Why are there Hittites in Palestine in the Biblical narrative, when the centre of their Empire rests in the Anatolian plateau and their rule never extended lower than Damascus?
Yet in Numbers 13:29 they are described as living in the Judaean hill country, Abraham buys land from them at Hebron, and Esau takes Hittite wives. This is early patriarchal times.
Stray Hittites like Uriah, can be mercenaries or individuals from mixed-marriages or immigrants, but the other references to Hittites clearly point to an indigineous people of Canaan.
Later references to Kings of the Hittites in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles clearly refer to the Neo-Hittite North Syrian states.
However these earlier Pentateuchal references cannot be accounted for so easily.
A number of solutions present themselves:
Perhaps these aren't the same Hittites. However, they are connected unequivocally with the later Neo-Hittite states, so they must be.
It is possible though that we aren't dealing with the Hittites as much as the Hatti - the previous population likely dispossed by the Indo-European Hittites that came to be called by the same name as the country. This would then be a pocket of Hatti pushed into the hills, as a presumed larger linguistic area stretching to Anatolia was displaced by Hurrians in Syria, Semites in Palestine and Indo-Europeans in Anatolia. They just retained some form of endonym and thus an affinity was judged with Hittite Anatolia (where Hittite and Hatti were spoken).
Alternately, maybe they are Hittites. Perhaps Hittite prisoners were settled there by a Pharoah, during the interminable wars between Egypt and the Hittite Empire. Egypt settled other enemies in Palestine before (Peleset/Philistines), so a foederati-type Hittite group could end up here that way.
There are texts from the Hittite archives that seem to suggest that Hittite exiles fled to Egypt on occasion, so maybe they were granted land there? So not prisoners, but exiles?
Another possibility is that a local group sided with the Hittites during one of the wars with Egypt. Perhaps at the instigation of the Hittites to make trouble behind enemy lines. This would perhaps be sealed by gifts or dynastic marriages, and subsequently the group could have become known as the 'Hittites' for this allegiance. A marriage would strengthen this name, akin to how certain Byzantine Emperors were termed 'the Khazar' on account of their mothers. This possibility would account for the lack of cultural, archaeological or linguistic Hittite evidence in the Judaean hill country.
It is a perplexing problem that they are reported to be there, though not impossible as such.
Yet in Numbers 13:29 they are described as living in the Judaean hill country, Abraham buys land from them at Hebron, and Esau takes Hittite wives. This is early patriarchal times.
Stray Hittites like Uriah, can be mercenaries or individuals from mixed-marriages or immigrants, but the other references to Hittites clearly point to an indigineous people of Canaan.
Later references to Kings of the Hittites in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles clearly refer to the Neo-Hittite North Syrian states.
However these earlier Pentateuchal references cannot be accounted for so easily.
A number of solutions present themselves:
Perhaps these aren't the same Hittites. However, they are connected unequivocally with the later Neo-Hittite states, so they must be.
It is possible though that we aren't dealing with the Hittites as much as the Hatti - the previous population likely dispossed by the Indo-European Hittites that came to be called by the same name as the country. This would then be a pocket of Hatti pushed into the hills, as a presumed larger linguistic area stretching to Anatolia was displaced by Hurrians in Syria, Semites in Palestine and Indo-Europeans in Anatolia. They just retained some form of endonym and thus an affinity was judged with Hittite Anatolia (where Hittite and Hatti were spoken).
Alternately, maybe they are Hittites. Perhaps Hittite prisoners were settled there by a Pharoah, during the interminable wars between Egypt and the Hittite Empire. Egypt settled other enemies in Palestine before (Peleset/Philistines), so a foederati-type Hittite group could end up here that way.
There are texts from the Hittite archives that seem to suggest that Hittite exiles fled to Egypt on occasion, so maybe they were granted land there? So not prisoners, but exiles?
Another possibility is that a local group sided with the Hittites during one of the wars with Egypt. Perhaps at the instigation of the Hittites to make trouble behind enemy lines. This would perhaps be sealed by gifts or dynastic marriages, and subsequently the group could have become known as the 'Hittites' for this allegiance. A marriage would strengthen this name, akin to how certain Byzantine Emperors were termed 'the Khazar' on account of their mothers. This possibility would account for the lack of cultural, archaeological or linguistic Hittite evidence in the Judaean hill country.
It is a perplexing problem that they are reported to be there, though not impossible as such.
