WI: An United Canaan

Now, What if the Various Canaanite city states would have been able to unite against Joshua? Would it be an Confederation or a Monarchy... and If a Monarchy which King would have the most power to do so? What would happen to the Isrealites, would they be pushed southward into Arabia or back into the hands of the Egyptians? Would an United Canaan build up an Espansionsit state taking advantage of the massive Power Vaccum left by the Sea Peoples? Or would the create an successful Canaanite realm across the Medeterranien.
 
I thought I heard somewhere that the Israelites didn't conquer Canaan, but settled there and gradually integrated the Canaanites into their community. Sort of like how China always conquered its conquerors.
 
More than likely, the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews never actually happened, especially not in the way it is depicted in the Bible. In fact, the Hebrews probably were Canaanites themselves, who simply adopted a monotheist religion. Excavations at Ugarit reveal religious texts that resembles much Old Testament texts, suggesting origin.
 
Well if the Hebrews were one of the Canaanites, why couldn't the others make up an sort of Leauge of Confederation against them?
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Actually, I have a TL in the works about a Sodomite Confederacy (Robert is so going to KILL me when he sees this) which involves Sodom and the other four cities of the valley surviving in some form, and dominating Canaan.

Isaiah specifically identifies Hebrew as "the lip (=language) of Canaan" so there you have it. There's also tons of evidence that the "abominations of the Canaanites" continued to be practiced (particularly in Samaria, but really all over the country) long after the Israelites were in control - worship at hilltop shrines or "high places," cultic totems or asheras, child sacrifice...
 
Leo Caesius said:
Actually, I have a TL in the works about a Sodomite Confederacy (Robert is so going to KILL me when he sees this) which involves Sodom and the other four cities of the valley surviving in some form, and dominating Canaan.

Isaiah specifically identifies Hebrew as "the lip (=language) of Canaan" so there you have it. There's also tons of evidence that the "abominations of the Canaanites" continued to be practiced (particularly in Samaria, but really all over the country) long after the Israelites were in control - worship at hilltop shrines or "high places," cultic totems or asheras, child sacrifice...


Interesting...I can't wait to see how it turns out.
 
Adamanteus said:
More than likely, the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews never actually happened, especially not in the way it is depicted in the Bible. In fact, the Hebrews probably were Canaanites themselves, who simply adopted a monotheist religion. Excavations at Ugarit reveal religious texts that resembles much Old Testament texts, suggesting origin.

Well, according to the Bible, the ancestors of the Hebrews came from Canaan (Jacob, his sons, and their families) before the time in Egypt. So, you could technically say they were Canaanites, though they weren't the ethnic kin of the people already there, didn't practice the Canaanite religion, and in fact spent several generations outside of the region.
 
Leo Caesius said:
Actually, I have a TL in the works about a Sodomite Confederacy (Robert is so going to KILL me when he sees this) which involves Sodom and the other four cities of the valley surviving in some form, and dominating Canaan.

Why would I want to kill you because you wrote a timeline, Leo? :confused: Unlike many people, I am not a hardcore biblical "literalist" in that I don't believe that all the stories, especially those in Genesis, are to be taken literally. In fact, until the days of the United Monarchy, I think that much of the "historical narrative" of the Bible is probably not reliable, except in a general way. For instance, archaelogical finds have shown that the society portrayed in the narratives of Abraham and the other early patriarchs actually does reflect the society which existed during the supposed time that the Patriarchs lived. But as to whether Abraham's life was actually as portrayed in the Bible, probably not. At the very least we seem to be dealing with historical traditions which were passed down by word of mouth for over 1,500 years before they were first written down. It is unlikely in the extreme that the historical account came down correctly "as it happened."

I think you are mistaking my position on the Bible's MORAL TEACHINGS...which I do believe should be taken literally...with my position on the historical accuracy of the events presented in the Bible.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Actually, I have a genre concern about this timeline, so perhaps I should float it here for feedback.

The most obvious solution to my problem is to butterfly Gen. 19 away. The cities of the Valley of Sittim were in a perfect location - fertile soil, well irrigated, standing astride the major north-south trade route - so I think that they're well situated to become a major regional power. That is why Lot chose to settle there when he and Abraham were divvying up Canaan. The problem is that if you accept the Biblical account, there was a cataclysm which submerged all but one of the cities (the smallest, called Zoar) under what is today the Dead Sea.

Would it be ASB for me to assume that the Dead Sea never forms and that these cities continue to exist in their current location? Or do I have to come up with some other solution (e.g. an Aeneid type solution, or one where the male population of the cities is off fighting against Chedorlaomer and Amraphel when their cities are destroyed, and they are forced to settle elsewhere)? I want to post this timeline here when I'm done, but I have to chose between straight AH discussion and ASBs.

I realize that some people here will argue that Biblical timelines belong in ASB, which I've duly noted, but I'd rather hear what other people have to say.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Ah, see, you may not be a Biblical literalist, Robert, but you are sufficiently a "literalist" that you have failed to catch my attempt at humor, as weak as it may be. ;) My thoughts were that you'd want to kill me if I posted a timeline entitled:

The Sodomite Confederacy

After all, you might get the wrong idea. :D
 
I've seen quite a few geographical POD's here. I would would like to see this project developed. Just as long as they don't go bumping into the Olmecs and other silly stuff like that.

Tom
 
I've been in your situation before when I was writing both My Meluhha Timeline(Indus Valley civiliazation survives TL) and Wetter Warmer Earth TL..which both involve Geological POD'S. I think As long as the Geological POD is plausbile like not having an Earthquake is far different from having an Inverse Earth :D..So just go ahead an post it in this thread.
 
Adamanteus said:
More than likely, the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews never actually happened, especially not in the way it is depicted in the Bible. In fact, the Hebrews probably were Canaanites themselves, who simply adopted a monotheist religion. Excavations at Ugarit reveal religious texts that resembles much Old Testament texts, suggesting origin.

Leo Caesius said:
Isaiah specifically identifies Hebrew as "the lip (=language) of Canaan" so there you have it.

There is probably a lot of truth in this. But to simply say that "the Hebrews were Canaanites who adopted monotheism" is a bit simplistic.

For one thing, a people known as the "Habiru" or "Hapiru" had been living in Canaan since at least the reign of Pharoah Akhenaton of Egypt in the 14th Century BC, and probably earlier. The Habiru were apparently wandering nomads who lived among, but were not part of, general Canaanite society. A people by the same name had been first mentioned in Sumerian records as living in Southern Mesopotamia 1,000 years earlier, and like the "Canaanite" Habiru, were nomads who were considered aliens living among the Sumerian society of the region. Indeed, it is interesting that one can almost trace, in the historical record, a migration of these people from Southern Mesopotamia through central and northern Mesopotamia to Palestine, which is very similar to the route described for Abraham in the Bible. The difference is that the historical texts mentioning the Habiru are all separated by several hundred years (Ur--2150 BC; north-central Mesopotamia--1550 BC; Palestine--1350 BC), so clearly we aren't talking about the migration of a single family as portrayed in the Bible. Instead, the Biblical narrative of Abraham and the Patriarchs would more likely be a metaphor for a folk migration which took place over a period of 1,000 years. There is, of course, some question as to whether these "Habiru" are to be identified with the Biblical "Hebrews," but the possibility certainly can't be discounted out of hand. And if they are to be so identified, then clearly there were "Hebrews" living in Canaan as a separate people long before the supposed time of the Exodus.

But does that mean there wasn't an Exodus, and the Hebrews were simply "Canaanites who adopted monotheism?" No. Because there is some (admittedly sparse) evidence (in the form of names) that the Habiru/Hebrews may have been among the tribes known by the Egyptians as the Hyksos. If so, when the Hyksos were defeated, it is very likely that said tribes would have been enslaved in Egypt. It is true that the enslavement and later escape of the Hebrews from Egypt is not mentioned in Egyptian records, but that is not surprising. The enslavement of an Asiatic tribe would not have been a matter of great import, at least not enough that the tribe would have been mentioned specifically by name. And the escape would definitely not have been mentioned, as Egyptian records are very propagandistic in nature and don't promote Egyptian defeats.

So, the most likely scenario, at least to my mind, is that the Habiru/Hebrews migrated from Sumer to Palestine over the course of 1,000 years beginning about 2100 BC. Some of them took part in the Hyksos conquest of Egypt, while others remained in Palestine. The ones who joined the Hyksos invasion were later enslaved, and escaped during the latter part of the reign of Pharaoh Rameses II and returned to Palestine. There they rejoined their kinsmen, and began to overthrow the Canaanite rulers of the local city-states, some by conquest, others by diplomacy or intermarriage, over a period of 200 years.

Needless to say, it is very likely that in the long time they were in Canaan before they finally took control (which really didn't happen completely until the reign of King David), they would have adopted the Canaanite language and probably aspects of the local religion too. But this doesn't mean they were actually "Canaanites."
 
Leo Caesius said:
Ah, see, you may not be a Biblical literalist, Robert, but you are sufficiently a "literalist" that you have failed to catch my attempt at humor, as weak as it may be. ;) My thoughts were that you'd want to kill me if I posted a timeline entitled:

The Sodomite Confederacy

After all, you might get the wrong idea. :D

LOL. Yes, that title COULD be misinterpreted. :D Well, since I generally read a timeline before forming conclusions about it (in contrast to some other members of this board), not much chance that would happen.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Well, who knows where the Canaanites themselves came from? Herodotus relates that the Phoenicians (who are generally considered to be Canaanite) originated somewhere further south along the Red Sea coast. The Philistines are probably not indigenous to Canaan either (even if the first legible Philistine inscription we have is written in a Canaanite dialect similar to Byblian Phoenician). The people of Ugarit, who are generally not considered to be Canaanite (I remember IIRC Anson Rainey ranting on and on about this point) nonetheless speak a language which is Canaanite's closest relative, and have legends which suggest an origin further west in the Khabur River triangle and the rest of North Syria (pace Michael Astour). There is also good evidence for other non-Semitic peoples settling in the area (Hurrians, for example).

The Levant has always been at the crossroads of major civilizations, and I think that any attempt to determine the identity of individual Levantine cultures must take this factor under consideration.
 
Leo Caesius said:
Actually, I have a genre concern about this timeline, so perhaps I should float it here for feedback.

The most obvious solution to my problem is to butterfly Gen. 19 away. The cities of the Valley of Sittim were in a perfect location - fertile soil, well irrigated, standing astride the major north-south trade route - so I think that they're well situated to become a major regional power. That is why Lot chose to settle there when he and Abraham were divvying up Canaan. The problem is that if you accept the Biblical account, there was a cataclysm which submerged all but one of the cities (the smallest, called Zoar) under what is today the Dead Sea.

Would it be ASB for me to assume that the Dead Sea never forms and that these cities continue to exist in their current location? Or do I have to come up with some other solution (e.g. an Aeneid type solution, or one where the male population of the cities is off fighting against Chedorlaomer and Amraphel when their cities are destroyed, and they are forced to settle elsewhere)? I want to post this timeline here when I'm done, but I have to chose between straight AH discussion and ASBs.

I realize that some people here will argue that Biblical timelines belong in ASB, which I've duly noted, but I'd rather hear what other people have to say.

Well, there is some archaeological evidence (in the form of various ruined, but unidentified, cities which have been found in the region) that they weren't actually submerged. The actual site of Sodom will probably never be identified, even if it is found, simply because the Canaanites at that early period probably didn't have writing (or at least none has ever been found in these early sites). The Biblical account doesn't actually say they were submerged, either...they were destroyed by raining fire and brimstone. This could be a metaphor for anything from a volcano to destruction by fire at the hands of an invader. If the latter, that is easy enough to change...just have the Sodomites successfully defend their city and repel the invader.
 
Last edited:
Leo Caesius said:
The Levant has always been at the crossroads of major civilizations, and I think that any attempt to determine the identity of individual Levantine cultures must take this factor under consideration.

I completely agree.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
robertp6165 said:
The Biblical account doesn't actually say they were submerged, either...they were destroyed by raining fire and brimstone. This could be a metaphor for anything from a volcano to destruction by fire at the hands of an invader.
I'm going by Genesis 14:3, which says that the confederacy joined forces "at the Valley of Siddim (=broad plains), now the Dead Sea (lit. Salt Sea)." I admit that it takes a little bit of extrapolation, but when the Bible later speaks of the cities of the valley and the entirety of the plain being "destroyed" (Gen. 19: 25), I assume that it means that everything but Zoar was submerged in some cataclysm, either at the time of the destruction of the cities or sometime afterwards, but before the writing of the account. That's why Zoar is traditionally located at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. I'm assuming that the destruction of the cities and the loss of the Valley of Siddim to the Dead Sea occurred at the same time (which isn't necessarily the case), but either way we need to get rid of both the latter and the former in order for the Sodomite confederacy to survive.
 
Leo Caesius said:
I'm going by Genesis 14:3, which says that the confederacy joined forces "at the Valley of Siddim (=broad plains), now the Dead Sea (lit. Salt Sea)." I admit that it takes a little bit of extrapolation, but when the Bible later speaks of the cities of the valley and the entirety of the plain being "destroyed" (Gen. 19: 25), I assume that it means that everything but Zoar was submerged in some cataclysm, either at the time of the destruction of the cities or sometime afterwards, but before the writing of the account. That's why Zoar is traditionally located at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. I'm assuming that the destruction of the cities and the loss of the Valley of Siddim to the Dead Sea occurred at the same time (which isn't necessarily the case), but either way we need to get rid of both the latter and the former in order for the Sodomite confederacy to survive.

A cursory scan of the available internet sources about the geology of the Dead Sea indicates that it has been around for about 15,000 years and was not suddenly created in a cataclysm c. 2000 BC. It is, instead, the remnants of an ancient lake which once covered much of the surrounding region (kind of like the Great Salt Lake is the remnant of the ancient Lake Bonneville which formerly covered the entire region known as the "Great Basin" in the southwestern U.S.). The following is from here...

The Dead Sea region became the location of a series of lakes that disappeared and reappeared over a long period due to climatic and geological changes in the area. The last of these lakes, known as Lake Lisan, stretched from the northern Arava Valley to the Sea of Galilee. About 15,000 years ago it dried up, leaving behind what is known now as the Dead Sea. Climatic changes have caused considerable fluctuation in the level of the Dead Sea water. The Dead Sea, thus, is a recorder of the paleoclimate of the Middle East.

So there may have been some climatic change which raised the level of the Dead Sea, and which may explain the possible "disappearance" of the Valley of Siddim. Or it may simply be that the Valley never actually disappeared, and the shores surrounding the Dead Sea are actually the Valley of Siddim. Either way, there is no actual "geologic" change involved. Which should make your job as a timeline writer that much easier...weather patterns are a great deal more random and susceptable to change than geology is.

And the description of the destruction as recounted in the Bible (great quantities of smoke were seen rising from the valley) suggests a far more prosaic explanation...destruction by invaders. Rising water levels in the Dead Sea would not explain the smoke which accompanied the destruction of the cities (at least if the Biblical account of the destruction is to be our guide), but several burning cities certainly would.
 
Last edited:

Leo Caesius

Banned
That is true, but my point is that the Bible is very explicit in indicating that there were five cities in the Valley of Siddim, all but one of which were destroyed, and that the Valley of Siddim is today the Salt Sea (aka the Dead Sea). You seem to have misunderstood me; I didn't say that the Dead Sea didn't exist before that time and then suddenly appeared, I was merely stating that, according to the text, what used to be the Valley of Siddim (or "Valley of Broad Plains") is now occupied by the Dead Sea (or, to be precise, the southern part of it). In any case, whether this happened at the time that the cities were destroyed or shortly afterwards ("shortly" from the perspective of geological epochs, as it must have happened between the destruction of the city and the composition of the account), my dilemma is that I need to somehow prevent this from happening and prevent the Valley of Siddim from being submerged, or else deal with the problem in some other creative fashion.
 
Top