ḫawattanna/i-

Attested in NS and LNS Hittite ritual texts.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	NINDAḫa-[wa-at-ta-an-ni-iš]	Bo 3784 i 9’	(CTH 470, unknown)
	NINDAḫa-wa-at-[ta-an-ni-iš]	Bo 3784 i 15’	(CTH 470, unknown)
nom. sg./pl. c.	[NINDAḫa-wa]-ta-an-ni-iš	KUB 41.21 i 3’	(CTH 780, LNS)
	[NINDAḫa]-˹wa˺-ta-an-ni-iš	Bo 6405 ii 7’	(CTH 781, unknown)
nom. pl. c.	NINDAḫa-wa-at-ta-ni-iš	KUB 32.129 i 22	(CTH 474, NS)
	NINDAḫa-wa-at-ta-ni-eš	KUB 44.26 rev. 13’	(CTH 744, NS)
unknown	[NINDAḫa-wa]-˹at˺-ta-na	KBo 42.46 i 8’	(CTH 635, NS)

Attestations following HW (2nd ed.) III:537. (cf. also Hoffner 1974a:158; Ünal 2007a:205, Ünal 2016a:182) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz (there is no available photo in case of Bo 3784 and Bo 6405) and slightly corrected.

The restorations ^NINDAḫa-[wa-at-ta-an-ni-iš] in Bo 3784 i 9’ and ^NINDAḫa-wa-at-[ta-an-ni-iš] in Bo 3784 i 15’ are based on the quantity given in the text (1) and were suggested by HW (2nd ed.) III:537, that also suggested the restoration [^NINDAḫa-wa]-˹at˺-ta-na in KBo 42.46 i 8’, whose connection with this word must remain open due to the fragmentary context.

Restoration of [^NINDAḫa]-˹wa˺-ta-an-ni-iš in Bo 6405 ii 7’ was suggested by Haas & Thiel 1978a:292 and followed by Haas & Wegner 1988a/I:172 (with question mark); Fuscagni 2007a:140; and HW (2nd ed.) III:537 (with question mark). Restoration of [^NINDAḫa]-˹wa˺-ta-an-ni-iš in KUB 41.21 i 3’ was suggested by Haas & Wegner 1988a/I:161 and followed by HW (2nd ed.) III:537 (on the photo of the Konkordanz only [^NINDAḫa-wa]-ta-an-ni-iš is visible, despite the hand copy KUB 41.21). Although both restorations are possible, they cannot be verified due to the fragmentary context.

[Zs.S.]

It is attested only in lists of breads or pastries without any further qualification, thus its precise meaning can be approached only by etymological means (see below). Since, however, its etymology is generally considered to be unknown and any connection with the word for ‘sheep’ is refused (see below), none of handbooks ventures a more precise meaning (Alp 1954a:462; Hoffner 1974a:158; HEG A-K:230, Tischler 2008a:53, Tischler 2016a:86; Haas & Wegner 1988a/II:101; HW (2nd ed.) III:537; Ünal 2007a:205, Ünal 2016a:182). The only exception is Hagenbuchner 2002a:22 n. 104, 24, 167, who explicitly claims that this is a bread type in form of a small sheep, i.e. lamb (although she does not translate the term in Hagenbuchner 2002a:163).

[Zs.S.]

Although the word recalls ḫāwi-, the Luwian word for ‘sheep’ and bread names referring to sheep are known (cf. ḫawiyašša/i- and Hoffner 1974a:158f.; Hagenbuchner 2002a:24), any connection was harshly rejected by Hoffner 1974a:158 (“sheer speculation”) claiming that the linguistic affiliation of this word is undetermined (cf. also HEG A-K:230 [“ohne Anhalt”] and HED H:280, albeit without any arguments). It is not included in the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a either.

Needless to say, Hoffner’s reasoning is not an appropriate argument. Instead, it is tempting to see in ḫawattanna/i- the diminutive suffix -anna/i-, which is Luwian (Melchert 2003b:196). Hoffner 1974a:158 claims that this is unlikely due to the single spelling of -n- and the uncertain quality of the stem vowel. However, the attested forms absolutely allow this suffix as far as the vowel is concerned. The problem is the spelling of the consonant: if the restorations [^NINDAḫa]-˹wa˺-ta-an-ni-iš in Bo 6405 ii 7’ and [^NINDAḫa-wa]-ta-an-ni-iš in KUB 41.21 i 3’ are correct, then there is no formal objection against a diminutive suffix. If not, then there is indeed no diminutive suffix and the origin of this word remains unclear and one may return to the claim of Kronasser 1966a:221, who saw an unclear suffix -ni- in it (the restorations have not been suggested at the time of Hoffner, but they must have been known to Tischler and Puhvel).

Pursuing further the possibility that the restorations are correct, one may furthermore segment the Luwian suffix -tta- that forms adjectives (later often substantivized) from nouns (Melchert 2003b:196 with ref.). Thus one would arrive to the translation given by Hagenbuchner-Dresel quoted above (‘bread in the shape of small sheep, i.e. lamb’). The problem with this view is that the stem *ḫawa- cannot be reconciled with the word for ‘sheep’, since there is no compelling evidence for an -a-stem (see the discussion under the respective entries in Cuneiform Luwian and Luwian in Old Assyrian transmission s.v. *Hou̯i-).

All in all, if the restorations are correct, the morphology points to a Luwian loanword, but its meaning and connection to the word for ‘sheep’ remains unclear.

[Zs.S.]