Hybridity,Hapiru, and Ethnicity in 2nd MillenniumBCEWestern Asia 149administrative rule during the Late Bronze Age—or the ethnicon Canaanite (Ki-na-
̨
-nu)
appears frequently in Egyptian inscriptions (Hasel 2009). These texts provide place
names and details for the reconstruction of ancient Canaan’s geographical borders, a
region that corresponds roughly to the modern countries and territories of southern
Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip (Na’aman 1994a and
Rainey 1996contraLemche 1991). The etymology of the name “Canaan” is debated.
Suggestions include that it derives from a Semitic rootkn
̨
“to be low, humble,” or
“lowlands” in contrast with Aram, which has been translated as “highlands.” Others tie
it to the Hurrian wordKinahhu, usually translated as the color purple, thus referring
to the famous royal purple dye produced along the Levantine coast from local Murex
sea snails. In the case of the latter, the names Canaan and Phoenicia (“Land of Purple”)
would be synonyms. However, some argue that Kinahhu was simply the Hurrian
rendition of the Semitickn
̨
n(see Lemche 1991: 25–27). Unfortunately, there is
no indication regarding how the inhabitants of Canaan referred to themselves or to
their region. What does emerge from the textual evidence, mainly the Amarna letters,
is a Canaan that was not politically unified. Rather, it was composed of numerous
city-states and local rulers, often at odds with each other. The imposition of Egyptian
imperialism over this region during the fourteenth–mid-twelfth centuries succeeded in
superimposing a relatively stable economic environment, which was conducive to elite
control over international trade that characterized the Late Bronze Age in the eastern
Mediterranean (see Killebrew 2005a, especially 51–92).
Canaan and the Canaanites figure prominently in the Hebrew Bible, where they are
mentioned some 160 times as Israel’s enemy. The majority of these references, dealing
with genealogical relationships, the covenant, the exodus, and the conquest of Canaan by
the tribes of Israel, appear in the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) and in the
Books of Joshua and Judges. Biblically, Canaan is derived from its eponymous ancestor,
Canaan, who was the grandson of Noah and son of Ham (Genesis 9:18–23). Notably,
the borders of Canaan are described in Numbers 34:1–12; Ezekiel 47:13–20; 48:1–7,
23–29; and Joshua 15:2–4; 19:24–31.
The region is also well documented archaeologically. Extensive excavations conducted
at Late Bronze Age sites reveal elements of both homogeneity and heterogeneity in
the material culture of Canaan. In particular, the rich variety of cultic structures and
burial customs, often considered key indicators of identity, reflect long-term indige-
nous traditions together with the introduction of new outside practices. At the same
time, homogeneous aspects of their material culture are not indicative of a unified group
identity or single ethnicity. Rather, an externally imposed socioeconomic and political
structure resulting from Egyptian imperialistic ambitions and the Late Bronze Age world
system determined “Canaanite” social and cultural boundaries. This phenomenon is best
exemplified in a relatively homogeneous assemblage of mass-produced pottery manufac-
tured in professional potters’ workshops, most likely under the control of local city-state
vassal rulers (Killebrew 2005a: 93–148, 2005b).
Canaanites were not a cohesive ethnic group united by a common ideology or ancestry.
Though sharing a common West Semitic language, both textual and archaeological
evidence suggest that they comprised both indigenous peoples and newcomers from a
mixed background whose kinship ties and local allegiances were most likely connected
politically and economically to local city-states. Based on these sources, the peoples