianoosh Rezania. Philippika: Altertumswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, vol. 69, pp. 135–52. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ibn, al-Balkhī. 1921. The fársnáma of ibnu ʾl-balkhí. Edited by Guy Le Strange and R. A. Nicholson. London: Luzac. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ibn al-Faqīh, Abī Bakr Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Hamidhānī. 1885. Kitāb al-buldān. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje. Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum. Leiden: Brill, vol. 5. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ibn al-Jauzī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAlī. 1342. Manāqib Baghdād. Edited by Muḥammad Bahja. Baghdād: Maṭbaʿat Dār as-Salām. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad b. Mukarram b. ʿAlī. 1300–1307. Lisān al-ʿarab. Būlāq: Al-Maṭbaʿa al-Kubrā al-Mīrīya. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ibn Rustih, Abū ʿAlī Aḥmad b. ʿUmar. 1890. Kitāb al-aʿlāq al-nafīsa. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje. Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum. Leiden: Brill, vol. 7. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kellens, Jean. 1984. Yima, magicien entre les dieux et les hommes. In Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata. Acta iranica série; Leiden: Brill, vol. 29. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kellens, Jean. 1988. Yima et la mort. In Languages and Cultures. Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Edited by Mohammad A. Jazayery and Werner Winter. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs; Berlin: De Gruyter, vol. 36, pp. 329–34. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kellens, Jean. 1995. L’âme entre le cadavre et le paradis. Journal Asiatique 283: 19–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kennedy, Hugh. 1988. Baghdad. i. The Iranian Connection: Before the Mongol Invasion. Encyclopædia Iranica 3: 412–15. [Google Scholar]
  50. Khwārazmī, Abī ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Yūsuf. 1895. Mafātīḥ al-ʿulūm. Edited by Gerlof van Vloten. Early Arabic Printed Books from the British Library. Lugduni-Batavorum: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  51. Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim, ed. 1993. Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia, 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2004. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Second Series; Cambridge, New York and Paris: Cambridge University Press and Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction: Exercises Written with Réka Benczes, Zsuzsanna Bokor, Szilvia Csábi, Orsolya Lazányi, and Eszter Nucz, 2nd ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2020. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lassner, Jacob. 1965. Some Speculative Thoughts on the Search for an ʿAbbasid Capital. The Muslim World 55: 135–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lassner, Jacob. 1970. The Topography of Baghdad in the Early Middle Ages: Text and Studies. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lassner, Jacob. 1980. The Shaping of ʿAbbāsid Rule. Princeton Studies on the Near East; Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lefebvre, Henri. 1974. La Production de l’espace. Collection Société et Urbanisme; Paris: Éd. Anthropos. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford and Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lincoln, Bruce. 1980. On the Imagery of Paradise. Indogermanische Forschungen 85: 151–64. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lincoln, Bruce. 1981a. Priests, Warriors, and Cattle: A Study in the Ecology of Religions. 10 vols. Hermeneutics, Studies in the History of Religions; Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lincoln, Bruce. 1981b. The Lord of the Dead. History of Religions 20: 224–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lincoln, Bruce. 2003. À la recherche du paradis perdu. History of Religions 43: 139–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lincoln, Bruce. 2012a. ‘Happiness for Mankindʼ: Achaemenian Religion and the Imperial Project. 53 vols. Acta Iranica; Leuven, Paris and Walpole: Peeters. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lincoln, Bruce. 2012b. The One and the Many in Iranian Creation Myths: Rethinking ‘Nostalgia for Paradise’. Archiv für Religionsgeschiche 13: 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lincoln, Bruce. 2019. Persian Archers and Paradise Gardens: Projecting Power in the Achaemenid Empire. 3 vols. In Studi Iranici Ravennati. Edited by Antonio Panaino, Andrea Piras and Paolo Ognibene. Indo-Iranica et Orientalia/Series Lazur 18; Milan: Mimesis, pp. 81–104. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lincoln, Bruce. 2021. Religion, Culture, and Politics in Pre-Islamic Iran: Collected Essays. Ancient Iran Series 14; Leiden and Boston: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  70. l’Orange, Hans Peter. 1953. Studies on the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World. Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning; Forelesninger 23. Oslo: H. Aschenhoug. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mittertrainer, Anahita Nasrin. 2020. Sinnbilder politischer Autorität? Frühsasanidische Städtebilder im Südwesten Irans. Open Publishing LMU. München: Open Publishing LMU. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Moynihan, Elizabeth B. 1979. Paradise as a Garden in Persia and Mughal India. London: Scolar Press. [Google Scholar]
  73. Muḥammadī Malāyirī, Muḥammad. 1394. Tārīkh va farhang-i īrān: Dar dawrān-i intiqāl az ʿaṣr-i sāsānī bi ʿaṣr-i islāmī, 2nd ed. Tehran: Tūs, vol. 2. [Google Scholar]
  74. Oberlies, Thomas. 2012. Der Rigveda und seine Religion. Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen. [Google Scholar]
  75. Panaino, Antonio. 2004a. Astral Characters of Kingship in the Sasanian and Byzantine Worlds. In La Persia e Bisanzio: Convegno Internazionale. (Roma, 14–18 Ottobre 2002). Edited by Antonio Carie. Atti Dei Convegni Lincei 201; Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, pp. 555–94. [Google Scholar]
  76. Panaino, Antonio. 2004b. Philologia Avestica VI. The Widēwdād Fragment about the Millenium of Yima. In Varia Iranica. Edited by Carlo G. Cereti, Beniamino Melasecchi and Farrokh Vajifdar. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, pp. 19–33. [Google Scholar]
  77. Panaino, Antonio. 2012. The Triadic Symbolism of Yima’s vara- and Related Structures and Patterns. In Yama/Yima: Variations indo-iraniennes sur la geste mythique. Edited by Samra Azarnouche and Céline Redard. Publications de l’institut de civilisation indienne 81; Paris: Collège de France, pp. 111–38, 245–48. [Google Scholar]
  78. Panaino, Antonio. 2015. Yima et il ‘rifiuto’ della daēnā- ovvero dell’ incestualità, della beatitudine e della morte tra ambigui ostacoli e seducenti transparenze. In Démons iraniens. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’Université de Liège les 5 et 6 février 2009 à l’occasion des 65 ans de Jean Kellens. Edited by Philippe Swennen. Liège: Presse University, pp. 97–123. [Google Scholar]
  79. Panaino, Antonio. 2020. Mazdeans and Christians Facing the End of the World: Circulations and Exchanges of Concepts. Entangled Religions 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Piras, Andrea. 2023. Wonders and Healings at the Crossroads of Manichaeism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism in Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Entangled Religions 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rezania, Kianoosh. 2014. Einleitung: Raum und Religion. In Raumkonzeptionen in antiken Religionen. Beiträge des internationalen Symposiums in Göttingen, 28. und 29. Juni 2012. Edited by Kianoosh Rezania. Philippika: Altertumswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, vol. 69, pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  82. Rezania, Kianoosh. 2017. Raumkonzeptionen im früheren Zoroastrismus. Kosmische, kultische und soziale Räume. GOF III/NF 2 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [Google Scholar]
  83. Rezania, Kianoosh. Forthcoming. Madīnat Al-Salām: The Abbasid Capital in Sasanian Garb. Journal of Persianate Studies.
  84. Sackville-West, Vita. 1953. Persian Gardens. In The Legacy of Persia. Edited by A. J. Arberry. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 259–91. [Google Scholar]
  85. Sarre, Friedrich, and Ernst Herzfeld. 1920. Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet. 4 vols. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, vol. 2. [Google Scholar]
  86. Schimmel, Annermarie. 1991. Inner and Outer Space in Islam. In Concepts of Space: Ancient and Modern. Edited by Kapila Vatsyayan. New Delhi: Abhinav, pp. 176–79. [Google Scholar]
  87. Schwarz, Paul. 1896–1936. Iran im Mittelalter nach den arabischen Geographen. 9 vols. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. [Google Scholar]
  88. Shayegan, Rahim. 1384. Taḥavvol-i mafhūm-i khowadāy/khodā. In Yašt-i farzānigī. Ğašn-nāmi-yi duktur Muḥsin-i Abulqāsimī. Edited by Sīrūs Naṣrullāhzādi and ʿAskar Bahrāmī. Tehran: Hermes, pp. 297–334. [Google Scholar]
  89. Steen, Gerard J. 2007. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage: A Methodological Analysis and Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  90. Stronach, David. 1989. The royal garden at Pasargadae: Evolution and legacy. In Archaeologia iranica et orientalis: Miscellanea in honorem Louis vanden Berghe. Edited by Leon de Meyer and E. Haerinck. Gent: Peeters, pp. 475–502. [Google Scholar]
  91. Stronach, David. 1990a. Čahārbāḡ. Encyclopædia Iranica IV: 624–25. [Google Scholar]
  92. Stronach, David. 1990b. The Garden as a Political Statement: Some Case Studies from the Near East in the First Millennium B.C. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 4: 171–80. [Google Scholar]
  93. Sundermann, Werner. 1981. Mitteliranische manichäische Texte kirchengeschichtlichen Inhalts. Edited by Nicholas Sims-Williams. Berliner Turfantexte/Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Akademienvorhaben Turfanforschung 11; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  94. Thomann, Johannes. 2022. More-to-Know I: The Foundation of al-Manṣūr’s Palatial City and Its Horoscope. In Baghdād: From Its Beginnings to the 14th Century. Edited by Jens Scheiner and Isabel Toral. Handbuch der Orientalistik 166; Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 98–101. [Google Scholar]
  95. Toral, Isabel. 2022. Legends about the Foundation of a Marvelous City. In Baghdād: From Its Beginnings to the 14th Century. Edited by Jens Scheiner and Isabel Toral. Handbuch der Orientalistik 166; Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 47–65. [Google Scholar]
  96. Tuplin, Christopher. 1996. Achaemenid Studies. Historia 99. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. [Google Scholar]
  97. Tzatourian, Audrey. 2012. Notion d’espace dans le Vīdēvdād. In Yama/Yima: Variations indo-iraniennes sur la geste mythique. Edited by Samra Azarnouche and Céline Redard. Publications de l’institut de civilisation indienne 81; Paris: Collège de France, pp. 207–17. [Google Scholar]
  98. Wendell, Charles. 1971. Baghdad: Imago Mundi, and Other Foundation-Lore. International Journal of Middle East Studies 2: 99–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wiet, Gaston. 1971. Baghdad: Metropolis of the Abbasid Caliphate. Norman: University of Oklahama Press. [Google Scholar]
  100. Wunn, Ina. 2014. Raum, Territorialität und jenseitige Welten. In Raumkonzeptionen in antiken Religionen. Beiträge des internationalen Symposiums in Göttingen, 28. und 29. Juni 2012. Edited by Kianoosh Rezania. Philippika: Altertumswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, vol. 69, pp. 21–39. [Google Scholar]
  101. Yāqūt, Shihāb al-Dīn ʾAbī ʿAbdallāh Yāqūt b. Abdallāh al-Ḥamawī al-Rūmī al-Baghdādī. 1866–1873. Muʿjam al-buldān. 6 vols. Edited by Ferdinand Wüstenfeld. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The schematic representation of the cosmos according to the Zoroastrian cosmography (source: Rezania 2017, p. 187, Figure 26a).
Figure 1. The schematic representation of the cosmos according to the Zoroastrian cosmography (source: Rezania 2017, p. 187, Figure 26a).
Religions 15 01170 g001
Figure 2. The schematic layout of Yima’s Vara (source: Rezania 2017, p. 217, Figure 32).
Figure 2. The schematic layout of Yima’s Vara (source: Rezania 2017, p. 217, Figure 32).
Religions 15 01170 g002
Figure 3. The radial-concentric division of Ardašīr-xwarrah; based on a photograph by (Gerster et al. 2009, p. 82, Figure 48a). Solid lines represent concentric walls, the dotted line represents a street between the two outermost ring areas.
Figure 3. The radial-concentric division of Ardašīr-xwarrah; based on a photograph by (Gerster et al. 2009, p. 82, Figure 48a). Solid lines represent concentric walls, the dotted line represents a street between the two outermost ring areas.
Religions 15 01170 g003
Figure 4. The radial-concentric division of the round city of Madīnat al-Salām (source: Lassner 1970, p. 207, Figure 2).
Figure 4. The radial-concentric division of the round city of Madīnat al-Salām (source: Lassner 1970, p. 207, Figure 2).
Religions 15 01170 g004
Figure 5. Ardašīr-xwarrah and Madīnat al-Salām in relation to their utopias. Blue arrows represent the production of utopias from conceived spaces, the khaki ones represent the production of heterotopias from utopias.
Figure 5. Ardašīr-xwarrah and Madīnat al-Salām in relation to their utopias. Blue arrows represent the production of utopias from conceived spaces, the khaki ones represent the production of heterotopias from utopias.
Religions 15 01170 g005
Figure 6. Paradises as utopias and heterotopias. Blue arrows represent the production of utopias from conceived spaces, the khaki ones represent the production of heterotopias from utopias.
Figure 6. Paradises as utopias and heterotopias. Blue arrows represent the production of utopias from conceived spaces, the khaki ones represent the production of heterotopias from utopias.
Religions 15 01170 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rezania, K. Eschatologia Iranica I: From Zoroastrian Cosmos to Abbasid Madīnat al-Salām: A Journey through Utopia and Heterotopia. Religions 2024, 15, 1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15101170

AMA Style

Rezania K. Eschatologia Iranica I: From Zoroastrian Cosmos to Abbasid Madīnat al-Salām: A Journey through Utopia and Heterotopia. Religions. 2024; 15(10):1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15101170

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rezania, Kianoosh. 2024. "Eschatologia Iranica I: From Zoroastrian Cosmos to Abbasid Madīnat al-Salām: A Journey through Utopia and Heterotopia" Religions 15, no. 10: 1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15101170

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop