intact ziggurat (George 2010).
The archeological situation contradicts, however, the historical view in several instances. Firstly, the evidence of the leveled mudbrick core speaks against the distinction of three superimposed ziggurats dated, respectively, to Esarhaddon, Nabopolassar, and Nebuchadnezzar. These remains give proof of just one mudbrick core. Secondly, the foundation level of the first stage encasing the mudbrick core lies some seven meters lower than Nebuchadnezzar's precinct wall (Bergamini 2011: p. 23, fn. 6). This point does not, by itself, provide the basis for a valid argument against a date in the first half of the first millennium; but it does raise the possibility of much earlier dates, for which there exist written attestations of building activities. Thirdly, the argument that the ziggurat might have sunk is contradicted by the evidence from Borsippa, where the layers abutting the bottommost brick layers of the mantle were still lying horizontally, or were even curved upwards slightly. On the other hand, visible subsidence, of up to 2 m, affected the mudbrick core of the ziggurat at Borsippa (Allinger‐Csollich 1991: p. 439, Fig. 26, p. 457, Fig. 34, p. 478). The absence of comparable subsidence affecting the mudbrick core at Babylon suggests that the remains uncovered in Sahn never towered much higher than they do today, or at least than they did before they were leveled in Sasanian/Islamic times. As a result, the remains of Etemenanki can best be identified with Nabopolassar's ziggurat. As stated by his son, this construction could only be continued to a height of 30 cubits, but remained, ultimately, unfinished (Kuntner and Heinsch 2013).
Finally, continuity is also reflected by the domestic architecture (Baker 2010). Research continues which is attempting to link changes in the design of dwellings to specific historical events. Predictably, such approaches remain controversial (Heinsch et al. 2011).
Of far greater interest to the issue of simultaneity, and to considerations of the durability of layouts in Babylonian architecture as a mirror of “social dimensions,” are the results of the excavations at Tell Abu Qubur and Tell Mahmudiyah (Gasche 1995: pp. 207–209). The house partly unearthed at Mahmudiyah maintained a principally traditional Babylonian layout, despite being newly founded between the late fifth and late fourth centuries BCE. This evidence of continuity stands in clear contrast to the examples from Babylon, Nippur, and Ur, where the Achaemenid period architecture evolved from a Neo‐Babylonian precursor. The Abu Qubur building, on the other hand, is characterized by two “salles à quatre pilasters,” situated north and south of the central court, and dating to the same time period as Mahmudiyah. Noteworthy in this context is Gasche's suggestion that the antithetic arrangement of the halls at Abu Qubur might represent a stage of development in said evolution. Basically, this suggestion picks up the introductory remarks on the date and originality of the RS in Babylon. Although the question of originality cannot be conclusively settled, it nevertheless seems to echo the situation observed in the field of religious architecture, where long‐standing building concepts were adapted in Achaemenid times, and developed their own distinctive architectural features.
Viewed in this light, the archeological evidence for Achaemenid rule over Babylonia is not meager, but hardly unentwineable from the Late Babylonian horizon, since neither the beginning nor the end of the Achaemenid period can be delineated by a stratigraphic horizon. On the other hand, this situation raises the question of whether such a distinction would be at all useful for a better understanding of the development of material culture. The latter has, in fact, so far been described as a gradual change over time, from a more Babylonian to a more Hellenistic fashion, and as marked rather by the accentuation of characteristics than by sudden breaks. Such a situation, it is clear, should not be regarded solely as the outcome of an inadequately understood Late Babylonian stratification.
In contrast to the situation in Babylonia, this problem was originally addressed in the archeology of the Neo‐Assyrian Empire, with the result that an Iron Age terminology was adopted parallel to the historical terminology, to emphasize the autonomy of pottery production from political breaks, including from the aftermath of the fall of Assyria in 614/612 BCE. Nevertheless, Iron Age terminologies still continue to be classified along political lines (Hausleiter forthcoming). This becomes particularly clear in the distinction between a “Neo‐Babylonian” and an “Achaemenid” post‐Assyrian period (cf. Curtis 2005).
However, since Curtis' seminal works, new results have been published, calling for an inquisitive reassessment of the view held therein, which pronounces the destruction of the Assyrian capital cities to have been both profound, and the following re‐occupation of an “impoverished nature” (cf. Kreppner forthc.).
As regards the first aspect, it is remarkable that the renewed Italian investigations at Fort Shalmaneser determined a much less violent destruction, than was described by the English expedition, of the building and its adjacent fortification to have taken place. On the contrary, both clearly show constant efforts of restoration and maintenance, so that the excavators even wonder whether these facilities did not remain functional within the Neo‐Babylonian administration of Assyria (Fiorina et al. 2005: p. 95).
The palaces doubtless never reached their former splendor again; however, this should not be seen as an indubitable sign of an impoverished populace as well. It is equally conceivable that the imperial, and mostly military, administrative facilities had become redundant in light of the new political situation of Achaemenid times, so that their repair and maintenance was no longer necessary. On this question, however, a better knowledge of the sequences of settlement of the capital city's areas, as well as of the chronological order of the post‐canonical eponyms, would be desirable. This is because, firstly, the correlation of some horizons of destruction with the Median‐Chaldean assaults in 614 and 612 BCE proved, most recently, to be, at the very least, questionable (Miglus forthcoming; Taylor et al. 2010), and, secondly, because the assignment of most of the post‐Assyrian traces to the Neo‐Babylonian period is chiefly based on the preconception that the “uniformity of pottery” could not have spanned a period of time longer than a generation. It has become clear that such a notion of restricted continuity can and should no longer be advocated (van Ess et al. 2012).
In this context, the evidence of phase H of the Achaemenid occupation of the Burnt Palace and Ezida Temple complex in Nimrud is most conspicuous (Curtis 2005: pp. 180–181), but, at the same time, also controversial. Provided that the current stratigraphic correlation is correct, it would, in fact, entail the re‐dating of the mudbrick temple façade “decorated with the ‘niche and reed’ type” from the Neo‐Assyrian to the Achaemenid period (Oates and Reid 1956: p. 37, Pl. V, 2 and Pl. VIII): it is true that in the section of the street between the Burnt Palace and the Nabu Temple, the foundation trench of the dressed limestone substructure is drawn as having been deepened from the surface of level 7. However, in this stratigraphic context, the building process has interpretative priority over the interface determination, which means that the pitt‐filling (level 6) of the foundation trench should be correlated correctly with the overlaying level 5, and with the corresponding drain. In spite of this, both are attributed by the excavators to phase H. In this context, it is also remarkable that the Achaemenid period phase H has also been ascertained in the shrine of Nabu, in the form of a trodden mud level, thus proving that the building was still in use. It goes without saying that such a far‐reaching re‐dating needs many more arguments than a reappraisal of the interpretative periodization of a small profile. But, on the other hand, it exemplifies how strongly archeological interpretation is biased by historical contextualization in terms of what is plausible.
It is to be hoped that the ongoing archeological investigations in the East Tigris region (Ur 2012), and in particular at Erbil, will provide new data for an improved understanding of Achaemenid Assyria, which might extend beyond the issue of the persistence of Assyrianizing pottery production (van Ess et al. 2012). In this context, it is important to note the increasing use of GIS (geographical information system) applications and remote sensing data processing, which aims for improvement of archeological research at key sites and landscapes within Babylonia and Assyria, in the hope of an early resumption of large‐scale systematic excavations.
REFERENCES
1 Allinger‐Csollich, W. (1991). Birs Nimrud I: Die