Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations

Abstract

The Babylonian, Persian and early Hellenistic periods are unique in the history of Judah. They represent a kind of "interlude" between two periods of greatness and political independence. This article discusses the archaeological finds from Jerusalem in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. It includes an assessment of the scope of the built-up area of the city, and an estimate of the city's population, on the basis of the archaeological data. This article's emphasis on the importance of the Ophel hill as the main built-up area in the Persian and Early Hellenistic period is unique in present archaeological and historical research of ancient Jerusalem.

Persian Period Jerusalem and Yehud: A Rejoinder

“…Indirectly, Barkay agrees with me about the positive evidence, which testifies to a 2-2.5 hectare settlement (2.8 hectares according to Lipschits -2009;; see below). But based on his rejection of the negative evidence, Barkay adds almost 10 hectares and argues that in the Persian period Jerusalem covered an area of 12 hectares.…”

“…The archaeology of the places mentioned in the List of Returnees in Ezra (2:1-67) and Nehemiah (7:6-68) seems to show that this text, too, probably represents a Late Hellenistic (2 nd century BCE) rather than a Persian-period reality. A few recent publications have taken issue with these observations (Zevit 2009;; E. Mazar 2009;; Barkay 2008;; Lipschits 2009). This article is meant to address the main arguments advanced in these publications.…”

In Nehemiah's Footsteps? Uzziah at the Service of the Chronicler's Ideology

“…135 Jerusalem was indeed small during the Persian Period, but the pottery and storage jar stamps are evidence of significant activity. 136 There is little reason for the Hasmoneans to attribute to someone else the wall they themselves built, a wall that was more ideological and theological than physical. 137 Most of the biblical texts were composed during the Persian Period, there is evidence of the growing status of the high priest, and the Hasmoneans would have had no reason to glorify the Davidic kings when a new lineage of priests took their place.…”