ḫuwantaza

The word is found only once, so far, in the NS birth ritual of Pittei featuring also many other Luwianisms marked with gloss wedges.

[E.R.]

abl./instr. (?)

ḫu-u-wa-an-da-za

KBo 13.241 + KUB 44.4 rev. 26

(CTH 767, NS)

The interpretation of the attested form as a Hittite ablative is by no means assured (HW² Ḫ:815). Instead, Rieken 1999a:449 thinks of a Hittite nom. sg. c. of a stem in -ant-. Starke 1990a:374 n. 1349 tentatively suggests a Luwian dative plural. Finally, Melchert (CLL:80) also seems to consider a Luwian form in -anza, although he is not explicit about which of them he favors. One should also compare the fragmentary word ḫ]u-u-wa-an-t[a- in Luwian contexts (KUB 35.68, 18’).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The notoriously unclear context of ḫuwandaza reveals nothing about its meaning, except that it is a place or an item from which the obsidian can probably be taken (Beckman 1983a:195; see also Giorgieri 2004a:410, Bachvarova 2013a:140): ḫu-u-wa-an-da-za ^NA₄ZÚ-in x [d]a^?-a-i “She (scil. the midwife) [t]akes^? the obsidian from the ḫ.” Therefore, Beckman 1983a:195 is right also to exclude an assignment to Hitt. ḫuwant- ‘wind’. Based on the information from the passage, Ünal 2007a:246 considers ‘quarry’. However, it is unlikely that the midwife obtains the obsidian in the midst of the ritual right from a quarry, instead from her pocket or another place prepared for the ritual. Consequently, no one else has suggested a meaning so far (cf. the above references, and Starke 1990a:374 n. 1349, CLL:80, HHw:s.v., HW²:815).

[E.R.]

The lack of certainty about the meaning and the ending (see under Meaning and Forms) does not permit a sufficiently informed statement about the stem formation.

[E.R.]

Given the amount of Luwian words in the text and the use of the gloss wedges, it is not improbable that the lexeme originates from Luwian (listed in van den Hout 2006a:247). Doubts about the Luwian origin are put forward in CLL:80, HW²:815; cf. also Zorman 2007a:764, who lists the word in the category of taboo-marked attestations. No etymology possible.

[E.R.]