The Iranian Expanse is a thoroughly comprehensive analysis of the long-term, crucial developments characterizing the self-representation of kingship and power ideology in pre-Islamic Iran and neighboring areas. The author’s exploration of a vast and variegated set of data leads us on an awe-inspiring diachronic voyage into the meanders of a coherent historical and cultural reconstruction. In fact, the work builds up a syntax of different dynastic languages and the messages they encoded into the landscape of Western Asia. Having the Iranian “extended” world as the cornerstone of these dynamics, the title itself explicitly refers to the Avestan-origin syntagma airiianǝm vaējō (Middle Persian ērānwēz)—i.e. the mythical/primordial lands inhabited by the Aryan tribes—here evoking the extent, dynamism and cross-pollination achieved by technologies of memory and power from the rise of the Achaemenid Empire up to the fall of the Sasanian dynasty, passing through the Seleucids, Anatolian post-satrapal dynasties and the Arsacids as well. After an introductory chapter that sets out the theoretical approaches and historical time-frame (pp. 1–17), this multifaceted subject matter is deftly organized in four main sections, in turn divided into more specific chapters, with a diachronic arrangement, and thematic subsections marking a clear and consistent path through the author’s argumentation.

Part I, “Ordering the Earth” (pp. 21–144), focuses on the ways the sovereign intent of fashioning relevant systems of self-representation impacted on the territory and major settlements. By marking the landscape, the king extolled his own prowess, modeling natural as well as architectural elements in articulated topographies of power. Moreover, the first section traces some interpretative guidelines that take the reader through the entire book. The diachronic perspective not only highlights the pivotal role of the Achaemenids in creating consistent discourses over display of royal power both in their homeland and beyond, but, most innovatively, it equally stresses the seminal and flexible strategies experimented in the Seleucid era when the new dynasty marked a turning point in fabricating new forms of expression which resonated into a pervasive legacy from the shores of the Oxus River to the Mediterranean See. The ways in which the Seleucid reinvented or obliterated the Achaemenid heritage as well as the extent of their “urban revolution” in Iran and Central Asia exerted a tremendous impact on the economic and political culture of the Post-Hellenistic and Middle Iranian periods.

In Part II, “Sacred Spaces” (pp. 147–204), the work deals with an extremely challenging matter concerning sacral topography and architecture. The subject also involves long-debated issues related to the development of the sacred-fire cult structures and especially their problematic presence in the Achaemenid period.Footnote ¹ The author adopts a balanced approach, re-examining ill-founded assumptions with a firm grasp on the archaeological and primary evidence, recent study of which has revolutionized our views on Achaemenid religious imagery and behaviorsFootnote ² (pp. 153–61). Along with the development of sophisticated cultic ceremonies, the variety of the Achaemenid approaches to sacral landscapes in the heartland of the empire as well as in peripheral areas generated widespread models of interaction between royal authority and the divine. However, within the Iranian context, a discrete form of temple architecture substantially developed only under Seleucid influence (pp. 170–87). Drawing on both traditions and with ingenious repertoires, post-satrapal and post-Hellenistic dynasties functionally exploited their regional sacred spaces to make room for “newly ancient” cults that enhanced their legitimacy and their position within the royal arena of that time (pp. 188–204). Eventually a characteristic typology of fire-temple structures became canonical only in the Sasanian period when, after dramatic changes of the sacral and power topographies, it came to be closely associated with the sociopolitical vision of this dynasty.

Part III, “Landscape of Time and Memory” (pp. 207–90), extends and is conceptually consequential to the preceding part. Through different perspectives the author discloses the intersections between the perception of time and sacral spaces that were conceived to accommodate and conflate sociocultural memories. Thus, the figure of the king emerges as both a patron and manipulator of this cultural capital. With his activity he intervenes in the collective sense of the past, featuring his persona as able to act on a temporal and cosmic level. Throughout episodes of continuity and rupture, funerary sites and dynastic sanctuaries were the linchpin of royal lineages and their unique association with the numinous. The analysis shows appreciation of the contributions of each dynasty to this cross-cultural repertoire, introducing the most eloquent specimens of these lieux de mémoire as well as ritual practices gravitating around them.

Followed by an epilogue (pp. 375–7), the last section, “Palace and Paradise” (pp. 293–374), draws our attention back to the royal residences and their relation with royal estates, thus including a topic that scholars have often dealt with without an appropriately critical view. Starting from an updated analysis on the Achaemenid concept of paradise and its connection with palatial complexes, the author outlines the main features of what are aptly called “palatial cosmologies” (p. 295). The focus always highlights the functional and symbolic transformations characterizing spaces in which the royal status was regularly put on display. Comparison of common denominators and divergences is thus made within the framework of appropriate historical scenarios, which helps us to avoid application of ready-made, simplified transpositions of theoretical conceptions.

As a whole, the book embraces the vast experience acquired by the author in this field over the last decade (see Bibliography, pp. 434–5, Canepa 2009; 2010a; 2010d; 2013a; 2013b; 2014; 2015b; 2015d; 2015e; 2017b; 2017c; 2018). It stands on the ground of a solid methodology according to which a longue durée perspective is consistently tested with the evidence at our disposal, with a balanced evaluation of the aspects of continuity and rupture, and their interlaced progression. Therefore, the concept of continuity is never understood as equivalent to fixity but rather is seen as a heuristic tool for detecting fluid assimilations, hybridizations and adaptations of key constituents structuring the display of power. Meanwhile, the concept of rupture brings out innovative and functional changes in the reinvention of royal claims and the reception of a reinvented past. In this respect, the picture emerges clearly of the never-ending work of selective memory or intentional obliviscence engaged in by the different actors who competed for domination of the Western Asian regions. While struggling to promote self-assertive legitimacies, they equally addressed both internal and foreign audiences. This ceaseless dialogue structured royal representations of great visual and symbolic complexity, whose tangible transpositions encompassed architectural, natural, figurative and ritual-performative constituents. Of the many examples, the Nemrud Daği and Naqš-e Rostam case studies are particularly illuminating in this respect (pp. 240–8; 257–66); however, the major achievement of this book lies in having combined data from a great deal of evidence and archaeological sites within a consistent system. In this perspective the work is fundamental for overall assessment of the subject matter and navigating across both consolidated and new scholarly trajectories. M. P. Canepa’s wide-ranging investigation stimulates us to adopt a fluid and discerning view of cultural and historical processes that all too often have been studied through “insulated” or preconceived lenses. In many of its pages, The Iranian Expanse in fact challenges common opinions deeply embedded in our fields. In addition to what has been previously said, when approaching the Seleucid impact (see e.g. pp. 53–62), the author avoids the interpretative “Hellenocentric” or “colonialist” patterns and aptly shows the adaptability of their strategies suited to fit the multicultural environment of their empire and adjust their discourses to its multifarious social body. The author also stresses the Seleucids’ intentional use of Achaemenid ruins as “antimonuments” (see e.g. pp. 55, 59, 67), although in this case other, more practical and economic reasons, such as redirection of resources and trade networks, anti-functional reconversion of imposing structures and new urbanistic plans, may have greatly contributed to the decision to abandon the old Achaemenid ceremonial centers. As a matter of fact, the Seleucid ideological and imperial vision proved essential in shaping key elements of the Middle Iranian idea of kingship. Similarly, careful analysis of the post-satrapal kingdoms shows how the Macedonian and Persian legacies were not mutually exclusive or antithetical (see e.g. pp. 120–1). On the contrary, all the post-Achaemenid dynasties drew on both of these, sometimes freely and fancifully reinventing the picture of this influential past. It is not accidental that this sort of ancient forgery of “Persianate” identity reached its apex in the funerary and dynastic cults promoted by ambitious rulers in liminal territories like Anatolia and eastern Iran. In the former case, clan awareness and native perception of the past played a major role in structuring a cultural synthesis between Perso-Macedonian ascendancies—be they actual or invented—and old Anatolic heritages (pp. 188–204, 215–31). The centuries straddling the Common Era constituted a bustling laboratory of royal identity, fostered by the “agonistic” competition aroused among major and lesser dynasties, from the Seleucids and Arsacids, passing through the Petty kings of Persia, the Orontids, the Artaxiads, the Mithridatids, and eventually the Kushans and Sasanians. Arising at a crucial turning point in the history of Late Antiquity, the Sasanians represent an arrival point for these cultural dynamics. Thoroughly imbued with post-Hellenistic political culture, the Sasanians acted on a grand scale once they ascended to the throne of the Ērānšahr. Along with the assimilation of different Arsacid-mediated Hellenistic elements they embraced native memories, creating a new idea of Iran. Their re-elaboration of the Avestan tradition and epic lore of the Kayanids cycles surely saw different stages of adaptation in the course of their long dominion (see e.g. pp. 254–7, 269–72, 282–4, 334, 336, 374). The scattered sources in our possession convey only a fragmentary picture, but this book attests to how an inclusive and multidisciplinary methodology may help define paths of acculturation and networks of variations.

Furthermore, in the wake of B. Lincoln’s studies on the cosmic-sacred symbolic of Achaemenid kingship,Footnote ³ this work contributes to tracing the intertwined lines connecting the Iranian royal ideology to Zoroastrian cosmological beliefs and soteriological expectations (see e.g. pp. 12–14, 23, 207, 272–81, 295, 324–44, 345–74). Through their deeds and monumental works, the sovereigns of different ages envisaged their cosmological status as restorers of the primeval God’s creation. Struggling against evil forces, the king ensures reintegration of the God-given elements, reinstating a state of perfection, and at the same time he fosters due progress toward the final renovation of worldly existence. Empowered by the use of heterogeneous elements and devices, the royal space—as scene of mythical-ritual re-enactments—is thus fashioned as a sort of cosmic epicenter where cosmic levels and ages conflate in a symbolic cluster whose sacredness could not have escaped the sensory and cognitive perception of coeval recipients. The evidence from and on the Achaemenid palatial complexes suggests to us how blurred the boundaries between royal, ritual, and sacral spaces actually were. Assimilating traits functional to the promotion of their own royal identity, each dynasty entered original input into the multi-layered kernel of the conception of supreme authority. In this case the heritage of the Avestan geography also offered room for the Iranian rulers to accommodate ecumenical discourses and political visions based on the axial symbology of the center of the world and its mythical-ritual capital. The many aspects unfolded in this book, from palatine to sacral, funerary, and “paradise” spaces, all combine to convey the variety of forms and strategies in which these pivotal ideas were disclosed and transmitted.

In conclusion, this book substantially enhances our understanding of the sophisticated language of sacral/dynastic spaces of antique and late antique Western Asia, as well as the impact they had on the political culture and social fabric. As a matter of fact, M. P. Canepa’s previous, seminal studies already influenced scholarly interpretations as, for instance, in the case of the multi-layered implications related to a fifth bust in-the-round from Paikuli and the polysemic message the Sasanian king Narseh delivered through his commemorative monument.Footnote ⁴ A further example proves, in my opinion, the soundness and constructiveness of the reconstruction provided here of the post-Achaemenid kingdoms’ visual culture and its ritual or figurative display. Even though not included in this book, the rock tomb of Qizqapan in the present-day Kurdistan region of IraqFootnote ⁵ fits in with the context. The blend of cross-cultural elements used in this monument, the evocation of royal funerary rituals shown in its figurative narrative and the other visual and architectonical symbols of the relief all cooperate to represent the nature of a native royal identity, which, in accord with coeval experiences, creatively reinvents Achaemenid and Hellenistic motifs. This fact takes on considerable relevance if we consider that in the same area surrounding the Sūrdash plain lay some other little-known evidence, such as the Kur-u-Kich rock tomb and the Mt. Pīr-e Magroun open-space complex with the reliefs of Mirquili and Rabanah.Footnote ⁶ Integrated in the great scheme of the Iranian Expanse, these elements could shed some light not only on the regional history but also on the broader context of post-Achaemenid societies.

The book is certainly not of use only to specialists in Iranian studies or historians of Antiquity and Late Antiquity, for its trajectories can be extended to later epochs and, more specifically, can help our understanding of the ways in which early Islamic leaderships dealt with past visions of power and how they set forth their own claims in the Western Asian landscape. Likewise, more broadly speaking, this work also offers interpretative tools for those interested in World History and comparative studies on sociopolitical thought. As a citizen of a city in which reinterpretation of imperial symbols and the renegotiation of the past show dramatic depth, still marking our daily experience, I wish to conclude this review by calling to mind a sort of auspicious anecdote from medieval Rome, fittingly attuned with both the spirit of this penetrating book and its aim in portraying the ceaseless dialogue between majestic vestiges, political institutions and collective awareness. On 27 March 1162 the Municipality of Rome issued an edict concerning the still-standing column of Trajan (113 CE), one of the masterpieces of Roman imperial art still characterizing the present-day cityscape. Intriguingly, the edict runs: “for the public honor of the City, the Column never has to be dismantled or damaged for any personal pretext of embellishment or reuse. But instead, for the honor of the church itself [i.e. the nearby church of SS. Apostoli] and all the Roman people, it must remain intact and unspoiled; as long as the world has life, its image must exist.”Footnote ⁷