ušantara/i-

The sole text (NS) with attestations of ušandal(i)- is a ritual with a historiola mentioning the ^DGUL-šeš, the ^DMAḪ, and the ^DDarawa-deities.

[E.R.]

Checked against the 3D-model in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Like its cognate ušantarai(ya)- in the same text, ušantal(i)- is spelled with initial ú-.

[E.R.]

In KUB 35.84, the stem ušantarai(ya)- is used twice as an epithet of the ^DGUL-ša-, who are the addressees in both i 8’f. and 12’f.; cf. the following passage with several new readings compared to the earlier text in Starke 1985b:264f. and Fuscagni 2012c:

^(7’)… i-ia-an-ni-ia-at-tén-ša-an Ì-aš KASKAL-š[i i-ia-an-ni-at-tén-š[a-an] ^(8’)[…-a]š KASKAL-ši KI.MIN ^TÚGku-še-ši-ia-aš KASKAL-ši da-aš-ša-u-wa-aš [DINGIR]^MEŠ-uš ú-e-[er] ^(9’)[ú-ša-a]n-ta-ra-ia-an-za ^DGUL-ša-aš ^DMAḪ^MEŠ-aš ^D[Da-r]a-ú-e-eš § ^(10’)[nu-uš-ma-a]š-za-kán ^Éḫi-lam-na-aš ^DUTU-uš du-uš-kiš-k[e-ez-zi] ^(11’)[nam-ma-aš-m]a-aš-za-kán da-aš-ša-u-e-eš DINGIR˹^MEŠ˺-uš du-˹uš˺-k[iš-kán-z]i  ^(12’)…]-x ú-wa-at-tén ú-ša-an-da-ra-in-zi ^D[GUL-ša-aš ^(13’)DMAḪ^ME]^Š-aš ^DDa-ra-ú-wa-an-zi ú-ša-an-da-l[i-wa-aš-ma-aš-ša-an ^(13’)KASKAL-ši LÀL ú-wa-at-tén ˹ú-ša˺-an-ta-li-wa-aš-ma-aš-ša-[an KASKAL-ši ^(14’)Ì ú-wa-at-tén …

“Walk on the path of oil! Walk on the path of […]! Likewise on the path of the kušešiya-cloth! The mighty [deitie]s cam[e], [o gai]ns-bringing Fate-goddesses, Mother-goddesses, and ^D[Dar]awa-deities! § The Sun-god of the Gatehouse [will] gladden [you. Moreover,] the mighty deities will gladden [y]ou. […] Come, o gains-bringing F[ate-godesses, Mother-goddess]es, and ^DDarawa-deities! On the copiou[s way is homey for you. Come! O[n] the copious [way is oil] for you. Come! …”

Contrary to the actively gains-bringing deities, the paths are passive in being furnished with pleasant sacrifices, such as honey, olive oil, and cloth. This correlates with the different stem in -al(i)-, which therefore is interpreted here as originating in a suffix to be distinguished from -ara/i-.

[E.R.]

The dat./loc. sg. form ušantali is most easily assigned to a mutating a/i-stem, while there is need for assuming more complex ušantali(ya)- as done in CLL:245 based on Starke 1990a:374f. Parallel to ušantara/i-, the stem ušantal(i)- is to be analyzed as root uš- + suffix -ant- + suffix -al(i)-.

[E.R.]

1. ušantalai(ya)-

The obvious lexical connection with the other clearly Luwian members of the word family, which is additionally supported by the co-occurrence in the same text group or even the same text (see under Meaning), leads to the assignment to the Luwian lexicon.

[E.R.]

The word is attested in a NS ritual against the evil GUL-š-deity and in the ritual of Tunnawiya (CTH 409, also in a paragraph mentioning the evil GUL-š-deity).

[A.B.]

nom. sg. c.	u-ša-an-da-ri-iš	KUB 58.108   rev. iv 10’	(CTH 434, NS)
		KUB 58.108   rev. iv 13’	(CTH 434, NS)
	[... u-ša-]an-da-ri-iš	KUB 58.108   rev. iv 12’	(CTH 434, NS)
	u-⸢ša⸣-an-da-ri-iš	KUB 12.58++ rev. iv 11	(CTH 409, NS)
	⸢u⸣-ša-an-ta-ri-iš	KUB 12.58++ rev. iv 8	(CTH 409, NS)
		KUB 12.58++ rev. obv. 52	(CTH 409, NS)
acc. sg. c.	u-ša-an-da-ri-in	KUB 12.58++ rev. iv 7	(CTH 409, NS)
	u-ša-an-da-r[i-in ...]	KUB 58.108   rev. iv 5’	(CTH 434, NS)
dat./loc. sg.	u-ša-an-ta-ri	KUB 12.58++ rev. iv 9	(CTH 409, NS)

The attestations follow Starke 1990a:375, CLL:246, EDHIL:929 (cf. HEG U–Z:111f., Laroche 1959a:103 with reference to Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:75, van den Hout 2006a:247 and Zorman 2016a:596). The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. CLL:246 also lists an attestation at KUB 58.108 rev. iv 11’ which does not exist, but there is an acephalic instance of this form in rev. iv 11’.

For the similar word ušantaraya/i-, often conflated with the present lexeme (cf. Laroche 1959a:103, Starke 1990a:374f., EDHIL:929f., Ünal 2007a:767, Ünal 2016a:569, van den Hout 2007a:247 and Zorman 2016a:596), cf. under the respective lemma.

[A.B.]

Sturtevant 1936b:171 suggested a meaning ‘bearing young, fertile’ (followed by Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:75, 124 [cf. below]; Kronasser 1966a:226f., 508; Cornil 1999a:24; similarly Laroche 1959a:103 [‘fécond, gravide?’]). However, Starke 1990a:376 assumed a semantically broader meaning ‘ertragreich, ertragbringend’ (cf. Zorman 2016a:596; similarly CLL:246 [‘bringing gains, blessings’], cf. Melchert 2005a:450, EDHIL:929) and HEG U–Z:111f. logs an even more general interpretation: “ein positives Beiwort von Menschen und Opfertieren, also etwa ‘fruchtbar, schwanger, trächtig’, dann von Gottheiten, also etwa ‘fruchtbringend, segenspendend’ und schließlich auch von Konkreta, also etwa ‘ertragfördernd, ertragbringend’” (cf. Tischler 2008a:211, Tischler 2016a:403, Ünal 2007a:767 and Ünal 2016a:569 [‘pregnant, bearing (cow, female animal), bringing gains’]).

The word is usually employed as an adjective qualifying ‘cow’ (KUB 12.58++ obv. i 52, iv 7), a fat sheep (KUB 58.108 rev. iv 5’), and the GUL-š-deity (KUB 58.108 rev. iv 10’, 12’, 13’), which allow a wide range of meanings.

Only the following context is specific enough: KUB 12.58++ rev. iv 7–13 (the transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and additionally the hand copy as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:20–23; Starke 1990a:376; Cornil 1999a:12; Otten & Siegelová 1970a:33; Collins 2014a:253, HEG U–Z:111f. and EDHIL:929 have been taken into account):

(7)nam-ma-za-kán gu4 u-ša-an-ta-ri-in si ⸢e-ep⸣-zi nu me-ma-i (8)dutu be-lí-ia ka-a-aš ma-aḫ-⸢ḫa⸣-an gu4-uš ⸢u⸣-ša-an-ta-ri-iš (9)na-aš-kán u-ša-an-ta-ri ḫa-⸢li⸣-ia an-da nu-za-kán ḫa-a-li-it (10)gu4.níta-it GU4áb-it šu-⸢un⸣-ni-ìš-ke-ez-zi ka-a-ša (11)en siskur qa-tam-ma u-⸢ša⸣-an-da-ri-iš e-eš-ta nu-za-kán é-er (12)iš-tu dumu.nitaMEŠ ⸢dumu.munus⸣MEŠ ḫa-aš-še-et ḫa-an-za-aš-ši-it [...] (13)ḫar-tu-u-wa(-)ḫar-⸢tu⸣-wa-ti qa-tam-ma šu^(!)-un-ni-id-du (...)

(7)Furthermore, she seizes a horn of an ušantari cow and speaks: (8–13)“Sun-god, My Lord, just as this cow (is) ušantari and (is) in an ušantari pen and keeps filling the pen with bull-calves and cow-calves, likewise the Lord of the Ritual may be ušantari, let him fill the house with sons, daughters, grandchildren, great-grandchildren [...] in succession/descendance” (...)

A pen cannot be ‘pregnant’. A meaning ‘bearing young’ (cf. Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:75, 124, who suggested that ušantari- “qualifies a cow in contradistinction to a bull” (based on an assumed connection to a verb *ušai- ‘impregnate’ formed with the Hittite prefix u- ‘hither’ and the verb šai- ‘to impress’ [suggesting a derivation of ušantari- with a suffix “-ari-” alternating with “-ri-” from a participle *ušant- ‘impregnated, pregnant’ of a verb *ušai-]) is furthermore unlikely when taking into account KUB 12.58++ obv. i 52, where a bull is used for the same ritual if the Lord of the Ritual is male (the transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copy as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:8f.; Cornil 1999a:9, Collins 2014a:249 and Otten & Siegelová 1970a:33 have been taken into account):

(52)GU4áb u-ša-an-ta-ri-iš ma-a-an lú-aš-ma nu gu4.maḫ ḫa-an-da-i[z-zi ...]

(...) (52)an ušantari cow, but if (the Lord of the Ritual is) a man, she provid[es] a bull [...]

Based on the attestation of ušantari- with the cow-pen, Starke 1990a:376 also assumed an economic aspect and suggested a meaning ‘bringing gains’ rather than ‘fertile’. However, the text clearly points to the aspect of procreativeness in the ritual patient, who shall be fertile and have descendants and can hardly be called ‘ertragreich, ertragbringend’ / ‘bringing gains, blessings’.

The meaning ‘fertile’ does not only fit the pen, which is kept filled with calves, but also the gul-š-deity, for which ušantari- is attested (after removing the evil from this deity) in KUB 58.108 rev. iv 1’–14’ (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, additionally the hand copy as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Otten & Siegelová 1970a:34, Starke 1990a:376, García Trabazo & Groddek 2005a:273, Fuscagni 2014b and HEG U–Z:112 have been taken into account):

(5’)(…) ⸢nu-kán⸣ 1 udu.niga u-ša-an-da-r[i-in ...] (6’)[... dgul-š]i bal-ti 1 udu-ma-kán a-na dutu an-⸢e⸣ [...] (7’)[... n]u MUNUSšu.gi me-ma-i ka-a-ša-wa [...] (8’)[... sísku]r ḫul-lu-un dgul-ša-an [...] (9’)[...] ar-ḫa ti-it-ta-nu-un (10’)[...] ša-am-ni-ia-at u-ša-an-da-ri-iš dgu[l-ša-aš ...] (11’)[... -a]n-kán ka-a-ša egir-pa an-da a-pé-e[z ...] (12’)[... ^?u-ša-]an-da-ri-iš dgul-ša-aš ḫa-ma-an-ku-un [...] (13’)[... -]ra-an u-ša-an-da-ri-iš dgul-ša-aš šu-x[ ...]

(5’)(…) And there 1 ušandar[i] fat sheep [...] (6’)[...] to the [gul-š-deit]y she sacrifices, but 1 sheep there to the Sun-god of heaven [...] (7’)[... a]nd the ritual expert speaks: “behold, [...] (8–9’)[... for the Lord of the Ritu]al I removed the evil gul-š-deity (10’)[... the one that?] the ušandari gu[l-š-]deity created [...] (11’)[...] behold, again there with/from this on[e ...] (12’)[... the ^?uš]andari gul-š-deity I have bound[...] (13’)[...] the ušandari gul-š-deity [...]

As a result, the meaning ‘fertile’ fits all attested contexts of this word.

[A.B.]

1. ušantaraya/i-

2. ušantaraḫi(t)-

The adjective is usually assumed to be of Luwian origin. It appears in the Luwian dictionaries by Laroche 1959a:103 and CLL:246 as well as the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a:450 and van den Hout 2006a:247 (cf. also HEG U–Z:111f., Tischler 2008a:211 and Tischler 2016a:403). One of the reasons for this is the use of the gloss marker but this does not necessarily indicate a Luwian origin (cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445). Zorman 2016a:596 assumes that the gloss marker is used in KUB 58.108 because ušantari- refers to a deity and not an animal (“profane[s] Wort im sakralen Kontext”). While the context with the gloss marker is similar with all of the attestations appearing in rituals, and it does not necessarily mark a taboo word (as assumed by Zorman 2007a and Zorman 2016a), the marker could still point to an unusual use of this adjective in combination with the deity or even a shift of meaning. However, this cannot be proven at the moment and further research is needed including the functional spectrum of the gloss marker in general.

Starke 1990a:375 assumes two stem forms ušantari- /ušantarai- (cf. EDHIL:929f.) and based on the forms with Luwian inflection and the use of gloss markers with this word, he assumes a Luwian origin. Note, however, that the distinctive Luwian inflection only appears with forms of ušantaraya/i- which rather seems to be a different word (cf. under the respective lemma). HEG U–Z:111f. assumes that this Luwian adjective “()ušantarai/i-” represents the source for Hittite ušantari-, which is problematic with regard to the differing vocalisms.

With regard to its stem formation, ušantari- may have been derived from a noun *ušantar- with the Luwian suffix -i(ya)- (deriving adjectives from nouns cf. Melchert 2003b:197) as assumed by CLL:246, van den Hout 2006a:247 and Zorman 2016a:596.

This noun *ušantar- may possibly include the Luwian suffix -tar- (forming neuter nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:196), which is however rarely attested. Alternatively, ušantari- was previously regarded as “phonological variant” of the similar adjective ušandal(i)- ‘copious’ (cf. the discussion under the respective lemma). While ušandal(i)- most probably shows the Luwian suffix -al- (forming neuter nouns from verbs, cf. Melchert 2003b:197), the -r- in ušantari- could be an early instance of rhotacism, although rarely attested in Cuneiform Luwian (cf. Melchert 2003b:171 and the discussion on CLuw. tiwariya- [epithet of a plant of the sun god] that is assumed to be a rhotacized form of *tiwadiya- [derivative of Tiwad-], cf. Popko 1984a:228f., CLL:229, and Melchert 2003b:173, or of tiwaliya- ‘heavenly’ [or sim.], cf. Yakubovich 2010d:35 n. 26; cf. also Goedegebuure 2010b:77 who notes that it cannot be determined whether the rhotacised form derives directly from *tiwadiya- or from tiwaliya- < *tiwadiya- [as also cautiously considered by Plöchl 2003a:25]). If this applies, ušandal(i)- and ušantari-, probably Hittitizied from *ušantar(i)-, could originally indeed be the same Luwian word, but more research on this rhotacism in Luwian is needed.

The base (of both adjectives) may be *ušant- (probably a lexicalized participle with the Luwian suffix -ant(i)-, cf. Melchert 2003b:198), already assumed as a participle by Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:75 (of a verb *ušai-, cf. under Meaning) and for which Starke 1990a:374–376 assumed a connection to HLuw. /usnu(wa)-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to bless; to benefit’ (cf. under the respective lemma). However, the underlying verb could also be a Luwian verb uša- that is attested in HLuw. (PES)usa- ‘to bring’ (cf. under the respective lemma, see also CLuw. uša- ‘to lead (here)’), which would fit semantically.

Due to the Luwian stem formation, the attested Glossenkeilwort ušantari- is likely of Luwian origin and used as a Luwian loan word in Hittite.

[A.B.]