I. Name - It is one of the names by which the Old Testament designates the territory occupied by the Israelites.
The name is found in the el-Amarna letters (c. 1375 B.C.) in the form kinabhi (kinahna, kinahni). The Egyptians of the XIXth and XXth dynasties (14th-12th centuries B.C.) prefix to it
The term (p. kn'n), as well as in Greek λιγνός, appears. The etymology of the name is uncertain: many authors derive it from the Semitic root *kana’* “to be low”; others consider it a pre-Semitic word. In the el-Amarna letters, Kinaḥmāj designates a part of the Asiatic provenance of the Egyptian kingdom, which then included present-day Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria as far as the Euphrates. It cannot be proven that Palestine itself is called Kinaḥmā in these letters, since the relevant texts rather mention Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast (Acco, Tyre, Byblos) and some inland cities such as Hāṣōr (v. ASIR) southwest of the Hūleh plain. The name appears to have a similar meaning in the inscription of Merneptah (“Israel Stela”), where the name of Israel is mentioned for the first time: “Canaan is laid waste with all its woes; Ascalon is captured, Gezer is bound, Yeno’am is annihilated; Israel is destroyed, it has no seed.”
In the Old Testament, too, there are texts in which Canaan rather means the land of the Phoenicians; for example, Judg 4:2, 23; 5:19; 2 Sam 24:7; Isa 23:11; Prov 31:24; and in the New Testament, Matt 15:22 (the “Canaanite woman”). More commonly, however, the Old Testament uses the words Canaan and Canaanites in a broader sense, applying them to the Palestine occupied by the Israelites and to the pre-Israelite population of that land, regardless of its ethnic origin.
In the “Table of Nations” (Gen 10), it is stated (v. 19) that “the territory of the Canaanites extends from Sidon toward Gerar (i.e., to the west) as far as Gaza, and toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim (i.e., to the east) as far as Lasha” (according to the Talmud and Jerome = Callirrhoe east of the Dead Sea; others identify it with Lašš [Dan] near the sources of the Jordan). “Sons of Canaan” (i.e., members of the Canaanite family) are Sidon, the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites (Gen 10:15–18), that is, the non-Israelite peoples of Palestine and Syria. In this text, as in others, the originally geographical term Canaanites is used to denote the pre-Israelite population residing there, without regard to the ethnic affiliation of the individual elements. By tracing the Canaanites back to Ham (Gen 10:6), the “Table of Nations” does not intend to speak of the ethnic origin of the “Canaanite” peoples but of their political dependence on the Canaanite Egyptians.
Ethnographically, the majority of the inhabitants of Canaan (i.e., Palestine-Phoenicia) seem to have been Semitic, having immigrated in various periods; the oldest layer probably in the 4th millennium, the most recent (the “Amorites,” V. c.) around 2000. Sometimes, however, the Old Testament distinguishes between Canaanites and Amorites, calling Amorites not only the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine (cf. Num 21:13, 31; Deut 3:8; 4:47 sq.; 31:4; Josh 2:10; 9:10; 12:2; 13:10; Judg 10:8) but also a part of the inhabitants of Palestine proper, namely those dwelling in the hill country (Deut 1:7, 19, 20, 44: people dwelling in the Negeb of Palestine; Josh 10:5 sq.), while the Canaanites are attributed the plain and the Jordan Valley (Num 13:29; Josh 11:3). Not infrequently the Bible calls the entire pre-Israelite population Amorites (cf. Gen 15:16; Josh 24:15, 18; Judg 6:10); but in later times the Amorites, either exterminated or assimilated by the Israelites who had occupied the hill country, no longer existed, whereas the “Canaanites” in the fortified cities of the plain resisted the invaders and constituted a continual danger to the Israelites (cf. Judg 1:27–33).
The name “Canaanites” thus came to be used increasingly to designate all the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine, all the more so since the minor peoples of the Perizzites, Rephaites, Girgashites, Jebusites, etc. (cf. Gen 15:19 sq.) were no longer of any importance. The Canaanites of Phoenicia, geographically separated from Palestine and soon entering into a different historical and political evolution from that of the Palestinian peoples, were called after their principal city, as in Homer, Sidonians (cf. Deut 3:9; Judg 10:6, 12; 18:7; 1 Kgs 5:6 [20]; 11:1, 5, 33; 2 Sam 23:13).
Here we use “Canaanites” to denote indiscriminately the population that inhabited Cisjordanian Palestine before the immigration of the Israelites and persisted alongside them for several centuries.
II. History
1. Sources
The history of the Canaanites, as well as their language, religion, and civilization, is known to us chiefly from excavations carried out in Palestine during the last decades. In almost every major Israelite city there are, beneath the layers belonging to the Israelite period (“Iron Age”), more or less numerous layers representing the pre-Israelite (“Canaanite”) culture in its various phases. Not a few pre-Israelite necropolises have also been discovered, especially important for the grave goods, which for different periods attest the level and character of the civilization of these peoples. Alongside these archaeological sources, however, literary documents relating to pre-Israelite Palestine are not lacking. The principal ones are: the Egyptian story of Sinuhe, who dwells for a long time in Palestine (the story refers to the time of Amenemhet I and Sesostris I, ca. 2000–1935, and seems to have been written in the second half of the 20th century); the execration texts, now preserved in Berlin and Brussels (from the 19th century); the reports of Egyptian pharaohs on campaigns in Palestine and Syria, above all that of Thutmose III (ca. 1501–1450) concerning the campaign of 1479 against the allied princes of Palestine and Syria; and, of supreme importance, the el-Amarna letters (v. AMARNA), the correspondence in Akkadian and cuneiform of Pharaohs Amenhotep III (1411–1375) and Amenhotep IV (1375–1358) with the kings and governors of Syria and Palestine. These and other literary documents, compared with the results of excavations and set within the general history of the Near East of the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C., now provide us with a fairly concrete picture of Canaanite history in that age.2. The course of history
In prehistoric and protohistoric times, Canaan appears to have been inhabited by non-Semitic peoples, whose ethnic affinity, however, cannot yet be determined. At Gezer (and perhaps also at Jerusalem) the remains of a “crematorium” (of the Neolithic age) have been found, evidence of corpse cremation, not practiced among the Semites. The first Semitic immigration seems to have taken place around 3000; but the details of this ethnic movement still completely elude us. The few Egyptian paintings of the 3rd millennium depicting inhabitants of Palestine or Syria present them as distinctly Semitic types. Egypt, which had been in trade with the Phoenician city of Byblos (v. 3) since 3000 B.C., also took an interest in Palestine; Pharaoh Pepi I (ca. 2450 B.C.) conducted five military campaigns to secure its domination, and the imposing fortifications that sprang up all over Palestine in the 3rd millennium show that the struggle between mighty Egypt and the inhabitants of Canaan was fierce. Documents from the subsequent period show that Egypt had meanwhile succeeded in occupying southern Palestine or at least establishing some footholds there, such as the strong city of Gaza. The cultural influence of Egypt is confirmed by objects of Egyptian origin found in excavations, and on the other hand there is evidence that Palestine at that time supplied Egypt with its principal products, wine and grain.Toward the end of the 20th century, Palestine appears to be invaded by another Semitic group coming from northern Mesopotamia. The invaders were apparently of the same stock that at that time was invading Babylonia, where it founded the 1st Babylonian dynasty, called the “Amorrite.” This new people, the “Amorrites,” first occupied Transjordan, but also the mountains of Cisjordan, while the “Canaanites” held out in the plains. Egyptian domination, which existed in law, seems in fact to have been rather shaky, as is shown by the fact that in the “execration texts,” especially those of Brussels, no fewer than 63 territories are listed as “rebellious” or at least suspect to the Egyptians. Egyptian hegemony was then completely eliminated by new invaders who flowed in from the mid-18th century onward, namely the “Hyksos,” who, having overrun Palestine, even succeeded in occupying Egypt (ca. 1730–1580). In Palestine the Hyksos occupied the great cities—many of them display the fortification technique proper to the Hyksos—without, however, altering the cultural situation of the country, since their occupation was rather military than political in nature. The hegemony of the Hyksos, which extended over a large part of the Near East, favored the influx into Palestine of cultural elements of the most varied origin.
After the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt (ca. 1580), some of their nuclei seem to have remained in Palestine, but rather under Egyptian hegemony, which under the 17th Dynasty (1580–1450) and even more under the 18th (1450–1315) was fully re-established. The list of cities conquered by Thutmose III (1501–1450) in his campaign of 1479 against a coalition of Palestinian and Syrian princes enumerates no fewer than 119 Palestinian cities, though these were situated rather in the plains than in the mountains. During the 15th century Egyptian supremacy remained firm, and the period of peace favored the material prosperity of the country, which is evident from excavations. A serious disturbance was caused in the 14th century by the ever-growing pressure of the Habiru, about which we are informed by the el-Amarna letters. The Egyptians no longer had the strength to offer effective resistance, and not even the powerful Pharaoh Ramses II (1292–1226), who even had to besiege the city of Ashkelon, succeeded in effectively re-establishing Egyptian supremacy.
The Israelites, who entered Palestine between the 15th and 12th centuries—the date has not yet been securely established—had to contend not with the Egyptians, nor with a Caucasian people, but with the Canaanites, who were entrenched in the plains. They did not succeed in overcoming the great Canaanite cities of the plains, e.g., Gezer, Dor, Megiddo, Taanach, Beth-shan; indeed, being better equipped for war and provided with iron chariots, they recovered so well as to be able to separate the northern tribes of Galilee from those of Samaria (Judg. 5:6ff.). And it seems that even between the tribe of Judah and those settled in the hill country of Ephraim a Canaanite isthmus had intervened. The situation became critical, but a joint action of five and a half tribes, led by Barak and assisted by Deborah, decided the fate of the Canaanites forever in the battle of the “waters of Megiddo” (Judg. 4:24). From that time onward no more great wars against the Canaanites are recorded; their remnants were gradually absorbed and assimilated into the Israelite element. David captured their last stronghold, the Jebusite citadel of Jerusalem, and made it the capital of his kingdom. In the administrative organization of Solomon (1 Kgs. 4:7–19), the ancient Canaanite cities largely became seats of the Israelite governor. The political importance of the Canaanites had ceased, but their religious and cultural influence in Israel continued to be felt for centuries in a baneful way, especially in the northern kingdom.
III. CANAANITE CIVILIZATION.
1. Politically the Canaanites were not a united nation, but each city (with its surroundings) was subject to its own king. All the literary documents mentioned above agree on this point. In time of war the princes threatened by an aggressor united in league, as, for example, in 1479 against Thutmose III, or in the el-Amarna period, when some cities formed an alliance under the leadership of ‘Abdi-Heba, king of Jerusalem, or at the time of Joshua, when the southern league of the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon opposed him, and the northern league headed by Jabin, king of Hazor.
2. The language of the pre-Israelite population of Canaan is preserved only in a few glosses and phrases of the el-Amarna letters and in pre-Israelite proper names. From these scanty remains it appears that the Canaanites spoke a language little different from that of the Israelites, who seem to have adopted into their idiom not a few elements of that pre-Israelite Canaanite tongue. Of Canaanite literature, if there ever was any, nothing has been preserved.
3. Canaanite secular culture gradually reached a relatively high level, thanks to the foreign influence to which Canaan was open in all directions: to the north to Hittite and Hurrian culture, to the east to that of Assyria and Babylonia, to the southwest to Egyptian culture, to the west to Aegean culture (of Cyprus, Crete, Mycenae). The cities were not large: in the Bronze Age they occupied from 2 to 10 hectares (e.g., Canaanite Jericho ca. 2.5 hectares, Jebusite Jerusalem ca. 5 hectares, ancient Gezer 9 hectares). Being for the most part places of refuge in time of war for the population that cultivated the surrounding countryside and lived there in huts, the cities did not need much space, but rather strong means of protection: positions difficult of access (on hills or spurs of mountains), high and strong walls 4–8 m. wide, often double, protected by glacis and ditches, fortified gates, sometimes built “in pincer” fashion, underground galleries leading to water sources when these were located outside the enclosure (as, e.g., at Jerusalem, Gezer, Gibeon, Lachish, Ibleam). The art of fortification reached a high degree of perfection as early as the 3rd millennium (e.g., at et-Tell = Ai), but especially in the Hyksos period (18th–16th centuries), who seem to have brought with them a fortification technique of their own. The fortified cities of the Canaanites therefore struck fear into the Israelites, who, coming from the desert, were without the means to cope with such defensive works (cf. Num. 13:29; Deut. 9:1).
The houses are mostly small and huddled together without order. In the houses of the rich and in the palaces of the princes, however, a certain affluence is noted. Household utensils, whether of indigenous manufacture or imported, often show good artistic taste, especially in the decoration of pottery and weapons. The art of writing was not unknown either. For international diplomatic correspondence and sometimes even in private affairs, the Akkadian cuneiform script was used (as attested by the el-Amarna letters and the tablets found at Shechem, Tell el-Hesi, and Taanach); an alphabetic script was also known, which seems to stand midway between that found on the Sinai peninsula (of the 19th and 16th centuries) and the Phoenician script, of which the oldest monument known so far is an inscription from Byblos (ca. 1500–1400 B.C.). Remains of this Canaanite alphabetic script have been found in various sites in Palestine in the central and southwestern regions, e.g., at Shechem (an inscription alleged to belong to the 17th century) and in the excavations at Lachish (several inscriptions on vases and tools, of the 17th–14th centuries); at Beth-shemesh (q.v.) even a tablet with Ugaritic writing (alphabetic-cuneiform) was found. It is clear that the Canaanites knew the art of writing at least by the mid-2nd millennium; but the discoveries made so far are insufficient to reconstruct the genesis of the alphabetic script.
4. Canaanite (pre-Israelite) religion was political in nature. Originally the supreme (or only) deity
It is likely that the god El was originally the deity, but in very ancient BA'ALBEK (v.) together with his consort 'Ašeráh or Astarte. "Baal" ("the lord") was the common name for the deity; almost every major city had its own Baal, but the name also served to denote the god simply, as is evident from the el-Amarna letters and from Egyptian inscriptions of the XIXth and XXth dynasties. Baal was the god of war and the god of the sky (ba'lu ina šamé); as such he was also the god of vegetation, especially of the storm that brings rain. His symbol was the bull. In other cases the deity appears to have been represented in the form of a serpent (Bejšán, Gezer, Bejt Mirsim); but more commonly a simple stone stele (maššébháh) was used to represent the god. In addition to Baal, and partly confused with him, Hadad was worshipped, the god of the storm, originally domiciled in northern Mesopotamia and probably imported into Palestine by the Amorrites (c. 1900 B.C.).
Baal's companion was Astarte (Heb. 'Aššóreth), the Itar of the Babylonians, goddess of fertility and also of war. In Palestine this goddess is often confused with 'Ašeráh, likewise a goddess of animal fertility. Her symbol was the tree trunk or "sacred pole"; the Old Testament called these trunks 'Ašeráh. The cult of 'Ašeráh and 'Aššóreth was highly sensual (sacred prostitution). Numerous are the statuettes (mostly of terracotta) found in Palestine representing the naked goddess with exaggerated sexual features.
A third Canaanite deity was 'Anat, also a goddess of life and fertility, in the texts of Rās Šamrah sister and consort of Baal. Her cult in Palestine is attested by a statue found at Bejšán and by local names compounded with 'Anat (cf., e.g., Jos. 19, 38; Judg. 1, 33; Bethanat; Jos. 21, 18, etc.; Anatoth).
The Canaanite places of worship were the temples, and (more frequently, it seems) the so-called "high places" (bámáth "height"). So far only a few authentic Canaanite temples have been found (e.g., at Hai, at Shechem), but their existence can hardly be denied. Of the "high places," so often mentioned in the Old Testament, no traces have been preserved, as is easily understood, except in a sacred precinct excavated at Beth-shan (from the time of Thutmose III, 1501-1450) and, outside Palestine, at Zibb Aṭuf near Petra. bámáh (v.) was usually situated on a hill (but sanctuaries located in the plain were also so called; cf. Jer. 7, 31), and consisted of an altar, a maššébháh and an 'Ašeráh (lucos in the Vulgate). Proper idols do not seem to have been used in the "high places," but rather in the temples. The (12) maššébháh found at Gezer, probably belonging to the period 1800-1600, regarded by many authors as the remains of the sanctuary of that city, may well be no more than commemorative or sepulchral stelae of princes or other illustrious persons. Household cult objects were statuettes of daemons or goddesses, especially of the naked goddess, found in large numbers in excavations.
The cult itself consisted mainly of sacrifices, both bloody and bloodless. The animals sacrificed seem to have been, as is evident from the bones found in excavated sanctuaries, those prescribed by the Bible, especially sheep and bullocks; so far it has not been proved with certainty that among the Canaanites (contrary to Hebrew usage) the pig was also sacrificed. The Old Testament attests that among the Canaanites human sacrifice was also in use (cf. Lev. 20, 1-5; Deut. 12, 31; 19, 9 sqq.). Archaeology has not yet furnished indisputable proof of this, but there are indications. However, the interpretation of archaeological discoveries must be cautious. The skeletons of children found enclosed in jars in some excavated cities may not derive from sacrificial offerings, but from burials practiced within the houses themselves; the corpses show no traces of wounds or burning and are generally accompanied by the usual funeral gifts (vials with food, vessels with drink, etc.). "Foundation sacrifices" cannot be proved with certainty, nor does the Old Testament attest their existence unambiguously (the exegesis of I Kings 16:34 is controversial). It is, however, evident from the Old Testament that human sacrifices were offered not only to Moloch (identified with the god Malik worshipped in Babylonia), but also to the Canaanite god Baal (Jer. 19, 5; 32, 35). The existence of this barbarous custom among the Israelites is convincing evidence of its existence among the Canaanites; from them it had passed to the Israelites, together with many other immoral and inhuman religious practices, e.g., sacred prostitution (cf. I Sam. 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; II Sam. 23:7).
5. Sparse are the information provided by excavations concerning the care for the dead; almost all the great Canaanite cities have yielded either necropolises or at least a large number of tombs. The dead were generally buried, as among the Israelites, in natural caves or in underground chambers of various shapes, mostly intended for entire families. The dead were laid in the tomb without a sarcophagus; where a sarcophagus was used, as at Bejšán and Tell Fara' (anthropomorphic sarcophagi), this was due to foreign influence (cf., e.g., the sarcophagi of Byblos). The dead were given abundant gifts, particularly objects of everyday life: plates, jugs, jars, lamps, tools and weapons, various ornaments. This funerary furnishings attests to the belief that the deceased enjoyed, after death, a life similar to that on earth. The necropolises were generally located outside the cities; thus, e.g., at Jericho, Tell Fara', Bejšán, Gezer, et-Tell (Hai); but tombs of individuals or entire families have also been found within the inhabited area (e.g., at Gezer, Megiddo). Moreover, only the tombs of the more affluent have been preserved; the common people buried their dead in simple earth-dug graves, of which nothing has survived.
IV. BEARERS OF C
In early Christian art the scene of the two spies returning from the land of Canaan, whom Moses had sent, carrying on a pole a vine branch with a cluster of grapes (Num. 13:2 sqq.) is depicted.For Zenon, Bishop of Verona (362-71), the pole supporting the cluster is a symbol of the wood of the Cross (PL 11, 469-70): soon after St Ambrose explains that
C.'s cluster of grapes prefigured Christ: "ille botrus peregrinus, qui sicut uva de vite, ita ille in carne crucis pependit in ligno" (De Fide, I, 20; IV, 12: PL 16, 559-60, 648-49). The same teaching is found in St Augustine (Contra Faustum, XII, 42: PL 42, 276; Enarratio in Psalm., 53, 2 and 7: PL 36, 849, 653) and in a host of writers from the fifth to the thirteenth century, as C. Leonardi has recently emphasised (Ampelos, il simbolismo della vite nell’arte pagana e paleocristiana, Rome 1947, pp. 147-85). The scene of C.'s bearers appears in early Christian art on a sarcophagus lid discovered at S. Vittore in Marseilles (Wilpert, Sarcofagi, I, p. 271, pl. 17, 2), on a gold-glass in the museum at Pesaro (R. Garrucci, Storia dell’arte cristiana, III, Prato 1872, pp. 129-301, pl. 172, 10), and on another from the cemetery of Pamphilus (C. Leonardi, ibid., pl. XIV). It is likewise depicted on certain Christian lamps of terracotta, such as that in the museum at Narbonne published by E. Le Blant (De quelques sujets représentés sur des lampes en terre cuite de l’époque chrétienne, in Mélanges d’archéol. et d’histoire, 6 [1886], pp. 237-38), and another in the museum of the Campo Santo Teutonico in Rome (O. Marucchi, Medaille und Lampe aus der Sammlung Zurla, in Römische Quartalschrift, I [1887], p. 327). The representation also occurs in later monuments, such as a French illustrated Bible in the National Library at Vienna and a Biblia pauperum at Heidelberg (Leonardi, ibid., pls. XIV-XVI, 30-31). — See Pl. XXXVI.