87 JCS 60 (2008) Although the impact of Achaemenid rule on Babylonia was profound, it took time for changes to ˜lter through on the ground to the extent that they become visible in the recoverable material and administrative remains. 1 There is a delay in the manifestation of change in the material culture. As put by Gibson, “the problem we are dealing here is one of time lag. Archaeological periods and historical periods are not necessarily coterminous. Artifacts thought typical of a period may continue in use some time after the historical era has ended.” 2 This phenomenon has been observed with regard to coins, seals, ceramics, and sculpture. But equally it applies to the written record, where both the formatting of the tablets and the archival situations that they record lag behind the change of dynasty (Stolper 1989b: 92 n. 23). As regards the advent of Achaemenid rule in Babylonia, there is at ˜rst very much a continuity with the bureaucracy of the Neo-Babylonian period. Changes appear during the reign of Darius I 3 and a convenient cut-oˆ point is provided by the reign of Xerxes I. 4 In the case of the temple communities, in many ways business seems to have gone on as usual, at least until the time of the revolts in the second year of Xerxes. 5 This pictures holds for the Ebabbara in Sippar. There are a few instances where we may note the use of Persian terms (hamarakara, pasaådu, padas¿tu) 6 but in each case these are really just synonyms for the Akkadian equivalents (tupsarru, rikis qabli, ilku), and though serving to remind of the presence of a new regime, they do not of them- selves denote any more far-reaching transformation than that. Similarly, references in the archives of 1. For summaries of the impact of Achaemenid rule on Babylonia see Oppenheim (1985), van Driel (1987), Jursa (2007), Kuhrt (1988), and Dandamayev (1994), as well as passages in Briant (2002), Dandamayev (1989), and Dandamayev and Lukonin (1989); for a more speci˜c discussion of the relations between the Ebabbara and the state in the sixth century BC see MacGinnis (1994). I would like to thank Mohammed Dandamayev, Michael Jursa, Amélie Kuhrt, Cornelia Wunsch and Stefan Zawadzki for their help and comments. 2. Gibson (1974: 13), quoted by Zettler (1979: 268). 3. Zettler (1979: 266–67). Another case in point is the term sepÿru bel temi, which appears in the reign of Darius and is found throughout the empire (Stolper 1989a: 298–99); this seems to have denoted a roving royal commissioner and in Babylonia would therefore be equivalent to the earlier res sarri. Note however that Jursa will shortly suggest that the Achaemenid equivalent to res sarri was ustarbaru (personal communication). 4. Due to the fact that there is an abrupt breaking oˆ of the recovered cuneiform record at this time, that there is a new character to the texts when the documentation resumes, and that numerous archives from the temple communities of northern Babylonia come to an end in the second year of this king. 5. On which see most recently Waerzeggers (2003). 6. hamarakara: MacGinnis (2007: no. 3); pasaådu: Jursa (1999: 99–100), MacGinnis (2002b: 180); padas¿tu: Jursa (1995b). A JUDGMENT OF DARIUS THE KING John MacGinnis (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge) Caesar dum magnus ad altum fulminat Euphraten bello victorque volentis per populos dat iura Georgics IV 560–562