/kuKisad(i)-/, ku-ki-sà-ti-

This lexeme is attested six times in inscriptions from Tabal and Karkamiš, dating from the 10^th or 9^th to the 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

The meaning of this word has so far remained in the dark beyond the observation that, due to the contexts of attestation, it is likely to denote an occupation. The most instructive context is probably KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §17d, which runs: ma-pa-wa/i-tà (DIES.OVIS)ku-ki-sà-ti-zi, approx. /man=ba=wa=ada kuKisadinzi/, translating in the context as ‘(The tool-masters whom Country-Lord Katuwa gave to this Tarhunza of Karkamiš, whether one is a sappantall(i)-, or whether one is a brewer, or whether one is a baker,) or whether they are kuKisad(i)-s …’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:110f., Bauer & Yakubovich 2023a:24). A number of scholars have put forward tentative proposals: Giusfredi 2010b:151 suggests ‘shepherd’ or ‘butcher’; Payne 2012a:76 n. 97 agrees, pointing out that the presence of the logogram DIES implies that the efforts by the denoted persons follows a strict daily or daytime routine; Yakubovich 2019a:552 suggests ‘comber’, following a remark in the unpublished version of Rostislav Oreshko’s doctoral dissertation; Simon 2019d:119-121 finds none of the suggestions satisfactory. Still, the KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §17d context mentions the present word as a plural, whereas all preceding trades are mentioned as singulars, suggesting that the temple may need more than one. Since the temple is endowed with one baker, one dairy person(?), and one brewer, it seems unlikely that more than one ´(ritualistic) butcher´ would be needed. Instead ´wool or fleece comber´ appears more appropriate from the context.

At least the spelling recorded in KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §17d suggests a connection with sheep, as does the context in KULULU lead strip 2, §1.2: 68 OVIS-na ^Ila-li-sá ^Imara/i-sà-ta-ia pi-ia-i ku-ki-sà-ta-za kwa/i-za wa/i-si-i, approx. /… hawin Lalis Marsattaya piyai kuKisadanz kwanza wasi/, probably meaning ‘Lali gives 68 sheep to Marsatta, so that he will buy (them) for the kuKisad(i)-s’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:510). However, the contexts do not force a link with sheep, and there are other attestations that do not mention any sheep at all. Hence, the meaning of the lexeme must remain open until further evidence has been unearthed.

[AH.B.]

The phonological shape of the word suggests it to be a probably secondary noun in /-ad(i)-/ (cf. Yakubovich 2015b:6.2), possibly from a stem */kuKisa-/ vel sim. Beyond that, no analysis is possible at present.

[AH.B.]