/zunawal(i)-/

This lexeme is attested on the KULULU lead strips dated to the mid-late 8th century BCE.

[D.S.]

We choose to emend the determinative (URBS) in the second instance (KULULU lead strip 2, §2, 13 (Tabal)), based on its absence in the first instance. The mistake in the second can be explained through scribal persistence.

[D.S.] [I.Y.]

The meaning ‘hound master’ or ‘hunter’ is largely dependent upon the etymological analysis of the lexeme, in which the derivational base is taken to be the Luwian noun for ‘dog, hound’, i.e. /zuwan(i)-/. See under Reconstruction.

[D.S.]

1. PES₂.PES-CANIS.ZU(WA) (PN) (Oreshko 2013a:388-390)

Hapax in a Hittite oracle text in NS.

[Zs.S.]

Attestations following HEG U-Z:782 (cf. also Otten 1971b:4; Ünal 2007a:827, Ünal 2016a:612) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz.

Otten 1971b:4 cautiously suggests (with question mark) a scribal error instead of ^LÚ.MEŠan-na-ú-li-iš ‘of equal rank, peer’. However, HEG U-Z:783 rightly points out that this is unnecessary due to its clear parallels in onomastics (both as a place name Zunauli(ya) and as the second member of the Luwic (Arzawan) PN Tapalazunauli, on these and related names see most recently Oreshko 2013a:389f., 416 n. 201 with refs.). One can also add that this scribal error is not probable from a graphic point of view (note also that the sign on the tablet is very clear) and the resulting meaning does not really fit the context, cf. under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

The word is supposed to mean a kind of staff (Otten 1971b:4, “Personal”), functionary (Tischler 2008a:236, Tischler 2016a:461), or temple functionary (Ünal 2007a:827, Ünal 2016a:612), although not included in Pecchioli Daddi 1982a. Most recently, Oreshko 2013a:415f. suggested ‘hunter’ and Tischler became more cautious defining it only as the “Benennung oder Beiwort einer Menschengruppe” (HEG U-Z:782). The fragmentary context does not really allow a precise definition of the meaning. HEG U-Z:782 reads the text KUB 18.9 i 5’-8’ as follows:

(5’) … ^fAnniniyamis BA.ÚŠ
(6’) [… SISKU]R=ma=wa=za U]L iyat n=as=kan ŠÀ É.DINGIR^LIM
(7’) [… saknuwanza iyat]tat LÚ^MEŠ zu-na-ú-li-iš-ša
(8’) [kuies ŠA ḪUR.SAG …] x-mi isgaruhiya KÙ.BABBAR
(9’) [… maninkukwan UL] iyattat

“die Anniniyami starb […] hat das Ritual nicht vollzogen und ging [… beschmutzt] ins Innere des Tempels und die zunauli-Leute des Gebirges […] kam dem isgaruh-Gefäß aus Silber nicht nahe”

Setting aside the obvious misprint maninkukwan, it is entirely unclear what is the basis of the restoration kuies ŠA ḪUR.SAG ‘des Gebirges’ that changes completely the associations of zunauli-. Since there is no argument for this restoration, it cannot be taken into account. Otherwise the situation seems clear, zunauli- must be connected somehow with the temple and due to its determinative a kind of temple functionary seems plausible (on the problems regarding the meaning ‘hunter’ suggested by Oreshko see under Origin). Note that the meaning of Otten’s alternative reading (‘of equal rank, peer’) does not make sense here.

[Zs.S.]

HEG U-Z:782f. does not provide any etymology (EDHIL has not included it either, but it is not clear if he classified it as a non-Hittite word or as a scribal error, as per above).

Oreshko 2013a:413–416 suggested that zunauli- is the reading of the Hieroglyphic Luwian word *109.*285 ‘hunter’ (not quoted by HEG). While this meaning would fit the context quoted above, there are other readings of this word too (see the discussion s.v.).

Moreover, David Sasseville suggests (per litt., 23.11.2016) identifying zunauli- with the Hieroglyphic Luwian word zunawali- ‘hound master vel sim.’. If the identification of this Hieroglyphic Luwian word is correct (see the discussion s.v.), this suggestion is formally possible (with a common sound change) and makes sense in the context, as they would be then the hound masters or similar of the temple (cf. under Meaning). The Luwian origin is supported also by the presence of zunauli- in Luwic onomastics, as per above.

[Zs.S.]