walwalla-

Attested in cult inventories and in a festival as well as in a ritual fragment (from NS until LNS).

[Zs.S.]

coll. pl.	LÚ.MEŠwa-al-˹wa˺[-al-la?]	KUB 12.2 i 4	(CTH 526, LNS)
	LÚ.MEŠwa-al-wa-˹al˺[-la]	KUB 55.15 iii 7	(CTH 528, NS)
	LÚ.MEŠwa-]˹al˺-wa-al-la	KUB 55.15 ii 9’	(CTH 528, NS)
	LÚ.˹MEŠwa˺-al-wa-al-la	KBo 53.134 ii 3	(CTH 651, NS)
	LÚ.MEŠ?]˹wa˺-al-wa-al-la	KBo 26.158 i 4’	(CTH 528, NS)
	LÚ.MEŠ?]wa-al-wa-al-la{-za}?	KBo 26.158 i 7’	(CTH 528, NS)
	LÚ.MEŠ?]˹wa˺-al-wa-al-la	KUB 41.14, 7’	(CTH 470, NS)

Attestations follow Weeden 2011b:286f. and HEG U-Z:275 checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. In KUB 12.2 i 4 Weeden 2011b:286 n. 1320 reads wa-al-w[a- and HEG U-Z:275 has ^LÚ.MEŠwa-al-w[a-le-eš]. However, Collins 2006a:45 translates it as “wal[hiyala-men]”, without arguments, but obviously following the reading wa-al-a[ḫ-ḫi-ya-le-eš] of Carter 1962a:74. Although the traces of the sign visible on the photo of the Konkordanz (also indicated in the hand copy) would actually fit both readings, the context, i.e. the combination with the ḫazkara-women, with which the walwalla- usually appear, supports the reading with ‹wa›. Since the word otherwise always appears in coll. pl. and not in nom. pl., it is worth considering a restoration ^LÚ.MEŠwa-al-˹wa˺[-al-la^?] instead of the nom pl. ^LÚ.MEŠwa-al-w[a-le-eš] of HEG.

The form in KUB 55.15 iii 7 has different readings (and, accordingly, restorations): Popko 1994a:286 reads ^LÚ.MEŠwa-al-wa-a[l^?-li-i]š, Groddek 2002b:27 has ^LÚ.MEŠwa-al-wa-a[l^?-la GUB-r]i^? (since iii 7-8 are parallel to ii 8’-11’), Weeden 2011b:287 n. 1322 writes ^LÚ.MEŠwa-al-wa-l[a!(AT)-…], and HEG U-Z:275 quotes it as ^LÚ.MEŠwa-al-wa-l[a-le-i]š. Although the hand copy’s two horizontals followed by three horizontals support the reading with ‹la›, the photograph only shows the traces of two horizontals, which fit ‹al›, too. Since the parallel passage on the same table shows ^LÚ.MEŠwa-]˹al˺-wa-al-la (KUB 55.15 ii 9’), the reading and restoration of Groddek is followed here.

In KBo 53.134 ii 3 Otten 1969b:94 transcribed only ^LÚ.MEŠwa-al-wa-al-la-x, what Weeden 2011b:286 with n. 1319 read as ^LÚ.MEŠwa-al-wa-al-la-˹ma˺ (with question mark), but quoted by HEG U-Z:575 as ^LÚ.˹MEŠwa˺-al-wa-al-la-˹az˺, i.e. in the so-called ergative case (cf. below). However, the hand copy and the photograph of the Konkordanz clearly show that this is not ‹az› and a ‹ma› is entirely possible.

Hoffner 1998c:40 claims that the collective form receives the ergative suffix -ant- with transitive verbs, while it remains without the suffix with intransitive verbs. As examples for the ergative construction he quotes the forms in KBo 53.134 ii 3 and KBo 26.158 i 7’. Already Weeden 2011b:287 n. 1325 noted that ^LÚ.MEŠ?]˹wa˺-al-wa-al-la in KBo 26.158 i 4’ is a counter-example against Hoffner’s interpretation, but since he wanted to maintain Hoffner’s model, he proposed a restoration [A-NA ^LÚ.MEŠ?]˹wa˺-al-wa-al-la. In fact, among the five cases with preserved ending the verb in KUB 41.14, 7’ and KBo 53.134 ii 3 is unknown (although in the latter case both Hoffner 1998c:40 and HEG U-Z:275 restore pedanzi, a transitive verb), however, in all other cases it is a transitive verb (KUB 55.15 ii 10’-11’ [peran [taninuwanzi], for the contextually assured restoration see KUB 55.15 iii 7f., Groddek 2002b:27f.]; KBo 26.158 i 4’ [piyandu]; KBo 26.158 i 7’ [arḫa pitanzi]), but only one case (KBo 26.158 i 7’) among the three shows an additional ‹za›. One has to conclude that the passages do not support the analysis of Hoffner, whatever the interpretation of the additional ‹za› is (since the reflexive particle does not seem to be motivated, we may be dealing with a scribal error).

Finally, Weeden 2011b:287 n. 1328 speculates that “it is unclear if a [w]a-al-wa-lu-wi₅-iš in a cult inventory of Pirwa, KBo 19.131, 9, is related”, but this can be excluded on obvious formal grounds.

[Zs.S.]

Although not listed in Pecchioli Daddi 1982a (and Friedrich 1952a either) there is a justified general agreement based on the contexts and its identity to ^LÚ.MEŠUR.MAḪ that it refers to a type of cult personnel (Otten 1969b, Otten 1981b:143; Ünal 1987a:col. 479, Ünal 2007a:784, Ünal 2016a:581; Hoffner 1998c:40; Tischler 2008a:218, Tischler 2016a:419, HEG U-Z:275; Weeden 2011b:286).

[Zs.S.]

Although not included in Laroche 1959a, CLL, Melchert 2005a, and van den Hout 2006a, Tischler 2008a:218 considers it as a Luwian word. This is correct due to its Luwian -alla-suffix (recognized already by Otten 1969b:94f.) and its possible Luwian base, *walwa/i- (see s.v.). Thus, Weeden 2011b:288 rightly claims that ^LÚUR.MAḪ is “a rebus writing which arose under Luwian influence”, even if the label “rebus writing” is hardly adequate in a bilingual Luwian-Hittite environment.

[Zs.S.]