The critical reappraisal of the German excavations' evidence corroborates this interpretation, for it proves that the interruption of the wall was already extant before the time of Nabonidus (Heinsch and Kuntner 2011: pp. 512–520). This segment of the city wall might, therefore, never have been completed, or even planned by Nebuchadnezzar to connect to the eastern line of fortification. One reason for the abandonment of this segment's construction might have been the building of the Osthaken, which continues the eastern line of the inner city walls up to the Sommerpalast in Babylon, making its completion superfluous (cf. Lippolis et al. 2011: p. 6). But it is also conceivable that this segment was restricted ab initio, in order solely to reinforce the quarter of Ay‐ibūr‐šabû when it was elevated by Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Pedersén 2011: pp. 14–18); a possibility already considered by Koldewey (Figure 17.2).
Figure 17.2 Reconstructed view of the building complexes in the quarter of Ay‐ibūr‐šabû (Koldewey 1913: Fig. 43).
The ancient classical accounts on the relationship of the Achaemenid kings to the Babylonian temples had an even more profound impact on the historicization of these archeological records than the above. The reassessment presented by Kuntner and Heinsch basically criticizes the previous, biased interpretation, firstly, of the consistency of Neo‐Babylonian religious architecture as an indication of its ephemerality and, secondly, of the absence of building inscriptions after Cyrus the Great as a willful refusal by the Achaemenid kings to act as temple provider. The absence of building inscriptions has also been interpreted as proof for the dissolution of the Babylonian temple institution within the early Achaemenid period.
The temples at Babylon and Borsippa give evidence of a continuous and strict compliance to Neo‐Babylonian architectural and cult traditions into the Seleucid period. During the Achaemenid period, no significant breaks, let alone violent episodes of destruction, are visible, even though these cities represented the main strongholds in the revolts against Xerxes in 484 BCE. Wherever breaks were identified in the brickwork, they signaled the complete rebuilding of the temple maintaining the existing layout with considerable accuracy.
It can, therefore, be deduced that the lack of royal building inscriptions might indicate a shift in the manifestation of Babylonian kingship ideology during the Achaemenid period. This privilege of providing for the temples might have been conferred to high‐ranking personnel of the temple administration, as happened, for instance, in the cases of Anu‐uballit Nikarchos and Anu‐uballit Kaphalon in Seleucid times. Needless to say, such a situation clearly hampers any attempt to identify the individuals who sponsored the rebuilding of the temples, and their maintenance. However, the archeological situation has only recently become subject to a more permissive, yet nevertheless cautious, interpretation of the archeological records, in reassessing the stratigraphy of construction in regard to the Achaemenid period (Kuntner and Heinsch 2013). Even now, however, this reassessment suggests anything but a standstill in Babylonian religious architecture. On the contrary, there are indications suggesting the Hürdenhausanlagen (Heinrichs 1982: pp. 283–335) to be an innovation of the Achaemenid period, or to have at least become the standard layout concept from that time onward, complying with, if not quintessentially fulfilling, the ideals determined by the “archetypal cult‐center” of Esagila at Babylon (cf. George 1999).
In this specific context, the ziggurat Etemenanki of Babylon requires special mention. The poor state of preservation of Etemenanki, and its alleged close connection to the rubble mounds at Homera, have, from the very beginning, animated scholars to take “Koldewey's paradox” as the striking proof for the accuracy of classical narratives; namely, the destruction of the ziggurat by Xerxes and the successive leveling of the ruin by Alexander the Great for his planned but never accomplished rebuilding. Those archeological arguments put forward to advocate this view were based on the preconception that the remains excavated in the plain called Sahn are vestiges of a once entire and 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
