*u̯esHā-

1. /washa(d^?)-/
2. /washai(ya)-/

Attested in Luwian rituals (MS and NS).

[Zs.S.]

The attestations follow CLL:263 checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The restoration ˹wa˺[-aš-ḫa] follows Melchert 2015a:409 as the grammatically correct restoration required also by the parallel structure of the sentence (see under Meaning) instead of Starke’s wa-a[š-ḫa-an and wa-a[š-ḫa-i-i̯a-an (Starke 1985b:361 with n. 8). The grammatical definition follows Melchert 2015a:411.

[Zs.S.]

Setting aside the cases without translation (van den Hout 2001a:168) or with formally and semantically wrong translation (Laroche 1959a:109 [“maître ?”, connecting it with Hittite išḫa- ‘lord’], followed by Kronasser 1966a:328 [“erus”] and Ünal 2016a:975, rejected by Hawkins 2000a:153 without arguments), a sacral meaning is generally assumed in the research: ‘sacralized object’ vel sim. (CLL:263, followed by Hawkins 2000a:153; EDHIL:862, 900; Giusfredi 2010b:232; Francia 2014a:8; similarly Tischler 2008a:223, Tischler 2016a:429 [“ein Kultobjekt?”], HEG U-Z:390 [“eine Art geheiligter Gegenstand”]) or ‘consecrated objects, sacra’ (Melchert 2003c:148, Melchert 2015a:409f., followed by Yakubovich 2013b:161 [who assumed earlier ‘sacrifice’ vel sim., Yakubovich 2010d:219]; cf. also Hutter 2003a:257 [“referring either to the divine or the sacred sphere”]).

Although Hieroglyphic Luwian has at least one homophonous word, its meaning is heavily debated (see s.v.) and thus, it cannot be helpful. The same applies to the derivatives of wašḫa- in Cuneiform transmission (wašḫaya- and wašḫazza-) since they appear either as the epithet of ^DLAMMA or in an opaque context (see s.vv. and see below) and thus, we have no independent evidence for their literal meaning. Accordingly, only the contexts remain for the definition of its meaning and they do not prove the sacral meaning.

In KBo 7.68 ii 4’ its referent is not clear, the text simply claims that “There are wašḫa [above] and there are w[ašḫa] also below” ([šarra] wašḫa ānnan=ḫa w[ašḫa], Melchert 2015a:409). Before and after this sentence there is a long list of wooden objects (including a table), bread types, a vessel, morsel, wine, and people (baker, drink-server, chamberlain) who are all wašḫaya-. It is of course possible that they are all “consecrated”, as it is usually translated (see s.v.), but there is no evidence for this meaning. Alternatively, wašḫa collectively refers to (a part of) these implements and wašḫaya-, as an appurtenance adjective from wašḫa- simply means that these belong or are connected to wašḫa-. The third possibility is that wašḫa-, the object, and wašḫa-, the base of wašḫaya-, are only homophonous (and were used, for instance to create an alliteration).

This alternative proposal of wašḫa- as an object is supported by the other context as well. Here it appears in the following sentence (KUB 35.54 ii 31’-32’, transliteration following Starke 1985b:67):

zāwi ziyar NUMUN^ḪI.A-na [p]ūnāta inzagān wašḫa

‘here lie all the seeds, the rakes (?) (and) w.’

This sentence refers to “all the seeds” and to a list of only partially identified five objects (partly probably agricultural implements, cf. below) of the previous paragraph, all presented for the ritual. As discussed s.v., īnzagan- refers to some of these objects, although only the first one and third one among them can be more or less identified as a rake and as a shovel, respectively (see HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:8 s.v. ^(GIŠ)ḫaḫḫara-, ^(GIŠ)ḫaḫra-, ^(GIŠ)ḫaḫḫar-, and I:65–67 s.v. ^(GIŠ)int/daluz(z)i-, resp., cf. also CHD L-N:319 s.v. ^(GIŠ)muil(a)-, the fourth one is broken off). Either īnzagan- refers to all of these implements (as a generic term or as a pars pro toto, also because it seems to mean something like ‘rake’, see s.v.) and wašḫa is then a collective description of all these objects (like the proposed ‘consecrated things’ or Tischler’s “Verehrungswürdige” [HEG U-Z:391]) or both words refer to these objects, in the case of wašḫa at least to the last two tools in order to explain its plural (also EDHIL:862, 900 interprets wašḫa- as referring to other objects, but he identifies these objects with things mentioned before the seeds and maintains Melchert’s translation).

A decision is provided now by the identification of wašḫa- as an object made of silver in a Hittite inventory list by Melchert (see s.v.). Accordingly, wašḫa in KUB 35.54 indeed refers to certain implements, probably including the shovel, as it can hardly be referred to by a word for ‘rake’ and since there are different shovels, they might have been expressed by different words in Hittite and referred to by a collective form in Luwian. An object also fits the long list of objects in KBo 7.68. It must remain open whether a shovel-like object is fitting since the meaning of these words are unknown (see s.vv. tīran-, talla-, zappalālla-). On the implications for wašḫaya- and Hieroglyphic Luwian washa- see s.vv.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 24 November 2020

1. wašḫaya/i-
2. wašḫašša[
3. wašḫašaur-
4. wašḫat(t)a- (?)
5. wašḫazza-
6. wašḫē-

Rejected derivatives and loanwords:

1. wašḫar-
2. oski
3. †*/woha-/

Hapax in a NS inventory text.

[Zs.S.]

The attestation follows Melchert (pers. comm.) checked against the photograph of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Note that although the word is preceded by the number 2 in the text, the lack of congruence (in this case, inanimate commune nouns in singular despite the number) is a recurring feature of the inventory lists (Rieken 2013a:331).

[Zs.S.]

Since the fragment containing this word has been published only (Akdoğan 2016a:103), the word is not included yet in the Hittite dictionaries. The text is an inventory fragment, which mentions two silver w., and thus, it must be an object. Considering that its Cuneiform Luwian equivalent refers to implements (see s.v.), this probably applies to this case. This is supported by its context at least in the sense of implements since the other entry of this line mentions two silver sieves (and wašḫa- is preceded by silver libation vessel(s)). Melchert’s proposal (pers. comm.), ‘pledge, votive object’ for both words is not supported by either contexts.

[Zs.S.]

Due to the recent publication of the fragment (Akdoğan 2016a:103), the word has not been discussed yet. Melchert (pers. comm.) identifies it as Luwian, which is correct, considering the Cuneiform Luwian equivalent (see s.v.).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 24 November 2020

1. wasaza-

1. woskij

1. šawwasτa-