Final answer:
The maximalist position for Jerusalem's size during the Persian period indicates substantial urban expansion, consistent with the empire's stability and growth. Pros include alignment with Persian monumentalism, while cons rest on scant archaeological support and potential regional instability due to slow military mobilization affecting city growth.
Step-by-step explanation:
The maximalist position regarding Jerusalem's size during the Persian period suggests that the city expanded significantly beyond the bounds of the smaller city of the late Iron Age. This viewpoint posits that the city may have included the entire southeastern hill or even extended further into other areas. Proponents of this perspective argue that the Persian period, being one of relative stability and economic growth under the vast empire, would have allowed for such expansion. However, the maximalist position is debated due to the lack of substantial archaeological evidence for widespread construction during this time.
- Pros of the maximalist position include the theoretical alignment with the idea of a flourishing community under Persian rule, parallel to the monumental art and architecture famously associated with the Persians, such as in Persepolis.
- Cons focus on the actual archaeological findings, or lack thereof, which do not support significant expansion, and the long time needed to mobilize the large and multi-ethnic Persian Empire for war, which might have affected regional stability and thus the growth of peripheral cities like Jerusalem.