In contrast with the urban deployment in the coastal region of the Land of Israel, which underwent accelerated development from the beginning of the Persian period, the mountain region of the country was characterized by the continued existence of a rural economy and the absence of urban settlements. This is one of the outstanding characteristics of the mountain region during the Persian period, a continuation of the geopolitical reality that was created in this region during the period of Assyrian and Babylonian rule.

This characteristic of the mountain region is not only a manifestation of the economic interests of the Persian Empire (similar to the interests of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires). More than anything it attests to the marginal strategic status of this region in general and of Judah in particular, throughout most of the Persian period. Its distance from the coast road and from the harbors, from the overland and marine commerce and from the military activity that was focused in these regions, brought about a situation whereby the Persian Empire had no interest in establishing urban centers in the mountain region or in the creation of high urban, religious or economic classes. The Persians were also not at all interested in fortifying cities or in creating the possibility of nests of national resistance in this region.

In light of this we should examine assumptions that have taken root in the research concerning Persian interests in Judah and their influence on the status of the pahwah and its processes its development, particularly the Return to Zion and construction of Jerusalem’s city walls.

In my lecture I will examine the different theories that scholars have proposed to explain the Persian approval that was given for the construction of the city walls of Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century BCE. I will reject the explanations that stress the Persian initiative for the construction of the walls (as well as the arrival of Nehemia to Judah). Against the background of the military and political developments in the region I will claim that most of these reconstructions are based on the creation of an artificial connection between the Greek sources and the descriptions in Ezra and Nehemia which presume that Judah was of central strategic importance in the Persian Empire’s military activity in the region. These reconstructions also caused, through a classic circular contention, to dating many of the citadels in the Land of Israel in general, and in the mountain region in particular, to the middle of the fifth century BCE.

In the wake of this an artificial distinction has been suggested for two phases in the archaeology of the Persian period in Judah: that before the middle of the fifth century BCE and the phase after the fortification of Jerusalem and the establishment of the “Persian fortresses” throughout the mountain region.

Understanding the marginal strategic status of Judah in the Persian Empire and the Persian military activity along the Mediterranean coast and in the direction of Egypt allows a more measured examination of the reasons for the developments that occurred in Judah during the fifth century BCE, and even furthermore – to an examination of the reasons and the factors that brought about these developments and for understanding the time period during which they transpired.