šiwanna

Hapax in a Luwian ritual in NS.

[Zs.S.]

unknown

ši-wa-an-na

KUB 35.8 i 6

(CTH 763, NS)

Attestation following Laroche 1959a:87 and CLL:195 checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz. Melchert (and implicitly Starke 1985b:269) add also ši-wa-an-ni-e-eš from a fragmentary context (KUB 35.146 iii 8’; CTH 767). This is, however, a Hittite word (Rieken 1999a:37 n. 160; HEG L-S:1091; Kloekhorst 2008c:763; contra Otten 1953a:33 [“sprachlich unsicher”]), probably meaning ‘deity’, see under “Luwian in Hittite Transmission”.

CLL:195 books ši-wa-an-na as a coll. pl. (from šiwanna/i-), according to I. Yakubovich (pers. comm.) it is an "acc. pl. n." (from šiwann(a/i)-). Formally speaking both are possible (the correct definition of the latter option is of course nom.-acc. pl. n.), as well as a dat. sg., but the entirely fragmentary context (]x-da ši-wa-an-na x-x-at-˹ta˺[ , Starke 1985b:43) does not allow any definition (cf. HEG L-S:1091: “unbestimmbar”).

[Zs.S.]

Its meaning is unknown (Laroche 1959a:87; CLL:195; Tischler 2008a:172 [omitted from Tischler 2016a, note that the stem form used here for the Hittite word (siwanna/i-) was used for the Luwian word in 2008]; Ünal 2016a:970) and the entirely fragmentary context (cf. above) is not conducive to any definition beyond the probability of being a noun or adjective based on its form. Thus, as CLL:195 correctly remarks, any relation to Cuneiform Luwian *šiḫwa- ‘bitter, sour, sharp’ (see s.v.) is unprovable (although phonologically possible). Since the above quoted Hittite šiwanna- ‘deity’ must be also etymologically Hittite due to phonological reasons (Rieken 1999a:37 n. 160), Luwian šiwanna could be at best a loan from Hittite, but nothing supports this idea.

[Zs.S.]

Attested in MS and NS Hittite rituals.

[Zs.S.]

nom. pl. c.	ši-i-ú-wa-an-ni-e-eš	KUB 9.4 iii 9’	(CTH 409, NS)
	ši-wa-an-ni-e-eš	KBo 20.73 iv 8	(CTH 458, MS)
		KUB 35.146 iii 8’	(CTH 767, MS)
	ši-wa-an-ni-eš	KUB 9.34 iii 45’	(CTH 409, NS)

Attestations following CHD Š:488 with KUB 35.146 iii 8’ added following Rieken 1999a:37 n. 160; HEG S:1091, and EDHIL:763 (contra Otten 1953a:33 [“sprachlich unsicher”]; Starke 1985b:269; CLL:195 [both book it as Luwian]), since despite some alleged Luwian loanwords (cf. Starke 1985b:268f.) the text in question was written in Hittite and it is methodologically problematic to separate a formally Hittite word in a Hittite text from its other attestations and to identify it instead with a Luwian word of unknown meaning and form (see s.v. šiwanna under “Cuneiform Luwian”). All attestations are checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

It was generally assumed that this word means ‘god’ based on an alleged correspondence to DINGIR^MEŠ in KUB 9.34 iii 44’-45’ (Ehelolf 1936a:318; Hutter 1988a:41, 149; Rieken 1999a:37 n. 160 [but cf. below]; Beckman 1990a:47 [who, however, translates it as ‘deities’]; HEG S:1091 [who, however, translates it as ‘divine’ and in this passage substantivized as ‘Götterfrauen(schar)’, cf. also Tischler 2008a:172, Tischler 2016a:329]; with the same meaning but without explicit reference to this passage: Götze; Pedersen 1934a:72f., 80; Friedrich 1952a:195; Ünal 2007a:639, Ünal 2016a:483). Set aside that this equivalency does not follow from the context, DINGIR^MEŠ and šiwanna- cannot be identical due to the geminated nasal of the latter (Rieken 2001a:372; CHD Š:488).

Another passage mentions two types of illnesses, those that are šiwanna- and those that are ḫatištant- (KBo 20.73 iv 7-8). It was plausibly suggested that these refer to illnesses that are caused by deities on the one hand and by human curses on the other hand leading to the interpretation of šiwanna- either as ‘god’ (Szabó 1971a:65 [in the meaning ‘divine’]; Haas 2003a:74; cf. also HED H:265) or as ‘divine’ (HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:506; Fuscagni 2015a; Pisaniello 2015a:26).

CHD Š:488 leaves the meaning undefined but sketches three possibilities: a derivation with the suffix -anni- and it would mean then ‘demon’ or an adjective and, alternatively, a connection to Cuneiform Luwian *šiḫwa- ‘bitter, sour, sharp’ (see s.v.), since it appears in the context of cutting. As it is argued under Origin, none of these suggestions are plausible and thus the question is, based on the passage just discussed, if we are dealing with a noun or with an adjective. Since formally speaking both are possible, only the precise morphological relationship with the word šīu-, šīuna- ‘god’ can solve this problem. As it is argued under Origin, it is EDHIL:763 who provides a proper solution with the thematization of *šiwātar ‘deity’ and thus this meaning is assumed here too.

[Zs.S.]

Although not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a, a Luwian connection was implied three different times. Ehelolf 1936a:318 saw a Luwian loan in this word, without underpinning his proposal. Rieken 1999a:37 n. 160 pointed out that this word cannot be a loan due to phonological reasons (assuming that the connection with the Hittite word šīu-, šīuna- ‘god’ is valid, which is probable, see under Meaning). Instead she suggests an “interpretatio luvica”: the segment -un- (or -uwan-?) in the Hittite word was misunderstood as a syncopated form of the Luwian suffix -wann(i)-, which was accordingly restored. This is in theory possible, but only if there is no regular Hittite explanation, which is not the case (see below).

CHD Š:488 suggests two possibilities: either a derivation from Hittite šīu-, šīuna- ‘god’ by the suffix -anni- forming diminutives and possessive adjectives (although not mentioned in CHD, this would imply Luwian origin, since this is a Luwian suffix, Melchert 2003b:196) or a derivation from Cuneiform Luwian *šiḫwa- ‘bitter, sour, sharp’ (see s.v.), since it appears in the context of cutting (KUB 9.34 iii 43’-47’). Although the first scenario is not impossible, it is not probable either, since it would require the borrowing of the Hittite word for ‘god’ in Luwian and a back-borrowing into Hittite: a regular inner-Hittite explanation, if possible, is obviously to be preferred and this is indeed the case, see below. The second scenario, although formally possible, is not supported by the context, since the šiwanna- are not those who are cutting but those who should be cut off (cf. CHD Š:488).

The question is thus whether there is any regular Hittite derivation. This has been proposed repeatedly (for a list see HEG S:1092f.), but they failed to explain the geminated nasal (Rieken 1999a:37 n. 160). However, the proposal of EDHIL:763, a thematization of Hittite *šiwātar ‘deity’, solves this problem without irregular assumptions (note that the implied i-mutation of šiwanna/i- [so booked by CHD Š:488 and Tischler 2016a:329] which could also point to Luwian origin [since Hittite i-mutation is rare in MS texts, Rieken 1994a:46] does not necessarily exist since ši-(i-ú-)wa-an-ni-e-eš can equally be transcribed as ši-(i-ú-)wa-an-né-e-eš).

[Zs.S.]