*u̯esHézzā-

Hapax in a Luwian myth (MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.

wa-aš-ḫa-az‹-za-aš›

KUB 35.107 iii 10’

(CTH 764, MS)

The attestation follows CLL:264 (cf. Laroche 1959a:109, van Gessel 1998a:700, and HEG U-Z:391) checked against the photograph of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The emendation of wa-aš-ḫa-az (which served as the base for the assumption of an -(n)t-stem by Meriggi 1957a:196, Laroche 1959a:109, and Tischler 2008a:223) into wa-aš-ḫa-az‹-za-aš› was proposed by Starke 1985b:238 n. 130 and is generally accepted (CLL:264; Torri 2010a:387; Yakubovich 2013b:162; Asan 1988a [2014a]:109; García Trabazo 2014b:299 [although with a misprint as i̯a-aš-ḫa-az-za^!-aš^!]; Steitler 2017a:392; HEG U-Z:391), but ignored by van Gessel 1998a:700. Although an emendation is strictly speaking not necessary, it is logical since it is an epithet of ^DLAMMA, which otherwise appears as either wašḫaya/i- or wašḫazza- (see s.vv.).

[Zs.S.]

Setting aside those scholars who did not translate this word (Dinçol & Darga 1969-1970a:101; Starke 1990a:54, 273; McMahon 1991a:59 n. 26) and the false translation ‘Herr(schender)’ by Meriggi 1957a:196 (followed by Laroche 1959a:109, 160 [here even ‘dame’ with question mark] and García Trabazo 2014b:299, for its critique see s.v. wašḫaya/i-), the term is generally translated as ‘sanctified’ and/or ‘holy’ (CLL:264; Hutter 2003a:257; Torri 2010a:387; Tischler 2016a:429, HEG U-Z:391 [‘geheiligt’, abandoning his earlier proposal ‘mächtig’ with question mark, Tischler 2008a:223]; similarly Ünal 2007a:794, Ünal 2016a:587, connecting it with wašḫaya/i- ‘pure, sacral’ with a question mark). Yakubovich 2013b:161f. went one step further and translated it as ‘most benevolent’ being a derivative of wašḫaya/i- ‘devoted, benevolent, consecrated’ (the two approaches were combined by Steitler 2017a:393, who translates it as ‘most holy’). Melchert has also modified his views and now assumes a more specific meaning ‘patron’ from ‘*the one who is consecrated > dedicated to an individual person’ (Melchert 2015a:409f.).

The term is attested (in both Luwian and Hittite) exclusively as the epithet of ^DLAMMA and thus, there is no independent evidence for its meaning. Contra Yakubovich, it cannot be a derivative of wašḫaya/i- since -aya- is not contracted into -a- in Luwian, the underlying stem can only be wašḫa-. Moreover, since wašḫa- is a substantive, probably an implement, and does not mean anything sacred (see s.v.), wašḫazza- cannot be the comparative and -zza- its suffix. Instead, one can propose a derivation by the -azza- agent noun suffix from wašḫa- (Sasseville 2014-2015a:107‒109, cf. already Melchert 1990a:202). Since this suffix does not have i-mutation, it regularly leads to the attested form, unlike the analysis as a comparative adjective, because in that case i-mutation is expected, but it is not attested. Although Melchert’s new proposal as ‘patron’ could be an agent noun, there is no evidence for its semantic basis (see above) and it is not clear how such a meaning could be derived from an implement. All in all, until the precise meaning of wašḫa- is not established, also the meaning of this word must remain open.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 24 November 2020

Attested in a Hittite festival description and similar fragments (NS and LNS).

[Zs.S.]

dat.-loc. sg.	wa-aš-ḫa-az-za	KUB 25.32 i 7	(CTH 681, LNS)
	wa-aš-ḫa-za	KBo 21.54, 10’.21’	(CTH 642, NS)
unknown	˹wa˺[-aš-]˹ḫa˺-za	KBo 34.186, 6’ +KBo 21.54, 3’	(CTH 642, NS)
	wa-aš-˹ḫa˺[-	KBo 21.54, 9’	(CTH 642, NS)

The attestations follow CLL:264 and HEG U-Z:390f. (cf. also Laroche 1959a:109, McMahon 1991a:58 n. 26, van Gessel 1998a:700) checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. van Gessel 1998a:700 adds “u̯ašḫaza” in KUB 48.105 rev. 31, but the editors of the text read x-ḫal^?-ḫa-za (Archi & Klengel 1980a:146, also Cammarosano 2018a:284 ignoring van Gessel), which is supported by the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (and the hand copy). It is not a dative plural, contra McMahon 1991a:50, 58 n. 26, who assumes a Luwian dative plural ending -nza “assimilated to -zza”, which normally does not happen in Luwian. Since it always appears as an epithet of a single Tutelary Deity, there is no reason to assume a plural ending.

[Zs.S.]

As an epithet of ^DLAMMA, the word is identical to Luwian wašḫazza- (see under Origin), see there for discussion.

[Zs.S.]

Although the word is not included in the collections of Luwianisms in Hittite texts (Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a), it is generally assumed to be of Luwian origin since it is identical to Luwian wašḫazza- (CLL:264; van Gessel 1998a:700; Yakubovich 2013b:162; HEG U-Z:390; Ünal 2007a:794, Ünal 2016a:587 [as a derivative of wašḫa(ya)-, with question mark]).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 24 November 2020

This lexeme is found in the grave inscription of Ijetruxle.

[D.S.]

nom. sg.

wasaza

TL 38.4 (Xanthos)

On contextual grounds, wasaza was recognized very early as a title in apposition to the personal name Ijetruxle. Laroche 1967a:62 connects it etymologically with the Luwian word wašḫa- c. and its derivatives. Because Luw. wašḫa- was thought to mean ‘holy’, Lycian wasaza- was translated as ‘priest’ (Hajnal 1998a:88, Melchert (DLL:78), Melchert 2015a:410, left untranslated by Gehrisch 2018a:56f. and Christiansen 2020a:197).

While it is clear that Lycian wasaza- c. equates to Luw. wašḫazza- c., the actual meaning of the two lexemes remains unclear.

[D.S.]

The noun is built with the agent suffix -aza- c., which is productive in forming designations for professions (Hajnal 2003a:193, Sasseville 2014-2015a:107-109).

[D.S.]

1. šawwasτa-