ḫaršant-

The attestations of the word are found in a mythological text (Atramḫasis) and a ritual description.

[E.R.]

acc. sg.	ḫa-⸢ar⸣-ša-an-ta-an	KUB 8.63 iv 14’	(CTH 347, NS)
	[ḫa-a]r-ša-an-da-an	KUB 36.83 i 25	(CTH 456, NS)
	[ḫa?]-ar-ša-an-ta-an	KUB 36.83 i 28	(CTH 456, NS)
unknown	ḫa-ar-[ša-an-t°	KUB 8.63 iv 21’	(CTH 347, NS)

The attestation at KUB 8.63 iv 21’ is likely, but not assured. – For a different restoration as [wa^?-a]r-ša-an-da-an at KUB 36.83 i 25 and [wa^?]-ar-ša-an-da-an ibid. i 28 (beside wa-ar-š[a^?- ibid. i 26), see HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:344, followed by Fuscagni 2014d; contra DLL:42 and CLL:60 with an assignment of the forms to the present lemma.

[E.R.]

Unfortunately, the tablet is in a fragmentary state, but based on ^GIŠmar.gíd.da^MEŠ in iv 15’ and the assumed derivative ^GIŠḫaršandanaḫi(t)- translated as ‘(part of a vehicle)’ at the time, it was generally assumed that also ^GIŠḫaršant- denoted a part of a vehicle or, more specifically, the wheel (Laroche 1951b:96f., DLL:42, HW:60, 330, CLL:60, HEG A-K:184, Polvani 2003a:537 speculating also about the assignment to a poetic register, HHw:s.v.; no translation in Beckman 2019a:65f.). However, the wider context makes mention of fields (a.šà^MEŠ, iv 3’; a.šà^ḪI.A, iv 5’), ants consuming something (la-la-ú-e-ša-aš ga-ra-pí, iv 12’), a cart ^GIŠmar.gíd.da^MEŠ, iv15’), and grain (ḫal-ki-in, iv 16’), indicating an agricultural scenario. Therefore, a participial form of ḫarš- ‘to till, to plough’ seems to be a better option (for the formal interpretation, see also the considerations in CLL:60). Furthermore, as HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:344 points out, the attestations at KUB 36.83 i 25 and i 28 suggest an animal, because [ḫa-a]r-ša-an-da-an is the direct object of turiyanzi ‘they harness’. In combination, these pieces of information should lead now to the assumption that ḫaršant- denotes an animal that can be yoked and is involved in the production of grain, hence a ‘ploughing animal’.

A contextual analysis provides further details for the semantic interpretation of the lexeme under discussion. The paragraph preceding the attestation (KUB 36.83 i 16-23) tells us that the ritual patron “is in” several evils (impurity etc.), that he is fastened under them.The meaning ‘to be fastened’ is drawn from this passage, expressing the opposite of the process of releasing; still different HEG T:149 assuming tarai-/-i(ya)-^(ḫi) is transitive; Bawanypeck 2005a:266-269 without translation; Fuscagni 2014d:§9 n. 10 thinking of ‘to release’ based on different restoration; Reichmuth 2011a:141 adduces the form darāwen which must belong to a different verb.On account of the combination with taruḫ-^(mi) ‘to be able, to cope’ in a following clause, also tariḫḫun in KUB 30.10 rev. 4 (Prayer of Katuzzili) should be assigned to this verb and separated from tariye/a-^(mi) ‘to exert oneself, to become tired’. Hitt. tarai-/-i(ya)-^(ḫi) is probably derived from the root underlying tarma- ‘nail, peg’.] unable to cope or to free himself. He is also fastened to the terror (ḫatugatar) caused by various creatures of the field, unable to remove them. Then the performance of sympathetic magic is described three times (see Bawanypeck 2005a:266-269 and Fuscagni 2014d, modified):

⁽²⁴⁾[gu₄-u]š ⸢ša-pal⸣ ^GIŠ⸢šu.šùdun⸣-i ⸢da⸣-ra-⸢a-i na⸣-an a[r^?-ḫa^?                    ]

⁽²⁵⁾[ḫa-a]r-ša-an-da-an tu-u-ri-ia-an-zi nu x[                         ] 

⁽²⁶⁾[da-ra-a]-⸢i⸣ na-an ar-ḫa la-a-an-zi nu wa-ar-x[                        ]

⁽²⁷⁾[                 ] gú-un da-ra-a-i na-an ar-ḫa tar-na-a[n-zi                ]

⁽²⁸⁾[        ḫa^?]-ar-⸢ša⸣-an-ta-an kar-pa-nu-wa-an-z[i                  ]

“[The bo]vine is fastened under the yoke, and [they release] it. They harness it as a [plo]ughing animal (so that) [its         is fasten]ed, and they release it. [They ...] the war-x[            ], (so that) regarding (its) neck it is fastened, and [they] let it go. [They finish^?/begin^?] to remove the [pl]oughing animal^?.”

Afterwards, the text states the removal of the evils from the ritual patron by the Sun-god.

[E.R.]

Within the Hittite context, the form is most likely the acc. sg. c. of a stem in -ant- or ant-a-,  thematized in the process of borrowing (CLL:60, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:344, HHw:s.v.).

[E.R.]

1. ḫaršandanaḫi(t)-

The root, the derivational suffix, and the ending could be Hittite.On the etymology of the root ḫarš-, see EDHIL:312-314. An indication for a Luwian origin of the word are the gloss-wedges, which by itself would not be decisive, but the assumed derivation ^GIŠḫaršandanaḫi(t)- with the Luwian suffixes -ann(i)- and -aḫi(t)- tips the scales towards a Luwian borrowing.

[E.R.]