uriyann(i)-

The term is widely attested across the genres and periods (more than 40 occurrences). It is found in the palace chronicle, letters, treaties and other historical texts, land-deeds, festivals and rituals (from OS onwards).

[E.R.]

nom. sg.	[LÚ]⸢u-ri⸣-an-ni-iš	KUB 36.104 obv. 3’	(CTH 8, OS)
	LÚu-ri-an-ni-iš	KBo 3.34 i 5	(CTH 8, NS)
	LÚ⸢u⸣-[ri-an-ni-iš]	KBo 13.44, 5	(CTH 8, NS)
acc. sg.	LÚu-ri-an-ni-in	KUB 36.104 obv. 5’	(CTH 8, OS)
	LÚu-ri-an-ni-in	KBo 3.34 i 7	(CTH 8, NS)
	[LÚu-ri-i]a?-ni-in	KUB 48.77, 3’	(CTH 8, NS)
	LÚu-ri-ia-an-ni-in	KUB 23.87, 4’	(CTH 209, NS)
dat./loc. sg.	⸢LÚ⸣u-⸢ri⸣-an-ni	KUB 36.104 rev. 8’	(CTH 8, OS)
dat./loc. pl.	[LÚu-ri-ia-an-n]i-ia-aš	KUB 58.112 rev. 9’	(CTH 781, NS)
	[LÚu]-⸢ri⸣-ia-an-ni-ia-aš	KBo 12.118 rev.? 20’	(CTH 781, NS)
unknown	[L]Úu-ri-⸢an-ni⸣(-)[	KBo 20.66, 3’	(CTH 627, MS)
	LÚu-ri-⸢an⸣-[ni-	KUB 36.104 rev. 3’	(CTH 8, OS)
	[L]Úu-ri-ia-a[n-n]i	VBoT 94, 6’	(CTH 670, NS)
	LÚu-ri-ia-an-[ni]	ABoT 1.50, 10’	(CTH 215, NS)
stem form	LÚu-ri-an-ni	KBo 5.7 rev. 22	(CTH 222, NS)
	LÚu-ri-ia-an-ni	KBo 4.10 rev. 29	(CTH 106, NS)
		KBo 1.6 rev. 19’	(CTH 75, NS)
	LÚu-ri-ia-an-ni	KBo 13.267 rev. 14’	(CTH 753, NS)
	LÚu-⸢ri-an-ni⸣	KBo 23.91 iv 17	(CTH 666, MS)

Further attestations are listed by Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:266-268 and HEG U-Z:96-98. – The form [^LÚu-ri-ia-an-n]i-ia-aš at KUB 58.112 rev. 9’ is restored after the duplicate text at KBo 12.118 rev.^? 20’ (following Košak 1990a:150f.). – ^MUNUS/fúr-ri-ia-a[n- following dam ^mGaššū at KUB 7.61 obv. 2 is not necessarily a title, but could also be a personal name. In any case, the different spelling with geminate -rr- could exclude the assignment of the word to the present lemma.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, except for VBoT 94, 6’.

[E.R.]

For a detailed research history on the meaning of ^LÚuriyann(i)- (including its synonymous variant ^LÚurayann(i)-) and the long list of proposals, see HEG U-Z:96-99. It is clear that the word denotes a high official. As Pecchioli Daddi 1975a:119f. pointed out, the ^LÚuriyanni- functioned as a witness in international treaties and in land-deeds. He was also a land-owner himself, executed a verdict when establishing borders between states, took part in festivals, and is mentioned together with the gal sanga ‘chief of priests’. There seems to be a ^LÚuriyann(i)- “to the right” (and probably “to the left”; see Rüster 1993a:69). Also, the house of the ^LÚuriyanni- (é ^LÚuriyanni, e.g. KBo 54.122 iv 1) is frequently mentioned. In view of the diversity of contexts, Tischler (HEG U-Z:96) suspects that ^LÚuriyann(i)- does not denote a single type of functionary, but is a generic term for high officials in general. However, this does not conform well with its occurrence as the amplifying apposition of individuals in witness lists.

[E.R.]

Based on a substantivization ‘the big one’ of the adjective ura/i- ‘big, great’, an otherwise unattested relational adjective *uri(ya)- ‘related to the big one, biggish’ was derived, to which the suffix -ann(i)- was attached to form a noun with individualizing function; cf. the modern military rank major ← Lat. maior ‘bigger’ (thus also DCL:s.v.; see also Kronasser 1966a:222 for the early identification of the -an(n)i- suffix; different HEG U-Z:97 reconstructing as an intermediary step a verb *uriya- ‘to be big’).

[E.R.]

Contra EDHIL:936f., the frequent use of the stem form in lists of functionaries and the stem alternation as such is no reason to regard ^LÚuriyann(i)- and ^LÚurayann(i)- as borrowings. However, the Luwian base ura/i- ‘big, great’, together with the two suffixes -i(ya)- and the mutated -ann(i)- productive in Luwian, betray the Luwian origin of ^LÚuriyann(i)- assumed in EDHIL:936f. (followed in Watson 2008a:459, 464; also Rieken 2005b:68, DCL:s.v.).

[E.R.]

Within Akkadian contexts, the lexeme occurs in land-deeds from Boğazköy and the İnandık land-deed, but it is also found in royal edicts from both the Ugaritic cuneiform and the cuneiform alphabetic traditions. For the use as a personal name at 2.97:17, see del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2015a:109.

[E.R.]

Boğazköy and İnandık, Akkadian tradition:

gen. sg.	LÚu-ri-an-ni	İK 174-66 rev. 25	(CTH 222, OS?)
		Bo 90/729	(CTH 222, MS)
	LÚu-ri-⸢an⸣-ni	KUB 48.102 rev. 3’	(CTH 222, MS)
	[LÚ]⸢u⸣-ri-an-ni	KBo 8.26 rev. 3’	(CTH 222, MS)
obl. pl.	LÚu-ri-an-nu-tim	Bo 90/758 obv. 8	(CTH 222, MS)

Further attestations are listed by Rüster & Wilhelm 2012a:253. – The same scholars (ibid. 162f.) interpret ^LÚu-ri-an-nu-tim at Bo 90/758 obv. 8 as the abstract formation and assign a meaning ‘college of uriyanni- functionaries’ (“uriyanni-Kollegium”). This is not excluded, and the omission of the plural determinative MEŠ might speak for the suggestion, but still an analysis as a simple obl. pl. form in -ūti(m) (like bēlūti, see Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:453) is more economical (with the same conclusion Rüster 1993a:68f., also Daniel Schwemer, pers. comm.).

Ugarit, cuneiform alphabetic tradition:

nom. sg.

ủryn

KTU 6.29:3

See del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2015a:109.

Ugarit, Cuneiform tradition:

nom. sg.

LÚú-ri-ia-an-nu

RS 17.368 (PRU 4, 77) rev. 5’

(CTH 65)

See Nougayrol 1956a:77f., Tischler HEG U-Z:98 and Watson 2008a:549.

[E.R.]

The forms attested in the Boğazköy and İnandık texts were checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv and Balkan 1973a:85.

[E.R.]

For the meaning, see under Luwian ^LÚuriyanni- in Hittite transmission.

[E.R.]

For the Stem, see under Luwian ^LÚuriyanni- in Hittite transmission.

[E.R.]

The equation with Luwian ^LÚuriyanni- in Hittite transmission is generally accepted; cf. del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2015a:109 with references.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. ura/i-.