them those of the ancient province of Media.
2 Chevalier, N. (1989). Hamadan 1913: une mission oubliée. Iranica Antiqua, 24, pp. 245–251. Gives a brief description of the little‐known excavations that were conducted at Hamadan close to 100 years ago.
3 Gopnik, H. (2011). The Median citadel of Godin period II. In H. Gopnik, M.S. Rothman (eds.), On the High Road: The History of Godin Tepe, Iran. Ontario: Royal Ontario Museum Press, pp. 285–347 and 351–362. Represents the final excavation report on the Median settlement at Godin Tepe.
4 Knapton, P., Sarraf, M.R., and Curtis, J. (2001). Inscribed bases from Hamadan. Iran, 39, pp. 99–117. Provides a valuable treatment of the inscribed Achaemenid column bases that have come to light at Hamadan.
5 Muscarella, O.W. (1994). Miscellaneous Median matters. In H. Sancisi‐Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt (eds.), Continuity and Change (Achaemenid History 8). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, pp. 57–64. Stresses that we have no archaeological knowledge of recognizable Median art to date, but that nevertheless its existence cannot be ruled out.
6 Roaf, M. (2010). The role of the Medes in the architecture of the Achaemenids. In J. Curtis, St J. Simpson (eds.), The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I.B. Tauris, pp. 247–253. Reviews the similarities that exist between the surviving remains of Median architecture and certain features in Achaemenid architecture.
7 Sarraf, M.R. (2003). Archaeological excavations in Tepe Ekbatana (Hamadan) by the Iranian Archaeological Mission between 1983 and 1999. In G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, and R. Rollinger (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia (History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs 5). Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice, pp. 269–279. Represents one of the few readily available reports on the recent excavations – excavations that failed to locate any intact Achaemenid building levels.
8 Stronach, D. (2003). Independent media: archaeological notes from the homeland. In G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, and R. Rollinger (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia (History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs 5). Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice, pp. 233–248. Describes certain archaeological features that can be distinguished as Median and uses these to begin to define a Median core area in pre‐Achaemenid times.
9 Stronach, D. (2012a). The territorial limits of ancient Media: an architectural perspective. In H. Baker, K. Kaniuth, and A. Otto (eds.), Stories of long ago: Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 397). Münster: Ugarit‐Verlag, pp. 667–684. Provides a study of the known distribution of a single type of public building, typified by the fort at Tepe Nush‐i Jan, which conceivably reflects the extent of direct Median rule.
10 Stronach, D., Roaf, M. (2007). Nush‐i Jan I: The Major Buildings of the Median Settlement. London: British Institute of Persian Studies. Represents the final excavation report on the history and architecture of the Median settlement at Tepe Nush‐i Jan.
CHAPTER 17 Babylonia and Assyria
Walter Kuntner and Sandra Heinsch
The archeological evidence for Achaemenid rule over Herodotus' ninth satrapy can be described as decidedly wanting, compared to relevant historical sources. Few are, in fact, the architectural remains possessed of Achaemenid imperial character1 that can be found within this territory. In this paper, it consists of the historical regions of Babylonia and Assyria conveniently demarcated by the frontiers of modern Iraq and tentatively partitioned according to Xenophon's Median Wall (Gasche 1995).
The most prominent finding is without doubt the Perserbau abutting the Südburg in Babylon (cf. Figure 70.4). This annex has been dated differently by various scholars: either to the reign of Artaxerxes II on the grounds of epigraphic evidence, or to the reign of Darius I on the basis of the red‐colored finish of the rubble‐and‐gravel floor. The closely related issue of the Anbauhof complex of the Südburg (Figure 17.1), as possible additional evidence of an Achaemenid imprint, has received less attention, despite the more far‐reaching consequences it might have for our understanding of Achaemenid Babylonia (Gasche 2010). Gasche's approach discusses firstly the characteristic layout of this complex's reception suite (RS), whose congruence with the RS of Darius I's palace at Susa (Figure 15.6) led him to suggest the re‐dating of the Anbauhof to that king's reign. Secondly, he calls attention to the RSs' openings, onto the courts of the Anbauhof and Westhof respectively, occurring with only minor variation in all three palaces in Babylon, yet which are missing at Susa. This fact additionally prompted Gasche to take into consideration the re‐dating of the Westhof complex to the reign of Cyrus the Great, and thus to propose a new chronological framework for the architectural history of the palaces of Babylon (cf. Amiet 2010).
Figure 17.1 The so‐called Südburg of Babylon.
The problematic aspect in Gasche's (2010: p. 458) reasoning is the assumption that the occupation layer of the rebuilt Anbauhof complex was once raised together with that of the Westhof complex, in order to merge with the uppermost pavings of the court of Nebuchadnezzar II's Haupthof (henceforth shortened as Nebuchadnezzar). In fact, based on this assumption, he considers the brick rubble containing the Neriglissar cylinders to be the constructional underpinnings of the new western palace wings, installed after that reign.
There is, however, no archeological proof for this assumption. The idea that the whole palace area was raised by Nebuchadnezzar to the same level goes back to Koldewey's (1931: pp. 75–77) attempt to explain the purpose and, above all, the condition of the mudbrick wall delimiting the Haupthof to the west. According to him, the fact that this wall was built from mudbricks could only mean that it represented a temporary stage of construction. However, connecting the Westhof and Haupthof via the vaulted corridors would have been too big an effort for a mere passing phase of construction. This temporality can be excluded all the more safely because of the remains of mudbrick walls, found in the northwest corner of the Haupthof, considered by Koldewey a sanctuary of the Achaemenid period. In fact, the latter lay immediately above the paving of Nebuchadnezzar, slightly overlapping the northern ramp. From this, it may be concluded that the ramp system continued to be used at least until Achaemenid times.
The picture thus emerging is rather one that shows the brick pavings of the four western courts lying at different levels up until the Achaemenid period. These heights coincide with the downward sloping gradient of Nebuchadnezzar's uppermost paving, made of stamped, 50 cm square terracotta tiles running between the Südburg – from which it was accessible through several gateways – and the inner city wall.2 In this respect, the brick rubble containing the Neriglissar cylinders can hardly be considered the underpinnings of the Anbauhof, which was, according to Gasche, rebuilt at a higher level in post‐Neriglissar times. Therefore, it seems rather that the brick rubble was not put in place till the construction of the Perserbau, when it served as the underpinnings for the continuation of its red‐colored floor, in order for it to link up with the brick pavings in the eastern Südburg complexes. There, the double protome column capital of Achaemenid type signals, at least, the maintained use of this occupation layer until that time.3 It is only due to this episode of construction, that the split‐level building design of Nebuchadnezzar's Südburg was abandoned, obliterating the Anbauhof and Westhof complexes.
This hypothesis explains, with equal success, the distribution of the Neriglissar cylinders across several rooms of these complexes and, more effectively than Gasche's proposal, their location within