ḫalliyatt(a)-

The sole attestation of the word is found in the colophon to a NS ritual fragment from the Kuwattalla tradition (NS).

[E.R.]

nom./acc. sg.

ḫal-li-ia-at-ta-an-za

KUB 35.33 iv 4’

(CTH 761, NS)

The analysis follows CLL:48, but for the interpretations in DLL:26 as the acc. pl. of Laroche’s alleged †ḫaliyatt- (rather a common gender a-stem ḫalliyatta-) and in HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:42f. as a form with an -ant- suffix, see under Stem.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The word is used to specify the type of sískur: ^(4’)[ma-a-an sí]skur ḫal-li-ia-at-ta-an-za ^(5’)[ši-pa-an-da]-an-zi “[when] they sacrif[ice] [the sa]crifice (named) ḫalliyattanza.” DLL:39, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:42f., and Ünal 2007a:150 do not translate the word. Those who offer semantic interpretations base it on assonant words, viz. ḫalliya ‘day’ (‘daily’ or ‘days’ in Carruba 1962a:63, HW:475, HED H:26, HHw:36, also considered in CLL:48), Hitt. ḫalluwa- ‘deep’ (Starke 1981b:471 with an erroneous equation of Hitt. katta walḫ- and a reconstructed Luwian verb *ḫalli(ya)- ‘to lower’), and CLuw. ḫalliš- and ḫallīna-⁽ⁱ⁾. Recently, the last-mentioned connection was corroborated by an indirect join made by Sasseville 2020b:116 n. 9 (and Sasseville 2021a:556f.). It shows the cooccurrence in the same text of multiple attestations of ḫallīna-⁽ⁱ⁾ and ḫalliyattanza. While the former is obviously a central term in the ritual, the latter is mentioned as the name of the ritual in the colophon. 

Starting from the semantic interpretation of ḫallīna-⁽ⁱ⁾ as ‘to contaminate’ or ‘to treat contamination, to decontaminate’, the corresponding abstract noun ḫalliyatt(a)- deriving from the same base must denote either ‘contamination’ or ‘decontamination’ (the latter following Mouton, Puértolas Rubio & Yakubovich, pers. comm.; cf. also CLL:48 considering a “ritual against ‘sickness’”).

[E.R.]

Both analyses proposed by Laroche (in DLL:26) as common gender acc. pl. and by Melchert (in CLL:48, Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:214, Sasseville 2021a:531) as an acc. pl. of a neuter stem in -tt(a)- permit the interpretation of the form as a noun in appositive function, describing or naming the ritual. In both cases, its base is probably a verb *ḫalli(ya)-, itself unattested so far (see also the considerations of Sasseville 2021a:531) and in turn deriving from a noun *ḫall(i)-. However, the assumption of a neuter abstract noun (i.e. in -att(a)-, parallel to siskur šarlattanza from šarlatt(a)-, e.g. in KUB 29.4 iv 7; cf. van den Hout 1984a:71) is superior to that of a non-mutating -a- in the plural.An alternative is offered in HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:42f., which suggests an underlying stem *ḫallii̯attant-, i.e. *ḫalliyattant(i)- in the modern classification system. Along those lines, the word would have to be an adjective agreeing with sískur, which is however a plurale tantum (see CLuw. malḫašša-).

[E.R.]

On account of the form in -anza with the secondary ending -ša/-za, the word was classified as Luwian (see DLL:39, Carruba 1982b:4, van den Hout 1984a:71, CLL:48, HHw:38, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:42f., van den Hout 2006a:250, Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:214, Sasseville 2021a:531).

[E.R.]

For a tentative reconstruction of the root, see under Pal. ḫalāi-.