Kanišite Hittite does not focus on the Hittite texts per se, but on the “Hittitoid” personal names in the texts from Kaniš, which predate the oldest Hittite texts by some 200 years. From this data source of c. 350 names, Kloekhorst draws numerous significant and some surprising conclusions about the origin and development of the Hittite language and kingdom.
The book's introduction covers the rudimentary facts of the history and society of Kaniš and the Old Assyrian colony there. Ch. 1 provides a brief overview of the pertinent Hittite names; ch. 2 describes the difficulty in analysing personal names in contexts that do not permit conclusions as to their inherent meanings. Comparison with known Hittite words allows for the identification of a set of distinctly “Hittitoid” names (ch. 4). Ch. 5 treats the individual components of these names, while ch. 6 discusses names whose status as “Hittitoid” is uncertain. Chs 7 and 8 analyse names ending in -iet/-iat (3rd sg. pret. verbal forms) and -ašue- as ašu- (“beloved” + feminizing -e-).
Part 3 considers the linguistic status of “Kanišite Hittite” as a dialect distinguishable from the Hittite of Ḫattuša. This conclusion is based on phonologically disparate developments (e.g. -ḫšu-/-ḫšušar- “birth, offspring” [m./f.] vs. -ḫaššu-/ḫaššuš(ša)ra- “king/queen”). These must have evolved separately amongst two distinct groups of speakers. Ch. 10 argues for a close connection between the dynasty of Anitta and that of Ḫuzziya I (!) (i.e. the grandfather of Ḫattušili I) that eventually established its power centre in Ḫattuša. According to Kloekhorst, the Anitta dynasty continued virtually uninterrupted in Ḫuzziya I's dynasty. The latter introduced the Hittite language in Ḫattuša, displacing Hattic as the spoken language there. However, based on the close ties of Ḫuzziya's dynasty with Kuššara, it was not the “Kanišite” dialect but rather “Kuššarite” that the members of the royal court as well as the population resettled at Ḫattuša spoke.
Since recent studies of Anatolian personal names in the Old Assyrian texts are limited in their scope (I. Yakubovich, Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language (2010), focuses on Luwian names; Th. Zehnder, Die hethitischen Frauennamen (2010) focuses on women's names), Kloekhorst's work provides a much-needed analysis of most of the Hittite names that are not at all or at least not recently discussed from a (comparative) linguistic perspective. One need not agree with every interpretation to appreciate Kloekhorst's work in gathering the onomastic data and interpretive options into a single book.
Unfortunately, scholars cannot directly access most of the raw data on which his research was based; the online Old Assyrian Prosopography Database has been defunct since 2014, and the full publication of the tablets from Kaniš has been delayed for decades. Kloekhorst is neither to blame for this, nor does this detract from the value of his study.
Some aspects of Kloekhorst's book, however, must be assessed critically. For example, on pp. 47–9 Kloekhorst rejects grammatical mistakes as valid criteria for determining the linguistic background of those who wrote Old Assyrian, but explains these instead as reflecting a poor command of the cuneiform script or of the Old Assyrian language. But would not the latter imply that the person in question was likely a speaker of an Anatolian language? Kloekhorst dismisses numerous interpretations of names as Luwian (pp. 58–65), without always laying out the criteria for such rejections, e.g. some names “do not look Luwic” (p. 65). Still, other names established as Luwian seem to have been overlooked (e.g. Ḫapa(n)tali: V. Haas, Fs Popko (2002), 143–6; Tiwali: Steitler, StBoT 62 (2017), 188 f.; cf. Kloekhorst pp. 60, 68, 86).
There are also plausible alternatives to several of Kloekhorst's interpretations, e.g.: ḫaršumn(a)- (p. 130) could be an oblique form of ḫaršummar- “headwaters”(?); ḫiwašmei (p. 135, explained as a misreading of šiwašmei) is possibly connected with ḫeu- “rain”; kapzia- (p. 153) is also the name of a spring (see KBo 60.153 rev. V 11ʹ), paralleling Kunaniya as a component of women's names. Kloekhorst's treatment of several name components does not interact with my own analyses (both similar and differing) of the same (StBoT 62, 184–90).
Claims of the existence of “Kanišite” and “Kuššarite” (later “Ḫattuša”) dialects of the Hittite language, as well as the historical scenario utilized to support this theory, are not implausible; however, the limited available data does not seem capable of bearing the heavy load of such claims. The only source for “Kanišite Hittite” are a set of c. 350 personal names, not a text corpus in the strict sense. In some cases, even these were written down by persons who spoke little or no Hittite. Many of the names are remarkably similar to or identical with the known Hittite words and – while they do not rule it out – they still do not point towards a separate dialect. Thus, while I would not firmly reject the identification of “Kanišite” as a Hittite dialect, I remain duly sceptical. The claim that Ḫattuša Hittite evolved from “Kuššarite” depends on the identification of two Hittite dialects, but even more so upon the alleged connection of the Anitta and Ḫuzziya dynasties, of which I am more sceptical. The nature of the texts cited (the Anitta and Zalpa texts) in favour of this view is quite controversial. Furthermore, the dating of the first rulers of the Hittite kingdom is uncertain, and should postdate Kloekhorst's dates if Muršili I's campaign against Babylon occurred in 1531 bc. Kloekhorst criticizes doubts over the connections between Ḫattušili I and the city of Kuššara as “minimalistic” (p. 256); while his own position stands at the “maximalist” end of the spectrum, Kloekhorst and W. Waal (ZA 109 (2019), 189–203) did recently present additional data supporting this view.
In any case, Kanišite Hittite will long serve as a starting point for any future research of Hittite names, the origins of the Hittite language and the first ruling dynasty of the Hittite kingdom.
