āššuššanni(-)

Attested only in Hittite hippological texts in MS and NS.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.	LÚa-⸢aš?⸣[-šu?-]uš-ša-⸢an-ni⸣	KUB 1.13 i 1	(CTH 284, NS)
?	⸢LÚ⸣⸢a⸣-aš-šu-uš-ša-an-[ni(-)	KUB 29.55 rev. iii 6’ + 48 rev. iii 25’	(CTH 285, MS)
?	LÚa-aš-šu[-	KBo 39.264 obv. i 8’	(CTH 285, MS)

Attestations following HW (2nd ed.) A:539 (completed with Groddek 1998a:230f., Groddek 2004b:324) checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[A.B.], [Zs.S.]

In KUB 1.13, the fourth sign of the form is broken. Already Hrozný 1931a:488f. n. 1 assumed a ŠU sign here, since it would fit in a sequence between AŠ and UŠ, and he perceived there to be some traces of three horizontals. The hand copy in KUB 1.13 has a final vertical on this sign and the photo shows traces of a long horizontal, making a ŠU sign likely. However, the reading of the preceding AŠ sign is also uncertain since the upper part is broken off (cf. already Hrozný 1931a:488f. n. 1, with question mark). Moreover, after the broken part there is some space for an additional sign and traces of some horizontals before the following UŠ sign.

The only fully attested form seems to show Akkadographic spelling (so Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:109), which would explain the lack of a case ending (the tablet is broken in the two other cases, rendering it impossible to decide if those attestations have case endings, and thus Groddek’s restoration as LÚa-aš-šu-u[š-ša-an-ni-iš] in KBo 39.264 [Groddek 1998a:231, Groddek 2004b:324] cannot be verified). Nevertheless, since it is attested only in a technical text interspersed with Hurrian – Indo-Aryan loanwords, it is possible that we are not dealing with a loanword, but with a foreign word (for this distinction cf. English divinity vs. bête noire), which remained uninflected for this reason (similarly to NA4ḫekur, for which see Kloekhorst 2008c:339).

[A.B.], [Zs.S.]

The word is used as the title of Kikkuli, author of a horse training text (and as a title of an unknown colleague). Though the context and the obvious assonance with the Indo-Aryan words for ‘horse’ can serve for an approximate definition of the title, they do not allow a more precise characterization. Accordingly, there are two proposed meanings: ‘Pferdetrainer’ (see e.g. Kammenhuber 1961b:364, Kammenhuber 1968a:208; HED A-E/I:222; HW (2nd ed.) A:539; Oettinger 1994b:75; Ünal 2007a:76; Kloekhorst 2008c:225) and ‘Stallmeister’ (Hrozný 1931a:432, 439 [here with question mark]; Friedrich 1952a:37; Kronasser 1956a:223 [but cf. below]; HEG A-K:91, but cf. below; “weniger empfehlenswert” according to Kammenhuber 1968a:208 n. 608, with counter-arguments not connected to the topic). Many scholars (Mayrhofer 1966a:15, 16; Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:109; Raulwing & Schmitt 1998a:680; Carruba 2000c:56f.; Tischler 2008a:31, Tischler 2016a:41; Lipp 2009a:269) give both meanings (cf. also Bailey 1957a:64f.: ‘tender of the horses, horse groom’) and note that the two meanings do not necessarily exclude one other (no meaning is assigned in Ünal 2016a:953). Starke 1990a:502, Starke 1993a:22 translates it as ‘Pferdekenner, -trainer’, but later (Starke 1995a:153) simply as ‘Hippologe’ (thus already Kronasser 1966a:143).

[Zs.S.]

Some scholars (HEG A-K:91; HED A-E/I:222; Oettinger 1994b:75; Ünal 2007a:76) assume āššuššanni-, Starke 1993a:22, Starke 1995a:117f. treats it as āššuššann(i)- (followed now by Tischler 2008a:31, Tischler 2016a:41 too), but it is rather to be assumed as uninflected with HW (2nd ed.) A:539 and Kloekhorst 2008c:225, cf. under Graphic features for the explanation.

[Zs.S.]

Some scholars (Wittmann 1964a:147f.; Diakonoff 1972a:112f. [with question mark]; Starke 1990a:502, Starke 1995a:117f.; Carruba 2000c:56–58; Woudhuizen 2010b:45) assume a Luwian origin, but it is not included in the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007.

Wittmann’s proposal is based on the part °ššanni identified by him with the Luwian verb šanni-/ šannai- with a putative meaning ‘to tend, to take care of’ (thus ‘one who tends [takes care of] horses’. Since then, however, the exact meaning of this verb has been established as ‘overturn, turn upside down’ (CLL:187 with ref., see also s.v.), which excludes this hypothesis (refused also by Kammenhuber 1968a:210 and HED A-E/I:222, but with obsolete arguments).

Carruba’s and Starke’s views are based on the assumption that the Luwian word for ‘horse’ is *āššu- (Oettinger 1994b:75 also allows this possibility, if the Luwian word is correctly reconstructed), which is in turn based on the misreading of the Hieroglyphic Luwian sign *448 as <sù> instead of <zú> (on the reading of this sign see Melchert 1987a:201f., Melchert 2012a:210, and Simon 2008a:21–26; a detailed refusal of these assumptions can be found in Raulwing & Schmitt 1998a:688–695; cf. also Melchert 1994a:234, who refused this explanation pointing out the lack of textual evidence of the putative Luwian form).

Carruba 2000c:58 also added that the contraction *-uwa- > -u- proves the Luwian transmission, whatever the ultimate origin of the word should be. This is not the case, however: first, Hittite also knows this contraction (since MS, see Rieken 2001a:374–377), second, it cannot be excluded that this change happened during the borrowing from Indo-Aryan to Hurrian.

Woudhuizen 2010b:45 n. 7 argues that āššuššanni(-) carries the same suffix as Hieroglyphic Luwian “tarupsani- ‘charioteer’” (possibly the word behind AURIGA) from Hittite tarupp- “‘gather, assemble (hippological technical term for a specific forward motion [either trot or gallop] of the horse’” (this phonetic reading and root etymology was suggested by Hawkins 2005d:253, without citing the identical root etymology of Tischler 1982a:450, HEG T/D:241). Aside from the problem of the implicit assumption of a Hittite loanword in Luwian, this proposal has three problems: the morphology, the reading of the sign, and the meaning of the Hittite word. Hawkins 2005d:253 already pointed out that such a suffix forming professions is not attested yet (note that Tischler 1982a:450, HEG T/D:241 does not have this problem, since he explains the form from the oblique stem of the derivative taruppeššar ‘collection’). Nevertheless, if this meaning and derivation of Luwian “tarupsani-” could be independently proven, it would make a strong case for the existence of this suffix, and accordingly, would allow a Luwian suffixation of āššuššanni(-) as well. However, contra Woudhuizen, the Hittite verb is not a hippological technical term, it has a general meaning (‘to collect, to unite, to plaid together’) and it is not even attested in the hippological texts (cf. Kammenhuber 1961b and Kloekhorst 2008c:850f.; for the hippological terminology in general see Starke 1995a). Furthermore, it is not clear, how a suffix forming professions could lead to a meaning ‘charioteer’ from ‘to collect’. Finally, the reading “taruppasani-” of AURIGA by Hawkins 2005d:253 is conjectural. This reading is based on the Nişantepe seals No. 105-107 of *282-la-AURIGA-ni and the observation made by Hawkins that the only name listed in Laroche 1966b and Laroche 1981b in the form X-la-Y-ni is Ḫaḫlatarup(pa)šani (No. 241; AURIGA-ni and tarup(pa)šani- are also independently attested, see the refs. in Hawkins 2005d:253, 274 and Oreshko 2016a:287 n. 867). Although this is an entirely valid equation, the ubiquity of these final syllables requires caution. Note furthermore that it is attested as a divine name as well (for attestations see van Gessel 1998a:452f. and Lebrun 2004b), thus we are dealing here with a theophoric name, which may be problematic for the assumed underlying meaning ‘charioteer’ (see the discussions in Hawkins 2005d:253, 274 and Oreshko 2016a:287f.). All in all, the existence of a profession-forming suffix -(š)šani- and thus a Luwian derivation of āššuššanni(-) cannot be independently verified, since the meaning and the derivation of the analogically quoted tarup(pa)šani- are opaque.

Since Kikkuli originates in Mittanni and the text is interspersed with Indo-Aryan loanwords from the semantic sphere of horse-training, an Old Indic origin (cf. áśva- ‘horse’) via Hurrian transmission is generally assumed (since Hrozný 1931a:432 n. 1), even though the details are debated (HEG A-K:91; HW (2nd ed.) A:539f.; Raulwing & Schmitt 1998a; Raulwing 2000:114f.; Kloekhorst 2008c:225; Lipp 2009a:269f., all with further refs., for which see also HED A-E/I:222f.).

[Zs.S.]