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 a selection of layers across the compound's multiple strata of brick rubble (cf. Koldewey 1931 : p. 106).
Nevertheless, the basic idea proposed by Gasche remains attractive, in particular relating to the foundation walls of the gateway leading to the Persischen Kiosk, insofar as he suggested that they were built of brick rubble (Koldewey 1931: Pl. 20 and 32). This building technique is well attested in the Achaemenid period. It is then, in this sense, certainly conceivable that the building material was obtained by dismantling the Chaldean palace walls, as suggested by Gasche, thus relocating Neriglissar's cylinders. However, this does not necessarily coincide in time with the construction of the Perserbau.
But, all in all, the evidence from the Anbauhof is intricately complex because of its fragmentary nature, and is self‐contradictory on a case‐by‐case basis. Architectural details are sometimes selectively described, and not always entirely conferrable to the situation shown in the plans and vice versa, or because details visible in the plans, such as the previously mentioned brick rubble foundations, are not always described in the report. As a result, the true extent of this typologically characteristic feature within the Anbauhof complex is unclear, particularly as regards to the RS. The question, whether this layout represents, in Babylon, an Achaemenid conception, or an Achaemenid‐period emulation of a long‐standing residential concept, cannot be conclusively deduced.
Irrespective of the quest for Achaemenid imperial architecture, the written sources and artifacts found on the Kasr clearly attest to the maintenance of the Neo‐Babylonian palaces, and, in particular, to that of the Hauptburg by the Achaemenid kings and their satraps. The Kasr archive of Belshunu vividly illustrates the central role which the building's infrastructure had on the Kasr, and which it must have played in the economy and administration of “Babylon and Across‐the‐River”; this is well reflected, for instance, in the so‐called Babylon silver hoard (Reade 1986). The fragments of the Babylon version of the Behistun relief‐inscription of Darius I can likewise be placed in this historical context (Seidl 1999).
Such an idea of continuity, based on written attestations as well as on inferences from the archeological findings, basically applies to any structure used in Neo‐Babylonian times (see now Baker 2012). Their putative disruption in Achaemenid times was, for the most part, simply postulated on the basis of the uncritical quotation of classical accounts, or, as in the specific case of Babylon, considered in passing only while concentrating on other questions.
The city walls of Babylon are a telling example of this attitude. Since the beginning of field research, this structure has been perceived as one of the most outstanding and fascinating monuments of “Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon,” whose image was so vividly implanted on European mind both by Biblical metaphors, and by Herodotus' detailed description. The persistence of its character as a fortification into Parthian times was, no doubt, already recognized by the German excavators, but extraneous to the pursued exposure of that preconceived image of Babylon. Indeed, the extensive maintenance efforts under later kings are thoroughly discernible in the archeological documentation. The problem, in retrospect, is that it is hardly possible, on the basis of the existing documentation, to date them more precisely within their Late Babylonian horizon.4
The main reason for scholarly concern about the defensive integrity of the city walls in Achaemenid times is, however, the abrupt interruption of the mudbrick walls northeast of the Ninmah temple. Because this feature is located next to a cut‐off meander of the Euphrates, scholars have assumed that the disruption was caused by the shift of the Euphrates' riverbed east of the Kasr. The date of this event in the early Achaemenid period was chiefly substantiated through reference to Herodotus' and Ctesias' descriptions of Babylon (Wetzel 1930: p. 77). Though Wetzel (1930: p. 21) certainly described the presence of mud and alluvial sediments at the bottommost levels, he failed to prove that they actually overlaid the city walls. There is nothing to disprove that this meander developed far earlier (contra Bergamini 2011: pp. 26–28, Pl. 5).
