The Sasanians and the Late Antique World Touraj Daryaee Abstract This essay discusses the shifts brought on the Iranian Plateau by the founder ofthe Sasanian Empire, Ardaxšīr ī Pābagān, in the third century CE. I contend that these structural changes in rule, religion, physical boundaries, and political propaganda ushered in a new period in Iranian and Middle Eastern history that coincides with the period ofLate Anti- quity. Late Antiquity from the margins The concept of Late Antiquity, Spätantike in German or Antiqué tardive in French, emerged at the beginning ofthe twentieth century within the context ofthe study ofthe Mediterranean world. The term became associated with the introduction of Christianity within the Roman Empire, where the religion made its mark on the political struc- tures, mentalities, and worldviews ofthose who lived and took charge ofthe Eastern Mediterranean world. This new world in the Mediter- ranean—markedly different from what may be called the “pagan” Roman period (for lack ofa better term)—is recorded in the writings ofCon- stantine’s counselor, Eusebius, but also by such events as the procla- mation ofthe Edict ofMilan and the removal ofthe Altar ofVictory from the Senate.1 The influence ofChristianity on the ethos and traditions of the Mediterranean world is also visible in the material culture ofthe doi: 10.17613/50a7-e033 Mizan 3 (2018): 19–39 20 Touraj Daryaee period, from the fourth century CE onward. Looking at coinage, monu- ments, and churches, we can unquestionably appreciate the changes that occurred within the Roman Empire, specifically in the East, looking towards the Orient. The concept of Late Antiquity was made popular in Anglo-Saxon scholarship in the early 1970s through the seminal work of Peter Brown, The World ofLate Antiquity.2 Brown’s book revolutionized the common understanding of Late Antiquity by including Iran in its geography, thus juxtaposing the world of the emperor Justinian at Constantinople with that of the Sasanian King of Kings, Khusrow I Anūšīrwān (531–579 CE), at Ctesiphon. As Humphreys and Clover observe, by the end of the 1980s, the concept of Late Antiquity was “neither medieval, nor Roman,” any- more.3 The relevance of Iran as part of the geography of Late Antiquity has been further emphasized by Michael Morony and Beth DePalma Digeser, who have recognized that Iran fits into the late antique paradigm and should be considered part of a “Global Late Antiquity.”4 More recent- ly, Richard Payne has shown that Christianity was as an integral part of the Sasanian world, just as Manichaeism and Judaism were in the Iranian Empire.5 I would like to call the study of the Roman and the Sasanian worlds the study of “Late Antique Eurasia,” where perhaps the Gupta, but also kingdoms farther afield, could be included. Despite a consensus amongst scholars, some authors still question the utility and accuracy of including the lands east of the Euphrates in the late antique paradigm, as if there was a sign on the other side of the Tigris River saying, “Late Antiquity does not exist here; Christianity never really mattered, nor was it an important part of the Iranian world.”6 This essay is a response to and reflection upon these questions and debates. Using literary sources and material culture from the Sasanian period, I analyze how and why Iran was transformed in Late Antiquity. I contend that we can detect important changes from the Oxus to the Euphrates (the cultural realm of Ērānšahr), between the third and seventh centuries CE. In fact, it appears that the Sasanians actually thought of themselves as living in a new era, different from the past; hence the existence of a distinctly late antique Iran is evident. The Sasanians and the Late Antique World 21 The Walled Garden When we look at literary production from the Sasanian period, we must remain cognizant of the fact that much of the surviving Pahlavi literature was written in the post-Sasanian period. However, many texts were composed in the sixth and the seventh centuries CE and clearly reflect the Sasanian ethos. Perhaps the best case in point is the Kārnāmag ī Ardaxšīr ī Pābagān (Book ofDeeds ofArdaxšīr, son ofPābāg), a reading staple of late antique society in the Persianate world. From its very first chapter, the Book of Deeds mentions that the Iranian world, Ērānšahr, had been divided between 240 petty kings (kadag-xwadāy) before the rule of Ardaxšīr (224–240 CE), from the time of Alexander to the third century.7 The aim of the book is to show how Ardaxšīr and his sons (XIV.19), equipped with xwarrah (royal glory), were able to unite and rule the Iranian world (Ērānšahr abāz ō ēw-xwadāyīh tuwānist āwurdan), and bring about a new age in the history of the region. Of course, Ardaxšīr’s endeavors aimed at bringing back again (abāz) what once was in existence, i.e., unity and power in Iran.8 In reality, Ardaxšīr introduced a change in the status quo of how the Arsacids ruled the Iranian Plateau, moving from a fragmented system (feudal, to use Western terminology) of rule to one in which the King of Kings reigned supreme and could not be challenged by the petty kings as had been done before.9 The move towards centralization can also be gleaned from the administrative practices of the Sasanian Empire, which grew in scale, especially from the fifth century CE, with mintmarks on coins and admin- istrative seals. The administrative division of the Sasanian Empire can be seen in an Ērānšahr in which governors (ostāndār), priests (mow), accountants (āmārgar), and others were involved in an unprecedented level of control and centralization.10 One may contend that the very notion of an Ērānšahr was a late antique project of the Sasanians. If we are to follow Gnoli’s narrative, there had never been a political understanding of Ērānšahr prior to this time.11 This new political entity called Ērānšahr became a physical space in which the inscriptions of the third century, namely that of Šapūr I 22 Touraj Daryaee and Kerdīr at the Kaʿbeh-ye Zardosht (“Cube of Zoroaster”), provide a tan- gible as well as a mental boundary between the ēr, “Iranian,” and an-ēr, “non-Iranian.”12 Furthermore, walls were constructed to demarcate a real boundary around this empire, namely the Wall of Darband, the Great Wall of Gorgān, and the Wall of the Arabs, while the two rivers, the Oxus and the Euphrates, seem to have been the other demarcation of Ērānšahr, which eventually was considered a sacred space.13 While Mazdaism or Zoroastrianism already existed under the Arsa- cids, it was really under Ardaxšīr that Mazdaism began to be officially propagated on the coinage of the Sasanian Empire as a dominant religious tradition.14 If we take into consideration the coins and the literary corpus, it is no exaggeration to say that the Sasanians wished to project them- selves as the promoters of both Zoroastrianism and the start of a new era in Iranian history. This can be seen in late sources such as the Dēnkard IV and the Nāmeh-ye Tansar.15 If we believe the Nāmeh-ye Tansar, the religious changes introduced by Ardaxšīr made many of his contem- poraries uncomfortable, as Mary Boyce suggests.16 But Ardaxšīr’s religious revolution was also praised as a re-organization (abāz ārāyišnīh) by those versed in the Zoroastrian religion.17 Nevertheless, we observe a significant shift in the religious affiliation of the new dynasty on the Iranian Plateau, where Zoroastrian symbols and ideas were overtly pushed to the fore- front of society. After all, the first word minted on the Sasanian coins was mazdēsn (Avestan, mazdayasna-, “Mazda-worshippers”). As far as we know, the Arsacids never made such an effort to promote any single religion, and based on the scant evidence, they were open to other reli- gions. In literature, the fortified walls built in the sixth century CE around Ērānšahr are often connected to the notion of a paradise (Old Persian, *paridayda-), i.e., a walled garden, in which the king would act as the gardener. While Bruce Lincoln has recently discussed the ideological framework of the term *paridayda-, I believe there is much that continues in the Sasanian period, where, for example, King Khusrow is clearly des- cribed as a gardener and a caretaker of his realm, and Ērānšahr is imagined The Sasanians and the Late Antique World 23 as a garden with the king as its gardener.18 In the Shāhnāmeh of Ferdowsī, King Khusrow’s role is portrayed in the following manner: Iran is a lush Spring garden, Where roses ever bloom. The army and weapons are the garden’s walls And lances its wall of thorns. If the garden’s walls are pulled down, Then there will be no difference between it and the wilderness (beyond). Take care not to destroy its walls And not to dishearten or weaken Iranians. If you do, then raiding and pillaging will follow, And also the battle-cries of riders and the din of war. Risk not the safety of the Iranians’ wives, children, and lands By bad policies and plans.19 In these verses, we can appreciate the unfolding of a new Iranian world which did not exist before. In this new world of Ērānšahr, justice and civilization rule and the ēr (Iranians) are safe under the protection of the king’s law or justice (dād). Khusrow I brought order and organization to the Sasanian Empire after revolts, plagues, and famines. As presented in the Shāh-nāmeh, the king’s justice resonated with those who remembered the Sasanian world.