*wašḫē-

Reconstructed from personal names attested in the Old Assyrian Colony period documents.

[Zs.S.]

A-‹lá›-wa-áš-ḫe	TC 3.238a, 4
A-lá-wa-áš-ḫe	TC 3.238b, 5
Ku-al-ša-wa-áš-ḫe	AKT 10.9a, 5
	AKT 10.9b, 3 & 9
Ku-ul-ša-wa-áš-ḫe-e	kt m/k 170, 4 & 10
Li-li-wa-áš-ḫe	AKT 10.46a, 3
Ma-da-wa-áš-ḫe	BIN 6.52, 2
Ma-la-wa-áš-ḫe	AKT 10.55a, 16
Ma-la-wa[-	AKT 10.55b, 4
Ma-lá-wa-áš-ḫe	KUG 3, 13
	AKT 8.299, 3
	kt m/k 172, 5
Ma-lá-wa-áš-ḫe-e	kt m/k 172, 11
Ma-lá-wa-áš-ḫe-na	TC 1.100, 11
Ma-li-wa-aḫ-šé / Ma-li-wa-áš-ḫa / Ma-li-a-wa-áš-ḫe	Schmidt 1a, 1, 12 & 1b, 5
Ma-li-ì-wa-áš-ḫe	ICK 4.I 604, 21
Ma-wa-áš-ḫe	CCT 5.48b, 3
	CCT 5.48c, 5 & 8
Tí-ta-wa-áš-ḫe	kt j/k 288b, 1 & 12

The attestations follow Kloekhorst 2019b:63f. (cf. also Laroche 1966b:27, 110, 117f., Zehnder 2010a:97, 107, 206‒208, 219, 221, 291, and Yakubovich 2010d:220) checked against the hand copies (photos are available only for AKT 10.9 and 10.46), if applicable. Kloekhorst 2019b:63 n. 187 mentions that the now defunct Old Assyrian Prosopography Database read Ku-al-ša-wa-áš-ḫe as Ma-al-ša-wa-áš-ḫe. Instead, Kloekhorst’s reading is preferred here since it leads to an analysable name (see under Origin). Although the reading Ma-li-ni-wa-áš-ḫe preferred by Hecker & Kryszat & Matouš 1998a:190, Zehnder 2010a:208, and Kloekhorst 2019b:64 also leads to an analysable (theophoric) name (Zehnder 2010a:208 with refs.), it is the reading Ma-li-ì-wa-áš-ḫe of Yakubovich that is preferred here for economic reasons. Note that -wa-áš-ḫe is written with the ambiguous sign ḪE/I, but the plene spellings (Ku-ul-ša-wa-áš-ḫe-e and Ma-lá-wa-áš-ḫe-e) guarantee that it should not (as usually) be read here as ‹ḫi› but rather ‹ḫe› (Kloekhorst 2019b:64). Considering that Ma-li-wa-aḫ-šé, Ma-li-wa-áš-ḫa, and Ma-li-a-wa-áš-ḫe refer to same person, Ma-li-wa-áš-ḫa is probably a mistake (with Kloekhorst 2019b:64 n. 192), just like the metathesis in Ma-li-wa-aḫ-šé.

[Zs.S.]

If the analysis given under Origin is correct, this word is an adjective in -iya- from wašḫa-, but it is difficult to define its meaning more precisely, since the meaning of wašḫa- is only vaguely known (an implement, see the discussion s.v.).

[Zs.S.]

Based on Luwian compound names with wašḫa- as their second member, Garelli 1963a:139 and Laroche 1966b:326f. (followed by Zehnder 2010a:97f.) suggested that we are dealing here with the same construction. The suggestion of Yakubovich 2010d:219f. differed only in the word underlying the second element what he identified as the Luwian adjective wašḫaya- translating it as ‘sacred’. As for the first element of these names, he claimed that they are “frequently” divine names proposing “Gulsa” and Maliya, and “possibly” Ala and Lilaya. This analysis would lead to theophoric names such as “Sacred to Maliya”.

However, Kloekhorst 2019b:64f. rejected both proposals as well as the Luwian status of wašḫē- on the following grounds: He rightly pointed out that Laroche’s connection with wašḫa- is difficult due to the different vocalism of the second syllable. He also claimed that Yakubovich’s theophoric identifications are problematic, since “Gulsa” did not exist (which is correct being a misreading of GUL-š-, see now Waal 2019a) and Maliya can be found “in one attestation only, which is duplicated two times by mali-”. Nevertheless, exactly this circumstance shows that we are dealing with Maliya- since mali- shows its regular contracted by-form (see already Zehnder 2010a:208; the identification with Maliya was accepted also by Melchert 2015a:412).

Against the Luwian interpretation he offered two more arguments: First, that wašḫē- has [e], although Luwian did not have a phoneme /e/. However, Kloekhorst overlooked that Rieken 2017a:27 demonstrated that [e] does appear in Luwian as an allophon of /i/, among others precisely after ‹ḫ›, i.e. in a position identical to that in wašḫē-. Second, he claimed that “none of the other initial elements (…) look very Luwian. In fact, they seem to show strange alternations (there is ala- next to mala-; there is ma- vs. mada- vs. mala- vs. mali- vs. malina-), which do not look Luwic”. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that these elements have anything to do with each other or that they represent alternations, and also Kloekhorst did not provide any. On the contrary, there is considerable literature on these elements ignored by Kloekhorst providing convincing interpretations for most of these elements, separately: setting aside malina- and mali- that were explained above, Ala can easily be and was already identified either as a theonym (as per Yakubovich and already by Götze 1954a:76) or as the name of a settlement (Laroche 1966b:272; Nashef 1991a:6; Melchert 2013c:37), which might be more probable in view of the ethnic suffix in the name Alawanni (Zehnder 2010a:107, who also calls attention to further possibilities, including the Lallname Ala also attested in the Old Assyrian Colony period; Garelli 1963a:139 left the question open). Furthermore, also Mala can be identified as a geographical name (the river Māla / Euphrates [already Zehnder 2010a:206f. with refs.] and, due to the Anatolian perception, even as a theophoric name) just as Mada (the Central Anatolian settlement of Mata-, in the border area of Tarḫuntašša, see already Nashef 1991a:84 and Zehnder 2010a:219 for further possible connections).

The remaining cases are *kualša- / *kulša-, *lili- (since Lilaya does not lead to lili-, contra Yakubovich), *ma-, and *tita- as well as the problem how to explain wašḫē- < wašḫī- from wašḫaya-. These are not insurmountable problems. In case of the first elements:

1. A root *kulša- (which may be a regularly contracted form of *kualša-) is attested also in other Anatolian names from the Old Assyrian Colony period (kulšat- / kulšan-, an -ant-derivative from a substantive *kulša-, Kloekhorst 2019b:41f., 87‒89, who himself proposed this connection [Kloekhorst 2019b:89 n. 381], the contemporary name Kulzia might also belong here, for different approaches see Zehnder 2010a:194 and Kloekhorst 2019b: 58).
2. *lili- might be an -iya- derivative of Luwian līla- ‘pacification, conciliation vel sim.’ (see s.v.) or the Lallname Lilli (Laroche 1966b:107 No. 699).
3. *ma- might be the Luwian cognate of Carian *ma- ‘much?’ in Μα-υσσωλλος (see s.v.) that (or its derivative) might even be attested in Hieroglyphic Luwian (cf. Melchert 2013c:41 and the discussion s.v.; Zehnder’s explanation of Mawašḫe, the inability of the scribe to write a rhotacised *Madawašḫi is completely ad hoc [see already Simon 2011c:350], just like the idea of Matouš 1959a:183, an “Abkürzung” of Malawašḫi or Malwašḫi [sic]).
4. *tita- formally fits Luwian *tita- ‘breast, teat’ (Zehnder 2010a:98, 291f. with semantic parallel) underlying *tit(a)i- ‘nurse, suckle’ attested in titaimm(i)- ‘nurturing’ (cf. CLL:228 and s.v.).

As regards wašḫē- < wašḫī-, *wašḫī- is a regular by-form of *wašḫiya-, but not that of wašḫaya- and thus, Yakubovich’s analysis should be abandoned (Zehnder’s proposal [Zehnder 2010a:98], an i-mutated stem is not convincing since wašḫa- is a non-mutating stem, see s.v.). Both *wašḫiya- and wašḫaya- are regular but different derivatives of the same underlying word, wašḫa- and also Sidetic woskij <*wašḫiya- supports the existence of a Proto-Luwic *wasḫiya- (see the discussion s.v.). Since the basic meaning of wašḫa- is not entirely clear (cf. under Meaning and s.v.), it is difficult to define precisely the overall semantics of these names until this issue is not clarified (Malawašḫena is a regular hypochoristic form of Malawašḫe, Zehnder 2010a:207).

All in all, *wašḫē- is clearly an element of Anatolian compound names and since it can regularly be derived from a Luwian adjective and some first elements might even be Luwian (*lili-, *ma-, and *tita-), it is probable that we are indeed dealing with a Luwian word.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 24 November 2020