A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set. Группа авторов

(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).⁵

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