Table 2.2 Settlement development 2100 BCE – CE 200.
| Site size | Ur III‐Isin‐Larsa | Old Babylonian | Kassite | Middle Babylonian | Neo‐Babylonian‐Achaemenid | Seleucid‐Parthian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200.1+ ha | 2 | 1 | — | — | — | 2 |
| 40.1–200 ha | 11 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| 20.1–40 ha | 10 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 15 |
| 10.1–20 ha | 16 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 19 | 34 |
| 4.1–10 ha | 57 | 45 | 59 | 28 | 70 | 95 |
| 0.1–4 ha | 143 | 108 | 165 | 100 | 157 | 265 |
| (Total) | 239 (2725) | 178 (1791) | 237 (1308) | 134 (616) | 257 (1769) | 415 (2955) |
| Average site size (ha) | 11.4 | 10.06 | 5.52 | 4.6 | 6.88 | 7.12 |
As far as the irrigation systems are concerned, a marked shift, starting in the Neo‐Babylonian period, has been postulated from locally regulated canal systems toward a centrally planned and maintained irrigation system with large canals and a markedly enlarged acreage (which, however, can only be recognized in reality for the Sasanian period). This hypothesis is said to be supported by evidence that points to high fees levied for the use of irrigation “water from state‐owned canals” in the Achaemenid‐controlled alluvium of the fifth century BCE, and that in turn “seems to imply an awareness of possibilities of economic expansion that were tied to an ascending rate of state investment in the irrigation infrastructure” (Adams 1981: p. 246).
It has recently rightly been pointed out that each model of the Neo‐Babylonian (and Achaemenid) economy (and population development) has to be based on those studies. At the same time, however, scholars have pinpointed the problems (partly already referred to by the author of the surveys himself) of the evidence and the methods of investigation employed: the dating uncertainties (of the pottery involved), the non‐consideration of the area where the majority of the most important Neo‐Babylonian urban centers were located (along the new western course of the Euphrates), and of the territories (in western and southeastern Babylonia) that represented the centers of the Chaldean tribes. The fivefold increase in the population between 700 BCE and 300 BCE postulated in the 1981 surveys is now regarded as too high, although it remains unclear by how much. Nevertheless, the following trends may be stated for the Neo‐Babylonian and Achaemenid periods: “demographic growth, an increasing degree of urbanisation, agrarian expansion and the role of the state” (Jursa 2010: p. 42). These are trends that, for the sixth century BCE, find their expression also in a significant increase in economic activity (which in turn is suggested by the extent of the written documentation) and the great Neo‐Babylonian building projects (Jursa 2010: p. 42).
As for late Persian period Judah, both excavations and surveys (of settlements and administrative‐oriented sites) have proven that this political entity must have been “a rural province with no more than half the number of settlements as the late Iron Age” (Lipschits and Tal 2007: p. 47. See also Lipschits 2003, 2005, passim). Conversely, no change can be observed between late Persian and early Hellenistic Yehud as far as settlement patterns, territory, and the organization of the administrative system are concerned.
Persian imperialism did not lead to the development of new megatowns (like Babylon) but rather to the adjustment to Persian needs of existing royal centers such as Babylon, Susa, Sardis, and Ecbatana. Still, the Achaemenids contributed significantly to the process of urbanization in the Ancient Near East by promoting satrapal capitals as regional centers (thereby following an Assyrian program) and by investing revenues in constructing new royal cities in their home province of Fars (Persepolis, Pasargadae, Matezzish). Since the “itinerant ruler” was a particular feature of Achaemenid kingship (Briant 1988; Tuplin 1998), Persian residences (note the kings' self‐portrayal as master builders, hunters, and gardeners) were marked by special architectural and landscaped constituents (palaces, fortifications, administrative buildings – open spaces for tents, gardens, and game parks [paradeisoi]).
Babylonian epigraphic documentation from Neo‐Babylonian and Persian times (mostly from temple archives) is unable to match the value that the several hundred census returns on papyrus from Roman Egypt (Bagnall and Frier 1994) of the first three centuries CE have for Greco‐Roman demography (e.g. as a testimony for a supposed mean life expectancy at birth of between 20 and 30 years). However, it gives information on the active life span of craftsmen working for the temple (25 years), their cooperation with their fathers (for three to five years), and thus their age at marriage (on average below 19 years; in Roman Egypt: just above 25), thereby (roughly) corresponding with the Life Table Model West, Level 2 (Coale and Demeny 1983). Babylonian ration lists, mostly from the fourth century BCE, suggest a mean number of 3.4 adolescent children for average males (which would lead to a total of 7.73 births according to the Life Table quoted above). Other results of demographic research on Neo‐Babylonian and Achaemenid Babylonia are: life expectancy at birth for men – roughly 20.5 years (at the age of 20: until the age of 48; Roman Egypt: 25 and 50.7 respectively); age at marriage for females: about 14–15 years (for the demographic parameters of the Babylonian epigraphic evidence see Jursa 2010: pp. 37–39).
At first sight, the Persepolis Fortification Archive (for the Archive see Briant et al. 2008; Henkelman 2008: