Talk:Canaan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Lebanon Portal This article is part of WikiProject Lebanon, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is a classic example of how the 1911 encyclopedia is out-dated. This really needs some more modern scholarship. Danny

But is this what Wikipedia needs:

In the Bible Canaan was the brother of the Afroasiatic Kush, Punt and Mizraim. The Canaanites are initially identified as divided into eleven tribes or areas: Sidon; Heth; Jebusites; Amorites; Girgasites; Hivites; Arkites; Sinites; Arvadites; Zemarites; Hamathites. Thanks to Ham's discovery of Noah's "uncovered nakedness" (Uncovering nakedness is a biblical term (used extensively in Leviticus 18) for committing an illegal sexual act with a female relative of the man described as uncovered) while Noah was sleeping, Canaan was cursed by his grandfather Noah to go into servitude to his Hamite brothers and presumably also his Shemite & Japhetic cousins. As a result of their eponymous ancestor's crime the bible indicates that Canaanites in Israel's eyes were seen as an increasingly sexually very depraved people (Leviticus 18:27).

This isn't history. It's not even Sunday-School. What are we to do with this? Wetman 02:28, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wetman your profile indicates if you ever went to sunday school you were asleep all the way through it. I know this is part of your Discredit Zestauferov campaign but there is nothing inaccurate about the info you quote in the context it gives. i.e. "in the bible". I may not agree with those who take the bible literally but at least I do not suppress or mock their ideas. If you know something post it if it is inaccurate someone else will correct it, that is my philosophy. Or perhaps you belong to the white-supremacist bible-believer school which believes all eastern peoples are Canaanites? For those who don't know what he might believe have a look at Canaan on this page http://www.osterholm.info/man if that is the case I will not waste my time with you any more -but I don't think you will have the courage to admit this even if it were true.Zestauferov 15:11, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why are the Shasu referred to as Arabian nomads? This is not a scholarly accepted opinion. Cema 18:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am in the process of going through and adding acknowledgements that the readers understand that any references to the Old Testament is not science fact. This is a reference encylopedia, not a biblical one.

Contents 1 Reversion - Ham 2 Merging article with History of ancient Israel and Judah 3 Extent of Canaan 4 Genocide 5 Rfc comment 6 Ekron link 7 Canaanite ethnicity 8 Paragraphs removed by Americist 9 The Egyptian meaning of the placename "Canaan": totally disputed 9.1 Amarna references to Canaan 10 Origin of the Canaanites 11 POV pushing 12 Mesopotamian inscriptions 13 Why the Hatred of Canaanites 14 Recent Edits 15 Biblical Canaan 16 What has Amraphel to do with Canaan? 17 Land of Canaan vs Land of Israel -- needs clarification 18 Canaan vs Israel 19 Ancient Canaan vs Israel Canaan 20 Supressing Ancient Canaan by the wikipedia editors 21 Ancient Canaan vs Ancient Israel 22 Citation 40 - Genetics 23 Ancient Canaan and Ancient Palestine 24 600,000 - 10,000 B.C.E 25 10,000 - 4000 B.C.E 26 4000 - 1000 B.C.E 27 Beginning of Hebrew Monarchys 28 See also 29 Etymology 30 Introduction 31 Canaanite and Ugaritic 32 Conservative and Moderate Scholars

[edit] Reversion - Ham

I removed the following section from the section on Biblical Canaanites discussing the curse of Ham, son of Noah as, unless a source can be cited, it reads to me like original research:

The reason for cursing his grandson over his son is often considered obscure, although it may be cleared up by interpreting discovering X's nakedness as a common (in the time of the writers of the text) euphemism for rape, thus the curse is against Ham's sexual activity, which includes Canaan (see also the alleged origin of this tale in Chem, for a possible reason for such an act).

--G Rutter 20:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging article with History of ancient Israel and Judah

A lot of the material in History of ancient Israel and Judah is actually the history of Canaan and has little to do directly with the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah. I'm planning on merging the two articles, any objections? --Cypherx 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess I have concerns that could be objections depending on how such a merge were to be handled. Primarily, much of the material in History of ancient Israel and Judah is questionable as history except in the context of the Bible. That is, much of it recounts a historicized summary of the history of "Canaan" according to the Bible, with supplementation from archaeology and the independent historical record. It's rather well done, in that it acknowledges the difficulties in such attempts at harmony.

So I'm much in favor of the Canaan article including solidly historical information about the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah, because those entities were located in Canaan. Likewise, the article should include information about other entities like Edom, Moab, Ammon (nation), Philistia, etc.

But it doesn't seem appropriate to mix in much in the way of "What the Bible says Abraham and his descendents did in Canaan" into the Canaan article itself. If nothing else, the History of ancient Israel and Judah article forms part of the whole Jew cycle, in which it is perhaps more appropriate to emphasize Biblical material, while the Canaan article should properly be associated with others in the Ancient Near East, in which Biblical material has an important place, but in which it is handled quite differently.

--Americist 15:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the information on pre-written history, such as the emergence of Kebarian followed by Natufian culture, the development of agriculture, the first walled city at Jericho. It's not about the land of Canaan but it's pre-history. I'm really not sure where this information should go, I feel that it deserves a better home than History of ancient Israel and Judah. --Cypherx 17:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think that is about Canaan, in the sense that it concerns the same region. So it's the pre-history of Canaan, I guess. Of course, there's some resistance to using the term Canaan expansively, so it might be more acceptable to call it the pre-history of the Levant. The article History of the Levant does in fact include some of the same information.

But in any case, I think you're right: information about the region's pre-history doesn't really belong in the same article with "ancient Israel and Judah" -- especially since the Biblical significance of those entities depends on their people having come from elsewhere. Perhaps that part of History of ancient Israel and Judah could be removed and added to or blended with either Canaan or History of the Levant.

--Americist 18:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Americist- I think that the "Early History" part of the History of ancient Israel and Judah should be merged with the History of the Levant article, rather than here. --G Rutter 20:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a debate I'm having on Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah, what do you call the region that includes current Israel, Palestine, Southern Lebanaon and the East bank of the Jordan river? It's a subset of the Levant but it's important to consider this region seperately because it's the location of most of the events of the Bible. Most Biblical Archaeology texts refer to the region as Palestine. Canaan is used only for the time of Canaanite habitation. Israel also seems to be used sometimes, but by a minority of historians and archaeologists. Both Israel and Palestine have strong political assocations right now, so I think Canaan would serve as a better neutral regional name. Unfortunately this doesn't reflect its common usage. What do you folks think? What do we call the place? --Cypherx 00:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I always call it the Southern Levant. We've got an article on that, but it's not very good and I'm toying with the idea of merging the relevant bits with Levant and History of the Levant. I still think that History of Levant is the right place for that info. If that article gets too long we can always split it into sections then. --G Rutter 08:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is universally referred to as the ANCIENT NEAR EAST. Period. The article on "History of Ancient Israel and Judah" refers specifically to the Hebrew Kingdoms (and their previous and subsequent events, to a limited degree) that existed in the Ancient Near East. It is clearly a separate topic. I do not, however, think that a separate article on "Canaan" is unjustified; Canaan also refers to a specific culture located in the Ancient Near East, viz., the land inhabited by the Canaanite tribes, their social and religious institutions, their gods, their agriculture, their cities, etc. etc. which, slowly, disappeared from history while the Hebrew Kingdoms were consolidating their rule over the area. The Hebrew Kingdoms, in turn, were subjugated by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and eventually Rome. Consequently, an article on the Ancient Near East must needs be less detailed, as it would cover the entire area and for a much longer period of time starting, clearly, in Paleolithic times, and concluding, somewhere around the arrival of Rome, say? Then an article on Judaea might take over, in addition, obviously, to a small section in Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire.66.108.4.183 00:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

I support merging of the articles. Also very unrelevant to the history is Ancient Israel.

Consider new pages Ancient Canaan or Ancient Palestine

Rudric (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extent of Canaan

I've adjusted the description of the geography of Canaan to extend northward to the current border of Turkey (previously the article listed only southern Lebanon). Until about 1200 BCE there was one culture along the coast from Gaza to the (present day) Turkish border. The change also supports the article's consistency, as in a later paragraph, Ugarit (present day Ras Shamra, near the coast in northern Syria) is identified as part of Canaan. --Philopedia 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

I've modified this as there is no evidence that the residents of Ugarit ever considered themselves to be Canaanite. Nevertheless archaeologists consider Ugarit, on the basis of its culture to be quintessentially Canaanite. John D. Croft (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide

The word "genocide" is too biased to be applied retroactively to events that may have taken place 3300 years ago. By leaving it out, no information is lost. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

(From RfC) - The killing of a people appears to qualify as genocide. "Homocide" may not have been coined 300 years ago either, but we wouldn't hesitate to use it to refer to a killing, so I don't see how the passage of time changes the issue. What bias is indicated by its use here? On the other hand, what benefit is gained by including it? -Willmcw 21:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the fence here...I think there is almost no way to interpret the commandment (perhaps no way to) that allows the commandment to be seen as something less than a requirement for the extermination of a people (every man woman and child). Genocide is the only English word I can think of that explicitly covers that concept. It is, however, a loaded word in modern discourse...certainly I can think of no mainstream Jewish theologian (and honestly, no "fringe" Jewish theologian, for that matter) who would argue that modern Jews have a moral obligation to exterminate any race or people, and so it seems a little bit like dirty pool to suggest that Jews would practice genocide if only Canaanites still walked the Earth. After all, if it could be proven via some kind of elaborate DNA test that certain people were of Canaanite descent, I don't think any reasonable person assumes that rabbis anywhere would call for their immediate murder. I would argue that, on balance, there is no need to use the word "genocidal" to describe the commandment since the commandment itself is described in more detail in this article, and it needs no shorthand adjective to clarify its meaning. If someone feels strongly about using the word genocide, as it is clearly an acceptable and accurate description of the commandment, I think the article should do more to clarify that Jewish theology and morality does not now promote anything remotely like that. Sorry for this "book" in response to the issue, but I couldn't think in briefer terms. Jwrosenzweig 07:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sure there is some really involved rabbinic discussion about this stuff that we can cite. Especially, how does that relate to nr. 514, "Canaanite slaves must work forever unless injured in one of their limbs, Lev. 25:46"? If the genocidal commandement means physical extermination of Canaanite individuals, how is it logically possible to have Canaanite slaves? Can the commandement also be interpreted as destroying the nationhood, i.e. political power of these tribes? In any case, the addition "As presently it is uncertain who could be a Canaanite, the commandment is not being practiced." seems evidently in bad faith since it seems to imply that if there were Canaanites, Jews would hunt them down like animals. That's just ludicrous, we are looking at this historically here, any implications for current Judaism would need to be discussed, informedly, on the 613 mitzvot article. The statement is also bad faith, since "canaanite" is evidently a political term here, parallelin Hittite. So the Jews are bound to exterminate the Hittites (the old Hittites would have fallen off their chariots, laughing, had they known of this obligation) -- does that mean the Jews also have to hunt down the descendants of the Hittites, who would today be Turks? Because "Hittite" is in some way defined genetically? That's a ridiculous proposition. "Canaanite" in this verse refers to a Iron Age political entity, and it is not 'uncertain' who would be a Hittite or Canaanite, it is perfectly evident that these nations have ceased to exist.

Also, how unambiguous is the interpretation of the verse?

charam (Hiphil) [1]

1) to prohibit (for common use), ban

2) to consecrate, devote, dedicate for destruction

3) to exterminate, completely destroy

now, I'm no biblical scholar, but I am sure there could be discussion about the exact intended meaning here. dab (ᛏ) 07:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

another thing is that "the seven Canaanite nations" is wrong. The Canaanites are one of seven races, not all of which are necessarily "Canaanite" even in the geographical sense.

• Deut 7:1 has: Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, Jebusite
• Deut 20:17 has Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, Jebusite;

i.e. the Girgashites are for some reason not required to be exterminated, either because they made friends with the Hebrews, or because they were successfully destroyed between chapters 7 and 20? In any case, it would be correct to say that the Canaanites are one of six nations the Hebrews are commanded to eradicate. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Jewish commentators suggest that the Girgashites got the message and left the country before the Israelites arrived. :-) JFW | T@lk 00:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This is tough. On the one hand, this clearly was genocide. On the other hand, "genocide", understood as a crime against humanity, is a recent cultural ethic. Genocide was common in the ancient world. It was seen as the ultimate victory in war - to wipe your enemies out. I doubt very many leaders would have considered genocide to be unethical 3000 years ago. So in one sense, perhaps the word inherantly implies a modern ethic and should be avoided. But on the other hand, slavery is also seen as abhorant in modern times, but we would not hesitate to refer to slaves in that age. My proposal would be to describe the activity without using the word "genocide", and then say, in parentheses, "(acts of genocide were common in this era and were not generally seen as an unacceptable part of war)" or something like that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc comment

Using the term "genocide" is unnecessary editorialising - the commandment is quite clear enough. Also "As presently it is uncertain who could be a Canaanite, the commandment is not being practiced." is rather questionable; there is no evidence that it would be practiced in any way if it were known who the Canaanite descendants are. Suggesting it makes it look like Jews are sitting around synagogues sharpening swords, saying "dammit, if we only knew who they were!" Rd232 11:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The term "genocide" appears to me legitimate to describe this passage in Deuteronomy (and some passages concerning the Amalekites here and in I Kings). If we avoid it here, we would have to avoid it in any context. (Also, do we avoid giving specific examples in the genocide article itself?) I believe that it is the view of most Jewish scholars that the Amalekite (and presumably Canaanite) line has been lost (although Immanuel Velikovsky, admittedly a very eccentric character, did claim that the Amalekites were Arabs). However there are several commandments in the Torah which were probably not even followed in the Maccabean kingdom e.g. stoning to death rebellious sons, burning prostitutes at the stake if their name was Cohen, so there are complex issues here. I advise including the term "genocide" but be sensitive about how we do it. PatGallacher 15:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to find a reference with someone using the word "genocide", rather than inserting our own POVs into the article? If people who've studied this have described it as genocide then we should report it, but if they haven't then I think we probably shouldn't use it either. --G Rutter 12:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What do those watching think about the possibility of starting a new article, Canaan (Bible) or Canaan (Biblical), to which to siphon any involved discussion of Canaan or Canaanites as seen by Biblical texts or Jewish or Christian traditions? This could include the story of Noah's grandson Canaan, who the seven nations were, why there are Jewish laws governing treatment of Canaanites in addition to one requiring their elimination, and the whole matter of whether such total elimination would have constituted genocide had it occurred. (The Bible states both that it did and that it didn't.) This would allow the present article to deal primarily with Canaan and Canaanites as attested by history and archaeology without having to take such elaborate side trips into Biblical exegesis, and allow the new article to present the Biblical material without having to constantly qualify it as such. Even if most readers are equally interested in both perspectives, the two approaches involve such divergent standards of evidence, probability, etc. that it seems hopelessly awkward to present them simultaneously. --Americist 22:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced at the moment- if the article gets too long it might be worth doing, but at the moment the article discusses all the textual evidence, including the Biblical, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be (all the info you suggest should be there in that section, but I don't think that will make it too long). Also, I think there will be problems with people adding bits to the "wrong" article and arguing that it should be there for whatever reason. I think the best thing to do would be to clean up, reference and add info to all the sections and then we can split it off into sub-articles if there's a need. --G Rutter 12:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with G Rutter on this, and also on his other comment above. Codex Sinaiticus 20:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I've contemplated doing a gradual but thorough re-writing of the current article such that it would focus on Canaan as presently conceived by some general consensus of historians and archaeologists, with acknowledgement and summarization of the conceptions of religious traditions, and plenty of links to get people to that side. And the gradual process I've imagined begins by separating the two kinds of information presently in the article, so that each could be re-organized and refined on its own terms without scrambling the other. Also there's apparently a great deal to be said with regard to the religious material that I was afraid I would unintentionally "weed out" in the course of making the historical material more coherent. But the "best thing to do" you describe also sounds very good to me, especially in light of your point about differences regarding which article should hold what, which I hadn't considered. --Americist 20:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw this dispute mentioned on the RFC page. Of course the bible (the torah, I believe) clearly advocates genocide, and thoroughness demands that that be mentioned. What's the problem? Christians and Jews have become better people since then, right?

[edit] Ekron link

I don't much about Canaan, but there's a longish article on Ekron that should be probably linked to this one. This is more of a request for someone who knows more about the subject to add a link in this article to Ekron. Thanks. Rellis1067 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

--Haldrik 17:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canaanite ethnicity

[Unsigned statement from Mookay(Talk):]

There was a suggestion that the biblical Canaanities were an amalgamation of various races and ethnicities including caucasian. I have a master degree in western theology and have never heard of such a thing nor could I find any evdidence to support it, but I would be more than willing to be open to the idea if there was proof to support it. Maybe this is the historical occurence but there is nothing in the bible that supports that.

The Canaan article discusses its subject as both a biblical and an archaeo-historical entity. The Bible, of course, makes very specific statements about Canaan and Canaanites, statements which are nevertheless sometimes vague and difficult to reconcile with each other. A specific man named Canaan, with a specific ancestry, is said to have given the name to a land and a people. But the correspondence of land to people is at best complicated. Are Canaanites so called by virtue of their culture, with the implied ancestry, or because they live in land called Canaan? Are the differently-named people living in land called Canaan particular kinds of Canaanite, with shared cultures and implied ancestry? Or are they some more distantly related "Hamites" or relatively unrelated "Semites" or "Japhethites" who just happen to live in land called Canaan? And what is the general extent of land called Canaan anyway? And what period in time are we talking about? Only at this depth do we reach the question of the extent to which the testimony of archeology and history must be taken into account, and how much responsibility for biblical text can be ascribed to human compilers and copyists.

Unfortunately, the structure of the article still owes heavily to its origins in century-old encyclopedias. Examinations of relevant archaeology and history that seek to incorporate the Bible as one artifact among many, rather than as a prior authority, are still a relatively recent phenomenon after all. So while a good diversity of views is represented in the article, it can be unclear whether a given statement applies (or is meant to apply) to Canaan or Canaanites as a biblical entity or as an archaeo-historical one.

In the future, rather than simply deleting material which does not apply one Canaan, it might be prefereble to give the material the benefit of the doubt with regard to the other Canaan, and clarify the scope of the material or move it elsewhere in the article where its scope is clearer in context — unless it doesn't apply at all.

--Americist 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The part he deleted with the comment "This needs to be refernced because I could not find no such skeptics on the net" should probably have been removed here, as is customary, just to be on the sfe side... It said:

Some skeptics in the very early 1900s postulated that Cush, Mizraim, Put and Ham were all locations in northern Arabia, and suggested the name Canaan was therefore similarly of Arab origin.

I agree that this needed to go... Ironically, this is one of the vestiges from the old 1911 article (maybe that's why he can't find anyone saying that today!)... It's a discarded theory, and only represents what skeptics were pushing almost 100 years ago in 1911... The skeptic crowd has since given it up as untenable, and moved on to pushing newer "flavors of the day", and we really don't need to be an encyclopedia of truly discarded theories... So unless you can cite someone more recent who holds this quaint view, I say let it stay here on the discussion page... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. I have to say that I didn't initially compare the deleted text at all to what Mookay said about the deleted text. The objection seemed to be to the possibility that Canaanite populations included "caucasian" elements -- something which (depending on one's definition of such a term) is historically quite probable.

But I agree that speculation as to what this or that obscure designation really means doesn't usually help either biblical or historical scholarship. And fossilized pieces of such speculation are only interesting in terms of the history of history. This article is so full of material that feels unsupported or unsupportable I just haven't known where to begin. So I owe Mookay my thanks for having tackled this chunk.

--Americist 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The notions played with on this Talk page are so innacurate and vague, and sometimes utterly wrong: The Cannanites were not composed of different races. Where is there any foundation for this nonsense? Even ethnic Arabs today--whether Muslim, Jew, or Christian--are not a separate race, let alone one tiny subset of them. Further, there is no evidence that the Canaanites were, in any sense, "Arabs," in today's meaning of the term. The existence of Arabs, during the time period addressed by any of these articles on Biblical times (i.e. pre-200 BC) is absurd, unless one is speaking of the southern Arabian peninsula, or very eastern Mesopotamia. Remember, we are speaking of a time 1,000 YEARS before the birth of Muhammad. To be sure, there were Arabs living before him, but to use that word in these articles would be equivalent to using the word "Israelis." Use your common sense, especially if you don't possess an advanced degree in an area related to any of these.66.108.4.183 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Deuteronomy says, "God brings you into the land and drives out before you many nations — the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites." Thus, the "nation" of the "Hittites" etc. doesnt belong to the "nation" of the "Canaanites". They arent the same ethnic group. They are not the same nation, even tho they inhabit the same area. --Haldrik 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Likewise the Israelites themselves are discribed as a separate ethnic group being from Padam-Aram, that is, Mesopotamia around Turkey. The "Hittites" derive from Hattu, a neighboring area in Turkey. --Haldrik 16:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik: are you speaking biblically or historically — or do you presume the equivalence of the two? It seems very generally accepted that a variety of ethnicities and languages inhabited the region called Canaan, and that all of them can be described as Canaanite in the sense that they lived in Canaan. Some of them were distinguished as minorities, or recent arrivals, or a small portion of a group which for the most part lived elsewhere. In terms of ethnicity or language such people can be described as other-than-Canaanite, reserving Canaanite to describe people using Canaanite language and culture.

But given that, I'm curious about statements now in the article to the effect that Ammonites and Moabites were not Canaanites "properly speaking." By what standard? According to a particular geographic definition of Canaan? According to the Table of Nations? According to whether, which, or how many biblical passages referring to inhabitants of the land include Ammon or Moab? The archaeological and historical evidence indicate that the people on the east side of the Jordan were so culturally similar to those on the west side as to be difficult to distinguish —and since geographic definitions of Canaan often included land on the east of the Jordan it would seem to make sense to call both groups Canaanite. If there are other standards of what was or was not Canaanite, I'd like those to be more explicitly stated and cited in the article.

The separateness of the Israelites is a dominant and very important theme of the Hebrew Bible, but their culture also fits very neatly into the Canaanite family. --Americist 22:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Are you speaking biblically or historically". Archeologically. All ancient texts must be gleaned for evidence of the ancient world, including the Bible. --Haldrik 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"I'm curious about statements now in the article to the effect that Ammonites and Moabites were not Canaanites 'properly speaking'." I get annoyed by the vagueness of the scientific term "Canaanite". Properly speaking, a Canaanite refers to only ONE among several ethnic groups that lived in Israel. However, scientists call anybody who lived Israel during the Bronze Age a "Canaanite" regardless of their actual ethnicity. Similarly, Ammonites and Moabites in Jordan arent "Canaanites" but they speak the same language that scientists call "Canaanite", and thus can be called "Canaanites". --Haldrik 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraphs removed by Americist

Americist's edits look good for the most part, but since it is normally customary to place any removed data here on the talk page, in case anyone wants to examine it for tidbits that might be relevant enough to Canaan to go back in at some point, here are the paragraphs that ended up being blanked:

1. "At the end of what is referred to as the Middle Kingdom era of Egypt, was a breakdown in centralised power, the assertion of independence by various nomarchs and the assumption of power in the Delta by Pharaohs of the 17th Dynasty. Around 1674 BC, these rulers, whom the Egyptians referred to as the Hekt Kasut, hence "Hyksos" (Greek), came to control Lower Egypt (northern Egypt), evidently leaving Canaan an ethnically diverse land."
2. "Some archaeologists have proposed that Egyptian records of the 13th century BC are early written reports of a monotheistic belief in Yahweh noted among the nomadic Shasu. (See pages 128 and 236 of the book Who Were the Early Israelites? by archaeologist William G. Dever (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2003). Evidently, belief in Yahweh displaced polytheistic beliefs that had arisen among the early Hebrews, during and after the reign of King Josiah (around 650 BC), according to that book, and also according to archaeologists Neil A. Silberman and Israel Finkelstein, in The Bible Unearthed (Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001)."
3. "These Habiri are believed by some to signify generally all the nomadic tribes known as "Hebrews", and particularly the early Israelites, who sought to appropriate the fertile region for themselves. The terms Habiri and the Assyrian form Habiru may also include other related peoples such as the Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites."
4. "In the El Amarna letters(~1350 BC), we meet with the Habiri in northern Syria. Itakkama wrote thus to the Pharaoh, "Behold, Namyawaza has surrendered all the cities of the king, my lord to the SA-GAS in the land of Kadesh and in Ubi. But I will go, and if thy gods and thy sun go before me, I will bring back the cities to the king, my lord, from the Habiri, to show myself subject to him; and I will expel the SA-GAS." Similarly Zimrida, king of Sidon, declared, "All my cities which the king has given into my hand, have come into the hand of the Habiri." Nor had Canaan any immunity from the Semitic invaders. The king of Jerusalem, Abdi-heba, reported to the Pharaoh, "If (Egyptian) troops come this year, lands and princes will remain to the king, my lord; but if troops come not, these lands and princes will not remain to the king, my lord." Abdi-heba's principle trouble arose from persons called Iilkili and the sons of Labaya, who are said to have entered into a treasonable league with the Habiri. Apparently this restless warrior found his death at the siege of Gina. All these princes, however, maligned each other in their letters to the Pharaoh, and protested their own innocence of traitorous intentions. Namyawaza, for instance, whom Itakkama (see above) accused of disloyalty, wrote thus to the Pharaoh, "Behold, I and my warriors and my chariots, together with my brethren and my SA-GAS, and my Suti ?9 are at the disposal of the (royal) troops to go whithersoever the king, my lord, commands"; El Amarna letter, EA 189. This petty prince, therefore, saw no harm in having a band of Semites for his garrison."

--ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to extend a long overdue note of thanks to Codex Sinaiticus for preserving this text here. It was my intention to do so at the time. --Americist 22:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Egyptian meaning of the placename "Canaan": totally disputed

THe article now states that what the Hebrews referred to as Canaan is something different from what everyone else referred to as Canaan.

Please show a scolarly source for this novel synthesis. This is original research. If there is one thing that is certain, it is that everyone referred to the same area as Canaan, not just Israelites. Canaan was not just Lebanon!!! See also Retenu. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

American English tends to use the word "Asians" to refer to Chinese and Japanese, whereas British English tends to use it to refer to Indians and Pakistanis. Uses of the word "Canaanite", whether in biblical or Egyptian texts must be anchored with explicit citations to make sure the different languages are using the cognates in the same way. English "Dutch" versus German "Deutsch" is an even more dramatic example of how cognates dont necessarily have the same meanings. --Haldrik 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Those examples are a red herring here. The question is, do you have any scholarly source for this new synthesis, or is it Original Research on your own part?? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To say that Egyptian texts describe Canaan as being beyond the "Brook of Egypt" is an outright lie. ... Because, as far as I am aware, the term "Brook of Egypt" does not exist in the Egyptian language. Use Egyptian texts to define the Egyptian meaning of the word. Not the Bible. --Haldrik 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the Brook of Egypt part was well corrected... But as for the rest, all you have to do is find at least one scholar who has ever stated that borders of the Egyptian Canaan were somewhat to the North of the borders of the biblical Canaan. If any scholar has ever stated this, it can be cited. Otherwise, it can't, it's your own research. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that it should be fairly simple to find a scholar who has ever pointed this out, if it wasn't your own research. I'm just asking you to cite one, if there is one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no original research. It is simply citing scholars precisely and accurately. Note the positive (explicit) evidence for the locations in the texts that do mention Kinahhu, which the scholars refer to frequently. --Haldrik 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For example: American "Chinese" versus British "Indian" is not really a contradiction in the use of the word "Asian" because properly speaking, Asian includes the entire continent. Likewise, Egypt and the Bible probably have overlapping and mutually corresponding meanings, but a scholarly article must be accurate, precise, and cautious against overgeneralizing. For example, unlike the Egyptians, the Hebrew Bible doesn't mention Qadesh as a northern border for Kanaan, but it does seem to mention the "to the Way of Hamath" (L-Bo Hamat) in central Syria, near Lebanon as a northern border. --Haldrik 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont mean to suggest the uses of the Egyptian word "Canaanite" and the biblical word "Canaanite" are mutually exclusive - and feel free to correct the places that may seem to imply that the biblical word cant mean farther north or the Egyptian word cant mean farther south. It's just important for an encyclopia to be precise about what the word actually does mean when used. --Haldrik 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see where you are citing the name of any scholar who has said these things before, or has ever suggested that the Egyptians or Assyrians meant something else than the Israelites meant by "Canaan". Even if you are right (which I am not convinced), the fact remains that if nobody else has suggested this and you are the first, well, you know what that means. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the precise meanings of many Egyptian placenames are heatedly disputed. For example, here's a scholar who argues that in the Mernaptah Stele, the Egyptian "Hurru" and "Canaan" are used as poetic synonyms and both refer to the modern area of Israel, equally. [2] Statements like this are plausible but highly disputed, and it is important for the article to distinguish the actual facts, from any particular scholar's extrapolation from them. Unfortunately, my archeological books are in storage, and the only book I have handy is the New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology. It says,

"In the Amarna letters, the Phoenician coast [that is, the Lebanese coast] is described as the 'land of Canaan', and as far as the Egyptians were concerned, it was a general designation for the whole of western Syria."

Unfortunately, it really is necessary for the entry to be more explicit about exactly which Amarna texts mention "Knaan" in a way that would lead to this conclusion. In any case, "western Syria" doesnt tally well with the biblical discription whose northernmost border is inferrably the area "of the way of Hamat", seeming to mean not much farther north than Lebanon. --Haldrik 15:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Complicating the matter further: 1. Is the biblical concept often referred to as the Promised Land, which seems to include everything around the traderoutes between Mesopotamia and Egypt, the same thing as "Canaan" or not? 2. Moreover, the ethnic group called the "Canaanites" is only one among several in the biblically defined "land of Canaan". Deuterony says, "The LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess [it] and drives out before you many nations — the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites." Thus, the "nation" of the "Hittites" etc. doesnt belong to the "nation" of the "Canaanites". They arent the same ethnic group. They are not the same nation, even tho they inhabit the same area. Even in the Bible, the precises meaning(s) of the word "Knaan" isnt clear. The article on Canaan requires three qualities: caution, caution, caution. --Haldrik 16:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When citing references it is important to note the difference between when scholars casually use the English word "Canaan" (which usually follows the biblical borders) and when they mean the ancient Egyptian word "Kinahhu" (which follows the Egyptian borders). --Haldrik 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, to be blunt, who besides you has ever once suggested that the "biblical borders" of Canaan, and the "Egyptian borders" of Kinahhi were so radically different? This is what we mean by "Original Research" ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again: The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology says it plainly. Please see citation. --Haldrik 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amarna references to Canaan

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/amarna.html

The Amarna letters contain many reports from the Canaanite cities, as far south as Gaza... At least this website gives the conventional view... Aside from the Amarna letters, numerous Pharoahs like Thotmoses made reference to the name Canaan in their records, and nobody I have ever seen before has ever contested that Canaan included the lands to the South of Lebanon, so that view still needs a cite that anyone before you has ever suggested this... There is, however, some debate as to whether or not the city of "Pi-Canaan", recorded to be in Shapsu country somewhere south of the Dead Sea, was the same thing as Canaan. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"From a quick glance at the website, linked above, it seems it always uses the English meaning of the word "Canaan" (following the biblical discription) and never discusses what the Egyptians understood by the term "Kinahhu". In other words, every single use of the word "Canaanite" could simply be substituted by the English words modern "Israel" or "Palestine" or "Cisjordan", without any reference to Egyptian placenames. --Haldrik 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, to be blunt, who besides you has ever once suggested that the "biblical borders" of Canaan, and the "Egyptian borders" of Kinahhi were so radically different? This is what we mean by "Original Research". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again: New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology. It says:

"In the Amarna letters, the Phoenician coast [that is, the Lebanese coast] is described as the 'land of Canaan', and as far as the Egyptians were concerned, it was a general designation for the whole of western Syria."

--Haldrik 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but that source didn't say anything about where any boundaries were, and even a term like "Syria" is notoriously imprecise, even more so than Canaan. For instance, beginning the Seleucids, some have used "Coele-Syria" to mean everything doewn to Jerusalem... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"as far south as Gaza". This statement subscribes to the hypothesis that the Egyptian term "Pi Canaan" should be understood as the name of a city near Gaza, or perhaps Gaza itself, a hypothesis that is highly disputed. --Haldrik 17:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen this hypothesis equating Pi-Canaan with Gaza... It seems to be agreed that Pi-Canaan was South of the Dead Sea, the disagreement seems to be whether or not the term Pi-Canaan means "House of Canaan"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this among the El Amarna letters: EA#151 gc(70)N that mentions Zimrida of Zidon, says, "`What thou hearest from Kinaha write to me.'" Thus identifying (like the Bible does) that Tsidon/Zidon/Sidon in Lebanon is part of "Canaan (Kinaha)." --Haldrik 18:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there's no doubt that Sidon was the oldest center of Canaan, Genesis calls Sidon the "firstborn" and even Sanchunathio (another good classical source) agrees and calls it the first, or one of the first cities to be built in the area. Evidently they spread outward from there. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Evidently they spread outward from there." Agreed. --Haldrik 18:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deuteronomy says, "God brings you into the land and drives out before you many nations — the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites." Thus, the "nation" of the "Hittites" etc. doesnt belong to the "nation" of the "Canaanites". They arent the same ethnic group. They are not the same nation, even tho they inhabit the same area. --Haldrik 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Likewise the Israelites themselves are discribed as a separate ethnic group being from Padam-Aram, that is, Mesopotamia around Turkey. The "Hittites" derive from Hattu, a neighboring area in Turkey. --Haldrik 16:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you were not aware that according to the genealogies of Genesis, those referred to as Hittites are sons of Heth, who is indeed called a sub-branch or a son of Canaan... See Biblical Hittites (There is some disagreement on what connection they had with the Hattians of Anatolia, but that's a different story) ... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that could be taken to mean that the whole of the western half of modern Turkey is also considered part of the land of Canaan!

Once again, if you don't have a source for such a view, we can't use it... In fact, the EA letters are fairly clear that most of Syria was in the control of another entity NORTH of Canaan, known a Mitanni. I believe that some time after the Battle of Kadesh, the border between the Egyptians and the Hittites was fixed by treaty at the Orontes, or something like that. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Amarna letters call Qadesh itself part of the land of Canaan. Similarly, scholars call Ugarit (in Syria) a Canaanite city. As the Wikipedia article already mentions. --Haldrik 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just like the Amarna letters call Akko (Acre), Jerusalem and Gaza part of the land of Canaan. They are all mentioned in the letters, do you have a specific letter number that states "Qadesh is part of the land of Canaan"? Mind you, I don't dispute that it was, just this new suggestion that the areas to the south weren't Canaanite as well. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling a fib, "The Amarna letters call Jerusalem part of the land of Canaan"? I challenge you to back up your daring claim and find exactly which Amarna letter says, "Urušalim is in the land of Kinahhu". Cite it by verse. IIRC, Jerusalem isnt called Canaan in the Amarna Letters. --Haldrik 18:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's my point - There isn't any verse either that specifically states "Qadesh is in the land of Kinahhu". However, the place names specifically mentioned in the same letters with Kinahhi (eg, Akko, Acre) are mostly in Upper Galilee and Phoenicia, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states it fairly. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03569b.htm So, I suppose it is fair to state the matter in a similar way to the way they have. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ako (Acre) was indeed in the influence of Lebanon and even by Roman times was considered to be part of the province of Phoenicia (= the Greek name for Canaan). I wouldnt be surprised if the El Amarna letters use Ako in a context where it is explicitly part of Kinahni. Can you find such a text? I'll try look too. --Haldrik 19:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps you were not aware that according to the genealogies of Genesis, those referred to as Hittites are sons of Heth, who is indeed called a sub-branch or a son of Canaan." I accept the scholarly view that the Table of Nations describes political affiliation more than biological descent. Thus, the "Philistines" are under the umbrella of African "Ham" via Egypt, but ethnically may derive from the areas associated with Myceneans to some extent. (Tho I take it for granted that the "Philistines" mixed in with the local population who was already there who probably was "Hamite".) The Table doesnt just mention "nations" but also "languages" and the loyalties of individual "tribes/clans", thus distinctive, non-biological factors are also taken into account. --Haldrik 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The article should include the following. While the Israelites were at war with the Canaanites during the Judges Period, by the United Monarchic Period, Solomon the King of Israel and Hiram the King of Tyre (a Canaanite!) were best buddies, and IIRC this Canaanite even built the Temple of God in Jerusalem with Canaanite architectural engineers and Canaanite "ceders of Lebanon"! --Haldrik 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the Canaanites

Most resources mentions the following. They are not radiating out of Lebanon as mentioned here. This is wrong. Other Encyclopedias and Ancient Arabia books mention the following:

4 Die Keilinschriften and das Alte Testament, p. 181.

These explanations are endorsed by Driver (Genesis,on Gen. x.). 6 See the relevant articles in Ency. Bib. and Cheyne's Genesis and Exodus. from about 4000 B.C. 1 a wave of Semitic migration poured out of Arabia, and flooded Babylonia certainly, and possibly, more or less, Syria and Palestine also. Also that between 2800 and 2600 B.C. a second wave from Arabia took the same course, covering not only Babylonia, but also Syria and Palestine and probably also Egypt (the Hyksos). It is soon after this that we meet with the great empire-builder and civilizer, Khammurabi (2267-2213), the first king of a united Babylonia. It is noteworthy that the first part of his name is identical with the name of the father of Canaan in Genesis (Ham or Kham), indicating his Arabian origin. 2 It was he, too, who restored the ancient supremacy of Babylonia over Syria and Palestine, and so prevented the Babylonizing of these countries from coming to an abrupt end. [3]

From Bernard Lewis book:

"According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."

From History Channel[4]:

"The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighboring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians. Another group of Semites left Arabia about 2500 bc and settled along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times."

From MSN Encarta[5]:

"The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians (see Sumer). Another group of Semites left Arabia about 2500 bc and settled along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.107.90.148 (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

This 1911 view is highly disputed. Your first view is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. THat was the original form of this article; if you follow the article history all the way to the very beginning. The article has been updated considerably with better information since then. There is no real reason to think the Canaanites were Arabians, all of the primary sources place them in Lebanon. No substantial evidence for Canaanites ever having been in Arabia has ever been produced, so your bit about "archaeologists" is just plain wrong. Also, anyone can see that your last two sources are word-for-word written by the same author, so pasting them twice isn't that impressive. If you read past the intro into the rest of the article, you can find out a more modern consensus about the Canaanites that actually takes historical records into account, not quaint 19th century speculation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Well, Previous edits about Canaanites were correct. You can check Books by Bernard Lewis 2002, and by Philip Khuri Hitti. These are modern research material. In addition, old Arabic resources have always associated the Canaanites with Arabia. In fact, they are called Arab 'Arabeh. That is original Arab. And those who descend from Ishmael as Arabized Arabs. Finally, Arabia itself have different interpretations. According to Greek sources. Arabia constituted the deserted areas of Palestine Jordan and Syria. Hence, south Jordan and southern parts of Ancient Palestine are parts of Arabia anyway. They have been inhabited by Arabian nomadic since 4000 B.C. 70.251.123.57 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you will note carefully the existing version already mentioned this view, in addition to the other prevailing view of sources. I would be interested in any primary sources you can point to that specifically state the Canaanites migrated from the Arabian peninsula. Considering the whole Middle East part of the Arabian territory is an entirely different question than saying they migrated there from somewhere else. According to NPOV we shoudl represent all significant views which is what the lead currently does. But the recent edits were cutting out one view and only presenting the unsubtatiated view that says they moved from Arabia. Actually, I'd like to see somethign a little more authoritative and original than Encarta to back this up. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Read more from Lewis and Hitti you will know. These books are available everywhere. 70.251.123.57 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem Codex Sinaiticus is that the norm is that the Canaanites are of Arabian origin. This is the trend in all of academia through centuries. If you want to claim that the Canaanites came out of Lebanon, then put this as a second proposition. The most common proposition and evidences and studies of northern arabia disporve that. The Canaanites language is northern Arabian and is similar to the languages spoken in northern arabia and inner Syria. You can read something here [6] and possibly here [7]. I do not have issues with your edits, but I think the lead is not very accurate. For example, it says that Canaanite language is similar to Hebrew but ignore that it is close to Arabic too. Both Hebrew and Arabic are sister languages. I do not know about the other anon guy, but for me, it would be better if you work more on the lead of the article since in most citations, Canaanites are reported to be of Arabian origins and of the very early and ancient Arabs. Cheer up buddy! 129.107.90.148 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever! I think the statement about Lebanon is totally WRONG! 70.251.123.57 07:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"As a language, Hebrew refers to one of several dialects of the Canaanite language." Hebrew LanguageThere has never been any serious question about this.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

Some of the latest edits seem to be pushing a particular POV, ie POV pushing, and a POV that is widely disputed. These edits need to be qualified in less POV pushing language. Til Eulenspiegel 11:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The claims made are from the British Museum's Series "People and Places" Series "Canaanites", the views of "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives" and the book "Abraham in History and Tradition", and are documented. Please demonstrate how these documents represent a POV when they are accpeted as legitimate secondary sources by most modern scholars of the Canaanites. John D. Croft 11:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is false to pretend that there is a consensus that Genesis was written in the 7th century BC or later. That is POV pushing straight up. There is a considerable body of scholars who disagree. The only wat you get a "consensus" is by ostracising these scholars, or pretending that they do not exist, when there are only theories and hyptheses that you are now pushing as certified fact, or as if you have suddenly discovered conclisive proof of thee theories. Til Eulenspiegel 11:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

um, this isn't the dating the Bible article, and it should be sufficient to cite the mainstream opinion. The 7th century (give or take a century) is a fair expression of mainstream estimates for the composition of Genesis. Minority positions can be discussed at length at dating the Bible but not here per WP:UNDUE. That said, I agree we shouldn't portray it as an accepted fact that Genesis dates to the "7th or 6th century". The full range of estimates is better expressed by "10th to 5th centuries". But this should cover all serious estimates, hardly any philologist worth his salt would assume a Genesis predating the 10th or post-dating the 5th century. dab (𒁳) 11:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The section was labelled "Modern Views on the Canaanites". The views presented have all been put forward since 1974. These clearly are modern views as they were not held in ancient times or in the Biblical corpus. The reference to the 1998 book on the Canaanites was by the British Museum. Are you accusing them of bias? Can you please show me how presenting these views as "modern" is a POV? As a result of fully sourcing all my points I have deleted the POV tag. John D. Croft 11:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as this statement appears, there is going to be a dispute:

"It is now clear that these narratives represent a compilation of many individual sources of information, and the process of editing these sources into a coherent narrative cannot have occurred before the seventh or possibly the sixth century BCE"

This is far from "clear", this is a theory, there is no new proof or even evidence making this clear other than the say so of scholars holding this POV. We have seen examples of the ostracisation process I have been talking about already, with the "worth his salt" comment. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to that theory, despiyte the lack of evidence, is automatically "not worth his salt" and declared to be fringe? That's POV pushing. I remember when there used to be true neutrality here. Til Eulenspiegel 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added that this is the view of clarity is held by the modern scholars who hold this view. This is a statement of fact, these scholars do believe in this clarity. Read Tubb, Thompson, McCarter, Redford, the scholars whose works are referenced and quoted here as "Modern Scholars" which they are. This is not POV pushing, it is stating what is referenced by an important group of modern scholars in this field. I don't marginalise, but simply quote the evidence of what these scholars are saying. What would allow you to see this Til Eulenspiegel? John D. Croft 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your latest changes are good enough qualification that I will now remove my own tag, actually... It's always better to attribute views to those holding them, on controversial matters, like who wrote the Torah and when... Thanks for addressing my concerns... Til Eulenspiegel 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, the entire number bulleted section (1-4) seems like a violation of WP:UNDUE to me... It could probably be summed up in about one brief sentence, since none of those four points shed any light whatsoever on Canaan or Canaanites, it seems to be kind of like taking a gratuitous opportunity to slam the Tanakh/Torah one more time for good measure, at the merest mention of a marginally related subject (Canaanites)... Let's stick to the subject of the article, instead of spilling so much ink singling out one of the several sources for this treatment... Til Eulenspiegel 03:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

you may have a point there, although I fail to see how stating it was compiled around the 7th century constitutes "slamming" of the Tanakh. "Slamming" of various crackpot mysticist theories maybe, but hardly of the Tanakh itself. dab (𒁳) 13:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is, this is clearly a debate for another page and it is uneccessary to get into here. The fact that there is a lively debate on this (not just here but in periodicals like BAR) indicates that there is a difference of opinion, and it's dismaying that one side of the issue seeks to loudly assert the priority of their claims (again, in lieu of any actual evidence) and dismiss the other traditions (that are very much alive), at every opportunity, on every conceivable article and talk page. This is suggestive of a strong antipathy toward those traditions, that reminds me of that shown by Saul when he threw the spear at David. Let's give it a rest here and try to keep this article on topic and in perspective; it's not an article about who wrote the Torah; one sentence giving the secular view on that question should be plenty, but an entire essay with four bulleted points devoted to their hypotheses about that is way overboard for an article on Canaanites. Til Eulenspiegel 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I conceded you had a point. But as far as I am aware, differences of opinion concern the age of the constituents that were compiled in the 7th to 6th century rather than the postulation that such a compilation took place. I recognize that bits of the Pentateuch may be argued to date back to the 10th century, and there is no end of argument about that question, but the fact remains that these bits, whatever their age, were compiled into the books we now know as the "Bible" in about the 7th to 6th century, there's really nothing much controversial about stating that. dab (𒁳) 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again: While numerous sources (whom you apparently do not acknowledge as valid) definitely disagree with that hypothesis, isn't there a better talkpage for this argument than this one? This should be for discussing Canaanites and Canaan. The debate you want to have here, should be held at another article talkpage, so we could move it there instead of here. Til Eulenspiegel 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

look, Genesis is one main source for the Canaanites. If we're going to have anything like a discussion of the historicity of these peoples, we will need to pinpoint to what period these accounts belong. Mainstream opinion clearly places the source in ca. the 7th century BC. What is problematic about that? What other 'numerous sources' are you referring to? The date of Genesis obviously should be discussed at Genesis#Composition_and_date. That section clearly allows for a period of composition from the 10th to 7th century BC, with late redaction in the 5th century BC. If you are unhappy with that, you should present an argument at Talk:Genesis, not here. Are you perhaps referring to the tradition that Genesis "was dictated by God to Moses on Mount Sinai"? Now how on earth would that impinge on a discussion of the Canaanites? Would we even need to discuss the historicity of the Canaanites if we agreed that Genesis was sort of hallucinated on a mountaintop rather than a historically grown account of actual happenings in Canaan? dab (𒁳) 14:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been saying all along that the argument belongs somewhere else, not here. Talk:Genesis would be a far better place. I do not wish to argue on this page any further. The point is that the current lengthy section with four bulleted points attacking the traditional views of the Church (eg the Orthodox Churches) is excessive here and needs to be trimmed to keep this article on topic. If individual people want to listen to, say, a Orthodox priest, they will, and if they want to listen to a secular scholar instead, they will. That's not going to change any time soon. All we can do is present evidence and say where it comes from, not "tell" them which POV is "right" to believe, simply because that is our own POV. Trying to stir up the debate at every possible opportunity just seems a little gung-ho or aggressive in cheerleading for a particular POV. For this article, let's just concentrate on putting the appropriate level of mention, possibly linking the Documentary hypothesis article, and resist the temptation to get our extra licks in with every single mention of the word "Genesis". Til Eulenspiegel 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

that's great. This article adequately summarizes the material as presented at Genesis. If you have a citeable position of an Orthodox Church regarding the Canaanites, you are certainly welcome to add it. An encyclopedia is of course secular by definition. I don't see giving the mainstream secular opinion as "stirring up debate". Being secular, WP will of course still cite any sectarian tenet if attributable to a reliable source, no problem. I agree that the "bulleted list" isn't a good choice of format, but I really fail to see a problem with the content (while "some modern views" may not be a good title. Of course we try to give as up-to-date views as we can, we're not reenacting the 1766 Encyclopédie or the 1911 Britannica or something) dab (𒁳) 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Til, It would be good if these points were included in Talk Genesis. Considering they are taken from Tubb's book on the Canaanites, it is arguable that these points belong here. John D. Croft 07:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesopotamian inscriptions

The claim that Hamarabbi ruled Canaan, and is the same as Amraphael is an obsolete 19th Century view, which on the claim that an encyclopedia attempts to be "modern" should be deleted (the reference here is to 1888!) Hamarabbi's empire did not extend as far as Yamkhad and Qatna (Northeast Syria).

Equally the claim that the Uruk period of Harmoukar is related to the Patriarchs is a mis-statement of both John Bright and William Albright's possition who make no such claim. They claim that the Patriarchal traditions stem to the Amorite states of the Isin-Larsa period, a claim disputed by almost all modern archaeologists. Also the origins of Canaanite civilisation is very skimpy. John D. Croft 07:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the Hatred of Canaanites

I have been thinking about the nature of the Biblical hatred of Canaanites for some time.

From whence comes this hatred? Johnathan Tubb for instance declares that historically, archaeologically and from a literary point of view, the states of Israel and Judah are Canaanite states and indistinguishable from the other Canaanite states. And yet we find Joshua practicing ethnic cleansing and genocide against Canaanites, Canaanites as being described as completely different to Israelites, Canaanites being linked to Ham (Egypt) when it must have been clear to all that the spoke a Semitic, not a Hamitic tongue. Even Deuteronomy and Leviticus preach and urge the mass murder of Canaanites. Canaanites in Jewish mythology are even linked to Cain as the murder as it was believed that Canaan's wife was of Cainite ancestry - not Sethite. Canaanites are accused of Sodomy, called Harlots, and blamed for Infanticide.

Such hatred must have a root. It seems stronger than all others, why this hatred, or to put it another way, why this fear? Is it some form of "self-hatred"? From whence did it come, how and when?

Interested in your thoughts. John D. Croft 06:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but talkpages are not supposed to be used for encouraging or indulging in speculation by Wikipedians, but strictly for discussing changes to the article, and what reliable sources say to that end. ( btw If we were to engage in private speculation, I should dispute every one of your premises.) Til Eulenspiegel 12:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

Thank you Til Eulenspiegel for the quality of your recent Edits. John D. Croft 14:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Canaan

I deleted the section on Biblical Canaan - it was, let's be honest, the sort of thing produced by grungy little men who live in basements and read too much. In other words, utterly unscholarly. If anyone wants to put it back, please make it more intellectually erspectable.PiCo 07:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That is totally uncalled for POV and utterly unacceptable censorship and suppression of scholarly material. Please engage in some more meaningful discussion before blanking informational content that you disagree with on such a flimsy pretext as "because YOU don't want anyone to know about these things". I can feel an RFC coming on here. Til Eulenspiegel 11:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is one of our primary sources about the Canaanites, not just Assyrian, Egyptian, Hittite, and Syrian records, etc. This is a prime point of interest to the subject, and subjecting it to a complete damnatio memoriae is out of the question - much as we all know the "minimalist" school of thought would dearly love to erase these facts, they aren't going anywhere, any more than the Biblical Archaeology Review which is a monthly periodical chock full of information about the Canaanites, and not produced by men living in basements, check it out some time. If you feel it is "unscholarly" and deem yourself possessed of better scholarship, feel free to add to the section, but do not try to erase and cover up perspectives you don't care for, please try to look a little past your own nose and see that not everyone in the world is a minimalist or shares your personal perspective. Thank you. Til Eulenspiegel 11:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(Apologies to John D. Croft for attaching this discussion to his previous section - an error). Hello Codex, nice to see you back again. Now about Genesis as a source of historical information: Not really, no. I thought that had been settled by Martin Noth. But if you feel otherwise, let me run a few facts by you: First, Genesis is universally recognised as a product of the 1st millenium BC, somewhere between the 10th and 4th centuries, or even later if your name is Lemche. Second, this particular bit of Genesis, the table of nations, is equally universally recognised as referring to the situation in the latter half of the same (i.e., 1st) millenium - a period in which the Canaanites of Moses and Joshua were but a distant memory. So when Genesis talks about Canaanites, what is it really about? Yahweh only knows. Mr Lemche would say it's about an attempt by 4th century Yahwists to intimidate the non-Yahwist inhabitants of Judah and Samaria. Others (Dever?) might say it perserves real historical memories. Either way, it's not a contemporary source, and therefor not quotable as a source vis-a-vis the real Canaanites of the late Bronze Age. I look foreward to your usual courteous reply. PiCo 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You "thought that had been settled by Martin Noth"??? YGTBK! Not to everyone's satisfaction, it hasn't. Genesis is only "universally recognised" as that recent among those who agree with each other; you are conveniently pretending that everyone who disagrees does not exist. Once again, try to realize that there are other significant and relevant perspectives besides your own, and that we have to remain neutral. Til Eulenspiegel 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To business: the authorship and dating of Genesis. Some say it was Moses, in the 1st millenium BC. Not much scholarly support for that these days. (You got some references, other than from grungy little men who live in basements?) Wellhausen said 10th-7th centuries BC with final touches a bit later. Not accepted quite so universally these days as it used to be - but please note that Whybray, Van Seters, Rendtorff, not to mention more recent blokes and blokesses, put the date in the same ballpark, disagreeing with W. more over the process of composition than the date. And of course there's Thomspon, Lemche, et al, who put it even later. All in all, the general drift is away from, not towards, the 2nd millenium and Moses. So I think we can be pretty confident in saying that informed opinion doubts (to put it mildly) that Genesis was written by an eye-witness to the events therein recorded. But o9f course, if you have other ideas (and you do), please lay them out for us. PiCo 14:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please try to look past your own nose. This is an actively disputed topic among academics, there is no such consensus as you pretend, and attempting to dismiss or discredit all those who do not share your POV by labelling them "grungy little men" is not a worthy tactic. Til Eulenspiegel 14:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to make my earlier post acceptable to Til Eulenspiegel I wrote "The Biblical scholar, Richard Friedman, shows that part of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible showing the origin of the Canaanites, often called the Table of Nations, was written by the Priestly Source^[1][2]. It describes the Canaanites as being descended from an ancestor called Canaan (Hebrew: כְּנַעַן‎, Knaan), saying (Genesis 10:15–19): .... ". Wikipedia does not exclude important hypotheses, and a deletion of the view of an important Biblical scholar, like Friedman needs to be justified. Despite what you say it is not my point of view, it represents an important view of the period and circumstances in which the Table of Nations was composed. John D. Croft 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to his view being cited in the section if it were done neutrally, eg. instead of "shown", a more neutral word, because don't forget the H in DH stands for "hypothesis" and it has not been proven, nor will it ever be unless someone finds an actual copy of the alleged Priestly Text. The DH hypothesis view is not unanimous no matter how much proponents pretend it is. Second, please do not put the cite at the very beginning of the section, that is undue weight because this is only one view of the subject among many. Third, please make clear to avoid confusion that the "Priestly Source" is a hypothetical reconstruction; proponents of DH often seem to make misleading edits to suggest wrongly to new readers that these hypothetically reconstructed documents are actual extant discoveries whose contents are known with certitude. Til Eulenspiegel 14:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the DH although it has been modified heavily over the years, most scholars do accept some form of this hypothesis (the Vatican estimates 90% of scholars). John D. Croft 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd object very strongly to having Friedman cited as an authority - his ideas have failed to sweep the board, in fact he's widely regarded by his peers as a bit of a nutter. This is probably because the DH itself itself is regarded as an inadequate explanation of the observed facts of the Pentateuch - it just doesn't look like four complete and identifiable and discrete documents cobbled together by a redactor. To put this as succinctly as possible, I don't believe the community of biblical scholars regards REF as an authority. So, with the utmost reluctance, (and truly this hurts), I have to stand up with Codex (or Til, as he now calls hisself), and express my doubts on this. "The DH hypothesis view is not unanimous," says Til; how very true. And REF just ain't, really, all that important (I don't notice the scholarly journals filling up with scholars prostrating themselves at Richard's feet, in fact quite the reverse). So, for this one, I'm on Til's side: no citing of REF as an authority, please.PiCo 15:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What has Amraphel to do with Canaan?

Til Eulenspiegel suggests that the post about an obsolete 19th century theory needs to be included in the article on Mesopotamian inscriptions mentioning Canaan. What has Amraphel to do about Canaan? John D. Croft 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

SFA. PiCo 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can concur with that argument (that it is off topic); that is a much better reason for removal than the one in Pico's edit summary. So go ahead and remove that paragraph again, fine with me. Til Eulenspiegel 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pico is being a real pain in the arse tonight. Don't take him too seriously. PiCo 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Land of Canaan vs Land of Israel -- needs clarification

I was surprised to find no mention of the Land of Israel concept in this article. I think there should be a paragraph in the introduction discussing the difference (or absence thereof) between these two. Emmanuelm 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

After two months of inaction, I created the paragraph. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Canaan is the areas original name, and Palestine is the modern name. The area is Ancient Canaan there were ethnic groups living there long before any hebrew decided to conquer the land. Israelis are hebrew/habary/hyksos -people occupiers.

(the hebrew God said that destroy all other races of humans on the way to the one world kingdom of Israel)

ASEOR2 (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Some say that the Egyptian names Retenu and Djahy are older. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canaan vs Israel

The land of Canaan has only been few short periods of times a land called Israel.

For most of the history of Canaan the name has been Canaan, let see the timeline of the areas name:

CANAAN 10 000 - 1000 BC

12 governed states of Israel 1000BC-70BC

Palestine 70BC-1945AD

Israel again after the world war II 1945AD- ASEOR2 (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Therefore the term Ancient is redundant when speaking of Canaan. This is why Ancient Canaan MUST be redirected to Canaan or deleted altogether. Your pick. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying there were no civilization or culture in Canaan around 5000-1000BC? That is Ancient Canaan and it was high culture more advanced than Europeans at that time.

As an Encyclopedia Wikipedia must cover this area too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Canaan vs Israel Canaan

Canaan and Israel Canaan are two different topics. In Ancient Canaan there was civilization and High culture long before Europeans, Egyptians and Hebrews.

There definitely needs to be an Ancient Canaan page. ASEOR2 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

When one talks of what you call "Israel Canaan", the term "Canaan" is usually omitted. So there is no need to specify "Ancient". --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, Ancient India, I could go on forever. But what is missing from Wikipedia is Ancient Canaan, the circa 5000-1000BC. Canaan was occupied and became the 12 governed states of Israel until around 70BC It was given the name Palestine that was the name for 1950 years, until the World War II and the creation of Israeli state.

Ancient Canaan needs to have it's own page. After all this is Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and there is modern Egypt, Greece, etc, but no modern Canaan commonly referred to by that name. Therefore, "Ancient Canaan" and "Canaan" are synonymous, and thus making a separate article on ancient Canaan completely useless. After all this is Encyclopedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supressing Ancient Canaan by the wikipedia editors

Ancient Canaan, Canaan, Israel, Palestine, Israel - all are different subjects. Or should we merge Israel and Canaan articles as well?

Ancient Canaan needs to have it's own page.

ASEOR2 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merging Israel into under a section in Canaan page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments?ASEOR2 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Canaan vs Ancient Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Israel vs ancient Canaan? Hello? There is no Ancient Israel if there is no Ancient Canaan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation 40 - Genetics

The genetic study seems to sound authentic and reasonable from the abstract it gave on www.phoenicia.org, but something seems to ding its credibility...

• Note: The Macedonians (of what today is considered part of Greece, i.e. not the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) consider themselves a race separate and different from the Greeks, Bulgarians or Slavs. Parts of historical Macedonia were taken over by Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. To learn more about the subject follow the link History of Macedonia.org, a site dedicated to the history and struggle of the Macedonian nation and/or to register any objections regarding this statement.

It has numerous links to the www.historyofmacedonia.org which has an agenda- just think if there is another place where this study is located you should replace that link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Canaan and Ancient Palestine

The history of Palestine is one of immense richness; it was host to numerous prophets over the centuries and the home of many great civilisations. Palestine's location at the centre of various routes linking three continents made it the melting pot for many religious and cultural influences, from Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor.

[edit] 600,000 - 10,000 B.C.E

Archaeological discoveries found south of the Lake of Tabariyya have dated human remains to as far back as 600,000 B.C. One of the earliest communities to be unearthed was at ancient Jericho, nestled in the Jordan river valley, comprising several hundred villagers forming part of what is known as Natufian culture (roughly 10,500-8500 B.C.E.).

[edit] 10,000 - 4000 B.C.E

[edit] 4000 - 1000 B.C.E

Even before 3000 B.C.E., West Semitic tribal groups speaking variations of the Canaanite tongue inhabited much of what is now the modern Middle East. Many settled in the Syria-Canaan lands of Ancient Palestine. Early Mesopotamian documents refer to both nomadic shepherds and to traders. One such group, the Habiru {or Hapiru} migrated into Palestine as early as around 1500 B.C.E. from northern Mesopotamia; later elements from among them formed the Hebrews. As they entered Ancient Palestine, the Phoenicians in the north and the Philistines in the south occupied definite areas. "Phoenicia" is the Greek translation of "Canaan,"--the land of purple merchants," referring perhaps to the dye they used to colour cloth. Indeed, it is from the time of Canaan that Bethlehem is believed to have derived its name, Bethlehem - Beit Lahem in Arabic ("The house of Lahman - a Canaanite God").

The Canaanites, were a Semitic people speaking a language. They were farmers, some were nomads, but they were also civilized. They used the great Mesopotamian cities as their model and had built modest imitations of them. They had also learned military technology and tactics from the Mesopotamians, as well as law. Thus when the Hebrews arrived at Canaan, they began the long, painful, and disappointing process of settling the land, but being uncivilized, tribal, and nomadic, they faced a formidable enemy. Even the accounts of this period in the Hebrew bible, the books of Joshua and Judges paint a pretty dreary picture of the occupation. They are eventually driven from the coastal plains and forced to settle in the central hill country and a few places in the Jordan River valley. They also faced another looming enemy, the Philistines, who overwhelmed everyone in their path. They had chariots and iron weapons and few could stand against these new technologies.

Thus it was that the Hebrews found themselves living in the worst areas of Canaan, spread thinly across the entire region, with the balance of power constantly shifting as local kingdoms would grab and then lose territory, finding themselves first under one and then another master.

[edit] Beginning of Hebrew Monarchys

The Hebrew Monarchys begin around 1020BC. After two hundred years of only marginal success in occupying and holding lands in Palestine, the Hebrews, who were initially a loosely coordinated series of tribes linked by the Ark of the Covenant, united for a century under a series of powerful kings, beginning with Saul, Reign of Saul 1020-1000 BC, a farmer from the tribe of Benjamin. Saul's goal was to retake territory lost to the Philistines. He is eventually succeeded by David of Bethlehem who continued Saul's consolidation and established his capital at Jerusalem.

[edit] See also

Canaan

Palestine

Rudric (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The non-English root word from whence Canaan is derived remains a subject of dispute. This source for example explains that there are multiple theories regarding its origin. Those proposing a non-Semitic origins have offered the Babylonian term kingin (meaning "lowland") and the Sumerian kanaga (meaning "land"). Others posit a Semitic root kn', also meaning "lowland", or "Occident", "Westland" or "Land of the Sunset". A more recent theory traces it to Nuzi (Hurrian) texts where the word kinahhu (meaning "purple" or "Land of the Purple") appears and this interpretation has gained popularity because of the association of Phoenicians with the famous purple dye they derived from seashells.

As such, I have removed the Hebrew word from the parentheses after the term, since there is little indication that it is the root for Canaan and while it may be one possibility, we should not lead the reader to believe it is the only possibility, particularly when the scholarly sources on the subject offer much older linguistic root terms. It may be good to begin drafting an etymology section where the different interpretations can be further outlined and explored. Tiamut^talk 08:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source that is useful is outlining the etymological debate is this one. It notes that "The etymology of 'Canaan' has been somewhat elusive. Scholars have moved from Semitic, to non-Semitic, and back to Semitic assumptions concerning the origin of the name." Besides discussing the Hurrian origins from Kinahhu (as posited by E. A. Speiser) It notes that "it has since been shown that the Hurrian word had a different history than that posited by Speiser, and improved attestation of third millennium B.C. geographic names from Syria-Palestine has lessened the likelihood of a Hurrian etymology for 'Canaan.'" It offers the ethnicon 'Canaanite' which is now attested by a text from Mari as ki-na-ah-num, and offers that the words for "purple" and "merchant" took their names from the region, rather than giving their names to the region.

It also notes that this discovery has meant that most scholars now believe, the word is Semitic in origin, and that it almost certainly derives from the root kn' ("to bend the knee, to bow"), with an afformative -n sometimes added. The most recent and widely accepted Semitic etymology for "Canaan" was put forward by M. Astour who traces the kn' root through the Semitic languages that followed. It is noted of his work that the "kn' in Biblical Hebrew (kanaâ€) is found only in the niphal verb stem ("to be subdued," "to lower oneself") and in the hiphil ("to subdue"). In Aramaic, the verb [kena’] also occurs in the qal, "to bow down, bend." Arabic kana'a has several usages, including (a) "to fold wings and descend to earth" (said of a large bird), and (b) "to bow, to incline toward the horizon" (said of a star). As applied to the sun, the word would be exactly equivalent to Latin occidere. Therefore, Astour takes the derived form Kina’u as signifying the "Occident," the "Land of Sunset" or "Westland." This is the West Semitic equivalent of Akkadian Amurru "West." In Amarna era texts and in the Bible, the terms Canaan and Amurru are largely synonymous. It is interesting in this connection that the Sons of Horus stood for the four cardinal directions, and that Qebehsenuf, which represents “the idolatrous god of Elkenah” on Facsimile 1, was indeed the god of the west."

Fascinating, no? Shall we begin incorporating some of this into the article in an etymology section? Tiamut^talk 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat you to it--Yolgnu (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I've just made some edits to the Introduction that might prove controversial, so I'm listing them here and my reasons for them in case anyone wants to dispute them:

• I've removed the statement that Canaanites were an ethnic group "centred in Lebanon" - it's meaningless to say where an ethnic group is "centred", instead the entire region where they were dominant (parts of modern-day Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) should be stated. This statement was "sourced", though the "sources" didn't even mention Lebanon, and User:Codex Sinaiticus, who added this controversial statement, has long since quit Wikipedia (in his last message, he accused Wikipedia of dismissing the Bible as mythology). It seems that most of this talk page is concerned with attacks on that user's edits, but nobody had yet been WP:BOLD enough to delete this unverifiable statement.
• CS changed a phrase that went something like "It has been asserted that Canaanites originally migrated from the Arabian Peninsula" (with two reliable sources sited) to "[centred on Lebanon]... despite this, it has sometimes been asserted, without any physical evidence, that Canaanites had an origin on the Arabian peninsula, a view that was previously popular around 1910". Not only is an Arabian origin not incompatible with being centred in Lebanon (if this were the case), but the sources for the "Arabian theory" are reliable, CS's edit is clearly POV, and while this theory was indeed the most popular one in 1910, it still is today. And, while there is physical evidence of the migration from Arabia, linguistic evidence is more convincing.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed controversial, and it seems like instead of a neutral formulation explaining multiple POVs, you have chosen to adopt one of these POVs and are pushing it against others, even removing references. The statement that there is NO physical evidence for this unrecorded, hypothetical "Arabian migration" seems to have been correct; you have asserted vaguely above that there is some "physical evidence", but I'm still waiting to hear what it is. It seems like a bunch of unproven conjecture by 20th century linguists to me. I also think it is quite important to concentrate on the matter at hand, accurately reporting the various opinions that can be found in published sources and historiography, rather than on the talk-pages of dormant editor accounts, which couldn't be more irrelevant to this article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, using the very same logic, one might just as easily postulate a hypothetical, reconstructed "migration" of African-Americans from England, the "urheimat" of all English speakers -- as pointed out by the Heyerdahl quote on my user page. Of course, our job is really not supposed to be postulating anything ourselves, but rather finding published sources that have discussed the controversy, and attributing the various views to them. Wording like "...is the most generally accepted..." is always a POV red flag. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you read the "controversial" statement, you'll see it says "It has been asserted that they originally migrated from the Arabian Peninsula, as that is the most generally accepted Semitic urheimat." So I've just said that the migration is a theory, without saying anything about its value, so that can't be what you're complaining about. The migration claims are mainly relying on linguistic evidence ("Semitic" being a language family), so the simple fact that that is what they're citing can't be controversial either. So it seems the thing you're debating is whether Arabia is the most generally accepted (note that I said "most generally accepted", not "probable") homeland. If you had a look at the article I linked to, you'll see that that is true (a minority theory holds Ethiopia as the Semitic homeland, but that theory too asserts that Canaanites came from Arabia, having crossed over from Ethiopia). So nothing I said, as far as I can see, is POV.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you are still trying to figure out what I am "complaining about" as if I wasn't clear enough in my last messages, so I'll spell it out for you once again what exactly I am "complaining about":

• Blanking of references that discuss other POVs
• Asserting that one POV is "most generally accepted" to assert its priority over other POVs.
• Just because Canaanites are known to have spoken a Semitic language does not pre-suppose that they came from some unrecorded, hypothetical, unattested "urheimat", even if there really were any such "Urheimat", they could have acquired Semitic speech in a variety of other ways. Look at how in later eras, Aramaic, Greek, and Arabic all enjoyed "lingua franca" status in the same region. Language and race are two entirely different things. If you lay all of this "Semitic urheimat"-pushing POV aside and look at what various scholars have said specifically with regard to the Canaanites, you will find some who assume they came from this invented "urheimat" based on linguistic assumptions, but you will also find many, many scholars who do not assume this "modern hypothesis" and who instead look at what ancient records say. If you look at the actual records, the further back you go, you will not find any records, traditions, nor a shred of tangible, physical evidence suggesting Canaanites migrated from South Arabia. The only records we do have, and all their own traditions, suggest that they were indigenous to what is now coastal Lebanon and spread out from there, not from Yemen. The Lebanon point of view has existed recorded in the literature for thousands of years longer than the Johnny-come-lately theory that would authoritatively assert their "homeland" to be in Yemen rather than Lebanon based on only the flimsiest of linguistic conjecture, and the Lebanon school of thought still significantly exists now as is easily verified, and it certainly deserves to be mentioned alongside the Yemen hypothesis, rather than belittled or erased from view with POV-pushing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to a compromise - removing both the Lebanon and Arabia hypotheses from the article, as I'm not particular sure of their relevance or necessity in this article. Otherwise, we can continue the debate. Also, when you say "race", do you mean physical/genetic race (the usual meaning of "race"), or ethnic group?--Yolgnu (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording w. references that you unilaterally removed, was already the result of the last "compromise" and multi-editor consensus! I'm sure it was less than a year ago! Now you want to remove all the information?! And kindly, explain to me what exactly would be the distinction between a "race" and an "ethnic group" (Greek ethna) then? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, I was just offering a compromise - if you're not interested, I'm glad to keep debating. And, a "race" is a conventional classification of human beings based on physical and/or genetic characteristics (eg. white people, black people), while an ethnic group is a culture with members who identify with each other and have a unique language (eg. Welsh people, Basque people).--Yolgnu (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think of the Canaanites as an ethnon, which is a good old Greek term, that can be rendered various ways in modern English as "people", "race", "ethnic group", "stock", "nation", "tribe", etc. (ethna is plural of ethnon). It means simply, a unit formed by group of people / population who are all kin to one another, because they share a common descent.

I don't see why there should be much debate. Both hypotheses are quite relevant to this article. Per NPOV, all we have to do do is factually and neutrally attribute the sources for each hypothesis: All the sources within the past 3000 years or so that say the Cananites originated in Lebanon, alongside all those sources within the past 100 years or so that say they originated in Yemen. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the migration from Arabia (not Yemen) occurred in prehistoric times, there is of course no written records of it, and "folk traditions" are not a reliable source (Dravidian folk traditions claim they came from "a great lost land in the Indian Ocean", and we know that's not the case). Similarly, if you look at the pages for Greeks, Germanic tribes, Indo-Iranians, etc. it says they all migrated from the Black Sea, with the spread of Indo-European languages (culturally, not genetically, as a small number of invaders imposed their culture on a large conquered population). At the dawn of history, Canaanites were living in Sinai, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon (which was their northernmost boundary). There's no evidence they spread out from Lebanon (in fact, I'd like to see these supposed sources which claim so), instead of Sinai, Palestine or Jordan. In fact, the article previously said they were "centred on Lebanon", not that they came from Lebanon, but as I said, their central location was actually Palestine so it's inaccurate to say they were centred on Lebanon. But what you don't seem to be able to grasp is that, even if they did spread out from Lebanon, that doesn't mean they can't have originally migrated to Lebanon from somewhere else (and since humans apparently originated in Africa, they would have had to - though of course that's irrelevant to this article), just as Indo-Aryans are centred and spread out from northern India, but apparently migrated from the earlier Andronovo culture in Central Asia. But you're making this ridiculous argument that "just because you speak a Semitic language, doesn't make you Semitic", when in fact that's the very definition of Semitic. Perhaps if they diverged wildly from other Semites, maybe they could be considered separate to them, but nope - Canaanite religion is typically Semitic, as is everything else about the Canaanites. In fact, "Canaanite" is defined as the people who spoke Canaanite languages.

Also, even if the Canaanites did spread out from Lebanon, it is erroneous to say that was their "urheimat", since that word is only applied to language families and superfamilies (eg. Indo-European, Semitic), not language sub-sub-sub-sub-families like Canaanite (or ethnic groups, if you reject defining them by language). You wouldn't talk about the "Gallo-Romance urheimat", would you?--Yolgnu (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Really I'm not trying to make any such arguments. (I eschew revisionist terms like "urheimat" completely). We are supposed to reflect sources, not use this page to argue about the sources, or argue with the sources. (As editors, all our own 'expertise' is worthless if we can't find where someone else has written the same thing down somewhere) I know that the Doc. hypothesis is only one school of thought, many far-fetched POV assumptions can be made when we wrongly assume that this hypothesis is uncontested, proven fact, when in fact it is a disputed hypothesis; as with any article, I just want all the sources (both historiographic and recent conjectures) to speak for themselves and be attributed to who made them, and try not to push our own POVs on the reader here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Disregard the part I struck out, I was momentaarily confusing this with another discussion I'm having... How about this compromise: We cut out all origin theories from the lead, except for a brief mention of what the main contenders are, then have the origin theories in an appropriate subsection more fully, including a subsection for historiographic records placing their origin in Phoenicia, and another subsection where you could put the more recent sources deriving them from Arabia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this belongs in an "Origins" section, and not the lead, but I haven't seen any sources saying they had an origin in Phoenicia. What the Canaan page formerly said was that they were "centred" in Lebanon. Since they weren't geographically centred in Lebanon, I think User:Codex Sinaiticus must have meant cultural centre. To compare, London is the largest English city and England's cultural centre, but not England's geographical centre, and nor did the English spread out from there.

By the way, if there are any reliable sources that say that Canaan had an origin/centre in Lebanon, of course this hypothesis should be mentioned in the article. CS's "sources" were cryptic, irrelevant, and didn't mention Lebanon.--Yolgnu (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we seem to be agreed on moving this to an "Origins" section from the lead... Go ahead and start, but allow me to see how much I can find for a subsection, or at least a paragraph, discussing the historiographic records of their origin, just for NPOV... I'm sure there are a few such historiographic sources, Sanchunathion is the main one that comes to mind, but there are others. Of course, we'd also have all the strictly recent speculations that would point to Arabia. That hypothesis may involve ignoring or dismissing the historiography outright, and rely on solely linguistic speculations from its armchair, so I would hardly call it a 'universally accepted' POV, but at least it can be well sourced, so it inarguably deserves a good space according to NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't prejudice the Arabian hypothesis with "however, none of this is backed up in historical literature", because, since it happened prehistorically, there are no written records of it - just as there aren't primary sources for anything else that happened prehistorically.

And I think I'll wait for you to find some sources before I create the "Origins" section - the Arabian hypothesis can be covered in one sentence, and alone doesn't need a subsection - the subsection is about discussing the two hypotheses together and comparing their relative popularity and proponents, evidence, and strengths and weaknesses.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canaanite and Ugaritic

Ugaritic is commonly recognised as a form of Canaanite or Proto-Canaanite except for the absence of the Canaanite ā → ō shift, which seems to have occurred later. Its proximity to Canaanite is shown by its close approximation of archaic Hebrew, as many Ugaritic texts are very closely related to that language. To say that Ugarit did not speak Canaanite is therefore simplistic and needs qualification. John D. Croft (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative and Moderate Scholars

Whilst moderate scholars do not accept the minimalist thesis that the bible was first composed in Hasmonaean or Hellenistic times, they are prepared to accept that the bulk of the final redaction did occur in the 7th or possibly 6th century BCE. For this reason I have deleted "or moderate" from the text here - it is only ultra-conservatives who reject a 7th or 6th century redaction. John D. Croft (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)