Dear Dierk, dear colleagues,
The questions you and other colleages have raised are very tricky indeed
and with the material currently available almost impossible to answer. I
see two different issues at stake regarding the Sychar plain:
a) the distribution of archaeological material that attests some kind of
habitation (generally not more than that) and
b) the question of the identity of the inhabitants of these sites
(something that usually can only be inferred from text-based
reconstructions of the history of the region).
Both sets of data are incomplete (though we have many more sites attested
in the archaeological material than in the texts) and may in many respects
not match (esp. in the correlation between site names mentioned in the
ancient literature and modern site names). Moreover, neither the
archaeological nor the scant literary data are of great help to determine
the religious identity of the inhabitants of a given site. What kind of
material culture would identify a Samaritan site in the Sychar Plain as
over against a Jewish or any other site in the Hellenistic period? Would
the traditional Tomb of Joseph (if it had already existed) not be a focus
for Jews and Samaritans alike?
While Schenke is very much in favor of establishing a link between the
"rise" of Sychar and the fall of Shechem and see Sychar as the successor of
Shechem on the basis of historical texts, I am more cautious (though many
more have followed Schenke so far). I am not saying that Schenke's thesis
is impossible, I only say that we have too little material to really
substantiate his ingenious but very far reaching conclusion. Apart from the
fact that survey finds simply do not provide the chronological accurarcy
you would need to ground your historical construction (the same Hellenistic
sherds theoretically could equally be dated to 99 BCE or 125 BCE, that
however would have considerable impact on the plausibility of his
historical hypothesis), his model to some extent also depends on the
"ethnic" character of Shechem. Contrary to him (and others like
G.E.Wright), I assume that the Hellenistic settlement on Gerizim, excavated
by Y.Magen and unknown to both Schenke and Wright, was the center of
Samaritan habitation, while Shechem was inhabited by a mixed population. I
base this assumption on literary data (Josephus' mention of the "Sidonians
of Shechem") and a few hints in the still unpublished ceramics that betray
links to the coast. Not much either, and therefore open to critique, but I
think that Samaria was much more "multicultural" than we might conceive of
on the basis of literary texts.
To give a short answer to a very complicated question: There can be no
doubt that Sychar was inhabited in the late 2nd c. BCE (so it is
"Hellenistic" in a chronologoical sense), perhaps even earlier. It is
possible that Samaritans lived there, but we cannot exclude other groups,
simply because we cannot distinguish these groups from another in terms of
material culture. We cannot say much about the size and even less about the
role of Sychar in the Hellenistic period, with respect to the misleading
connotations of the term "city" I'd rather speak of a "settlement" or more
neutral of a "site". The prominent role Sychar has played in recent
research is to some extent a result of the lack of sufficient data on other
sites - thus indirectly draws much from arguments e silentio.
Cf. the foundation of Neapolis by Vespasian, which
>presupposes a Hellenistic (consequentely pro-Roman) population.
These are two things that need to be distinguished! Nowhere do we find any
indication that the inhabitants of Mabortha were pro-Roman. The Romans
simply were interested to control the passageway between Gerizim and Ebal
which had been a major traffic route for millennia, and might simply have
expelled the original inhabitants. The names of the father and grandfather
of the only inhabitant of Neapolis we know of, Justin Martyr, do point to
foreign colonists without links to the indigenous population and culture
(1Apol 1:1; more info in my two books I mentioned on ORION before). Limited
evidence, I know, but still...
From archaeological surveys, we also know that Mabortha was not the only
pre-70 settlement in the valley. Cf. my comments above on the question if
and how our data match and can be combined to a comprehensive picture.
>'capital city' indeed sounds somewhat exaggerated - better speak of a
>'regional dominant location/strategic base' of the Samaritans (or something
>alike).
Rather "something alike" than
a) regional dominant location/strategic base - or
b) exclusively Samaritan.
In addition to my recent posting you might also want to look at:
E.F.Campbell, Shechem II. Portrait of a Hill Country Vale: The Shechem
Regional Survey. Atlanta (Scholars) 1991.
with excellent maps and a careful discussion of the material.
One question to all: Do you think the mention of "Gerizim" in 3Q 15 12,4-5
has any impact on our ongoing discussion, not to forget the tiny scrap
found in Masada also mentioning "Gerizim" recently published by S.Talmon in
IEJ 47(1997), 220-237 and the Masada Final Reports?
With all best wishes,
Jürgen
Dr. Jürgen Zangenberg
Visiting Assistant Professor
Yale Divinity Schools
For private reply, e-mail to Jurgen Zangenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
