parzašša/i-

The word is attested from NS in a court deposition regarding Ukkura (CTH 293), in a NS inventory text (CTH 242), a text of unknown content (CTH 832), as well as in a LNS letter of a commander (CTH 203).

[A.B.]

nom./acc. pl. n.	pár-za-aš-ša	KUB 13.35++ rev. iii 46	(CTH 293, NS)
	pár-za-aš-š[a-	KUB 40.1 rev.! 16	(CTH 203, LNS)
	pár-za-aš-ša	KBo 48.262a++ obv. ii 23	(CTH 242, NS)
unclear	x(-)pár!?-za-aš-š[a	KBo 66.59, 2	(CTH 832, NS)
	x(-)pár-za-aš-ša(-)x[	KBo 66.59, 4	(CTH 832, NS)

The attestations follow Laroche 1959a:80, CLL:171, CHD P:202f., HED P:180 (cf. Ünal 2007a:529, Ünal 2016a:406, cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:195, Güterbock 1956a:129, van den Hout 2007a:245f.) and Melchert (pers. comm.). The transliterations have been checked against the 3D-scans of the Mainzer 3D-Archiv as well as the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[A.B.]

The attestations in KBo 66.59, 2’ and 4’ are fragmentary (as is the context). Melchert (pers. comm.) cautiously considers gloss markers before both instances but the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv and the 3D-scan of the Mainzer 3D-Archiv only show traces of a vertical that could as well be the number sign for the numeral 1. The reading remains unclear, but a gloss marker seems less probable since it would have either the form of a Winkelhaken or a diagonal.

In line 2’ the sign before ZA does not have the form of the sign BAR (=pár), instead it shows two horizontals (on the 3D-scan, they even look like diagonals). An emendation to pár^!? is possible, since a form pár^!?-za-aš-š[a can be expected here as well due to the attestation of the same word pár-za-aš-ša(-)x[ in line 4’.

[A.B.]

The meaning of this word is uncertain (no meaning is indicated in HEG D,T:26, Tischler 2008a:181, Tischler 2016a:267 and Melchert 2005a:451). For the plausible proposal by Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:110 who assume a material ‘black iron’ (or sim.), cf. below.

Laroche 1959a:80 had pointed out that it is an epithet of arrows (based on the context of KUB 13.35++ rev. iii 46f.) and cautiously considered a meaning “carquois” (‘quiver’, cf. CLL:171, Güterbock 1956a:129, Ünal 2007a:529, Ünal 2016a:406). The context of KUB 13.35++ rev. iii 46f. shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, furthermore, the hand copy as well as the transliterations of Werner 1967b:12; Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:109; CHD P:202 and HED PA:180 have been taken into account):

(46)GIŠtukul GIŠban GIkak.tag.ga pár-za-aš-ša u-nu-ut zabar (47)URUDUpa-a-šu gal URUDUḫa-az-zi-in-nu gír^! gal zabar         

(46)mace, bow, arrow of parza-, utensils of bronze (47)large hatchet, axe, sword of bronze

CHD P:202f. abandoned the meaning ‘quiver’ since the word also describes leopard protomes in KBo 48.262a++ obv. ii 22f. (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, also the hand copy as well as the transliterations of Otten 1989c:366; Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:109; CHD P:202 and HED PA:180 have been taken into account):

(22)2 gú pírig.tur kù.gi NA4za.gìn NA4mu-uš-nu-wa-a[n- …] (23)pár-za-aš-ša

(22)two gold leopard protomes (with) lapis lazuli (and) mušnuwa[nt]-stone (23)of parza-

Since parzašša in KUB 13.35++ rev. iii 46 describes arrows and appears in lists together with other artifacts made of metal, it could also denote some kind of metal. Based on its similarity with Akk. parzillu ‘iron’ (cf. CAD P:212­­­–216, also written with the Sumerogram an.bar), one could assume a connection to this word. Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:108f. point out that the Akkadian word could have its origin in Anatolia from a source *parzil(i)-, an adjective derived from a noun *parza- (which could be Hitt. or Luwian). And since parzašša is also based on a noun *parza- (cf. under Origin for the morphological possibilities), such a connection is formally possible. Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:110 remark, however, that parzašša must be “a kind of material that was different from the ordinary iron”, for while the Hittite texts “mention a number of sharp-ended objects made of iron (…) they never refer to iron arrowheads”. The authors go on to show (110–112) that, just like parzašša, the Sumerogram an.bar ge6 ‘black iron’ (a modification of the Sumerogram an.bar for ‘iron’ with ge6 ‘black, dark’ [note that the usual reading for an.bar in Hittite is ḫapalki-, cf. also Weeden 2011a:152–154, 441]) is also used in combination with lapis lazuli and gold to manufacture certain objects with contrasting colours and point out that ‘gold’ and ‘black iron’ (kù.gi an.bar ge6) appear together in the above-mentioned text KBo 48.262a++ obv. ii 17, only a few lines before parzašša. They propose that an.bar ge6 could be the Sumerographic spelling for *parza- (admittting that independent evidence is required to confirm this theory). They suggest that parzašša is “a possessive form derived from the name of a metal or mineral”.

The context of KUB 40.1 rev.^! 15–16 is opaque (the transliteration given here is based on the 3D-scan of the Mainzer 3D-Archiv, in addition, the hand copy as well as the transliterations of Hoffner 2009a:360; Hagenbuchner 1989a:69, 71; Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:110; Marizza 2009a:151; CHD P:202 and HED PA:180 have been taken into account):

(15)[... d]⸢utu-ši-ma en-ia⸣ [... -]x-an ke-e-ez-za zag-za nu-un-tar-aš a-u-wa-an ⸢ar-ḫa⸣ (16)[da^?-]⸢a⸣-i pár-za-aš-š[a- … -]⸢e⸣-ka4 da-a-ia-al-la me-ḫur-riḫi.a ⸢ar⸣-ta-ri-⸢i⸣

(15–16)[...] But the [Ma]jesty, my lord, […] from this border quickly [tak]es far away; the parzašš[a …] dāyalla times are stan[ding ...]

Hagenbuchner 1989a:75 assumes a third Glossenkeilwort in the break and suggests that this word together with parzašša and dāyalla refers to meḫurriḫi.a. In addition to the possibility that both forms, parzašša and dāyalla, modify meḫurriḫi.a, Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:110 consider the possibility that the lacuna in the middle of line 16 contains another noun functioning as syntactic head for parzašša. For the second option, they suggest that either dāyalla meḫurriḫi.a could function as a second subject asyndetically coordinated with parzašša (which would be modifiying the assumed noun in the lacuna); or that dāyalla meḫurriḫi.a is to be interpreted as an accusative modifier of time “in the dāyalla times”. The meaning of dāyalla remains unclear (cf. under the respective lemma), but based on the meaning they proposed for parzašša (cf. above), Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:109f. suggest that if parzašša modifies meḫurriḫi.a (translating “times of parza-”), it could mean something like “Iron Times”. Regarding the possible association with ‘black iron’, they also consider the possibility of a negative metaphoric meaning of the sequence. But as the authors remark, exceptfor  a cross-cultural perception of black as an inauspicious color, there is no support from Hittite metaphoric expressions involving iron for a negative connotation.

To conclude, it is most probable that the Glossenkeilwort parzašša/i- refers to a certain kind of metal. A connection to Akk. parzillu ‘iron’ is possible and, considering that parzašša is used in a similar context as an.bar ge6, it seems plausible that it could refer to ‘black iron’ or a similar black substance containing iron (as assumed by Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:112f.), but further evidence is needed to determine its precise meaning.

[A.B.]

The Glossenkeilwort parzašša/i- is generally assumed to be of Luwian origin (cf. Laroche 1959a:80, CLL:171 CHD P:202f., HED PA:180, Tischler 2008a:181, Tischler 2016a:267, Ünal 2007a:529, Ünal 2016a:406, 967, Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:109, as well as the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a:451 and van den Hout 2007a:245f.). One reason for this is the use of the gloss marker. Although its use does not constitute proof of a word’s Luwian origin (cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445), the vast majority of words provided with this marker are in fact of Luwian origin).

Already Güterbock 1956a:129 assumed parzašša/i- to be Luwian due to the suffix -ašši-. The suffix he meant is the Luwian suffix -ašša/i-, which is very productive in forming possessive adjectives (cf. Melchert 2003b:196). The base of parzašša/i- would be a Luwian noun *parza- (Valério & Yakubovich 2010a:109 also point out the possiblity that it could be a “rare genitive in -assa < *-os-so formed directly from the nominal stem parza-”). The Glossenkeilwort parzašša/i- is a Luwian loan or foreign word in Hittite.

[A.B.]