Nota Bene-- C:\DOCUME~1\XPMUSER\MYDOCU~1\NBFILE~1 ...

13
late as the 11c (Hawkins 1988, 106–107; cf. Beckman 2007, 111–112), thus strengthening the
possibility for cultural continuity with the later “Hittite kings” of Que in the 10c.
It is therefore reasonable that later “Canaanites” associated with the name “Hittite” are
descendants of the Neo-Hittites, representing an amalgam of Hattians, Luwians, Hurrians, and
others (Bryce 2009, 62). This type of situation reflects the cultural make-up of Empire era
Hittites and their successor states, for they never possessed a clearly distinct ethnic identity but
functioned as a melting pot of peoples who boasted of themselves as “the land of a thousand
gods.” 21
Onomastica
A handful of personal names provide further evidence of direct Neo-Hittite interference
in early Israel. After David’s defeat of Hadadezer of Zobah and her Aramean allies in Damascus,
Neo-Hittite Toi of Hamat sent tribute to and likely entered a formal alliance with David. 22
“Toi/Tou” ‏ּתִעי/‏ ֹ ‏ּתעּו)‏ ֹ ) is the Semiticized version of the (likely) Hurrian noun e (“man”) which
tah˘
also appears as a PN at Meskene (Emar; Hawkins 2000b, 400n30). 23 While recognizing the
challenges inherent in identifying ethnicity based on linguistic elements alone, 24 there is
———————————
21 This cultural situation is also supported by the clear presence of Hurrian and Luwian influence within
Hatti land at an early time in its political history: “At least during the period covered by the available texts, H˘ atti
was always a multicultural civilization” (Beckman 2007, 109–110).
22 In both accounts (2 Sam 8:10; 1 Chr 18:10) Toi/Tou sent an envoy to David “in order to ask him for
peace and to bless him” ‏ְׁשָאל־לֹו ‏ְל ‏ָׁשלֹום ‏ּוְלָבֲרכֹו)‏ ‏.(ִל While the idiom lišol lô lOšālôm by itself does not technically mark
treaty making language, context can support this interpretation. It can also indicate the necessary precursors for
establishing the relationship necessary to the treaty making process. For discussion see Wiseman (1982, 319). The
current context suggests that diplomacy is in view, either to pursue or to establish treaty relations. After all, it falls
within the purview of a military defeat of a superior enemy, the sending of the royal heir as ambassador, and the
bestowal of lavish gifts.
23 “Toi” probably lacks a theophoric element and is therefore abbreviated, the fuller form following the
pattern “man of X deity” (Younger; personal communication).
24 Apart from other information (such as a distinctive material culture) linguistic data may be indicative of
bilingualism or of a shared language between unique cultures. See the succinct discussion by Goedegebuure as it
pertains to the relationship between Hattian and Hittite in the early second millennium (2008, 137–139).