Canaan

  General Description   _Short description_
Very little is known about the ancient Canaanites and what is known is often through references given by other cultures (such as the Egyptians). Even combined with what is known and not known from archaeological work the overall picture of Canannite society should be taken as a very provisional one.
Canaanites seem to have lived between 2000-1175 BCE, from a time contemporary to the Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, the Canaanite Hyksos Period of Egypt and their expulsion, through the New Kingdom of Egypt, to the invasion of the Sea Peoples (which have often been associated with the destruction of Canaanite cities).
Outside of the city-state organization the Canaanites did not achieve any territorial centralization in the Levant. The Canaanites lived in hierarchical city-states that would form alliances and fight opposing coalitions of Canaanites. The region as a whole was under Egyptian control after the invasion of Thutmose III.
One tentative archaeological interpretation of Canaanite government holds that Canaanite regimes were more similar to an household oikos economy than a Mesopotamian-style redistributive state: "in sharp contrast to both the Aegean and the entire ancient Near East, there is not a single indication that literate administration ever played any significant role in the [Middle Bronze Age] Canaanite economy." ^[1]
However, it appears at least some Canaanites did use writing to record laws. Two fragments of a larger clay tablet (designated Hazor 18) were discovered in 2010 at Tel Hazor, that would possibly have contained as many as 20 or 30 laws (which in turn could have been part of a larger collection of law tablets) in a format similar to the Code of Hammurabi. An earlier tablet, Hazor 5, contains part of the description of a lawsuit, judged by the king personally. ^[2] It is likely that at least some Canaanite polities would have had formal law codes.
The population of the Canaanites probably never exceeded much beyond 50,000 people in a single polity, though more were likely present towards the end of the period than at the beginning.

_Oren’s long description_
During the Bronze Age, Canaan was composed of dozens of "city-states," some strong enough to lead regional confederations against each other or against outside invaders. These city-states appear to have been significantly institutionalized, featuring standing armies, bureaucracies and public works, and official cults. The social structure was highly unequal; most of the land was concentrated in the hands of the small ruling class, with the vast majority of inhabitants being serfs, slaves, or landless vagabonds or nomads. The economy depended heavily on trade, with intensive agriculture of staples such as wine and oil meant for export in exchange for prestige goods such as imported pottery, and tin for making bronze.
Canaan of the Middle and Late Bronze was by no means a unified entity, even as its polities shared significant cultural elements. The varying landscape carried with it different geopolitical conditions for each local polity, strongly conditioning the development of each one and its various political/strategic needs. "The Coastal Plain, the setting for the region’s largest political and economic centers, conventionally seen as the hearth of Canaanite civilization, emerges as a hodge-podge of polities with highly variable structures and their attendant political connotations. The Jordan Rift, normally seen as a smaller-scale backwater off the Mediterranean littoral, features settlement patterns most consistent with a series of highly integrated peer polities or city-states, and subregional political coherence. In contrast to both of these lowland areas, the settlement clusters of the Hill Country are more dispersed, with consistent evidence of less settlement integration. When considered structurally, these results suggest three fundamentally different bases for political development in a region normally viewed as a single, albeit fractious, social and cultural entity during the Late Bronze Age. These distinctions help illuminate the foundations of the particularly volatile political dynamics of the southern Levant." ^[3]
During the Middle Bronze, Canaanite polities were wealthy and powerful enough to extend their influence into the Egyptian Delta (via the so-called "Hyksos). However, the end of the Middle Bronze is marked by the campaign of Thutmose I, who expelled the Hyksos and then campaigned into Canaan proper, imposing Egyptian overlordship over many of the Canaanite cities. As the Late Bronze progressed, Canaanite cities were marked with increasing social turmoil, wracked by repeated uprisings against Egyptian officials or against local elites, and facing periodic invasions from the sea or pressure from the Hittite Empire. The politics of this period are somewhat better understood thanks to the finding of the Amarna Letters, some 350 clay tablets of Egyptian diplomatic correspondence that date to about the middle of the 14th Century BCE. Many of them are from Canaanite "mayors," sending groveling obeisances to the Pharaoh and pleading for military assistance in the face of urgent threats. Finally, during the 12th Century BCE, a series of poorly-understood calamities and city destructions brought the Bronze Age Canaanite civilization to a close; it would be succeeded by the Phoenicians to the north, and the Israelites in the Judean highlands.
(A word of caution is in order about coding methodology. Much of the evidence we have about this polity comes from archaeological finds. However, the brute fact of an archaeological artifact is often used as the basis for considerable interpretation and conjecture. Methods have been improving over time, but still some archaeologists tend to leap far ahead of what the evidence will support. Additionally, the meaning of many finds is hotly disputed by archaeologists, each faction insisting for its point of view: "When any scholar defends the correctness or appropriateness of a singular point of view, or set of data, everything else tends to be analyzed accordingly - alternative views are intensely criticized, dismissed, or ignored entirely, while complementary views or evidence are presented with little critical reflection. Whether the evidence is archaeological or scientific, often it is only partial or ambiguous and so becomes easy to interpret or manipulate in a manner that serves to perpetuate a preconceived idea or point of view. The outcome is often a selective filtering of data and related information and an unwillingness to contemplate or envisage a counter position." ^[4]
This is a particular problem with regard to establishing chronologies. While on a given archaeological site researchers are (usually) able to determine the boundaries of relative temporal layers, tying those layers to an absolute timeline, or even fitting them into a relative relationship with the layers of other sites, is a fraught business; and when the time period in question is as far back as the Middle Bronze, the available evidence becomes correspondingly scarcer and more difficult to correlate with each other. Unfortunately, many researchers are too quick to claim certainty where none exists. ^[5]
In short, every data point that is backed up with archaeology must be considered provisional, and new discoveries can totally upend our picture of what happened—as can new interpretations that correct erroneous early interpretations, a constant danger with motivated archaeologists.)

[1]: (Yasur-Landau et al. 2015, 609). Assaf Yasur-Landau, Eric H. Cline, Andrew J. Koh, David Ben-Shlomo, Nimrod Marom, Alexandra Ratzlaff and Inbal Samet. 2015. "Rethinking Canaanite Palaces? The Palatial Economy of Tel Kabri during the Middle Bronze Age." Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 40, No. 6: 607-625.

[2]: (Horowitz, Oshima, Vukosavovic 2012) Wayne Horowitz, Oshima Takayoshi and Filip Vukosavovic. 2012. "Hazor 18: Fragments of a Cuneiform Law Collection from Hazor." Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 62, No. 2: 158-176.

[3]: Savage/Falconer (2003:42).

[4]: Knapp/Manning (2016:101).

[5]: See extensive discussion in Knapp/Manning (2016).