Macalister provided some light, but some confusion, also

Submitted by dante (United States), Aug 8, 2016 at 02:14

the article is useful in presenting Macalister's perceptions of the diverse non-Jewish population as it appeared to him in the first decade of the 20th Century and as he recorded it for EB. however, when Macalister offers his speculations about a notionally "fundamental Canaanite element" in Palestine, he creates more confusion than clarification. the area of what came to be called "Palestine" was conquered many times in antiquity and subsequently; some of the conquests resulted in wholesale deportations of the indigenous populations. the idea that "[i]t is by no means unreasonable to suppose that there is a fundamental Canaanite element in this population..." is ridiculous; it is unreasonable, about as ludicrous as Macalister's conclusions about purported skeletal similarities between ancient remains and a certain part of the contemporary population.

if it has not been done, some scholar should study the regional "tribal" identities of the Muslim (often non-Arab) population and, also, the family names of the Muslim population as evidence of its origins; it is not uncommon to find surnames that indicate an origin in other parts of the "Middle East," e.g. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Arabia, Turkey, Balkans, Iran, Yemen, Algeria, etc.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".