Who Is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence Author(s): Anson F. Rainey Reviewed work(s): Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 304 (Nov., 1996), pp. 1-15 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357437 . Accessed: 04/01/2012 03:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.
http://www.jstor.org Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence
ANSON E RAINEY Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978 Israel rainey @ccsg.tau.ac.il
In view of recent attemptsto vaporizethe Canaanitesand to erase the land of Canaanfrom the map-principallyin N. P. Lemche's1991 volume,The Canaanitesand their Land:The Traditionof the Canaanites-a reviewof the crucial evidenceis in order.The present study will concentrateon documentsfrom the Late BronzeAge in particular,with some allusionsto evidencefrom otherperiods, to providean under- standingof the textswithin the semanticframework in whichthey were composed-the simple,straightforward meaning of thepassages as intendedby the ancientscribes.
THE PHANTOM CANAANITES that the Egyptians did have a good grasp of their geography. A glance at the famous "poetical Stela" emche (1991: 50) contendsthat the ancient of Thutmose III (Sethe 1909: 611; Wilson 1955: L Egyptian and Levantine scribes of the second 373-75) should convince any objective reader that millennium B.C.E. used the terms "Canaan" the scribes knew their world and had it organized. and "Canaanite"in "imprecise ways." He believes The same is true of that Pharaoh'slong topographical that they have no understanding of any clear-cut lists (Sethe 1909: 779-94). The Onomasticon of social, political, or geographical meaning for such Amenemope has many geographical entities (Gardi- terms. On the other hand, those of us who do see ner 1947) and there can be no doubt that their inclu- definite significance to such terms are accused of sion in that "encyclopedic" list reflects a knowledge reading our own understanding of nationalism and of geography. It should be obvious that the everyday ethnicity into the ancient documents (Lemche 1991: administrationof the Egyptian-controlledterritories, 50-51). Instead, Lemche himself cites anthropolog- with its profoundconcern with revenues, would have ical studies pertaining to an African group that mod- requiredan intimateknowledge of the social and geo- ern ethnographershad denoted by a term currentnot political entities. It is purely a matter of chance that among the members of the group, but rather among many inscriptional contexts simply take for granted their neighboring groups (Lemche 1991: 51 with ref- that the writer and the recipient or user of the text erences). One could compare this with the use of knew the geographical and "ethnic" entities men- the term "Indians"applied by the first Europeans to tioned. There was no need for them to go into de- the natives they encountered in the Western Hemi- tailed definitions. The route descriptions in Papyrus sphere. But in fact, his entire argument is irrelevant Anastasi I (I, lines 18, 2-25, 2) demonstratebeyond to the interpretationof the ancient documents. Else- all possible doubt that geographical knowledge was where, Lemche says "all Egyptian references to 'the nurtured in Egyptian scribal (and thus administra- Canaan' are rather imprecise and leave many prob- tive) circles. It is only Lemche's comprehension of lems to be solved" (Lemche 1991: 48-49). What he the evidence from the second millennium sources that might have said was that the sporadic references to is imprecise. The following discussion of the spe- Canaan in Egyptian documents do not provide suf- cific texts will demonstratethat they do indeed give ficient information to define the exact geographical an accurate picture of a geographical entity known limits of Canaan.The haphazardnature of the mate- to the ancients as Canaan and a people known to rials available in no way prejudices the assumption them and to themselves as Canaanites.Lemche's most
1 2 ANSONE RAINEY BASOR304
Carchemish DANUNA
ISH 4.MUG * Alalakh *oJalab Emar
IGARIT L"
Ugar
ALASHIA
*Himath
* Qatna
-) *edesh , H/ ,ZZdad'* Mt. - -Ziphron*Hazar enan ,* Lebo' \ ?Ammiya* Byblos Apheka
Bleirut* CANAAN
Sidoan(9 SDamascus
Ty UPE
*Hazor 'Akko / HainnIathon Megiddoe / i shean "/ eBeth- "'--......
J Dekel ?
Fig. 1. Canaan in relationto the surroundingareas. 1996 WHO IS A CANAANITE? 3 glaring mistake is his misunderstandingof the pas- All but two of the men on the list are defined by sage in EA 151:49-67 (see discussion below) and their town or country of origin. One of the other men that failure has distorted all of his other judgment happens to be from URU Am-mi-ia, a city located calls. in Canaan by the Idrimi inscription (cf. discussion below). Patronymics, i.e., the name of the father, are ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL not applied to such persons because they do not have DOCUMENTS standing. Incidentally, Lemche is still laboring under the misapprehensionthat Capiriican be equated with The linguistic designations for people defined as "Hebrews" (Lemche 1991: 27). There is nothing in Canaanites are often nisbe forms, i.e., the gramma- the 800 years of documentation (from the Tigris to tical constructions utilizing one of the Semitic suf- the Nile) to support such an assumption (Loretz fixes to convert a noun into an adjective, used in 1984; Rainey 1987; 1995). All the linguistic, his- antiquity mainly to create appellatives pertaining to torical, geographical, and sociological evidence is family, tribal, national, or other social entities. An- against it. other method is to designate someone as "man of A third reference to a Canaanite, Ia(?)-am-bd-li Canaan,"or "son of Canaan."The practice is wide- (AT 154:24), is on a fragmentof an unpublishedtab- spread in the Semitic languages and the semantic let on which 33 names have been preserved. Other function was well understoodand agreed upon by the people on the same list are designated by their patro- ancient scribes. It was their way of defining people nymics, e.g., HIa-na-ag-giDUMU A-na-ni "Hanaggi and groups in relation to themselves and to one an- son of Anana" (AT 154:15). On the edge of the other. Modern anthropological theories of ethnicity tablet, a colophon reads [DUB]? sa EN GIS.GIGIR are irrelevantto the everyday practiceof these scribes. "[tablet]? of owners of chariots." This is an appropriateplace to cite the autobiog- Alalakh raphy of Idrimi. Although it is a "literary"inscrip- tion and not an administrative text, it has some From the Hurro-Akkadianadministrative docu- crucial geographical and sociological testimony. The ments found in StratumIV at there are some Alalakh, passage in question begins with the hero's leaving listed with the "man of Canaan" people appellative his place of exile in Emar: or "son of Canaan."One of these is ANSE.KUR.RA-iaGI8.GIGIR-ia Ui LUj.KUST-ia I 'Bd-a-la-ia Lobd-i-ru/ LU URU Ki-in-a-ni7KI el-te-q-s'u-nu u i-lam ma-at hu-ri-ib-teKI/ e-te- a bdiiru soldier,a man of the [sic!] "Baclaya, city ti-iq i~ li-bi ERIN.ME?Su-tu-dKI / e-te-ru-ub it-ti- of Canaan"(AT 48:4-5; Wiseman1953: 46, pl. 13), su a-na li-bi / GI8.GIGIRsa-lilil-te bi-td-kui-na sa-ni / an-mu-uk-mau a-na ma-at Ki-in-a- who, along with his wife and son, took a loan from u4-mi a local citizen of Alalakh. If should fail to ni7KI/ al-li-ik i-na ma-atKi-in-a-ni7KI / URU Am- Baclaya mi-iaKIal-bu i-na URUAm-mi-iaKI / DUMU.ME? the interest on time, he would be repay imprisoned. URUHa-la-abKI DUMU.ME? ma-at I The use of URU instead of KUR is Mu-gis-iK-be "city" "country" DUMU.ME?URU ma-at Ni-PKI i [DUMU].ME? an unusual error but probably derives from the ma-at/ A-ma-eKIal-bu / i-mu-ru-un-ni-ma/ i-nu- use of KUR URU for names of countries frequent ma DUMU be-li-su-nua-na-ku i' a-na UGU-ia / (Labat 1932: 14-15; Huehnergard 1989: 84). One ip-hu-ru-nim-maa-ka-a-na DUG4 ur-tab-bi-a-ku / may compare the use of KUR URU A-mur-ri in a le- a-ra-akU' a-na li-bi ERIN.ME LU.SA.GAZ/ a-na gal document from Carchemish (e.g., RS 1957.1:9; MU.7.KAM.MESal-ba-ku Fisher 1972: 11-12). Another Canaanite at Alalakh is: "I took my horse and my chariotand groomand went away;I crossedover the desertand entered in ISar-ni-ia DUMU KUR Ki-in4-a-niKI"Sarniya, a amongthe Suti warriors.I spentthe night with them son of the land of Canaan"(AT 181:9;Wiseman in my coveredchariot; the next dayI wentforth and 1953:71; 1954: 11), came to the landof Canaan.The town of Ammiya is located in the land of Canaan.In the town of who appears on a list of people defined by the first Ammiyathere dwelt people of the city of line caption as L•alab, people of the land of MugiS,people of the land of ERIN.MESLU.SA.GAZ EN GIS.TUKUL.MES= Ni'i, and people of the land of Ama~e. They recog- siabt Capirubel kakki "Soldiers, Capirj, owners of nized me, thatI was the son of theirlord and they weapons,"or "CApiru-soldiers,armed" (AT 181:1). gatheredto me. Thus,I said, 'I have becomechief, 4 ANSON E RAINEY BASOR 304
I am appointed';I dwelt seven years among the Cap- (01) bdl . gt . bn . tbsn Merchantsof Gath-Bun- iru warriors."(Stele of Idrimi,lines 13-28; Smith *Tubbi-'enni 1949: pls. 9-10; Greensteinand Marcus1976: 64, (02) bn . mnyy. Crty Bin *Minyiyu,from 67, 73-78). "WoolTown" (03) aryn . adddy DAriyannu,an Ashdodite The hero starts out from Emar on the Euphrates (04) agptr Agaptarri (Tell Meskene) and crosses the desert where Syrian (05) rbCl.mlky ?u-BaClu,from Mulukku he a the Sutian spends night among warriors, pas- (06) ncmn. msry Nacmanu,an Egyptian toralist tribesmen well documented in cuneiform (07) yCl. kncny Yacilu,a Canaanite sources. He then leaves them and goes to a geo- (08) gdn . bn . umy Guddanuson of Ummayu graphical entity called "the land of Canaan." That (09) kncm. scrty Kun-'ammu,from "Wool entity enjoys the same status as other countries in Town" the inscription, e.g., "the land of Mugis," "the land (10) abrpu. ubrcy DAbi-rap'ufrom Ubirca of Ni'i," and "the land of Amaze." Instead of the (11) b . gt. bn . l.t FromGath-Bin *Taliti KUR, all of them have the term predeterminative Note that several people on the list are designated by "land of .. ." but also mat spelled syllabically; they gentilics. Some of them are from places in the king- have the determinativeKI. A town, ideographic post dom of Ugarit, viz. 'crty"of Wool Town"(lines 2, 9), is also mentioned as the venue for seven Ammiya, mlky"of Mulukku"(line 5), ubrcy "of DUbtlrca"(line of the viz. the years living among Capirii, political 10). One person was of such high rank in Ugarit that like himself, who had fled for from outcasts, refuge he needed no epithet, Agaptarri(cf. Schaeffer 1978: various in northern This kingdoms Syria. happens 154). But we also find an Ashdodite and an Egyptian to be the same Ammiya mentioned in the Rib- on the same list. There can be no doubt that the na- Haddi from EA correspondence el-CAmarna(e.g., tional affiliation of each of those people is with a Its location is at 73:27; 74:25). surely modern-day recognized political and geographical entity, one a in the hills behind occa- Amyfin Byblos, although city-state on the Palestinian coast and the other a ma- it seems to be confused with sionally Ambi/Ampi, jor power in the eastern Mediterranean.It is note- Anfeh on the coast. modern-day Regardless, Ammiya worthy that the Egyptian has a Semitic name and the is located in a country called Canaan. Ashdodite has a name that could be either Hurrianor from that same came to Alalakh People country Semitic. The Canaanite'sname is obviously Semitic and were the scribes there. Since registered by they (Hurriandoes not have Cayin).Those personal names were were recorded not to foreigners, they according are quite likely indicative of the native tongue of but to The scribes patrimony according nationality. the person. Semites living in Egypt and fully partic- asked the where came undoubtedly foreigners they ipating in its social life are well known; it is also a from and each one that he was from Canaan. replied commonplace that a considerable increment in the Thus we have clear evidence that documentary peo- population of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age called Canaanites knew were Canaanites ple they was of Hurrianorigin. From lists of jars of wine is- and were as such the scribes of an- recognized by sued to various people more national or gentilic des- other The citizens of country. ("sons" DUMU.ME?) ignations can be cited: other countries, such as Halab, Mugis, Ni'i, and Ama e, were similarly recognized. It also follows KTU4.230 = UT 1089 = RS 16.341 that those northern Syrian countries were not Can- aanite, nor were they part of Canaan. The geo- (03) kd. 1 atr[y]m A jar for the Assyrians graphical location of Mugi' (the kingdom of which (07) kd. 1. msrym A jar for the Egyptians Alalakh was the capital on the northern Orontes, i.e., on the border between Cilicia and Syria) is KTU 4.149 = UT 1090 = RS 15.039 in this discussion Danuna crucial (cf. regarding (04) kd I jty A jar for the Hittite below). The most importantpoint here is that, just as in Ala- an Ugarit lakh, a Canaanite is recorded like an Ashdodite, Assyrian, a Hittite, or an Egyptian. A Canaanitealso appearson an administrativelist The Canaanite's status as a foreigner is further from Ugarit (Rainey 1963a). The text in question is demonstratedby the legal relationship of the "sons as follows (KTU 4.96 = RS 11.840): of Ugarit" vis 'a vis the "sons of Canaan"in the fol- 1996 WHO IS A CANAANITE? 5 lowing reportconcerning a judicial decision (Rainey (04) [thus(said)... ]your [servant:]at the feet of my 1964; Nougayrol 1968: 110-13). lord [twotimes forwardand seven timesback- ward,I have fallen.] UgariticaV, No. 36 (= RS.20.182A + B) (05) [Withyou may all be w[ell; with [your]palace A (01) [a-na ... LUGAL KUR.KU]R.ME?mi-is-r[i.. B (01) [ ...... (02) [ ...... ] ? LUGALqar-ra-[di ...... ] (03) [...... EN-I]i gab-biKUR-KUR-ME[? EN-ia qibi-ma] (02)[...... ]my [. (04) [um-ma... IR-k]aa-na GiR.ME?EN-i[a 2--ti 7- si am-qut] (03) [ ...... fro]mthe handof [ ...... (05) [a-na lu vu]l-'mu1a-'na1 muh-hi-ka rEi.'HAI ...... [-ka ] (04) [..] my lordcon[cerning the litigation]in which he is engaged [ .. ] (05) [ ...... ] the sons of Ugarit B (01) [...... the overs]eerof the sons ...... (06) [...... of Canaan (02) [...... i]a [...... (07) [.....has] paidhim one talentand 500 (shekels of) silver[.. . ] (03) i&-t]uqa-ti 'A[N...... the sons of [...... (08) [...... w...i]th . . . .1 Canaan (04) [ .. b]e-'lil av-su[m di-ni (?)] a is-sa-bat[-&vu(?)] (09) [ ...... ] of the sons of Ugarithas been pai[d] DUMU.ME?KUR (05) U-ga- (10) [ ...... B]urbanuwa.Thus he said[as follows] [...... ]ri-it (11)[ .... up]on my return, the rest of the silver (06) [...... a-k]i-il DUMUMES KUR Ki-na-'tI (12) [...... ] he will (07) [ ..... fi-s]al-li-mu1 GUN5 me-atKU.BABBAR take. DUMU.ME (08) [ ...... it-t]i (13) [ he had seized me, Bu[rhanuwa] KUR ...... Ki-na-Da4 (14) [ ...... ] andit is I who have paid [it] (09) [ ...... ]ME? a DUMU.ME?KUR U-ga-ri-it (15) [...... t]o the sons of Ugari[t] sa-li-i[m] (16) [...... ]us[ ...... ] (10) [...... IB]ur5-ha-nu-wa a-kdn-na (17) [...... has] seized [...... iq-ta-bi [ma-a .....] (11) [.... i-n]a na-ha-si-ia-mi KU.BABBAR.ME? ri- (18) [ ...... x[ ...... ha-ti[ ..... ] (12) [ ...... ]i-laq-qe-mi ...... As Nougayrol (1968: 111) had deduced, this appears (13) [ ...... -i ]a-ma is-sa-bat-an-ni 'Bu to be a reportto the king of Egypt (probably Rames- [r5-ha-nu-wa] ses or about an (14) [...... a-na-ku-ma II Merneptah) indemnity payment ]t/ li-sal-lim [-Su] due to the "sons" (= citizens) of Canaan from the (15) [...... a-n]a DUMU.ME? KUR "sons" (citizens) of Ugarit. It is reminiscent of other texts from about indemnities after for- .-rFgal-r[i-it] Ugarit paid (16) [...... n]a-li[. eign merchantswere slain in Ugarit (RS 17.42; Nou- gayrol 1956: 171-72; RS 17.145; Nougayrol 1956: (17) [ ...... i ]s-sa-[bat.....] 172-73; Rainey 1962: 185-86; 1963b: 320). The (18) [...... ] x importantpoint for the currentdiscussion is that the "sons of Ugarit" and the "sons of Canaan"are both legal bodies who can be parties to an A (01) [To of the lan]dsof Egyp[t recognized ...... King ...... international lawsuit. There can be no doubt that in (02) [ ...... ] the warriorking [ ... the prevailing world of diplomatic relations between nations and societies, the "sons of Canaan" were a (03) [...... lor]d of all the lands, [my lord, real entity and as such, they were thoroughly distinct speak:] from the "sons of Ugarit." 6 ANSON E RAINEY BASOR 304
The entire scholarly myth that the people of is clear proof that the ruler of the Hurriankingdom Ugarit are Canaanitesand that the kingdom of Ugarit in northern Mesopotamia and Syria recognized an is a part of a geographical entity known as Canaanis entity called "the land of Canaan"as the area occu- false. Furtherproofs will be adduced below. pied by rulers who are subject to the king of Egypt. The entire text is given here to emphasize its official Egypt nature:
Although the lists of prisoners in the inscriptions a-na LUGAL.ME sa KUR Ki-na-a-d"[-Di]/ IR. ME, Ek-ia um-maLUGAL-Imal / a-nu-um-ma of Amenhotep II are actually "ornamentation,"they 'A-ki-ia / a-na UGU s'r KUR are formulated according to the standardformat of LU.DUMU.KIN-ia Mi-is-ri-iSES-ia / a-na du-ul-lu-hia-na kdl-le-e/ such real lists of personnel taken as booty during ma-am-ma/ la / a The list of from that al-ta-pdr-su lu-t i-na-ah-hi-is-s'U military campaign. booty na-as-ri-i' i-na KUR Mi-is-ri-i / Ju-ri-bdtu a-na Pharaoh'sfirst as sole ruler 1973) campaign (Rainey SU / rLOlhal-rzul-uh-liSa KUR Mi-is-ri-i-i / id- contains a reference to 640 Ki-na-c-nu "640 Canaan- rnal-rnil(?)ha-mut-ta li-il-rlil-rik / u is-sti mi-im- ites" (Helck 1955: 1305, line 7; 1314, line 11) but ma / i-na muh-hi-s'ulu-a" la ib-bd-as'-s'i no other national or ethnic groups are listed with them, only social groups, viz. ma-r-ya-na "chariot "Tothe kings of the land of Canaan,the servants warriors (i.e., noblemen)," their wives, children, and of my brother,thus [speaks]the king:Now Akiya, have I sent to to concubines. Suggestions that these Canaanites were my ambassador, speed posthaste the of Let no one detainhim. Provide merchants or the like (Mazar [Maisler] 1946: 9-11; king Egypt. him with safe entryto Egyptand handhim over to 1986: 220) on the basis of comparison with biblical the fortresscommander of Egypt. Let him go on such as Isa 23:8; Ezek 16:29; 17:4 are passages pro- quickly and may there not be any pitfall in his of an Iron the Phoeni- jections Age usage (because way"(EA 30; Moran1992: 100). cians, Canaanites, were masters of the sea trade), which does not fit this 15th-century inscription. Babylon Rather, the Ki-na-c-nu are paralleled by the Ha-rai "Hurrians,"and the Na-ga-su "Nugassians" (Helck Two occurrences in the correspondencewith Bab- 1955: 1309, line 2) in another booty list. The Hur- ylon confirm that the rulers there recognized Canaan rians in these texts are residents of the southern as a specific geographical entity. Nothing could be Levant, not the Hurrianempire of Mitanni; and the more concrete than the following description of the Nugassians (cuneiform Nuhase; in Egyptian usu- attacksuffered by Babylonianbusiness agents in what ally Nu-ga-sa; Gardiner 1947: 168*-71*; Ugaritic is later known as the Valley of Beth-netopha: ngt, KTU 2.45:21), residents of central Syria. Actu- i-na-an-naDAM.GAR.ME?-ai-a / sa it-ti ?E?-ta- ally, the Canaanites in the first list correspond to the a-bu te-bu-a/ i-na KURKi-na-d"-'i a-na svi-ma-a- Hurrians in the second. A further parallel between ti it-ta-ak-lu-a/ ul-tu SES-ta-a-bua-na mu-uh-hi the land of Canaan and the land of Hurru will be ?ES-iai-ti-qu / i-na URU-KIHi-in-na-tu-ni sva KUR discussed below. Ki-na-d"-'i/ ISu-um-ad-daDUMU IBa-lum-me-e/ 'Su-ta-at-naDUMU 'Sa-ra-a-tu4 a URU Ak-ka/ EPISTOLARY EVIDENCE LU-ME?-vu-nuki is-pu-ru LO.DAM.GAR-ME?- ia / id-du-kuU FKUlj.BABBARI-lul-nu it-tab-lu The report of a legal dispute cited above can be supplemented by a number of significant passages "Now,my businessagents who had departedwith from the Amarna letters. The real-life situation of Abu-tabuwere detainedin Canaanon business; those texts is such that no doubt remains that the afterAbu-tabu went on to my brother,in the town of Hannathonof Canaan, the son of correspondents recognized a definite geographical Sum-adda, Baclumme,and Satatna(!) son of Suratu(!)of Acco, entity and that they knew that there were kings liv- havingsent theirmen, attackedmy merchantsand in Canaan. It was also clear to them that other ing took away their silver" (EA 8:13-21; cf. Moran areas (see below) were not in Canaan. 1992: 16).
Mitanni Furtheron, the king of Babylon says:
The "diplomatic passport" sent by the king of [KUR K]i-na-d"-'iKUR-ka i FLUGAL1.ME[S-fa Mitanni in the hand of his ambassador (Artzi 1973) IR-ka] "The land of C]annanis your land and 1996 WHO IS A CANAANITE? 7
[its] king[s are your servants]"(EA 8:25; Moran He is also known to have been sent to Amurru (EA 1992: 16). 161:11, 17, 27, 31; 162:56, 63). His title demon- strates that Egyptians could bear ranks and desig- He is not talking in this letter about some vague, un- nations in the administration which have definite defined and He is political geographical entity. being associations with Canaan, i.e., Canaan was a valid concrete! very term used in the bureaucracy. With reference to his ancestor, the Kurigalzu, king Finally, there is a statement by Pharaoh to Aziru, of Babylon, says in another letter: ruler of Amurru: % i-na Ku-ri-gal-zu a-bi-ia ki-na-3a4-ayyu-aga-ab-bi- ti7-i-de9at-td ki-i LUGALla-a ha-Si-ih/ a-na su-nu / a-na mu-uh-hi-svui15-ta-ap-ru-ni um-ma-a KURki-na-d"-'i gdb-bd-s'a ki-i i-ra-a-ub a-na qa-an-ni KUR / rkul-Eru?-da-am-ma.ina-ba- al-ki-ta-am-ma / [it-t]i-ka i ni-sa-ki-in "and you yourself know that the king does not want(to come)to the landof Canaanin its entirety "In(the time of) Kurigalzu,my ancestor,all the Ca- when he is angry" (EA 162:40-41; Cochavi- naaniteswrote here to him saying:'C[om]e to the Rainey1982: 46; 1982-1983: 92; 1988:26; Rainey borderof the countryso we can revoltand we can 1982-1983: 89; followed by Na'aman1990: 405; become allied [wit]h you" (EA 9:19-21; Moran cf. Moran1992: 250-51, n. 10). 1992: 18-19, nn. 4-5; CADQ:81b; N-1:17a). The letter in question includes a demand that Aziru report to Egypt. But it also alludes to Pharaoh'scom- Although this event is otherwise undocumented,there to Canaan. Aziru was in Amurru and it follows is no reason to doubt its authenticity.The land from ing that at that time Amurru was still of which these Canaanites wrote had a border (qannu) officially part Canaan ("Canaanin its entirety"). All parties to the which could be reached by the Babylonian king. The correspondence understood these terms; there was latter's reply to the Canaanites was: nothing vague about the meaning of Canaan. Canaan sum-ma it-ti LUGAL sa Mi-is-ri-i a-hi-ia ta-at-ta- was still the southern Levant up to at least the plain ak-ra-ma / it-ti sva-ni-im-mata-at-ta-as-ka-na / a- on both sides of the Nahr el-Kebir, the modern na-kuul al-la-ka-am-maul a-ha-ba-at-ku-nu-si-i border of Lebanon.
"If you have become hostile with the king of Alashia Egypt, my brother,(and) you have become allied I will I with another,will not come, not plunder There is one passage in a letter from Alashia cf. Moran1992: you?"(EA 9:26-28; 18). which seems to contain the expression rpil-Ea-ti s'a ki-na-~i "the province of Canaan" (EA 36:15). Obviously, the king of Babylon is concerned with a Moran (1992: 110, n. 1 from p. 109) questions the specific body of political leaders who were recog- validity of this reading on the grounds of syllabary nized on the international scene as subjects of the and cites Na'aman (1975: 2*, n. 19) for historical king of Egypt. They are called "Canaanites." arguments against the use of pthatu "province" in this period. The writing with the WA sign for the Egypt value lpil is indeed rare in peripheral Akkadian but precisely in a similar Alashia letter one finds the ex- In the long list of objects provided for a Bab- pression: i-na tup-pi su-ku-un-ma "put in a letter" ylonian princess, some item, the name of which is (EA 37:17). There is no doubt, therefore, that the broken, was defined as s'a KUR Ki-na-a'-~i, "of value lpil was known in Alashia for the WA sign. Canaan"(EA 14:II, 26). A messenger sent by Phar- Furthermore,Moran admits that the reading is ad- aoh to Intaruta, ruler of Achshaph, was IWa-an-ni missible and my own collation of the tablet on DUMU IMa-i-re-ia / LU.PA.TUR Ja LUGAL i-na January 27, 1980, confirmed that it is the most rea- KUR Ki-na-d~-di "Hanni, the son of Maireya, the sonable one. Moran (1992: 110, n. 1) has noted other stable overseer of the king in Canaan" (EA 367:7- affinities in the writing of numerals between EA 36 8). His title, akil tarbasi, corresponds to Egyptian and EA 37. As for "historical" considerations, the ihzw(Helck 1971: 438). Hanni is not assigned to use of pibftu is not typical of peripheraltexts but it Achshaphh.ry (contra Redford 1990: 13) but sent there is used in Middle Babylonian (see Aro 1957: 77 for to announce the coming of the king with the army. references) and the Alashia letters are in many ways 8 ANSON F. RAINEY BASOR 304
independent of the usual peripheral traditions. Fur- "If the king keeps silent concerning the city, none of thermore, the reference to SE.BAR = uttetu "grain" the townsof Canaanwill be his"(EA 137:75-76). in the line above is a Middle (EA 36:14) typical It was seen with regard to Pharaoh'sstatement in EA 1957: al- Babylonian ideographic spelling (Aro 115) 162 that Amurruwas at that time reckoned as part of it is absent from all the other EA letters. The though Canaan. The same geographic situation pertains to a ki-na- i matches that in the list spelling Egyptian fragmentarytext dealing with the activities of Aziru, of the scribe saw no gifts (EA 14:11,26); evidently the infamous political leader of Amurru;allusion is need to a KUR = "land append predeterminative mat made to the expeditionary fleet, probably that which of" because he has written "the [p]rovince of... ." had been sent to deal with Aziru's father. In spite of the broken context, the reference may very well be to "grain [... from] the [p]rovince of [GIJ.]MA L[U.ME? mi-]'i l[a ] / [tu]-sa-n[a] ril-na KUR ] Canaan"in exchange for the copper that is the sub- Ki(!)-rna1-[a"-ni of several of the broken lines in the text. There- ject "A ship of the expeditionaryforce shouldn[ot go] fore, the skepticism of Na'aman (1975: 2*, n. 19), forthfrom the land of Can[aan]"(EA 110:48-49; Moran (1992), Redford (1990: 35), and Lemche Na'aman1975: 1*, n. 14; Moran1992: 185, n. 2; (1991: 29-30) is unjustified. The Alashian scribe Lambdin1953: 76, n. 17). knows of a "province of Canaan." Therefore, Lemche's attemptto discredit Rib-Haddi's references to Canaan as "ratherdiffuse and vague" Lebanese Coast (Lemche 1991: 39) by citing one of his references to Amurru (EA 82:47-50) only shows that Lemche is The remaining references in the EA texts are from ignorant of the ancient geography and the political Byblos, Beirut, and Tyre. The first statementby Rib- situation being described in the Rib-Haddi letters. Haddi of Byblos is: The most controversialpassages about Canaanare ' are crucial to the un- pa-na-nu da-ga-li-ma / ILU1 KUR Mi-is-ri in4- those from Tyre. The contexts <
a man of then the kings sa iv-ha-[a]t KUR LUGAL / sar URU Si-du-n[a] / "Formerly,seeing Egypt, ~ of Canaanfled bef[orehim]" (EA 109:44-46). Sir URU Ha-sa-ra / i-te-zi-ib E-S'u it-ta-sa-rabl / it-ti LU.SA.GAZ li-i-de4 / LUGAL a-na LU.GIR The "kings of Canaan"here must be compared with sa-ru-ti svu-nu-ta5[Ui] / i-pu-us' KUR LUGAL a-na the kings of Canaan in the Mitannian passport dis- LU.SA.GAZ / li-il-al LUGAL LU.MAWKIM-su a cussed above. It is certainly a reference to a specific i-de4 / KUR Ki-na-da-na group of people recognized as having a clearly de- "The one who has attackedthe king's territoryis fined status. They are kings ruling city-states in the king of Sidon; the king of Hazor has aban- Canaan. The writer and the of this letter recipient donedhis house and has takenup a positionwith knew the extent of the where of Canaan sphere kings the Capiru;may the king be apprised concerning were to be found. This is also corroboratedby the those evil trooper(s) [since] he has taken over the reference to "all the Canaanites" mentioned by the king's land for the Capiruman; may the king ask his king of Babylon in EA 9 (cf. above). commissioner who knows the land of Canaan"(EA Rib-Haddi'snext reference is to the "lands (states) 148:39-47; Greenberg 1955: 41; contrast Moran of Canaan";the passage is evidently an apodosis for 1992: 235). which the is broken: protasis Abimilki, ruler of Tyre, reports that the king of Si- i ia-nuKUR.MES Ki-na-d"-rni1 a-na LUGAL"then don has acted in a hostile manner towards Tyre (EA the lands of Canaanwill not belong to the king" 148:23-26) and thus comprises a threatto "the king's (EA 131:61;cf. Moran1992: 213). territory."Likewise, the king of Hazor has abandoned his palace and is consorting with the Capiru;evi- written from The last Rib-Haddi passage, in a letter dently he had gone up to the mountains of upper Beirut, speaks of the "towns of Canaan"and reminds Galilee, south of the Litany, where the Capirtirene- one of the previous text: gades comprised a threat to Tyre and where the king of Hazor was them to (at gum-ma qa-al LUGAL a-na URU.KI / gdb-bi helping occupy territory DIDLI.URU.KIKUR Ki-na-ad-ni ia-nu a-rnal S'a-Ju Tyre's expense) that was subject to Pharaoh's con- 1996 WHO IS A CANAANITE? 9 trol. The underlying presumption is probably that 151:49-58 proved that Danuna and Ugarit were the king of Hazor is working in collusion with the part of Canaan?It was because of the expression iftu king of Sidon and also with Aziru of Amurru. For Kinacni "from Canaan"in line 50. They assume that further information and clarification, Abimilki re- the events reported on by Abimilki all have to be fers Pharaoh to "his commissioner who knows the "from Canaan."Our contention has always been that land of Canaan."In other words, the commissioner it was Abimilki who was in Canaan and that his can furnish more details about the actions of the reports came from Canaan to Pharaoh after being king of Sidon and of Hazor who are in Canaan. The received by Abimilki from various places, some of inference is thoroughly concrete and has to do with them outside Canaan. The proof for our contention specific geography, rulers, and population elements. is that the passage in question is an example of a The second passage has been the kingpin for most standard stock expression used by the scribes when arguments on behalf of a "greater Canaan" in the requesting or demanding information. The stock Amarnaperiod, and Lemche's misinterpretationof it expression used in Pharaoh's letters is cited by the is at the very foundation of his entire argument. local ruler and then the detailed reply is given, e.g., LUGALbe-li-ia is-ta-pdra-na ia[-s]i / sa ta-as-me LUGALbe-li-ia / i-na tup-piis-ta-padr a-na ia-si / is-tu KUR Ki-na-ad,-na/ u~ Ju-pur a-na ia-si / 'ar mi-nu-um-mita-as-te-me U su-pur/ a-na LUGAL KURDa-nu-na BA.UG7 /I a-ar-raEk-su / a-na v "The lord, wroteto me in a letter,'What- EGIR-su'i pa-as-ba-at / KUR-suui fir URU U- king, my ever have heard,then write to the (EA ga-ri-itKI/ i-ku-uli-sa-tu4 mi-si-'ill-Su / i-kidli mi- you king'" Si-ilsu ia-nu / U LU.ME? ERIN KUR Hia-at-ti 149:54-57). ia-nu/ IE-ta-ga-mapa-wu-ri / URU Qi-id-sii / 'A- This is the simplest form. The earliest attested ex- zi-ra it-ti nu-kdir-tu4/ 'Bir5-ia-wa-zi/ nu-kdir-tu4/ ample, which happens to include an adverbial com- a-ta-murha-ba-li / 'Zi-im-re-da/ e-nu-maip-hu- is from a Taanachletter: ur / GI.MA.ME&ERIN.ME if-tu URU.DIDLI. plement, IA IA-zi-rral/ a-na muh-hi-ia i a-wa-ta5 rmil-iml-jmal / sa ti-i0-mi / is-tu as'-ra- nu-um/ Su-up!-ra-amit-(ti)-i[a] "Theking, my lord,has writtento me: "Thatwhich you haveheard from within Canaan, send to me;the "andwhatever word that you haveheard from there, king of the landof Danunais deadand his brother send(in writing)to me"(TT 1:15-18; Rainey1977: became king afterwardsand his land is at peace; 41, 43-44). fire destroyedthe palace of the king of Ugarit;it The istu afranum "from there" confirms destroyedhalf of it andhalf of it not;but the Hittite expression that the is the to armyis not there;Etakkama, the rulerof Kedesh inquirer expecting recipient report and Aziru are at war-it is with Biryawazathat the information that has come to him there where he they are at war;I have experiencedthe brutalities is. No outside, specific source of information from of Zimreddawhen he assembledthe ships (and) some other place is designated. The expression iftu troops from the cities of Aziru againstme" (EA afranum certainly pertains to Sidon as the place 151:49-67; Rainey 1964;Mangano 1990: 176-77; where the information has been gathered in the fol- Moran1992: 238-39, nn. 4-6). lowing passage from Zimredda, ruler of Sidon (and The passage is cited in full to give a clear picture of rival of Abimilki of Tyre): the broad of Abimilki's intelli- geographical range u i-nu-mataq-bu / a-na KUR.JUAA-mur-ri a-wa- horizon. Some of the events, such as the war gence at-mi / ti-is-te9-mi is-tu a'-ra-rnul-ruml / tui-te-ra- of Etakkama and Aziru against Biryawaza and the am a-na ia-a-ti aggression of Zimredda against Tyre with the assis- tance of Aziru's forces, took place in Canaan. On the "Andwhen you say concerningthe lands of Amurru, 'The wordthat have been from there, other hand, it can easily be demonstrated that Da- you hearing sendto me'" (EA 145:23-26;Mangano 1990: 176- nuna and are not in Canaan. The texts from Ugarit 77; Moran1987: 376, n. 6; 1992:232 n. 6). Ugarit cited above have proven that Ugarit was not in Canaan and that Ugaritians were not Canaanites. The markerof direct speech, enclitic -mi, attachedto The texts from Alalakh prove the same thing for the awatmi, shows that the actual quote from Pharaoh's kingdom of MugiS. Now, Danuna, in Cilicia, would letter begins there, the -mi as a marker of direct be north of MugiS and therefore also not in Canaan. speech functions in these letters according to the So why did Astour (1965a: 4-5; 1965b: 348, rules of standardAkkadian (though it has other func- n. 22) and Lemche (1991: 30-31) think that EA tions, as well). The phrase, iitu adranum, refers to 10 ANSON E RAINEY BASOR 304
Sidon, not to Amurru.Comparison with the previous On the other hand, confirmationthat Danuna is in passage from Taanachpoints in the same direction. Cilicia has come from a fragment in the Ramesside The widespread use of the stock expression under correspondencefound at Boghaz-kii, ancient Hattu- discussion is further confirmed by its appearancein sas, the capital of the Hittite empire. The fragmen- Ugaritic garb: tary epistle is part of the correspondenceconcerning Urbi-Teshub,the young king whom Hattusilis III had w. mnm/ rgm. d. tsmc/ tmt. w. ft / b. spr. Cmy deposed (Text 499/d = Keilschrifttexteaus Boghazkdi "Andwhatever word that you hearthere, then put XXVIII 25; No. 31 in Edel 1994, vols. 1-2). Edel in a letter to me" (it) (KIU 2.10:16-19; Rainey reconstructsthe pertinent lines as follows: 1971: 160-61). The adverb, tmt "there" is a translation of iftu as'- [... il-t]e-rmul-~ a-ma-rtelME[ a]n-na-ti s'a [ti'-pu- ra a-na UGUa-ma-ta s-a I a ranum and serves the same function in the ia-Si IUr-hi-dISKUR][ Ugaritic su-u il-lik-]aa-na KURDd-nu-a-na ia-nu-um-m[a- passage as the latter in the Akkadian texts. a s'a ru-i i-na KUR HIal-ba-aU' KUR Qf-in-sd]/ Therefore, Lemche's contention that the prepo- [il-li-ka ia-nu-um-m]a-aa-na UGU-hiL ha-za-an- sition iftu "is not normally used to indicate where ni[ME8sa KUR.KUR.ME?an-na-ti-ma-an il-qa- something has been heard, or exists" (Lemche 1991: ua-u] 31, n. 22) is clearly wrong. In view of the parallels cited here, my original rendering of s'a tasme is'tu "[the]y heard [t]hese words which [you wrote to mat Kinacna / u supur ana idai really is the only one me concerningthe matterof Urhi-Teshubwho went to the landof not Whowent possible. Abimilki at Tyre is in Canaan, and from his himself] Danuna, [so? there he is commanded to what- himself to the land of Aleppo and/orthe land of listening post report not to the ever information has come to him. Qedesh, s]o? [They broughthim] city rulers[of these lands]"(No. 31:6-8; Edel 1994, I: the evidence from itself that Concerning Ugarit 84-85). neither the state nor the people were Canaanite ac- cording to their definition and that of their neighbors Edel (1994: II: 94-95) places this KUR Dd-nu-a- (and also the king of Egypt), nothing more need be na in parallel with KUR Ki-iz-wa-at-na (KBo I 15 added. EA 151:49-51 in no way contradicts the evi- +19 (+) 22: Rev. 30; No. 24:30 in Edel 1994, I: 62) dence from Ugarit. But as for Danuna, a furtherword and KUR Qa-ral-ril-rel (KBo I 15 +19 (+) 22: Rev. is in order. Many scholars assumed that even at this 39; No. 24:39 in Edel 1994, I: 64). The discussion early date, Danuna is to be located in Cilicia, mainly in the Ramesses/Iattusili dialogue about the move- because of the eighth century B.C.E.references to the ments of Urbi-Teshubtreats the stations from north dnnym people in the Karatepe inscription (cf. Bron to south as KUR Ki-iz-wa-at-na, KUR Ijal-ba-a, 1979: 169-72; Astour 1965a: 1-112). The refer- KUR Su-ba-ri-i, KUR Qi-in-si (KBo I 15 +19 (+) ences during the reign of Ramesses III associate the 22: Rev. 30-34; No. 24:30-34 in Edel 1994, I: 62), Da-nu-na / Da-nu with the Philistines and other "sea or KUR Qa-ral-[ ]-_rel, [KUR S]u[-ba-ri-i], KUR peoples" (Gardiner 1947, I: 125*"-27*). Astour felt A-mur-ri (KBo 1 15 +19 (+) 22: Rev. 39-40; No. that the Egyptian evidence pointed to the Aegean 24:39-40 in Edel 1994, I: 64). Kizzuwatnaand Qawe region for this "sea people" (Astour 1965a: 7-17). are in Cilicia and Edel thus places Danuna there as So he posited two countries/people called Danuna. an alternative. Halba is Aleppo and Subari is evi- This was based, first, on his misinterpretationof EA dently an alternate to Nugassi in central Syria (Edel 151:49-51, but reinforced by his equation of KUR 1994: 95). Of course Qinsa = Qedesh on the Orontes Da-nu-na in EA 151:52 with KUR Tu-na-na-at in and it is a close ally with Amurru,which is just west EA 53:43 and with KUR URU Du-na-na-pa, a town of it. listed in Hittite religious texts among countries in If we grantthat Abimilki is reportingan event that northernSyria (Klengel 1970: 93-94). Since Astour's took place in Danuna in Cilicia, Danuna is north of study, the name has also appeared in hieroglyphic MugiS (the kingdom of Alalab) and of Ugarit, both syllabic form in the important inscription from the of which are definitely not in Canaan according to reign of Amenhotep III, viz. Tu-na-na-pa(AN 12 in the clear testimony of documents discovered at the Edel 1966: 5). Moran (1992: 125, 392) accepts the respective sites. Therefore, it should be obvious to correction proposed by Forrer (1938) to read KUR all scholars trained in the philology of ancient texts Tu-na-na-ab(!)in EA 53:43. All these contexts point and the geography of the second millennium B.C.E. to a site in northernSyria (Klengel 1970: 94). that Danuna in Cilicia is also not in Canaan. It also 1996 WHO IS A CANAANITE? 11 seems highly questionable that there should be any allusion in the Song of Deborah. The Danites were connection between the Danunians (in any context) too comfortably linked with the Phoenician mari- and the Hellenic Danaoi. time economy to risk a conflict with a powerful Unfortunately, the popular theory that the Danu- Canaanite ruler! nians settled north of the Philistines around the sea- Therefore, Abimilki is most likely reporting to port of Joppa does not hold up to scrutiny (Yadin Pharaoh some news that has reached him from quite 1968: 17-21; Stager 1989: 63-64). This popular far away, from Cilicia! The idea that there was an creation is based on the presumed identity of the entity known as "greater Canaan" extending along Danunians with the biblical Danites; after all, both the entire eastern Mediterraneancoast is a scholarly names have d and n. The "Danite inheritance" (in ghost that should be laid to rest. Josh 19:40-48) is in the vicinity of Joppa. The Danites are said to "abide in ships" in the Song of SOME LATER SOURCES Deborah (Judg 5:17). Samson, a Danite, figures in adventures that have numerous features resembling It remains to touch upon certain later references to Homeric heroic literature (best elucidated by Gor- Canaan, particularlyin the Hebrew Bible. Consider- don 1955; 1965). Among the decisive points that able doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the refute such a theory one may note the following: borderdescription for Canaanin Num 34:1-12 (Noth (1) There is not one scrap of evidence to indicate 1968: 248-50). One can readily admit that the du- that the Danunians occupied Joppa between the Phi- plicate passages in Ezek 47:15-20 and 48:1-2 indi- listines to the south and the Sekels to the north at cate that this border tradition existed in written form Dor; all of Yadin's examples from Greek mythology in the early Exilic period and that in the Pentateuch about heroes of the Danaoi, such as Perseus (Yadin it is partof the Priestly source material.However, this 1968: 18-20), are irrelevant. (2) Biblical tradition does not mean that it is an invention of the Exilic or is unanimous that the Danites never occupied their even of the late Monarchic period. Geographically, inheritance as described in Joshua (Josh 19:47; Judg the location of the points along the northernsegment 1:34). (3) Joppa was not a part of the Danite inher- of this borderas identified by Mazar [Maisler] (1986: itance anyway (Josh 19:46 LXX; Rainey 1987-89: 189-202) are still valid (cf. Aharoni 1979: 72-73). 63). (4) All of Samson's exploits take place along or Although Mazar noted the border so defined in these south of the Sorek Valley. Finally, (5) the reference passages as reflecting the situation after the treaty be- to Dan's abiding in ships must be interpretedin the tween Ramesses II and HattusilisIII (Aharoniagrees), context of the Song of Deborah. Tribes who shrank he recognized that the geopolitical situation during back from joining the conflict with Sisera were be- the Late Iron Age, when Hamath was capital of a ing denounced; Dan is one of them. It only makes territorial state, also conformed to the same tradi- sense if Dan is already located at the foot of Mt. tion. Note for example, that the Bronze Age Lab6' is Herman, i.e., close enough to the Galilee to have called Lebo-Hamath, i.e., Lebo, which is the south- taken sides with the other Israelite tribes. However, ern extent of the Hamathkingdom. That reality is rec- when the Danites seized Laish from the unsuspect- ognized in later biblical passages, e.g., 2 Kgs 14:25 ing Sidonians living there, they inherited the role concerning the eighth century B.C.E.Therefore, it is of those Sidonians who were living in the Valley of highly likely that the border description in question Mizpeh. As part of the agricultural hinterland that reflects a geopolitical reality that prevailed long af- furnishedfoodstuffs for the industriallyengaged pop- ter the Egyptian and Hittite rule in the Levant had ulation of Phoenicia (maritime industries), the land disappeared.The imprintof events in the Late Bronze of Mizpeh was doubtless in constant contact with Age was still felt in spite of various changes in pop- Tyre and Sidon. The ancient route from Banias to ulation and regime. Looking at central Syria and Tyre (the real "Way of the Sea" [Isa 8:24 MT = 9:1 Lebanon in accordance with the long view of things, Eng]; Rainey 1981: 149) doubtless served as a route this is not at all improbable. by which agricultural produce could be delivered What is more interesting for the Late Bronze Age to those Phoenician seaports. The Danites who took is that the division of the Levant in accordance with over this market opportunity were thus exposed to the borderin Num 34:7-11 happens to correspondto the shipping activities on the coast and some of them two cultural/political features. One of these is that, may even have "signed on" for a tour of sea duty. with the exception of Qidiu (Qedesh), which led the In any case, this makes more sense of the scathing anti-Egyptian coalition, the towns said to have been 12 ANSON F RAINEY BASOR 304
defeated at the battle of Megiddo are all south of 5v IotvitK, "Laodicea which is in Phoenicia." Be- that border. Furthermore,in the dialectical division sides the equation of Phoenicia with Canaan, the of the Amarnatablets, those towns whose scribes use most importantfact is that the of Beirut, the West Semitized jargon are from towns south of is identified as being in Canaan,AaoSi,8sta, thus distinguishing t that border (Rainey 1996, vol. 1). To the north, it from AatoS6ist1taiti OaTXdtcn,"Laodicea on the places like Qatna, Qid'u (Qedesh) and Tunip, and to sea" (Strabo XVI, 2:9) which is modern day Latikia some degree the letters of Aziru of Amurru, are in just 11 km south of Ras Shamra! This latter is thus the Hurro-Akkadiandialect common to cities within not in Canaan! So the Hellenistic geographical con- the Mitannian (and Hittite) states of northern Syria cept of Canaan, paralleled by Phoenicia, seems to (Moran 1992: xix-xxii; Rainey 1982: 336-37; Iz- correspondto the same conception going back to the reDel 1991; 369-79). Such a cultural distinction in- Late Bronze Age sources. It should not be surprising dicates separate schools of scribes. The "Canaanite" then, that the concept of Canaan in the 13th century language of the Amarnaperiod can be studied gram- B.C.E. is reflected in a Hebrew source from the late matically and syntactically through the Akkadian of Iron Age. It is even reflected in the coins from Beirut! the letters from Canaan (Rainey 1996). West Semi- The Canaan in Num 34:7-11 is a real geographical tic elements are rare and sporadic at best in the texts concept that originally goes back to the Late Bronze to the north. It can hardly be coincidental that this Age and probably earlier; it is not the invention of dialectical situation conforms to the division of the some Judaean scribe, regardless of the date of the Levant into northern and southern areas as divided passage (on a definition of the northern border of by the border in Num 34:7-11. That the southern Canaan in biblical passages one may refer to Aha- part is designated as Canaan by biblical tradition roni et al. 1993: Maps 51 [p. 47], 165 [p. 126]). conforms to the evidence cited from the cuneiform documents discussed above. CONCLUSIONS This is not to argue that Num 34:7-11 is a late copy of a border document that accompanied the All the texts discussed above reflect a realistic treaty between Ramesses II and Hattusilis III, al- concept of geography. Canaan as a geographic and though it is highly probable that such a document social entity was a reality to the various authors. existed as was the case with other Hittite treaties There is nothing "diffuse and vague" (Lemche 1991: (e.g., pertaining to Ugarit and Mugi'). However, the 39) about these passages. That a specific Late Bronze political and sociological situation that prevailed in Age borderdescription is missing along with detailed the 13th century B.C.E.provided the matrix for sub- bureaucraticreferences to the province is no proof sequent developments in the Iron Age, such as the that such did not exist. The geopolitical and cultural settling down process of the Arameans;and the mem- evidence of the Late Bronze epigraphic witnesses ory of Canaan as an entity was transmittedto subse- strongly supports the assumption that the biblically quent generations. The self-consciousness of being described border was a reality in the Late Bronze Canaanite and of living in Canaan was not lost on Age. One may quote with profit the truism so aptly some segments of the Iron Age population. It was cited by R6llig (1983: 82), "the absence of evidence even kept alive, especially among the residents of the is no evidence of absence." Phoenician cities, down into the Hellenistic period. Furthermore, there is no attempt here to read Weippert (1980: 354) has assembled the numis- modern ideas of ethnicity into the texts. The ancient matic evidence pertaining to the name of Beirut on scribes have been allowed to speak within the con- its coins, l'dk&? bkncn, "Laodicea which is in Ca- text of their own times and their own understanding. naan" with a Greek monogram, either AA(o8i- On the contrary,Lemche's appeal to modem anthro- along - Keta) or BH(putog). Other coins have ibyrt "of pological studies of peoples in Africa or Asia is no Beirut" also with the monogram AA D which Weip- valid substitute for a truly professional analysis of pert rightly surmises should represent Aao6iKEta f7 the original documents under discussion.
NOTE
Thecontents of this articlewere first presented in 1993 matic corps and other English speakingconstituents. It in Feb- as one of the Englishlectures given by the Instituteof Ar- was laterpresented at the MidwestASOR meeting The feedbackfrom chaeology,Tel Aviv University,to membersof the diplo- ruary,1996, at Lacrosse,Ill. positive 1996 WHO IS A CANAANITE? 13
that session is deeply appreciated and hereby acknowl- gen 26 (1994), 397-418, came to my attention. Na'aman edged. Finally, the article was presented at the annual takes basically the same position as that in my essay here ASOR meeting in New Orleans, November 1996. but he ignores EA 136:15 and EA 151:49-67 which are the Meanwhile, a similar article by N. Na'aman, "The key passages in demonstratingthe case against Lemche. Canaanitesand their Land, a Rejoinder,"Ugarit-Forschun-
REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y. EA = Knudtzon, J. A. 1979 The Land of the Bible, A Historical Geog- 1915 Die El-AmarnaTafeln. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. raphy. Rev. and enlarged ed. Trans. from He- Edel, E. brew and ed. A. E Rainey. Philadelphia: 1966 Die Ortsnamenlisten aus dem Totentempel Westminster. Amenophis III. Bonner biblische Beitrige 25. Aharoni, Y.; Avi-Yonah, M.; Rainey, A. E; and Safrai, Z. Bonn: Hanstein. 1993 The Macmillan Bible Atlas. 3rd ed. New York: 1994 Die digyptisch-hethitischeKorrespondenz aus Macmillan. Boghazkdi in babylonischer und hethitischer Aro, J. Sprache. 2 vols. Abhandlungender Rheinisch- 1957 Glossar zu den mittelbabylonischen Briefen. Westfalischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Studia Orientaliaedidit Societas OrientalisFen- 77. Diisseldorf: Westdeutscher. nica 22. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Fisher, L. R. KirjapainoOy. 1972 An International Judgment. Pp. 11-19 in The Artzi, P. Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets, ed. L. R. 1973 El Amarna Document No. 30. Pp. 1-7 in Actes Fisher. Analecta Orientalia 48. Rome: Ponti- du XXIXecongres international des Oriental- ficium Institutum Biblicum. istes. Section organis6e par Daniel Arnaud. Forrer, E. Assyriologie. Paris: L'Asiathique. 1938 Dunanapa. P. 239a in Reallexikon der Assyri- Astour, M. C. ologie, vol. 2, eds. E. Ebeling and B. Meissner. 1965a Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and CulturalStudy Berlin: de Gruyter. in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Gardiner, A. H. Leiden: Brill. 1947 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. 2 vols. Text, 1965b The Origin of the Terms "Canaan,""Phoeni- 1 vol. Plates. London: Oxford University. cian," and "Purple."Journal of Near Eastern Gordon, C. H. Studies 24: 346-50. 1955 Homer and the Bible. Hebrew Union College AT = Alalakh Text. Annual 26: 43-108. Bron, E 1965 The CommonBackground of Greek and Hebrew 1979 Recherches sur les inscriptionsphiniciennes de Civilizations. New York: Norton Library. Karatepe. Hautes etudes orientales 11. Geneva: Greenberg, M. LibrairieDroz. 1955 The Hab/piru. American Oriental Series 39. CAD = The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1956- of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Orien- Greenstein, E. L., and Marcus, D. tal Institute. 1976 The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi. Journal of Cochavi-Rainey, Z. the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia 1982 The Egyptian Letters of the El-Amarna Ar- University 8: 59-96. chive. Master's Thesis, Tel Aviv University Huehnergard,J. (Hebrew). 1989 The Akkadianof Ugarit. HarvardSemitic Stud- 1982- El-AmarnaNo. 162. Pp. 92-94 in Leket meko- ies 34. Atlanta: Scholars. 1983 rot historiyim CalEretz-Isra'el we-Suria bitek- Helck, W. ufat habbronza (Selection of historical sources 1955 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Heft 17: Histor- concerning the land of Israel and Syria in the ische Inschriften Thutmosis' III und Ameno- Bronze Age). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University phis III. Berlin: Akademie. (Hebrew). Izre'el, S. 1988 The Akkadian Texts Written by Egyptian 1991 Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study. Har- 40-41. 2 vols. Atlanta: Scribes in the 14th-13th Centuries B.C.E.Ph.D. vard Semitic Studies Dissertation. Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Scholars. 14 ANSON E RAINEY BASOR 304
KBo = Keilschriftexte aus Boghazkii. in Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient 1916- Wissenschaftliche Veriffentlichungender Deut- Near Eastern Literaturein Honor of WilliamL. schen Orient-Gesellschaft. Leipzig: Hinrichs; Moran, eds. Tz. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and Berlin: Mann. P. Steinkeller. Atlanta: Scholars. KTU = Dietrich, M.; Loretz, 0.; and Sanmartin, J. Noth, M. 1976 Die Keilalphabetischen Texteaus Ugarit. Alter 1968 Numbers: A Commentary.Trans. J. D. Martin, Orient und Altes Testament24, pt. 1. Kevelaer: from German. Philadelphia: Westminster. Butzon and Bercker. Nougayrol, J. Klengel, H. 1956 Le palais royal d'Ugarit IV: Textes accadiens 1970 Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. des archives sud. Mission de Ras Shamra 9. Teil 3: Historische Geographie und allgemeine Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Darstellung. Deutsche Adademie der Wissen- 1968 Textes sumrro-accadiens des archives et bib- schaften zu Berlin Institut fir Orientforschung, liotheques privees d'Ugarit. Pp. 1-446 in Veroffentlichung40. Berlin: Akademie. Ugaritica V, by J. Nougayrol, E. Laroche, Labat, R. C. Virolleaud, and C. E A. Schaeffer. Mission 1932 L'Akkadiende Boghaz-kiii. Bordeaux: Delmas. de Ras Shamra, vol. 16. Paris: Geuthner. Lambdin, T. O. Rainey, A. E 1953 The Mis'i People of the Byblian Amarna Let- 1962 The Social Stratification of Ugarit. Ph.D. Dis- ters. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7: 75-77. sertation, Brandeis University. Ann Arbor: Lemche, N. P. University Microfilms. 1991 The Canaanites and their Land: The Tradition 1963a A Canaaniteat Ugarit. Israel Exploration Jour- of the Canaanites. Journal of the Study of the nal 13: 43-45. Old Testament Supplement Series 110. Shef- 1963b Business Agents at Ugarit. Israel Exploration field: JSOT. Journal 13: 313-21. Loretz, O. 1964 Ugarit and the Canaanites Again. Israel Explo- 1984 Habiru-Hebriier:Eine sozio-linguistiche Studie ration Journal 14: 101. iiber die Herkunft des Gentiliziums Cibrfzum 1971 Observations on Ugaritic Grammar. Ugarit- Appellativum babiru, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift Forschungen 3: 151-72. ftir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 160. 1973 Amenhotep II's Campaign to Takhsi. Journal Berlin: de Gruyter. of the American Research Center in Egypt 10: Mangano, M. J. 71-75. 1990 Rhetorical Content in the Amarna Correspon- 1977 Verbal Usages in the Taanach Texts. Israel dence from the Levant. Ph.D. dissertation, Oriental Studies 7: 33-64. Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of 1981 Toponymic Problems (cont.). Tel Aviv 8: Religion. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. 146-51. Mazar (Maisler), B. 1982 Linguistic Notes on Thutmose III'sTopographi- 1946 Canaan and the Canaanites. Bulletin of the cal List. Pp. 335-59 in Egyptological Studies, American Schools of Oriental Research 102: ed. S. Israelit-Groll. Scripta Hierosolymitana 7-12. 28. Jerusalem:Magnes. 1986 The Early Biblical Period, Historical Studies, 1982- Letters and Documents concerning the Affair of eds. S. Ahituv and B. A. Levine. Jerusalem: 1983 Aziru, King of Amurru. Pp. 81-91 in Leket Israel Exploration Society. mekorot historiyim Cal Eretz-Isra'el we-Suria Moran, W. L. bitekufat habbronza (Selection of historical 1987 Les lettres d'el Amarna. Correspondance dip- sources concerning the land of Israel and Syria lomatique du pharaon. With collaboration by in the Bronze Age), ed. A. E Rainey. Tel Aviv: V. Haas and G. Wilhelm. Trans. D. Collon Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). and H. Cazelles, from English. Paris: ldiions 1987 Review of O. Loretz, Habiru-Hebraier:Eine du Cerf. sozio-linguistiche Studie iiber die Herkunftdes 1992 TheAmarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Gentiliziums Cibrf zum Appellativum Ejabiru. University. Journal of the American Oriental Society 101: Na'aman, N. 539-41. 1975 The Political Disposition and Historical Devel- 1987- Tel Gerisa and the Danite Inheritance.Israel- opment of Eretz-IsraelAccording to the Amarna 1989 People and Land 5-6: 59-72 (Hebrew). Letters. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University 1995 Unruly Elements in Late Bronze Canaanite So- (Hebrew). ciety. Pp. 481-96 in Pomegranates and Golden 1990 Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Plans for a Campaign to Canaan. Pp. 397-405 Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor 1996 WHO IS A CANAANITE? 15
of Jacob Milgrom, eds. D. P. Wright, D. N. Ankara 1. London: British Institute of Archae- Freedman, and A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: ology at Ankara. Eisenbrauns. Stager, L. E. 1996 Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets.4 vols. Hand- 1989 The Song of Deborah. Why Some Tribes An- buch der Orientalistik 25. Leiden: Brill. swered the Call and Others Did Not. Biblical Redford, D. B. Archaeology Review 25, no. 1: 51-64. 1990 Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. Beer- TT = Taanach Text. Sheva 4. Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University UT = Gordon, C. H. of the Negev. 1965 Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38. R~llig, W. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1983 On the Origin of the Phoenicians. Berytus 31: Weippert, M. 79-93. 1980 Kanaan. Pp. 352-55 in Reallexikon der Assyr- RS = Ras Shamra. iologie und vorderasiatischen Archdiologie, Schaeffer, C. F A. vol. 5, ed. D. O. Edzard. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1978 Contexte arch6ologique et date du rhyton Wilson, J. 16ontoc6phale de la maison d'Agaptarri (RS 1955 Egyptian Historical Texts. Pp. 227-64 in An- 25.318). Pp. 149-54 in Ugaritica VII, ed. cient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old C. F A. Schaeffer. Mission de Ras Shamra, Testament,ed. J. B. Pritchard. 2nd ed. Prince- vol. 18. Paris: Geuthner. ton: Princeton University. Sethe, K. Wiseman, D. J. 1909 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV. Leipzig: Hin- 1953 The Alalakh Tablets. Occasional Publications richs. Reprinted 1961; Berlin: Akademie. of the British Institute of Archaeology at An- Simons, J. kara 2. London: British Institute of Archaeol- 1937 Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topo- ogy at Ankara. graphical Lists Relating to WesternAsia. Lei- 1954 SupplementaryCopies of Alalakh Tablets.Jour- den: Brill. nal of CuneiformStudies 8: 1-30. Smith, S. Yadin, Y. 1949 The Statue of Idri-mi. Occasional Publications 1968 "And Dan, why did he remain in ships?" Aus- of the British Institute of Archaeology in tralian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1: 9-23.