ḫantiyašša-

All attestations of the word occur in rituals (festivals and incantations) for the Tutelary Deity ^DLAMMA, probably from the MH period onward.

[E.R.]

gen. sg.	[ḫ]a-an-ti-ia-aš-ša-aš	KUB 9.21, 4’	(CTH 684, NS)
	[ḫa-an]-˹ti-ia˺-a[š-ša-aš]	KUB 9.21, 10’	(CTH 684, NS)
	[ḫa-an-ti-ia]-aš-ša-aš	ABoT 3, 3’	(CTH 684, NS)
	[ḫa-an-t]i-ia-aš-ša-az	KBo 20.107 + KBo 23.50 iii 27’	(CTH 433, MS?)
	ḫa-an-ti-ia-ša-az	KBo 20.107 + KBo 23.50 ii 12	(CTH 433, MS?)
gen. adj. dat./loc. sg.	ḫa-an-te-ia-aš-ša-aš-ši<-iš>	KUB 2.1 ii 47	(CTH 682, NS)

Contrary to HW 2nd ed.:350, the forms in -aš are genitives dependent on restored DINGIR^MEŠ; cf. McMahon 1991a:245f.

[E.R.]

Checked against photographs in the Konkordanz (except ABoT 3). – Deletion of final -iš in KUB 2.1 ii 47 for syntactic reasons (thus already HW 2nd ed.:350).

[E.R.]

In the past decades a consensus developed that the substantivized adjective ḫantiyašša/i- is the designation of a topographic feature (Neu 1977a:247, McMahon 1991a: 245f., CLL:53, Oettinger 2007b:544). Neu does not venture a more precise translation, McMahon (followed by Oettinger) suggests ‘lake’ or ‘pond’, because no other word is known for these bodies of water, and finally, Melchert (CLL:53) considers ‘foothills’ (cf. NHG ‘Vorgebirge’) based on the obvious connection with ḫanti(ya)- ‘of the forehead; preeminent, first’.
It is certainly not accidental that the ḫantiyašša-, as a possible hiding place of the Tutelary Deity, is listed immediately after the river (before the wells) in KBo 20.107 + KBo 23.50, while at the same time, the deities of the ḫantiyašša- follow the River, the Tutelary Deity of the River, and the deities of the River in KUB 9.21 and ABoT 3. Therefore, it seems likely that the ḫantiyašša- is part of or close to the river. Considering that the Tutelary Deity hid away in the ḫantiyašša-, it seems reasonable to identify it with the ‘overgrown fringe of a river’ (at a time when Anatolia was still densely forested). The meaning ‘overgrown fringe of a river’ of ḫantiyašša/i- presupposes a meaning of its base word ḫanti(ya)- as something similar to ‘(belonging to the) edge’ (aside from ‘belonging to the forehead, front’) or rather a stem *ḫantiya- c. with individualized semantics ‘front position, edge’ (for other derivatives of this stem see under ḫantiyā(i)-^(mi) and ḫantiyara-).
The hiding place chosen by the Tutelary Deity gave rise to his epithet, which is mentioned in the list of Tutelary Deities in KUB 2.1 ii 47. Accordingly, ḫantiyaššašša/i- in ša la-ba-[ar]-na-ḫa-an-te-ia-aš-ša-aš-ši<iš> ^dLAMMA-i modifies ^dLAMMA in the first place, but the position of the phrase in the list of Tutelary Deities between the Tutelary Deities of decision and lordliness on the one hand, and the Tutelary Deity of attack on the other evokes an association of ḫantiyašša- with the preeminent position (social and/or in battle) of the Labarna. This is yet another instance of intended word-play.Outdated is the translation ‘male’ by Goetze 1951a:273f. n. 82 (cited in HW 2nd ed.: 350 and DLL:40), which was based on the alleged parallel KUB 20.48 vi 13; cf. Neu 1977a:274, McMahon 1991a:245f. Archi’s (Archi 1975a:96) proposal ‘del particolare (?)’ is probably derived from the meaning of ḫanti ‘apart’, but is now obsolete, too, because the attestations of KBo 20.107 + KBo 23.50 have been added in the meantime.

[E.R.]

Synchronically, no formal clue exists to decide between a substantivized singular of the genitival adjective of ḫantiyašša/i- or its collective plural, but both semantics and the recursive derivation with -ašša/i- in KUB 2.1 ii 47 point to the latter alternative. The stem ḫantiyašša- itself is based on relational adjective ḫanti(ya)-.

[E.R.]

The use of the suffix -ašša/i- and the fact that ḫantiyašša- is firmly anchored in the Luwian word family of ḫant(i)- lead to its categorization as a Luwian lexeme.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see PAnat. *Hant-.