/massanam(i)-/

This lexeme is attested twice, with both attestations located in Tell Ahmar and dating to the late 10^th or early 9^th century BCE.

[AH.B.]

This lexeme escaped correct interpretation for a long time due to its infrequency in the HLuw. texts as well as the fact that the earlier discovered one of its two attestations, i.e. TELL AHMAR 5, features an otherwise unattested logogram. Formerly read as CORNU+CAPUT (*108+*10), this sign is now read as PROPHETA after the attestation in the later discovered TELL AHMAR 6 shed light on the underlying HLuw. word, viz. /massanam(i)-/, because it uses the logogram DEUS /massan(i)-/‘god’. The general drift of the meaning of the word was already clear to Hawkins (Hawkins 2000a:233) when he suggested an interpretation as ‘the god’s spokesman’ and connected it semantically to Hitt. ^LÚDINGIR-LIM ‘priest’, interpreting the sign, a man’s head with horns, to depict the professional dress of such a person. The meaning of the CLuw. cognate maššanām(i)- is, because of its hapax status, not entirely clear.

[AH.B.]

The lexeme is derived from /massan(i)-/ ‘god’ by way of the suffix -am(i)-, which denotes appurtenance (Melchert 2003b:195; Melchert 2014d:208f; Steer 2015a:53 n. 198).

The recently reiterated view of /massanam(i)-/ as a participle (Poetto 2014a:795; thus also HED M:93f.) is based on the erroneous conflation of the Luwian nominal suffix /-am(i)-/ and the participial suffix /-mma/i-/ which are spelt the same in HLuw, but not in CLuw.

[AH.B.]

Hapax in two manuscripts of a Hittite festival text (MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	LÚ!ma-aš-ša-na-a-mi-˹iš˺	KBo 14.89 i 3’	(CTH 693, MS)
	[LÚma-aš-ša-na-a-mi-]˹iš˺	KBo 20.68 i 8	(CTH 693, MS)

The attestation follows CLL:143 and CHD L-N:204 (cf. also Ünal 2007a:437, Ünal 2016a:344; not included in Laroche 1959a:69f.) checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Starke’s emendation (Starke 1986a:col. 164 [“gewiß”, sic], Starke 1990a:167) into ^LÚma-aš-ša-na-a‹-i›-mi-iš (accepted by Ünal 2016a:964) is unnecessary and in the meanwhile turned out to be false, see under Origin.

[Zs.S.]

Based on its context this word undoubtedly refers to a cultic functionary, but no details can be given (CHD L-N:204; HED M:93; Hutter 2003a:218; Ünal 2007a:437, Ünal 2016a:344; Tischler 2008:114, Tischler 2016a:216 [“maître du dieu”]; without meaning in CLL:143, but see below). For its literal meaning see under Origin, for a possible interpretation see the discussion under the Hieroglyphic Luwian equivalent (the meaning ‘god-inspired priest, seer’ assumed for this word was applied also to the Cuneiform Luwian word by Melchert 2014d:209).

[Zs.S.]

There is general agreement that this word is of Luwian origin (Laroche 1967b:176; Starke 1986a:col. 164, Starke 1990a:167; CLL:143; CHD L-N:204 [cautiously]; Hutter 2003a:218 [implicitly]; Tischler 2008a:114, Tischler 2016a:216; Poetto 2014a:795, although not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2006a), but there are differences regarding the precise derivation. On the one hand, Laroche 1967b:176 and Starke 1986a:col. 164, Starke 1990a:167 claim that this is the participle of a denominative verb (“*maššani̯i-/maššanai̯i-” according to Starke) from Luwian maššan(i)- ‘god’ (see s.v.) and Starke even emends the form into ^LÚma-aš-ša-na-a‹-i›-mi-iš. Starke is followed by HED M:93f. and Poetto 2014a:795, but without the emendation, which is clearly not necessary and refuted now by the Hieroglyphic Luwian equivalent DEUS-na-mi-i-sa (TELL AHMAR 6 §22, see s.v.). On the other hand, CLL:143, Melchert 2003b:195 derives it with the -ama/i- suffix of appurtenance. While both solutions are formally possible, Melchert’s derivation is not only more economical, but also semantically attractive, unlike the assumption of a participle, the semantics of which remained unexplained and unintelligible. In both cases, however, this word is clearly a Luwian loan due to its Luwian stem and derivation.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 1 October 2020

For the lemma head see CLuw. maššan(i)-.