Canaanites Canaan

CANAAN, CANAANITES. Canaan is, in the view of the biblical writers the "Promised Land" which God had allotted to Abraham and his seed (Gen. xii. 7; xiii. 15, etc.) ; the holy land of the representatives of the three great monotheistic religions. This hilly country, poor for purposes of cultivation, seemed to the Israelites coming out of the wilderness, to be a land "flowing with milk and honey" (Exod. iii. 8; Deut. xi. 9, sqq., etc.). If grape-honey is to be understood, this term is connected with two chief activities of the country, cattle breeding and wine-growing. But the mythological explanation is more likely : Canaan is as a Paradise, and "milk and honey" then means something similar to "Nectar and Ambrosia" (cf. Deut. xxxii. 13 sqq., also Is. vii. 15). Actually, in view of the conquered but still feared former inhabi tants, Canaan signifies for the Israelites the temptation to fall back into Nature-worship (cf. Ezek. xvi. 29; xvii. 4; Ps. cvi. 38, and Gen. ix. 25).

The

Land.—Canaan in spite of its small area, is of remarkable variety in geographical and climatic character. Natural conditions necessitated its cleavage, both politically and otherwise, into more or less independent cities and peoples. As a "hinterland," of the Phoenician ports especially, west Jordan was always receptive of • foreign influences, but although, without any marked cultural stamp, it was (especially in the South) capable of independent development. Comparatively seldom do we find Canaan as the name of a country in non-biblical writings. Nowhere, as far as yet known, is the name older than the time of the Egyptian New Kingdom (i.e., after 160o B.c.). In the Hittite cuneiform texts from Boghaz-keui, we find Canaan (Kinahhe, the same form in the Amarna texts), in a record concerning Mitanni and several (non-Semitic) north Syrian kingdoms (Kinza, Dunip, Ugarit, Katna, etc.). Probably the name originally denoted the plains on the coast, including the Phoenician commercial cities, the low lands and plains of the interior (cf. Num. xiii. 29), and eventually the whole of west Jordan. The etymology is unknown : the mean ing "Lowland" must be rejected. In the Egyptian inscriptions (after Seti I., about 1300 B.c.) we find the name invariably with the definite article, "the Canaan." The Inhabitants.—The Canaanites are often mentioned in the Old Testament, as one of the peoples of the country, by the side of Hittites, Amorites, Perezites, Hivvites and Jebusites (e.g., Exod. iii. 8; Deut. vii. 1). Behind this enumeration lurks a true recollection of racial blending in pre-Israelite times. In the "table of nations," Gen. x. 6, sqq., Canaan does not appear with the Semites, but as a son of Ham (cf. ix. 18 sqq.) . This may be at tributed to the fact that geographical and ethnical considerations have been crossed by ethico-religious ones : with Ham were classi fied (in addition to the despised negroes), all those who were in imical and dangerous to the chosen people. It may be that there is historical ground for this belief. Palestine must have been set tled by a people from the north about 160o B.C. ; with this people were mixed the Mitanni and Harri, and all were under the do minion of an Aryan population. We find in Amarna times (see below) Indo-Aryan names among the rulers of Canaan. It is pos sible, though not demonstrable, that the Canaanites were con nected with these conquerors who may be historically regarded as the forerunners of the Philistines. Thus, the two commonly-used names of the Holy Land, Canaan and Palestine (i.e., "land of Philistines"), originate with non-Semitic peoples who were merely temporary rulers there (see PHILISTINES).

Archaeology.

When the Israelites entered Canaan (probably in two divisions, 1400 and 1200 B.C.), the civilization, as far as it had been influenced by Egypt and Babylon, was already in decay. The invasion of the Israelites does not fall at the dawn of history, but in the dusk of a stormy evening. About 1200 B.C. the aspect changed. The peoples of youthful Europe overran Asia Minor and Syria, and even menaced Egypt. Out of the Syro-Arabian desert came a young people of Semitic stock, the Aramaeans. Israel stood on the border between two ages. The religion of Sinai and the culture of Canaan were the two conflicting factors in its history. The culture of Canaan, however, is itself a com plicated structure, the fruit of a long history.

In the Old Testament we find little about this; the biblical authors paid more attention to the ways of God with His chosen people than to the hated and accursed aborigines. Excavation, on the other hand comes to our aid. As early as i865 the "Palestine Excavation Fund" had been founded, and subsequently note worthy preliminary work in Jerusalem was done. Systematical excavations in the Holy Land began in 1890 with the uncovering of Tell el-Hesy Lachish (or preferably Eglon). Since Palestine became mandated territory, a friendly rivalry has existed between the nations. Archaeological methods have been improved, the courses of old city walls have been followed, and the ruins within are uncovered layer by layer. So we gain an impression of this culture from the latest to the earliest stratum. The vessels and potsherds serve as a norm for the chronology. Excavations, such as those of Gezer, Megiddo, Beth Shan, Shechem, Gibeon (or Mizpah?) and Kirjath-Sepher, supply much interesting material. But ancient Canaan is a "dumb" country: there are no inscrip tions. This is due to the perishable nature of their writing mate rial. Papyrus, wood and leather disappeared in the wet soil. Some few pieces of clay tablets in cuneiform script have been found at Taanach and most recently at Shechem ; but from these it would seem that the Canaanites wrote in this more permanent form only during the period 1400-1200 B.C. But history-writing is impossible without written records. Therefore the basis of the following historical sketch must be the references to Canaan in Egyptian, Babylonian and (cuneiform) Hittite sources, and above all (for the period 1400-1350 B.c.) the very important Canaanite cunei form records found at el-Amarna in Egypt (see below) .

The Oldest Period

(Up to 2 500 B.c.) .—Human settlements and culture go back as far as the beginning of the history of man kind. In caves near Tabgha—north of the sea of Gennesaret was found a fragment of a skull of Neanderthal type (Homo primigenius). Traces of early Palaeolithic flint-implements were found at Balata (Shechem) and elsewhere, as also in the extreme south of the country at Ain Kuseime (in the region of the biblical Kadesh-Barnea). Surprisingly enough we find at different places (at Jerusalem, Askalon, Gaza) a mixture of implements and weapons of the earliest and later types ; this can only be explained by the mixture of different racial elements. All this, however, is of so remote an age as to be beyond our reach. Not until about 3000 B.C. does the dawn of history begin. The majority of the mega lithic monuments (barrows, cromlechs, dolmens, etc.) must be synchronous with the Old Kingdom of Egypt, as also must the oldest city-foundations. The fact that the Old Testament (e.g., Num. xiii., 32 sq., Amos ii. 9) describes the aborigines as giants may be ascribed to these monuments. Only giants, it was im agined, could have raised these huge boulders. But the skeletal remains of the first layer of Gezer definitely belong to a small race, smaller than the Semites, who differed from the Semites by their use of cremation.

The immigration of the Semites (from the south and south west) must have taken place before 300o B.C. These oldest Sem itic peoples of Canaan must have been (in speech also) closely akin to the oldest Semitic dwellers in north Babylonia (the Ak kadians). From this source also came the Canaanites' knowledge of metals (copper and bronze), of vegetables, domestic animals and many other cultural and spiritual acquisitions which had been much earlier developed and improved by the Sumerians in Mes opotamia and the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom. Egyptian in fluence was stronger in Byblos, the ancient trading port of Leb anon's export of cedar-wood. Copper came from the mines at Wadi Maghara of Sinai. Thus culture developed rapidly in the territory between these two areas.

The Old Canaanite Period

(First Bronze Age, 2600-2000 B.c.).—In the tomb of Inti (Deshasheh, Upper Egypt), we find the first representations of the conquest of Canaanite cities by Egyptians. Neither in arms nor in clothes were the Canaanites much inferior to the victorious Egyptians. About Ioo years later (6th dynasty; according to the shortest reckoning, 245o B.c.), the Egyptian Uni, recorded in his tomb his victorious campaigns against the "sand-dwellers," who occupied the country of Canaan. The inscription recounts a struggle against sturdy nomads, who invaded Canaan, so keenly coveted by the Egyptians. Only after the intervention of the Egyptian fleet was the decisive battle fought, probably near the promontory of Cannel (in the plain of Megiddo). It may be supposed that these struggles are connected with the advance of the Amorites (q.v.) from their original ter ritory on the middle course of the Euphrates. These invasions did not mean, however, much retrogression in civilization. The Amorites had a great capacity for adaptation and wherever they came, they spread the Mesopotamian culture, which they had themselves absorbed. Subsequently, they too were subjugated. Sargon I. of Akkad seized the "upper land," that is, as far as the Amanus and Taurus (?) . Soon, however, the Amorites pressed forward to the coveted cultivated lands near the mouth of the great rivers : Euphrates, Tigris and the Nile. Of this first inter mediate period (between the Old and Middle kingdom) we have little information concerning Egypt (cf. H. Frankfort, Journal of Egypt. Archaeol. vol. xii. 1926, pp. 8o-99).

The classical period of the Middle kingdom shows a national Egyptian reaction against the Canaanite (Amorite) influence. We obtain an invaluable glimpse of the condition of Canaan at this time (c. 200o B.c.) in the (romantic) story of Sinuhe, an Egyp tian fugitive of high rank, who describes his experiences and ex ploits in Upper Retenu (i.e., the mountains of Canaan). We gain the impression of well-regulated conditions, although without any central government. Mention is indeed made of the Egyptian claims, but the Canaanite chiefs did not concern themselves much about these. The peaceful relations between the two lands were of much greater importance.

The Middle Canaanite Period (Second Bronze Age, 2000 to 1600 B.C.).—The above-mentioned "kingdom of Retenu" was then (according to the hypothesis of A. Alt) an independent ter ritory, with the later Lod-Lydda, west of Jerusalem, as its capi tal; according to another view, the name is preserved in that of Lot or Lotan (Comb. Anc. Hist. i. 235). Independent of it was, probably, the "land of Shechem" in the heart of the mountains of Samaria, which was conquered about 1850 B.C. by Sesostris III. It is probable that the country then already consisted of several political territories, with scattered township centres. Unfortu nately, thenceforth no written information exists for nearly 300 years; and this is all the more to be regretted as it is just these centuries—as excavations show—which formed the first great period in the culture of this country. The rlyksos stand out as a new power which ruled over Egypt and the surrounding lands. The ground-stock of its population must have been Amorite; the heads of the ruling classes were probably already Indo-Iranian. For the first time, Syria and Canaan formed the centre of a mighty kingdom which stretched, in all probability, over a part of Asia Minor and the Aegean islands.

Using strategic methods hitherto unknown—the introduction of horses and chariots—these knightly warriors conquered a great part of the world then known, and a feudal nobility shared the sovereignty over the conquered peoples. This explains how, even after the fall of the great kingdom, there existed in Canaan an aristocracy composed of many varied elements—Semitic, Indo Aryan and Hittite. Their leaders (just as they did in Homeric Greece) claimed the title of "king." Everywhere in the country there arose circular or square fortresses, with double walls of mud. This is the period in Canaan in which we may expect to find palaces and temples with colonnaded halls, while the terraced constructions discovered in 1926-27 at Shechem (Tell el-Balata) appear to belong to the next period.

The Late Canaanite Period (Third Bronze Age, 1600-1200 B.c.) .—The Theban kings of the I 7th and 18th dynasties regarded themselves as the heirs to the Hyksos kingdom in Asia. For three years the conqueror of the Hyksos, Ahmose (Amosis) besieged the town of Sharuhen (present Tell el-Khueilf). With the fall of this fortress, South Palestine was at the mercy of the Egyptian conquerors, but the work was completed by Thutmose III. (1555– 1501 n.c.). In 16 campaigns, culminating in the capture of Meg iddo (Tell el-Mutesellim), the key position of north Canaan, and Kadesh on the Orontes (Tell Nebi Mendi), the capital of the Amorites, Canaan was completely subjected to Egypt. In this "New Kingdom" Egypt was the dominant power, but Asiatic in fluences were then progressing in Egypt with more vigour than Egyptian influences in Asia. Probably in the period of Amenhotep III., "the Magnificent," Canaan was also covered with palaces and temples. The foundations of these have recently been dis covered in Beth-Shan, and, perhaps, in Shechem. The "kings of Canaan" became the loyal servants of Pharaoh. In the north, however, the Hittite empire became a dangerous rival of Egypt.

The diplomatic language in which the rulers of Canaan com municated with the Egyptian sovereign and officials, and even occasionally among themselves, was still Babylonian. The dis covery of the Tell el-Amarna tablets came as a flash-light in the obscurity of the history and culture of Canaan in the first half of the 14th century B.c. These tablets, which were found in 1889 on the site of the residence of the "heretic" king, Amenhotep IV. (Akhnaton), are in the Babylonian language and written in cunei form, on clay. The reign of this philosopher on the throne of the Pharaohs was for Canaan a time of internal and external troubles. Egyptian supremacy (which, in the Old Testament, is not even mentioned) was approaching its end. However, the great Phar aohs of the 19th dynasty once again tightened the loosened bonds. Hor-em-heb received (even at the time of his ascending the throne) an oath of allegiance from the Asiatics. Seti I. and Rameses II. erected their steles of victory at Beth-Shan. The first made a treaty of peace with the Hittite king, Mutallish, which secured the possession of Canaan once again to the Egyp tians. The latter made a similar treaty with Khattushilish III., but this was less favourable to the Egyptians, as he himself had with difficulty escaped defeat at the battle of Kadesh on the Or ontes (autumn, 1288 B.C.). From the 12th century B.C. onwards, Egyptian claims to Canaan were brought to an end by the new immigrations from both sides : the Israelites and, subsequently, the Philistines.

Israel.—The problem of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their entry into Canaan is chronologically one of the most difficult, and agreement on this point has not yet been reached. Many scholars identify the Children of Israel with the "Khabiri," the people who invaded Canaan in the Amarna Age. It was against these people that rulers of Canaan vainly appealed to the Pharaoh. This identification is the more convincing as the word "Khabiri" may, philologically, be identified with the word for "Hebrew" (`ibri) . Moreover, Pharaoh Mernephtha mentions, only 150 years later (c. 1220), the people of Israel in conjunction with the peoples and cities of Canaan. Other difficulties, however, stand in the way of this identification.

Probably, two invasions of Hebrew tribes must be distinguished (Burney, Sellin and others). A considerable movement of tribes is described in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis xxxi.–xxxv. in the form of more or less idyllic family history. The older He brew group, with which may be reckoned Edom, Moab and Ammon, and, above all, the Leah-tribes with Jacob as represen tative), may be identified with the "Khabiri" of the Amarna let ters, and the Leah-tribes, in particular, with the "Israel" of Mer nephtah. The invasion of the younger group, on the other hand (the Rachel-tribes, Ephraim, Manasseh and Bejamin), which attacked Canaan with fire and sword under Joshua, in league with the older tribes, cannot be placed before B.C. Archaeological research confirms this view ; from the strata of ashes and other indications of the excavations it appears (according to W. F. Al bright), that Canaan in the third Bronze age, that is, during the period 1600-1200 B.C., suffered two conquests: the second of which was more violent and complete, the first at the beginning and the second at the end of this period. For us the most im portant age in the long eventful history of the land of Canaan be gins with the entry of the Israelites. (See JEws ; PALESTINE : History.) BIBLIOGRAPHY.-Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. I. (1923) ; Bibliography.-Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. I. (1923) ; S. A. Cook, Camb. Anc. Hist., I. 225 sqq., II. 296 sqq., 664 seq.; Bohl, Kanaanher and Iiebrder (Leipzig, 1911) ; Albright, "Palestine in the earliest historical period" (foam. of the Palestine Oriental Soc.

II. pp. 110-138) ; Obermaier, Thomsen and Alt. article "Palastina Syrien" (Realworterbuch der Vorgeschichte, VII., 1927) ; Jirku, Altorientalischer Kommentar zum alten Test (Leipzig, 5923) ; id., Der Kampf um Syrien-Palastina in altoriental. Altertum (in Der Alte Orient, 1926) ; H. Vincent, Canaan d'apres l'exploration recente (Paris, 1907) ; S. R. Driver, Modern Research as illustrating the Bible 0908) ; Handcock, The Archaeology of the Holy Land (1916) ; R. A. S. Macalister, A Century of Excavation in Palestine (1926) ; Karge, Rephaim : Die vorgeschichliche Kultur Palastinas and Phoniziens (Paderborn, 1918) ; M. Blanckenhorn, Die Steinzeit Palastina-Syriens and Norda f rikas (1921) ; G. A. Frank Knight, Nile and Jordan (1921) ; A. Alt, Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palastina (Leipzig, 1925) ; C. F. Burney, Israel's Settlement in Canaan (The Schweich Lectures, 1917) . (F. M. T. B.)