Talk:Canaan

Biblical scholar

Biblical scholar Mark Smith, citing archaeological findings, suggests "that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with and derived from Canaanite culture... In short, Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature."

A declaration promoting the idea that the Canaanites were Jews could be interpreted as excluding other Semitic peoples who lived in ancient Palestine. However, it is important to recognize the diversity of the region's ancient populations, including various Semitic groups such as the Phoenicians and nowdays Palestinians. Thus, framing the history of ancient Palestine in a way that recognizes the complexities and diversities of its peoples would be more appropriate and respectful.

@Iskandar323 Considering your familiarity with the history of the region, may I ask for your opinion on the matter? Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the statement the wrong way around. There is actually a growing thesis among archaeologists that Israelite culture emerged from within Canaanite culture, with one of the distinguishing features being that they worshipped a foreign god, i.e. Yahweh, who by most accounts was first worshipped to the south in Edom, Seir or perhaps Northern Arabia. The statement does not imply that all Canaanites were Israelites, but rather the converse: that Israelites were an offshoot from the Canaanites. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"The name "Canaan" appears throughout the Bible as a geography associated with the "Promised Land",

- this is irrelevant and unacademic, it denotes a biblical claim which shouldn't be in the article as it infers religious supremacist dictate and politicized theological claim.

The demonym "Canaanites" serves as an ethnic catch-all term covering various indigenous populations,

- This is also irrelevant because it Canaanites were specifically and explicitly Phoenician-Caananites.

by far the most frequently used ethnic term in the Bible -

this piece of information is irrelevant as it references the bible, which isnt academic and is fictitious.

This biblical section should be removed from the article. It serves no purpose but infer that caananites were Jews and that the geography is promised land according to magical sky god that doesnt exist.

please remove it. 102.38.17.215 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

this is irrelevant and unacademic, it denotes a biblical claim which shouldn't be in the article as it infers religious supremacist dictate and politicized theological claim.

Even if an account in a religious text is false, the account must be brought up to discuss said religion. Unfortunately when you go this far back it's very difficult to extricate the two - you have a religious view, which you must understand and assume to be true in said context to comprehend the religion that came later and assumed it's truth. And you have the likely, speculated actuality of things. Bringing up the latter becomes difficult because it is impious however to religious people, who tend to object. It's very annoying.

this piece of information is irrelevant as it references the bible, which isnt academic and is fictitious.

There are plenty of academic disciplines which do literary analysis on the bible. The bible isn't *logos* in this context, it isn't an authorative account assumed to always be true. But you have to bring up the account in order to discuss it. It's not true anti-logos any more than it is true logos

It serves no purpose but infer that caananites were Jews and that the geography is promised land according to magical sky god that doesnt exist.

The canaanites were almost certainly Jews. I have no idea why the bible claims them to be a different people, but the evolution of the culture in the area is obvious. There isn't any dramatic break from an invading party. The account I'm giving actually contradicts the bible btw even if it relies on it as a hostile witness - the bible is source that often has great utility, even though again I will not treat it as the pious do, as an always true logos.2601:140:8D01:C90:D845:C217:B6BC:FA3 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Facinating how your pottery and metal findings in temples might make the distinction whether they were used in child sacrifice or animal sacrifice. Any possibility of such a finding? Seems this would indicate a radical difference in culture. 104.220.96.143 (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Where? Boundaries?

It's the only article about a region I can think of that lacks a geographical definition - at all, and clearly in the intro/lead. Useless.

PS: Of course this isn't about borders in the modern sense. Arminden (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

How would you improve the lede, and based on which sources? As far as I know, this is a vague geographical term, and the lede locates it clearly in the Southern Levant, which is very roughly the same area discussed throughout the article and depicted in the several maps. I do not find it confusing, much less "useless", but there is always room for improvement. Qoan (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It's my way of trying to push things. But if one comes here to learn about Canaan's geography, it's utterly useless.

The Egyptians left lots of relevant texts. Philology can also help. Britannica starts, as it's to be expected from any encyclopedia, with the location, but it only offers some very vague info, basically mentioning two versions, but w/o proper context, i.e. when & by whom (here). Arminden (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Geographically, the regions of Canaan and Southern Levant are identical. Perhaps adding an image of the region, the same one in the Southern Levant article, can solve the issue. Adjacent to the line that states the "Southern Levant".

Southern Levant#/media/File:Southern Levant map.svg

Thewildshoe (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is additional text necessary, you can add that its rough borders are the Sinai peninsula in the south, the Mediterranean in the west, the Arabian desert in the east and Damascus in the north.

Thewildshoe (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Canaanites: when do they appear?

"History: The Levant was inhabited by people who referred to the land as ka-na-na-um as early as the mid-third millennium BCE."

Then we read that the term Canaan was used in inscriptions almost only in C16-11, during Egyptian domination.

Elsewhere there's talk of the Chalcolithic period (c. 4500-3600 BCE).

This are truly wild variations. Endonyms and exonyms are not essential to the existance of a culture, so the question is:

What do reliable sources say on the apparition of a continuous culture that can be called Canaanite?

This inf. is essential - and missing. Arminden (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article isn't clear about distincting between Canaan/Canaanite as a region, culture and civilization referring to vastly different time periods.

This requires multiple minor edits to make the article more historically accurate. I'm unsure as to what those edits will be, but I suggested one small edit from the article's introduction.

Thewildshoe (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We should deal with that, and add a page strictly about the Canaanites as such. Otherwise we'll be left with a similar conundrum here as we have with every other term used for the same region or parts of it, see "Palestine", which always has to be qualified as "P. region". Canaan for the Canaanites! :) Across all kinds of rivers and up to at least one sea. Arminden (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2024

Change: was a Semitic-speaking civilization and region of the Southern Levant in the Ancient Near East during the late 2nd millennium BC.

To: was a Semitic-speaking region of the Southern Levant in the Ancient Near East during the late 2nd millennium BC.

Summary: Removal of the word "civilization" from that specific paragraph.

Explanation: Nowhere in the article, or external historical and archaeological sources, is there evidence of a "Canaanite civilization" in the late 2nd millenium BCE. At the time frame suggested, the Canaan region had an assortment of seperate tribes and city-states with little commonality, therefore not meeting the criteria of "Civilization". Calling it a "Canaanite civilization" for that time frame, is not established in the article, as the article explicitly lists distinct civilizations during the late 2nd millenium BCE, all living in the region of Canaan. Thewildshoe (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Cycladic culture

Violin-shaped female cycladic figurines

I removed the image of Cycladic artefacts as the caption did not provide enough context to the reader. When it was introduced in 2021, along with a sentence in the body of the article, it was done so as a comparison. However, the caption did not include that comparison and the a reader not familiar with the subject it would not be clear that Cycladic culture relates to a different region. I think it makes sense to focus on images more explicitly linked to the topic of this article, so erred on the side of removing it. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment; thank you for the clarification. DiverDave (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert

@IP: You're removing Israelites and Hebrew language from Canaan. Well, that's fake history. It's not even a minority scholarly view, it's just fake. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)