integrated into the fabric of the city, such as the temples of Ishtar of Agade and
Ninurta in Babylon. The larger temples housed not only the principal deity but also
contained smaller shrines and cultic daises of other gods and goddesses. The huge
precincts of Eanna, Ebabbar (Sippar), Ezida (Borsippa) and of the ziggurat Etemenanki
(Babylon) would not only have accommodated the religious elements of cultic practice
but also much of the subsidiary ‘industry’ which serviced the cult, i.e. the numerous
workshops and storerooms of the craftsmen and professionals in the employ of the
temple.
As for ziggurats, there are tablets dating from both the Kassite and the Neo-
Babylonian periods which list their ceremonial names and the cities in which they
were located (see George 1993 : 45 – 49 , nos. 4 – 5 ). It is clear from these texts that
there were ziggurats in a number of cities which were occupied in the first millennium
BC: Agade; Babylon; Borsippa; Dilbat; Kish and Hursagkalamma; Kutha; Larsa;
Marad; Nippur; Sippar; Shatir; Ur; and Uruk. Archaeological remains at the site of
Tell Hammam near Umma (modern Jokhah) may also be interpreted as a ziggurat
(Heinrich 1982 : 327 , Abb. 419 ). In fact, some cities possessed more than one ziggurat,
according to the written sources (for example, Agade and Hursagkalamma). Not all
of these structures have been investigated archaeologically, but a number of them are
known to have been rebuilt during this period. The kings Nebukadrezzar II and
Nabonidus were especially active in this respect, as is evidenced by their inscriptions.
Usually the ziggurat was integrated into an extensive precinct (see above) which
also encompassed the principal temple of the city, such as Eurmeiminanki, the ziggurat
of Borsippa, which shared a precinct with Ezida, the Nabû temple of that city. A
similar situation prevailed in the Eanna precinct at Uruk, and in that of Ebabbar at
Sippar. Unusually, Esagil, the temple of Marduk at Babylon, was independent of the
ziggurat Etemenanki and its extensive enclosure.
Residential areasThree principal areas of first millennium housing have been excavated: in the Merkes
area of Babylon (Reuther 1926 : 77 – 122 ), at Ur (Woolley 1962 : 43 – 8 and Plate 71 )
and at Uruk, to the west and southwest of the Eanna temple enclosure (for a plan
see Kessler 1991 : Beilage 1 ). For an excellent survey of the archaeological evidence
concerning houses see the relevant sections in Miglus 1999.
Most of the Merkes houses are significantly larger than the average house of this
period (ca. 417 square metres); they range in area from 190 to 1 , 475 square metres.
They are also unusually well built, and it seems that we should be wary of assuming
this district to be typical for Neo-Babylonian residential districts in general; probably
we are dealing here with the dwellings of the elite in what was, after all, the capital.
Houses were accessed via a single entrance opening off a public street or a private
dead-end alley. In the excavated areas of housing, such alleys are actually under-
represented in comparison with streets, but the abundant textual evidence for alleys
confirms that the Neo-Babylonian residential districts were no different in this respect
from their earlier counterparts (as at Old Babylonian Ur, for example).
The houses were built almost entirely of mudbrick, unlike those at Old Babylonian
Ur, where baked bricks were used much more extensively, at least for the lower
courses of walls. By this time the use of baked bricks was confined to special features,
— Heather D. Baker —