ḫarpušta- (or ḫurpušta-)
‘medium-sized hollow for offerings (?)’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, coll.
- ID
- 3361
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Luwian (Glossenkeilwörter)
ḫarpušta- (or ḫurpušta-)
1.1.1Transmission
The gloss wedge word is limited to a single NS manuscript of a cult inventory.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. coll. | ḪAR-pu-uš-ta |
KUB 17.35 iv 31 | (CTH 526, NS) |
| dat./loc. pl. | ḪAR-pu-uš-ta-aš |
KUB 17.35 iv 5, 8 | (CTH 526, NS) |
| ḪAR-pu-uš-ta-aš |
KUB 17.35 iv 27 | (CTH 526, NS) | |
| ḪAR-pu-uš-ta-aš |
KUB 17.35 iv 10, 14 | (CTH 526, NS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
Since the lexeme is consistently spelled with the ḪAR sign, the readings ḫarpušta- and ḫurpušta- are equally possible. A reading murpušta- can, however, be safely excluded (contra Busse & Simon 2018a:250), because the reading mur is limited in Hittite to the personal name mMuršili-. The -u- vowel of the second syllable presumably arose by anaptyxis in the neighborhood of the labial plosive (see under Stem).
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The earliest attempt at an interpretation, viz. ‘foliage’, is based on the unfounded identification with Hitt. ḫurpašta(n)- c. ‘leaf, peel’ (Meriggi 1957a:201 n. 22, followed in HW:76, Kronasser 1966a:197, HEG A-K:307f., HED H:406, Rieken 1999a:223f., HHw:56, Ünal 2007a:184; skeptical CLL:81, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:762). More recently, Cammarosano 2018a:164 (contraCarter 1962a:132) suggested that the lexeme denoted “a sacred grotto, a waterfall or a[n] underground basin, where a ‘festival of the (ritual) washing’ and probably also a spring festival are performed.” In the same year, Busse & Simon 2018a:251-253, interpreted the lexeme as a word for the hollow for offerings, neither very large nor small. They argue that a) the size cannot be very large since there are several ḪAR-pu-uš-ta close to the cult stele, b) the size cannot be very small since it can accommodate several loaves and a vessel, c) it is hollow since the priest libates the items “into” it, d) it is located at a low height since the items are also poured “down.” The authors point to carved artificial pits of various sizes as evidenced by archaeological excavations, and the size of the pit may not necessarily be a semantic feature of the lexeme. However, the occurrence of the ḪAR-pu-uš-ta in a festival of ablution in one description (but not in the other, referring to the festival of the opening of the pithos) must then be due to coincidence (contra Cammarosano 2018a:164).
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
Based on the attested forms, Busse & Simon 2018a:250 argue that ḪARpušta- represents a neuter plurale tantum. However, in view of the suffix -Všta-, which derives common gender nouns, this must be deemed unlikely. Instead, ḪAR-pu-uš-ta is probably a collective form (cf. Hitt. nom./acc. coll. alpa of alpa- c. ‘cloud’). The -Všta- suffix itself is compounded of the -Vš- suffix, here regarded as a reflex of the zero grade *-s- formant with a preceding anaptyctic vowel, and -ta- (Melchert 1999e:366).
[E.R.]
1.1.6Origin
A Luwian origin is considered in CLL:93, Rieken 1999a:223f., HHw:56, van den Hout 2006a:244, Cammarosano 2015a:229. The only indication for a borrowing is the use of the gloss wedges, which leads Busse & Simon 2018a:252 to regard the conclusion with skepticism.
[E.R.]