*ūḫḫa-

Reconstructed from personal names attested in several Hittite texts from MS until NS (in annals, in a treaty, in a letter, in an oracle report, and in a ritual).

[Zs.S.]

mU-uḫ-ḫa-LÚ(-iš/in)	KBo 3.4 ii 19 (et alibi)	(CTH 61, NS)
mU-uḫ-ḫa-LÚ	KBo 4.10 rev. 30	(CTH 106, NS)
mUḫ-ḫa-mu-u-wa	HT 1 ii 17	(CTH 410, NS)
	KUB 9.31 ii 43	(CTH 410, NS)
	Or. 93/20 obv. 2	(CTH 188, MS)
	KUB 16.70, 11’	(CTH 577, NS)
[mUḫ-ḫa]-mu-u-wa	KUB 16.70, 6’	(CTH 577, NS)
mUḫ-ḫa-A.A	KUB 5.20 i 7	(CTH 577, NS)
mUḫ-ḫa-am-mu-u-wa	KUB 41.17 ii 18’	(CTH 410, NS)
mUḫ-ḫa-wa-ra-nu-uš	Or. 93/20, obv. 12	(CTH 188, MS)

The attestations follow Laroche 1966b:195 §1411f., Yakubovich 2010d:88, 91 (“Uḫḫa-zalma” quoted on p. 91 does not exist [Zehnder 2010a:87 n. 117; Hawkins 2013a:8, 14; Gander 2017b:208 n. 36] and it was retracted in Yakubovich 2011b:184), and Gander 2017b:208, checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (the Ortaköy texts are not readable on the photographs published in Süel 2014a:Fig. 1 & 2).

[Zs.S.]

Although the element was identified as early as 1954 by A. Goetze (Götze 1954a:79, but his comparative analysis is outdated, see Gander 2017b:208 n. 37), it was only Yakubovich 2010d:91 who proposed a meaning seeing a “variant” of the Luwian word ḫūḫa- ‘grandfather’ in it (he explained ūḫḫa- as a proto-Lydian form based on the loss of the initial laryngeal, Yakubovich 2010d:93) and identified it as a word from the vernacular of Arzawa being restricted to that region (followed by Gander 2017b:207 regarding the identification). His proposed meaning failed to convince other scholars (Zehnder 2010a:87 [“unklar”]; Hawkins 2013a:8 [“questionable”; according to him the dissimilation of the laryngeals cannot be excluded]; Gander 2017b:208 [“möglich, aber nicht beweisbar”]), although no specific counter-arguments were produced.

The key question is if this element is really restricted to Arzawa. While Ūḫḫa-LÚ (of KBo 3.4 ii 19 et alibi) was a king of Arzawa, Uḫḫa-mūwa (of HT 1 ii 17 = KUB 9.31 ii 43 = KUB 41.17 ii 18’) was an Arzawan ritual practitioner, and Uḫḫa-waranu appears in Western Anatolian context, Ūḫḫa-LÚ (of KBo 4.10 rev. 30) was a Hittite prince and Uḫḫa-mūwa of the Ortaköy letter was the author of a letter to the Hittite king, without any known affiliation (an officer of the Hittite ruler?), and the same applies to the augur(s) Uḫḫa-mūwa in KUB 16.70, 6’.11’ and KUB 5.20 i 7. Yakubovich 2010d:91 n. 16 explained the name of the Hittite prince as “probably” a “borrowing of a western Anatolian personal name in the period after the annexation of Arzawa”; the name from the Ortaköy letter with the argument that “[t]he context of the letter makes it likely that he was a ruler of a vassal kingdom located on the western periphery of the Hittite state”; and the name of the augur with the argument that the known importance of augury in Western Anatolia is compatible with a Western Anatolian origin. However, nothing requires that the author of the letter was a vassal ruler and even if this was the case, his kingdom was not necessarily located in or around Arzawa (also Hawkins 2013a:8 rejects Yakubovich’s description, but maintains that Uḫḫa-mūwa was an Arzawan). The explanation of the name of the Hittite prince as a borrowing is of course a possibility, but this is in fact a petitio principii (not “probably”). Finally, there is no evidence that the augur himself had Western Anatolian origins and no Western Anatolian background was needed to become an augur. In other words, an unbiased look at the evidence can only conclude that there is a Luwic element ūḫḫa-, which is attested both in Luwian names in Central Anatolia and in Luwic names in Western Anatolia (just like many other elements, e.g. ziti- or mūwa-). Accordingly, this word cannot be a cognate of the Luwian word for ‘grandfather’ and thus, is of unknown meaning.

[Zs.S.]