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 Baukörper der Ziqqurrat von Borsippa. Baghdader Mitteilungen, 22, pp. 383–499.
2 Amiet, P. (2010). Le palais de Darius à Suse: Problèmes et hypothèses. ARTA 2010.001, pp. 1–13.
3 Baker, H. (2010). The social dimensions of Babylonian domestic architecture in the Neo‐Babylonian and Achaemenid periods. In J. Curtis, S.J. Simpson (eds.), The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I.B. Tauris, pp. 79–194.
4 Baker, H. (2012). The Neo‐Babylonian empire. In D.T. Potts (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, II. Malden, MA: Wiley‐Blackwell, pp. 914–930.
5 Bergamini, G. (2011). Babylon in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic period: the changing landscape of a myth. Mesopotamia, XLVI, pp. 23–34.
6 Curtis, J. (2005). The Achaemenid period in Northern Iraq. In P. Briant, R. Boucharlat (eds.), L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide: nouvelles recherches. Persika 6. Paris: de Boccard, pp. 175–195.
7 van Ess, M., Hausleiter, A., Hussein, H.H., and Mohammed, N.B. (2012). Excavations in the city of Arbil, 2009–2011: The Neo‐Assyrian tomb. Zeitschrift für Orient‐Archäologie, 5, pp. 104–165.
8 Fiorina, P., Bombardieri, L., and Chiocchetti L. (2005). Kalhu‐Kahat: Elementi di continuità attraverso il periodo neoassiro finale e l’età neobabilonese caldea in Mesopotamia settentrionale. Mesopotamia, XL, pp. 81–102.
9 Gasche, H. (1995). Autour des Dix‐Mille: vestiges archéologiques dans les environs du ‘Mur de Médie’. In P. Briant (ed.), Dans les pas des Dix‐Mille: Peuples et pays du Proche‐Orient vuspar un Grac. Toulouse: Universite de Toulous‐Le Mirail, pp. 201–216.
10 Gasche, H. (2010). Les palais perses achéménides de Babylone. In J. Perrot (ed.), Le palais de Darius à Suse: Une résidence royale sur la route de Persépolis à Babylone. Paris: PUPS, pp. 446–463.
11 George, A.R. (1999). E‐sangil and E‐temen‐anki, the archetypal cult‐centre. In J. Renger (ed.), Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne. Saarbrücken: SDV, pp. 67–86.
12 George, A.R. (2010). Xerxes and the tower of babel. In J. Curtis, S.J. Simpson (eds.), The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I.B. Tauris, pp. 472–480.
13 Haerinck, E. (1997). Babylonia under Achaemenid rule. In J. Curtis (ed.), Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period: Conquest and Imperialism 539–331 BC. London: British Museum Press, pp. 26–34.
14 Hausleiter, A. (forthcoming). Iron Age Ceramics in Assyria and the fall of the Assyrian Empire. In S. Heinsch, W. Kuntner R. Rollinger (eds.), Befund und Historisierung. Dokumentation und ihre Interpretationsspielräume (Araxes I). Turnhout: Brepols.
15 Heinrich, E. (1982). Die Tempel und Heiligtümer im alten Mesopotamien: Typologie, Morphologie und Geschichte. Berlin: de Gruyter.
16 Heinsch, S., Kuntner, W. (2011). Herodot und die Stadtmauern Babylons: Bemerkungen zur archäologischen Befundsituation der Landmauern. In R. Rollinger, B. Truschnegg, and R. Bichler (eds.), Herodot und das Persische Weltreich – Herodotus and the Persian Empire. Classica et Orientalia 3. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz, pp. 499–530.
17 Heinsch, S., Kuntner, W., and Rollinger, R. (2011). Von Herodot zur angeblichen Verödung babylonischer Stadtviertel in achaimenidischer Zeit: Kritische Bemerkungen zum archäologischen Befund auf dem Merkes sowie zur vermeintlichen
