/zam(ma)n-/

The lexeme is attested in two duplicate NS copies of the ritual of Kuwattalla.

[E.R.]

The instance of za-am-ma-an-ta-at-x[ in KUB 35.68, 16’ cited in CLL:276, s.v. zam(ma)n-, rather belongs to zamnant(i)- (see below under Derivatives).

[E.R.]

In the context of KUB 35.48 iii 10’, zamman is listed together with other evils as something negative that the gods are asked not to afflict on the ritual client’s body (thus already Meriggi 1980a:310: “concetto negativo”): ^(10’)[x-x-d]u^?-úr dingir^MEŠ-in-zi za-am-ma-an ta-pa-ru ^(11’)[ta-t]a-ar-ia-a[m-m]a ḫi-i-ru-un wa-aš-ši-ni ni-iš ḫ[a-pa-in-ti] “Let the gods not b[ind] zamman, taparu, [c]ur[s]e, perjury to his body!” (transliteration following HEG U-Z:644 and Mouton, Puértolas Rubio & Yakubovich, pers. comm.). Hutter 1988a:44f., 93-95, in the attempt to narrow down the semantics of zam(ma)n-, thinks of ‘damage’, while Taylor (apud Nikolaev 2019a:195 n. 49) specifies its meaning as ‘curse’. The advantage of the latter is that all evils named in the above list are somehow connected to the mouth, either materially or verbally, which clearly applies to ‘curse’, but not to ‘damage’. On the other hand, ‘curse’ is not known to have a special relationship to lions, which are rather destructive and for the connection to which see below.

A short discussion of zam(ma)n- in Hittite context and of its derivatives is in order here. More precise information is found under the respective lemmata.

In a Hittite ritual context, a lion is magically fixed to the zam(ma)n- and released again, i.e. obviously to a place or feature that is typical for lions. In another ritual, the dingir^MEŠ zamnašša/i- refer to opposing demons, so that an interpretation as ‘deities of damage, damaging deities’ seems likely. The genitival adjective zamnašša/i- occurs also as the name of oracle birds (‘belonging to zam(ma)n-’). This can be regarded as confirmative evidence, since a negative result of an oracle inquiry damages the person concerned. The possessive -ant(i)- formation zamnant(i)- (/zammant(i)-) ‘having zam(ma)n-’ is used for modifying (a) an unborn child that received a bad omen, which would be damaging to the child (like the negative oracle result), (b) ritual items damaged for the analogy with evils to be destroyed, (c) the god ^dWarwaliya, and (d) a ritual client threatened by ‘the terrifying dog’. Finally, a lion has destructive aspects (cf. ur.maḫ zamniyan, see Luw. zamniyan), and the opponent of the zamnant(i)- ^dWarwaliya- ‘damaged God of Sowing/Fertility’ is the alannin zamniyan ‘the hostile z.’, naturally a damaging individual.

The use of zam(ma)n- itself and its derivatives includes a remarkable range of referents. Thus, the combined evidence speaks for an equally general meaning, which allows to give preference to ‘damage’ over Hutter 1988a’s narrower meaning ‘curse’. Without any further attempt to translate zam(ma)n-, cf. DLL:113, Kellerman 1987a:140 n. 60, Starke 1990a:277-279, CLL:276f.

[E.R.]

CLuw. zam(ma)n- was classified by Starke 1990a:277-279 as a neuter -m(ma)n- stem (final -n- can be lost through assimilation to the preceding labial nasal stop).

[E.R.]

1. ^fZamnawiya (Laroche 1966a:208, 1529f., Starke 1990a:277, Yakubovich 2013a:100f.)

2. ^mZamna-lú

1. zammaniya-

2. zamniyan

3. zamnant(i)- (/zammant(i)-)

4. zam(ma)našš(i)-

Within Hittite context, the lexeme occurs in several rituals that are heavily interspersed with Luwianisms, in both incantations and description.

[E.R.]

For za-am-ma-an erroneously cited in CLL:276, see under Lemma CLuw. zammant(i)-/zamnant(i)-. – The morphological interpretation of zamnišan at KBo 3.8 iii 11 is under discussion. The text runs as follows: ⁽¹⁰⁾ú-li-pa-na-an pár-ga-u-e-i ⁽¹¹⁾ḫa-mi-ik-ta ur.maḫ za-am-ni-ša-an (eras.) ḫa-mi-ik-ta “he bound the wolf to the high (place), he bound the lion zamnišan.” Starke 1990a:39, 278 n. 947, Collins 1989a:50, Hutter 1988a:93f., Oettinger 2004a:349 n. 10, HHw:s.v.) analyses it as the dat./loc. sg. of a genitival adjective, the stem of which would be *zamniyašša/i-. However, this would imply a change in stem and meaning a few lines later when the corresponding simplex zam(ma)n- is used (ibid. ⁽²⁸⁾ú-li-ip-na^!-aš-ša-an ⁽²⁹⁾[pár-ga-ú]-⸢e⸣ ur.maḫ za-am-na-aš la-a-at-ta-at “The wolf was released from the high (place), the lion was released from the zamna’s.”), i.e. from ‘belonging to those related to the zam(ma)n-’ to ‘zam(ma)n-’ itself, while in all other parallel pairs of sentences no such change takes place (seeFuscagni 2017a for the text). Alternatively, Kellerman 1987a:140 n. 60 translates ‘his zamni’ (acc. sg. zamnin with enclitic possessive pronoun, with assimilation of final -n- before -š(š)an). More recently, a segmentation as dat./loc. sg. zamni plus local particle -š(š)an is favored (HEG U-Z:644, Fuscagni 2017a, implicitly CLL:276, Ünal 2007a:814). Since local particles can occur also in sentence-internal position suffixed to a dat./loc., and zamni and zamnaš can thus belong to the same stem, this is the best analysis for zamnišan. – za-a-ma-a-na^! at KUB 17.24 ii 3 is tentatively assigned to the present lemma, in CLL:276. The context does not favor this, but at least the unexpected plene spellings are no obstacle, since the short song incipit cited within the witašši-ritual contains more such cases. – For substantivized zam(ma)našš(i)-^MUŠEN, see under Lemma.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

From the context of KBo 3.8 iii 10f. and 28f. (see under Forms and Fuscagni 2017a), it becomes clear that zam(ma)n- must denote either a typical habitat of the lion (like the high place of the wolf; thus ‘lair^?’ in Melchert 2005a:448) or a typical feature (like the milk of the goat, ibid. 31). Assuming the latter, the meaning ‘damage’ as suggested under the lemma of CLuw. zam(ma)n- is very well possible, since the lion may stand metaphorically for the concept.

In the ritual KUB 17.12 (for the full text, see Görke 2015b), a person is struck ill by the anger of the Ḫuwassana deity (§ 1). Later the deity is pacified (§ 6’’) and the strong and opposing men (also demons?) also receive a bread sacrifice (§ 7’’). In § 8’’, the pacified Ḫuwaššanna comes. Therefore, the strong and opposing men are requested to step out of the way. The next paragraph (§ 9’’) reports that, on the following one or two days, the dingir^MEŠ zamnašša/i- receive bread and oil. Presumably, the term refers to the strong and opposing men, or rather demons, so that an interpretation as ‘deities of damage, damaging deities’ agrees well with the preceding context.

Differently, Taylor (apud Nikolaev 2019a:195 n. 49), who interprets the dingir^MEŠ zamnašša/i- as gods overseeing curses.

No translation is offered in CLL:276, Ünal 2007a:814, EDHIL:1030; Meriggi 1980a:310: “un concetto negativo.”

[E.R.]

For the classification as -m(ma)n- stem, see under the lemma of CLuw. zam(ma)n-.

[E.R.]