šarunt(i)-

This word is attested in NS in a dream of the queen (CTH 584), a ritual pertaining to the cult of the deity of the night (CTH 481), and in three manuscripts of the ritual of Allaituraḫḫi (CTH 780).

[A.B.]

acc. sg. c.	ša-ru-un-ti-in	KUB 31.77+KUB 48.126 obv. i 10	(CTH 584, NS)
abl./instr. c.	TÚLša-ru-un-ta-az	KUB 29.4 rev. iii 46	(CTH 481, NS)
gen. sg. c.	⸢TÚL⸣[(ša-ru-u)]n-ta-aš	VS NF 12.57 obv. i 15’	(CTH 780, NS)
	[(TÚLš)]a-ru-ta-aš	KUB 58.109++ obv. i 26’	(CTH 780, NS)
	?TÚLš[a-	FHL 39 3’	(CTH 780, NS)

The attestations follow: CHD Š:299, HEG L–S:939f., HED Sa:204, EDHIL:739 (cf. Ünal 2007a:619, Ünal 2016a:468f., not yet in Laroche 1959a and CLL). Lorenz & Taş 2012a:118f. add three more fragmentary attestations in duplicate manuscripts of the same ritual (VS NF 12.57+ obv. i 15’, KUB 58.109++ obv. i 26’ and FHL 39, 3’). The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. For the stem, cf. under Origin.

Otten 1975a:13f., de Roos 2007a:117 and Mouton 2007a:267 read the instance in KUB 31.77+ obv. i 10 as u-ša-ru-un-ti-in. CHD Š:299 points out that the use of the determinative TÚL in TÚLša-ru-un-ta-az, KUB 29.4. rev. iii 46 (not the similar sign UŠ as, e.g., in Miller 2004a:292) shows that the beginning of the word is the sign ŠA which supports the notion that the first sign in KUB 31.77+ obv. i 10 is rather a gloss marker and not an U-sign (cf. HEG L–S:939f.; Tischler 2008a:165; Tischler 2016a:406; Ünal 2007a:619; Ünal 2016a:468f., 569; EDHIL:739; Lorenz & Rieken 2011a and Melchert 2005a:450), for outdated interpretations based on this wrong reading cf. HEG L–S:940. Melchert 2005a:450 indicates a long a-vowel, which is not attested. The identification of the word in its written form as ⁽TÚL⁾šaru(n)t(i)- is now confirmed by the attestations in the ritual of Allaituraḫḫi (cf. under Forms and below).

[A.B.]

Lorenz & Taş 2012a:118 point out a small wedge before TÚLš[a- in FHL 39, 3’ which is also visible on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv and could indeed be a gloss marker. They refer to the attestation of this word in KUB 31.77+KUB 48.126 obv. i 10, which shows a gloss marker but not a determinative, and assume that there are no other attestations with gloss marker before a determinative. However, there are at least two instances of a gloss marker indeed appearing before a determinative, namely GIŠra-in and LÚnar[(-), cf. under the respective lemmas. Hence, it is possible that the wedge in the sequence ^?TÚLš[a- is also a gloss marker.

[A.B.]

The meaning of this word is usually assumed to be ‘spring’ (cf. CHD Š:299, HEG L–S:939f., Ünal 2007a:619, Ünal 2016a:468f., Miller 2004a:292) or ‘well’ (Otten 1975a:13f. “Brunnen?”, Tischler 2008a:165, Tischler 2016a:310, Lorenz & Rieken 2011a:88 and HED Sa:204). Some authors assume both meanings (cf. Melchert 2005a:450, EDHIL:739). HED Sa:204 adds a meaning ‘fountain’ (cf. Mouton 2007a:269). The assumed meanings are based on the contexts of attestation.

The word appears in a list of toponyms and landscape features in KUB 29.4 rev. iii 46. It shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and in addition, the hand copy as well as transliterations and translations of Miller 2004a:292, CHD Š:299, HEG L–S:939 and HED Sa:204 have been taken into account):

⁽⁴³⁾nu dingir-la12 URUa-ag-ga-⸢ta⸣-az URUká.dingir.ra-az ⁽⁴⁴⁾URUšu-u-ša-az URUe-lam-ta-az URUḫur.sag.kalam.ma-az ⁽⁴⁵⁾i-na uru-lì ša ta-ra-am-mi ḫur.sag-az íd-az ⁽⁴⁶⁾a-ru-na-az ḫa-a-ri-ia-az ú-e-el-lu-wa-az TÚLša-ru-un-ta-az ⁽⁴⁷⁾ne-pí-ša-az ták-na-az iš-tu 7 kaskalMEŠ ù iš-tu 7 ka.gìr-ia ⁽⁴⁸⁾ḫu-it-ti-ia-an-zi (…)

^(43–48)They evoke the deity from Akkade, from Babylon, from Susa, from Elam, from Ḫursagkalamma in the city that you love, from the mountain, from the river, from the sea, from the valley, from the meadow, from the TÚLšarunta, from the sky, from the earth, from the seven roads, from the seven foot-paths. (…)

Another list containing the word includes places in and parts of the domestic and cultivated sphere. The context of VS NF 12.57 obv. i 14’–16’ shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and in addition, the transliterations, restorations and translations of Haas 2007a:14, 24; Lorenz & Taş 2012a:118f. and Groddek, Hagenbuchner & Hoffmann 2002a:94 have been taken into account):

^(14’)(…) nu ša URUki ša é-ti ša gunni ša udun^!(numun^{) (15’)}[(TÚLša-ru-u)]n-ta-aš ša pa5 ša GIŠkiri6 ù ša ⸢kislaḫ⸣ ^(16’)[(ḫu-u-ma-a)]n-da-aš dan-na-at-ta-aš pé-e-da-aš ḫa-aš-šu-uš da-a-i

^{(14’–16’)}(…) And she (the ritualist) takes dust/ashes^? from [al]l the deserted places of the city, of the house, of the hearth, of the oven, of the [(TÚLšaru)]nta, of the canal, of the garden, of the threshing floor.

(The sign NUMUN, quite similar to the sign UDUN, is probably a copying error, cf. Lorenz & Taş 2012a:118.)

The duplicates show TÚLš]a-ru-ta-aš (KUB 58.109++ 26’) and ^?TÚLš[a- (FHL 39, 3’).

Finally, the context of KUB 31.77+KUB 48.126 obv. i 10 shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and additionally, the hand copy as well as transliterations and translations of Otten 1975a:13f. with n. 24; Mouton 2007a:267, 269; de Roos 2007a:117, 120; Lorenz & Rieken 2011a:87f.; CHD Š:299; HEG L–S:939f. and HED Sa:204 have been taken into account):

⁽⁸⁾[k]u-u-un ù-tu4 i-mur nu-wa za-aš-ḫi-⸢ia⸣ a-bu-ia ⁽⁹⁾ma-a-an egir-pa ti-eš-ša-an-za-pát (eras) ⁽¹⁰⁾nu-wa-kán ša-ru-un-ti-in ma-a-an ⸢ku⸣-in-⸢ki⸣ ⁽¹¹⁾an-na-al-li-in ša^! a-bi ⸢a⸣-bi-ia (eras) x ⁽¹²⁾ša-⸢ra-a⸣ u-un-ḫe-⸢eš-ke⸣-ez-zi nu-wa-ra-an-⸢kán⸣ u-uḫ-ta ⁽¹³⁾ma-a-an ⸢nu-wa-kán wa-a⸣-tar ⸢ma-a-an ša-ra⸣-a ⁽¹⁴⁾ḫu-u-it-⸢ti-ia-an-né-eš⸣-ke-ez-zi (…)

⁽⁸⁾[t]his dream she saw, (how) in the dream my father ⁽⁹⁾when he was alive again ^(10-12)he cleaned up some old šarunta/i- of (the time of?) my grandfather (erasure) […] and when he had cleared it ^(13–14)he pulled up water (…)

While the instance in KUB 29.4 rev. iii 46 points to a natural water source like a spring, the attestations in the manuscripts of the ritual of Allaituraḫḫi rather point to a built structure. Furthermore, the context of KUB 31.77+KUB 48.126 obv. i 10 shows that water is pulled up from below (hence a meaning ‘fountain’ does not fit), which suggests a well. Due to the list of natural landscape features (river, sea, valley, meadow,…) in KUB 29.4 rev. iii 46, in which this word appears, a meaning ‘spring’ can also not be completely excluded. Hence, both proposed meanings ‘spring’ and ‘well’ are suggested for this word.

[A.B.]

Most of the scholars treat it as a loanword from Luwian (Melchert 2005a:450 [although not included in the list of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2006a], EDHIL:739, and CHD Š:299), although HEG L-S:940 and HED Sa:204 see a Hittite word in it. The reason for the assumption of Luwian origin is the alternation between the a- and i-stems (EDHIL:739 and CHD Š:299) as well as the gloss-wedge (EDHIL:739). Although these arguments are not decisive (a gloss-wedge does not automatically mean Luwian origin [see already Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445] and Hittite applied i-mutation also to some native words), words with gloss marker are frequently of Luwian origin and šarunt(i)- does not belong to the typical categories of Hittite words with i-mutation (see the overview in Rieken 1994a) and thus, a Luwian origin is more probable.

A clear etymology could help to decide the question, but this is not the case:

1. HEG L-S:940 (following an idea of G. Neumann) suggested a PIE base *sero- / *serā ‘Flüssigkeit’ with the suffix -went- ‘reich an …’ (i.e., “ergiebiger, reichhaltiger Brunnen”), with the syncope of the stem vowel of the base word and with syncope in the suffix. Setting aside the problem of the existence of this base, the syncope of the stem vowel is ad hoc. HEG L–S:940 refers also to the oronym ḫur.sagšar-wa-an-ta-aš-š[a as a possible derivative of šaru(wa)nt-. As Anja Busse (pers. comm.) pointed out, it would support the Luwian origin of the base word since it contains the typical Luwian suffix -ašša/i- forming possessive adjectives (cf. Melchert 2003b:188).
2. EDHIL:739 very cautiously (“perhaps” and with double question mark) explained it from PIE *sreu̯- ‘to flow’ as *sru-nt-, admitting that “the formation is not fully clear”. Without more information it is not entirely clear what the author meant, but as a verbal formation it can only be a present active participle and then indeed problematic, since *sreu̯- is a thematic verb (LIV²:588) and thus, the expected form would be *sréu̯-o-nt-, which, however, does not lead to the attested verb (but see next section).
3. Finally, HED Sa:204 cautiously (“perhaps”) suggested *sr̥u̯ont- ‘flowing’, from the same root. Although one could object, as per above, that the expected form would be *sréu̯-o-nt-, which does not lead to the attested verb, it is known that in Anatolian languages this suffix was attached to the zero-grade root in case of ablauting verbs (on Hittite see e.g. EDHIL:183, on Luwian see e.g. the case of miyant(i)- ‘many’ from mai-/miya-, see s.v.). Therefore, *sr̥u̯ont- ‘flowing’ provides a formally and semantically fitting solution. However, it does not solve the issue whether šarunt(i)- is Hittite or Luwian, since, although synchronically not anymore productive, -nt-participles survive in Luwian in lexicalised forms, for which šarunt(i)- ‘well, spring’ would be a perfect example.

All in all, a Luwian origin is probable, even if it cannot be fully ascertained.

[Zs.S.]