ḫaššanitt(i)-

The lexeme is broadly attested across genres and periods, in the Puriyanni ritual, the Kuwattalla tradition, the ašušatalla- rituals, and the Ištanuwa festival, from MS copies to those with NS sign forms.

[E.R.]

nom. sg.	ḫa-aš-ša-ni-it-ti-iš	KUB 35.54 ii 50’	(CTH 758, MS)
	[ḫ]a-aš-ša-ni-it-ti-iš	KUB 35.133 iii 20	(CTH 665, LNS)
	[G]UNNI-ti-iš	KUB 35.54 iii 29	(CTH 758, MS)
	GUNNI-[ti-iš]	KUB 35.54 iii 36	(CTH 758, MS)
	ḫa-aš-ša-ni-it-ti-in	KUB 35.94, 6’	(CTH 759, NS)
unknown	ḫa-aš-ša-ni-it-ta-x-x[	KUB 25.37 iv 14’	(CTH 771, NS)
	ḫa-aš-ša-n[i-	KUB 35.67 ii 4	(CTH 759, NS)

It is unclear whether ḫa-aš-ša-ni-it-ta-x-x[ at KUB 25.37 iv 14’ is a genitival adjective or a derivative of ḫaššanitt(i)-, but the fact that it attests the stem allomorph in -a- lends it some importance for the present lexeme.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Already Starke 1985b:349 n. 204 notes that Laroche’s (DLL:43) reading ḫa-aš-ša-ni-it-ta-aš-š[a^?-aš] at KUB 25.37 iv 14’ is not compatible with the remaining traces of the signs. No good alternative comes to mind.

[E.R.]

The recognition of the semantics goes back to Otten 1953a:54f., who shows that ḫaššanittiš is the reading of GUNNI-tiš ‘hearth’ (nom. sg.). The equivalence emerges from the parallel sequences at KUB 35.54 ii 49’-51’ (parnantinzi [ḫ]ūmmatis ḫaššanittiš ḫuwaḫḫuršantinzi tiyammiš) and ibid. iii 26-29 ([p]arnanza [DI]NGIR^MEŠ-inzi ḫūḫḫurša[nt]inzi [d]āruša tiyammiš ḫ[ū]mmatiš [GU]NNI-tiš ^GIŠkattaluz[zi]ša), in spite of the divergent order of the items, and is supported by the shared syllables of Hitt. ḫāššā- ‘hearth’ and ḫaššanitt(i)-. Later, Laroche 1957a:28 n. 38 adduced the pair of ḫaššanittiš warduliš at KUB 35.133 iii 20 and GUNNI-aš=war=an warduliš at KUB 7.13 i 20 in further support of ḫaššanitt(i)- ‘hearth’, adopted in the handbooks (DLL:43, HEG A-K:196, Starke 1990a:349 n. 204,  CLL:62, Tischler 2008a:50, HED H:223, EDHIL:322).

[E.R.]

The combination of i- and a-stem forms indicates that the word is a member of the mutating (concretized?) abstract stems in -tt(i)-. Also the root ḫāšš- and the primary suffix -a- (non-mutating) can probably be reconstructed on account of the Hittite cognate ḫaššā- (see under Reconstruction). More problematic are the intermediary formants. While a combination of the relational suffixes -na- and -i(ya)- is formally acceptable, their contribution to the semantics of the word has so far escaped scholars (*ḫašša- ‘hearth’ and ḫaššanitt(i)- ‘hearth’ have the same meaning).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. *ḫa-.