In view of recent attempts to vaporize the Canaanites and to erase the land of Canaan from the map-principally in N. P. Lemche's 1991 volume, The Canaanites and their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites-a review of the crucial evidence is in order. The present study will concentrate on documents from the Late Bronze Age in particular, with some allusions to evidence from other periods, to provide an understanding of the texts within the semantic framework in which they were composed-the simple, straightforward meaning of the passages as intended by the ancient scribes. THE PHANTOM CANAANITES L emche (1991: 50) contends that the ancient Egyptian and Levantine scribes of the second millennium B.C.E. used the terms "Canaan" and "Canaanite" in "imprecise ways." He believes that they have no understanding of any clear-cut social, political, or geographical meaning for such terms. On the other hand, those of us who do see definite significance to such terms are accused of reading our own understanding of nationalism and ethnicity into the ancient documents (Lemche 1991: 50-51). Instead, Lemche himself cites anthropological studies pertaining to an African group that modern ethnographers had denoted by a term current not among the members of the group, but rather among their neighboring groups (Lemche 1991: 51 with references). One could compare this with the use of the term "Indians" applied by the first Europeans to the natives they encountered in the Western Hemisphere. But in fact, his entire argument is irrelevant to the interpretation of the ancient documents. Elsewhere, Lemche says "all Egyptian references to 'the Canaan' are rather imprecise and leave many problems to be solved" (Lemche 1991: 48-49). What he might have said was that the sporadic references to Canaan in Egyptian documents do not provide sufficient information to define the exact geographical limits of Canaan. The haphazard nature of the materials available in no way prejudices the assumption that the Egyptians did have a good grasp of their geography. A glance at the famous "poetical Stela" of Thutmose III (Sethe 1909: 611; Wilson 1955: 373-75) should convince any objective reader that the scribes knew their world and had it organized. The same is true of that Pharaoh's long topographical lists (Sethe 1909: 779-94). The Onomasticon of Amenemope has many geographical entities (Gardiner 1947) and there can be no doubt that their inclusion in that "encyclopedic" list reflects a knowledge of geography. It should be obvious that the everyday administration of the Egyptian-controlled territories, with its profound concern with revenues, would have required an intimate knowledge of the social and geopolitical entities. It is purely a matter of chance that many inscriptional contexts simply take for granted that the writer and the recipient or user of the text knew the geographical and "ethnic" entities mentioned. There was no need for them to go into detailed definitions. The route descriptions in Papyrus Anastasi I (I, lines 18, 2-25, 2) demonstrate ...