walantalamma-

Attested twice in the same oracle text (NS).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.	wa-la-an-ta-la-am-ma-an	KUB 22.70 rev. 51	(CTH 566, NS)
	wa-la-an-ta-la-ma-an	KUB 22.70 rev. 54	(CTH 566, NS)

The attestations follow CLL:250 (cf. also Friedrich 1952a:242; Güterbock 1956a:125; Laroche 1959a:105; Starke 1990a:258; Ünal 2007a:281, Ünal 2016a:578) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

Although Friedrich 1952a:242 cautiously proposed ‘geweiht, kultisch rein’ (similarly Haas 2003a:165 and Mouton 2014a:445, both cautiously), most of the following commentators translated it quite differently, but roughly in the same way as ‘used (up), amortized’ (including Friedrich 1957a:22 [with question mark] himself; Laroche 1959a:105 [also ‘out of order’]; Kronasser 1966a:170; Ünal 1978a:95, 97, 127, 149 [with double question mark, but see below]; Polvani 1988a:44; CHD L-N:423 [with question mark]; Tischler 2008a:217 [with question mark, but see below]; HED N:75; Sideltsev 2016a:445) or ‘obsolete’ (Güterbock 1956a:125; CLL:250, both with question mark; Starke 1981b:471, Starke 1990a:257), although Ünal 2007a:781, Ünal 2016a:578 mentions both possibilities (with question mark) and Goedegebuure 2014a:184, 208 and Zorman 2016a:597 refrained from translation.

However, Tischler (HEG U-Z:238f., Tischler 2016a:416, who follows Friedrich’s original proposal) rightly points out that in the text we are dealing with utensils that were touched by cultic impure people and thus they have to be purified because they are “not yet w.”. This practically excludes the proposed meanings ‘used (up), obsolete’ etc. and decidedly points to the original suggestion of Friedrich, i.e. ‘cultic pure’.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that this word is of Luwian origin, although on different grounds: either due to a derivation from *walantalla/i- ‘mortal’ (Laroche 1959a:105; Starke 1981b:471, Starke 1990a:258) or due to the presence of gloss markers (van den Hout 2006a:248; HEG U-Z:239), but it is not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a. Although gloss markers do not guarantee Luwian origin (Melchert 2005a:445, cf. already Schwartz 1938a:75, 78) and the derivation from *walantalla/i- ‘mortal’ is not possible semantically (see under Meaning), the Luwian origin seems to be assured due to the ending -(a)mman, whatever its precise origin should be (a denominal adjective in -ama/i- [CLL:250], a verbal substantive in -mman- [Starke 1981b:471, Starke 1990a:258], or a participle [Güterbock 1956a:125; Laroche 1959a:105; Kronasser 1966a:180 [Luwian origin as a possibility]; Tischler 2008a:217, HEG U-Z:238]), since this cannot be explained from Hittite. See further under Reconstruction.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 22 May 2020