kulawani-

Hapax in the Milawata letter (LNS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	˹ku-la˺-wa-ni-ìš	KUB 19.55 + KUB 48.90 rev. 43’	(CTH 182, LNS)
	ku-la-wa-ni-ìš	KUB 19.55 rev. 44’	(CTH 182, LNS)

The attestations follow CLL:106 (cf. also Friedrich 1952a:115 and Ünal 2007a:359, Ünal 2016a:290), with KUB 19.55 + KUB 48.90 rev. 43’ added, checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Starke 1990a:236 n. 805 adds [k]u-la-wa-ni-iš from KBo 22.201 v 2 (“perhaps”, according to CLL:106), but this is to be read as [^dŠ]a-la-wa-ni-iš due to KUB 10.89 rev. i 14’-15’, as rightly pointed out by Klinger 1996a:355, 357 with n. 4 (and followed by Groddek 2008a:198).

Melchert emends the form in KUB 19.55 rev. 44’ as ku-la-wa-‹an›-ni-eš following Starke 1990a:236, obviously due to etymological reasons (cf. under Origin): this is not only methodologically doubtful (and based on false etymology, see under Origin), but also unsupported by the text which shows in both cases only ku-la-wa-ni-ìš (nevertheless, the unjustified geminate spelling is used by other authors too, see Friedrich 1952a:115; Ünal 2007a:359, Ünal 2016a:290; Freu 2008a:133, 134, Freu 2013a:134, 136, Freu 2014a:86). Since the word is clearly a nom. sg. c. (for context see under Meaning) the transcription ku-la-wa-né-eš used by Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:129, although not entirely impossible, is statistically speaking improbable.

[Zs.S.]

The word is attested in the following text (KUB 19.55 + KUB 48.90, rev. 41’-44’, transcription (slightly modified) and translation following Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:128f., but without the unjustified emendation ki-nu-na-aš‹-ša-aš› in line 42’ and without the unnecessary emendation [k]i-nu-na-aš‹-ša-aš› in 43’, for the spelling of kulawani- see under Form):

^(41’) nu-mu-kán DUMU-I̯A ^mWa-al^!-mu-un pa-ra-a na-a-i na-an EGIR-pa I-NA ^KUR˹Wi₅-lu˺-ša ^(42’) LUGAL-iz-na-ni te₉-eḫ-ḫi na-aš ka-ru-ú GIM-an LUGAL ^KURWi₅-lu-ša e-eš-ta ki-nu-na-aš QA-TAM-M[A e-eš-du] ^(43’) nu-un-na-ša-aš ka-ru-ú GIM-an ARAD^DUM ˹ku-la˺-wa-ni-ìš ˹e˺-[eš-ta k]i-nu-na-aš QA-TAM-MA ^(44’) ARAD ku-la-wa-ni-ìš e-eš-du

“Turn Walmu over to me, my son, so that I may reinstall him in kingship in the land of Wilusa. [He shall] now be king of the land of Wilusa, as he was formerly. He shall now be our k. vassal, as he [was] formerly.”

Many scholars leave this word untranslated and without references to the proposed solutions (Garstang – Gurney 1959a:115; Bryce 1985a:13 n. 3 [“uncertain”], Bryce 2005a:476 n. 64 [but see below]; Freu 2008a:133, 134, Freu 2013a:134, 136, Freu 2014a:86; Hoffner 2009a:319 [but see below]; Gander 2017b:369, 529 [but see below]), only few of them referred to at least some of the suggestions (Hoffner 1982a:132, 135 n. 14 [followed by Hagenbuchner 1989a:367]; Devecchi 2015b:164).

Nevertheless, these suggestions are numerous, starting from ‘tributpflichtig’ of Forrer 1929a:235f. (see here 234f. for the criticism of outdated readings) and ‘treu, ergeben’ of Sommer 1932a:225, who, however, rather opted for ‘Unter(vasall)’ (followed by Friedrich 1952a:115, with question mark, a meaning that is still echoed among the possibilities by Ünal 2007a:359 and Tischler 2008a:92 [“(Unter?)Vasall”]). The most widespread translation is based on the proposal of Starke 1990a:236, who booked the word as kulawann(i)- ‘aus dem Heer stammend, im Heeresdienst stehend’, from an alleged Luwian word ku(wa)la- ‘army’ – this idea originates actually from Bossert 1958a:118 (‘heerespflichtig < zum Heere gehörige’, (similarly to Starke Tischler 2008a:92 [cf. also above], but later [Tischler 2016a:173] simply ‘vassal’ with question mark [sc. in military service] and Ünal 2007a:359 [‘military, zum Heer gehörig^?’, cf. also above]). This was basically followed by CLL:106, who has given, however, a more general meaning ‘of the army, military’ and since then the meaning ‘military’ as ‘military vassal’ in the above quoted text has been widely adopted (HED K:239; Gander 2010a:161, 166 with n. 649 [although not translating and referring to Steiner’s view too, cf. below]; Beckman 1999a:145 and in Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:129 [he does not refer to the other proposals]).

Although Hawkins 1998a:19 with n. 88 also translated the word as ‘military’, he noted that its literal meaning was ‘soldier’. This coincides with Starke’s more recent translation as ‘soldier’ (Starke apud Latacz 2010a:169). As far as the above text is concerned, while Hawkins assumed a compound ‘soldier-servant’, Starke suggested an asyndetic construction “Vassal (und) Soldat”.

However, Steiner 2007a:col. 603 with n. 92 argued that this word cannot be attributive or an apposition to ARAD, because it does not precede it. Since it follows ARAD, it must be a predicative adjective. As for the meaning he argues that “As it characterizes the same relation of the king of Wiluša to two other kings in a positive sense, the meaning cannot be other than “neutral”.”

Finally, Bryce 2003a:81, although claiming that the meaning is “not clear”, provided the following description: “it was probably part of the terminology used to indicate a new power-sharing arrangement in the west, with a local ruler being granted direct authority over at least one other vassal kingdom in the region”.

Steiner’s grammatical observation is undoubtedly correct and excludes the old translation ‘Untervasall’, the compound ‘soldier-servant’ of Hawkins, and the traditional translation ‘military vassal’. Note that any military connection is gratuitous due to the problem that this word cannot be derived from the Luwian word for army, i.e. ku(wa)lana-, see the discussion under Origin. Finally, the translation ‘military vassal’, i.e. the qualification of the vassal as ‘military’ does not make sense, since every vassal king of the Hittite Great King was by definition a military vassal of the Great King as they were obliged to supply military units to the Hittite army, as it is well-known from the vassal treaties (the same applies to the proposal ‘tributpflichtig’ of Forrer, see already Bossert 1958a:118).

Although the translation ‘soldier’ would fit both as a predicative as well as an asyndetic construction (and may also fit semantically), the problem is again that there is no linguistic connection to the Luwian military terminology.

Steiner’s translation as ‘neutral’ is possible both grammatically and semantically, but implausible from a contextual point of view: we are dealing with a vassal king to be restored and thus it is hardly probable that his new overlord expects only mere neutrality and not real allegiance. Sommer’s first proposal (‘treu, ergeben’) would also fit grammatically and semantically, but he himself rightly pointed out that one rather expects here the legal description of vassaldom.

Finally, Bryce’s description provides a formally and contextually fitting solution, especially since it explains the unexpected plural of the overlords. Bryce’s description can be turned into the simple meaning ‘joint, common’, as a predicative adjective of the sentence (lit. ‘just as he w[as] common as a vasall for us’), leading to the following translation: “Just as he w[as] our common vassal previously, so shall he be (our) common vasall”.

[Zs.S.]

It is generally agreed by those scholars who discuss the origin of this word that we are dealing with a Luwian loanword in Hittite (CLL:106, Melchert 2005a:451; although not included in the list of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2007a; cf. already Hoffner 1982a:135 n. 14: “presumably Luwian”) from the Luwian word ku(wa)la- ‘army’ with the -wann(i)- appurtenance suffix (Bossert 1958a:118; Starke 1990a:236; Tischler 2008a: 92) or from the Luwian word ku(wa)lana- ‘army’ with the same suffix and haplology (HED K:239). However, this explanation can be safely discarded: there is no Luwian word ku(wa)la- ‘army’ (cf. already Klinger 1996a:357 n. 4 and see the discussions s.vv. Hieroglyphic Luwian kuwalana- ‘army’ and the Glossenkeilwort kula-), there is no identical syllable that could have been deleted by haplology in case of a derivation from ku(wa)lana-, the single spelling of the nasal is not conducive to the identification of a suffix -wann(i)- and, most importantly, this word does not mean ‘military’ and have no similar associations, as per above (see the discussion under Meaning).

Since the etymology of this word is unknown, currently there is no indication to the alleged Luwian origin of this word.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 28 August 2020