duwatna-

The attestations of the lexeme come from NH festival texts with a Luwian background, viz. the witaššiya- festival and cult for all the Tutelary Deity.

[E.R.]

gen. pl.	[du-wa]-⸢at⸣-na-[aš]	CHDS 4.20, 10’	(CTH 682, LNS)
	du-wa-⸢at⸣-n[a-a]š	KUB 2.1 iv 33	(CTH 682, LNS)
dat./loc. pl.	Édu-ú-wa-a[t]-⸢na⸣-an-za	KUB 17.24 ii 14	(CTH 691, NS)
	Édu-wa-at-na-⸢an⸣-za	KUB 17.24 ii 15	(CTH 691, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The reading -du- in du-wa-du-na^?-〈aš〉 (McMahon 1991a:113) at KUB 2.1 iv 33 can be regarded as obsolete. In view of the rest of the sign at parallel CHDS 4.20, 10’ (following an old transliteration, contra Fuscagni 2007a:132), the putative alleged -du- should be read -⸢at⸣- (-na- is confirmed). According to the photograph in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, this leads to du-wa-⸢at⸣-n[a-a]š. It seems that -a]š was initially forgotten and inserted only after the following ḫu-ma-an-ta-aš had already been written (NB the tilt and the elevated position of the horizontal wedge). Therefore, it ends above the first horizontal of ḫu-. This amounts to two new attestations of the oblique stem duwat(ta)n- (posited as r/n-stem duwattar/duwattn- in Starke 1990a:489f.), whereas †duwaduna- ‘sink-hole’ vel sim. (Gordon 1967a:82, Archi 1975b:101, McMahon 1991a:113 n. 143, HEG T:498 with references, van Gessel 1998a:I 11, Ünal 2007a:746) is a ghost word.

[E.R.]

The occurrence of the lexeme already known to Laroche (DLL:177) and Starke runs as follows: ⁽¹⁰⁾šà.ba i-na ^Éka-ri-im-mi ša ^DḪu-u-wa-aš-ša-an-na ⁽¹¹⁾i-na ^Étu-u-ma-an-ti-ia-at-ti i-na ^Éa-la-an-du-wa ⁽¹²⁾i-na ^É⸢ḫu⸣-wa-i-ú-ti-iš-ša-an ku-e-da-ni pé-e-di ⁽¹³⁾iš-tu dingir^LIM sig₅-at-ta-ri nu a-pé-e-da-ni pé-e-di ḫu-u-kán-zi ⁽¹⁴⁾a-na ezen ú-i-ta-aš-ši-ia-aš-ma ḫu-u-kán-na i-na ^Édu-ú-wa-a[t]-⸢na⸣-an-za ⁽¹⁵⁾ú-ul a-a-ra i-na ^Édu-wa-at-na-⸢an⸣-za ú-ul ḫu-u-kán-z[i] “Inside the temple of ^DḪuwaššanna (or) in the audience room (or) in the alanduwa-building (or) on the ^Éḫuwaiutišša/i-building (or) at whichever place is deemed good by the deity at that place they sacrifice, but at the witaššiya-festival it is improper to sacrifice in the duwatn-buildings. In the duwatn-buildings they do not sacrifice” (modified from Starke 1990a:489). While Laroche (DLL:177) does not translate the term, but only lists it under the “bâtiments”, Starke 1990a:489f., not accepted in HEG T:497, HHw:183, Ünal 2007a:746, argues convincingly that the duwatn-buildings contrast with the temple (^Ékarimmi), which includes the three parts mentioned afterwards in line 11 and, therefore, must be their hyperonym. He further points out that it is not the buildings, but the witaššiya-festival that is affected by prohibition of the sacrifice. Accordingly, he suggests a translation ‘cultic room’ or, even more general, ‘room (in a building)’.

Starke’s more specific interpretation is now confirmed. The attestation of ^(É)duwatn- at KUB 2.1 iv 33 as read here provides a new context. In the list of the Āla- deities, the ‘Āla- of all duwatn-’ is preceded by the ‘Āla- of all the mountains’ and the ‘Āla- of all the rivers’ and followed by the ‘Āla- of all the consecrated (spaces)’ (for the latter, see CHD Š:632f., contra Gordon 1967a:82, Archi 1975b:101, McMahon 1991a:113 with n. 143, Ünal 2007a:746, HEG T:498 with references). In view of the sacred nature of the topographic features and the following general term of another consecrated space, also the duwatn- is likely to be consecrated, which renders ‘cultic room’ for duwatn- the preferable translation over the more interpretation as a specific kind of cultic room envisaged in HEG T:497, HHw:183, Ünal 2007a:746 as well as the general ‘room’ considered by Starke himself.Outdated Neu 1971a:70 n. 22, see HEG T:497.

[E.R.]

With only oblique case forms attested, the r/n-heteroclitic stem duwattar/duwattn- posited by Starke 1990a:489f. cannot be regarded as assured. As pointed out by Melchert (e-mail August 31, 2021), a plurale tantum duwatna- is possible, too.

[E.R.]

It is generally agreed that the sequence -ttn- speaks for a foreign origin, which in view of the dat./loc. pl. in -anza must be Luwian (DLL:177, Neu 1971a:70 n. 22, Starke 1990a:489f., HEG T:496f., HHw:183). Starke 1990a:489f. connects it etymologically to the Luwian verb dūwa-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to put’.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. dūwa-⁽ⁱ⁾.