x(-)ḫaršāni-/x(-)ḫuršāni-

This word is only attested once and is assumed to appear with gloss marker on a LNS Sammeltafel in Hittite context with Luwianisms in the birth ritual of Pittei (CTH 767).

[A.B.]

acc. sg.

˹x(-)ḪAR˺-ša-a-ni-in

KBo 13.241+KUB 44.4 rev. 12?

(CTH 767, LNS)

The word is usually listed as Glossenkeilwort ḫaršāni- (but other options are possible, cf. below). The attestation follows CLL:60, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:343 (cf. HED H:189, van den Hout 2006a:251, Ünal 2007a:185, Ünal 2016a:167, not in Laroche 1959a). The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

As correctly indicated in HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:343, the sign ḪAR can be read as ḫar (as usually assumed [cf. Beckman 1983a:176, 189; Giorgieri 2004a:410, 414; Tischler 2016a:78, Bachvarova 2013a:137,139, Torri & Barsacchi 2018a:269, Ünal 2007a:185, Ünal 2016a:167, van den Hout 2006a:251, HED H:189]) or ḫur (in theory, also a reading mur would be possible but this would fit with no other known word). The actual reading remains unclear, for the possibility of the second one cf. under Meaning.

Another issue makes the identification of this word problematic. The other two attestations listed in CLL:60 as ḫar-ša-ni-in-[zi] and ḫar-ša-ni-en-zi appear in the Akkadian medical omen KUB 37.195 (and its duplicate). According to Wilhelm 1994a:47, 50 the sequence in line 8’ shows ma-aḫ-ḫar(-)ša-ni-in-[zi (a gloss added to the Sumerogram ba.úš) and the attestation listed in CLL:60 as appearing in KBo 9.149, 5’ represents a mistake for KBo 9.49 which is a duplicate of the above mentioned medical omen and shows the same sequence in a fragmentary version: -a]ḫ-ḫar(-)ša-ni-in₄-zi, for these attestations cf. under the lemma maḫḫa/uršani-, since the beginning of this word is unclear (cf. under Graphic features) it cannot be excluded that also the attestation discussed here belongs to this word.

[A.B.]

The beginning of the word is fragmentary, most scholars read a double gloss marker but on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv this is not clearly visible. The hand copy indicates two wedges that could be either diagonals or Winkelhaken but it looks different from the photo, which shows traces above as well as on the left bottom. It looks different from the other gloss markers used in this text which are usually two diagonals. In view of the other two assumed attestations (which clearly belong to a word maḫḫa/uršani-, cf. under Forms), one could not exclude that this sign represents an unusually written and/or fragmentary MAḪ-sign.

[A.B.]

The meaning of this word is unknown. CLL:60 does not indicate any meaning. While some scholars cautiously assume a meaning ‘head’ (or sim.), based on the reading ḫaršāni- and considering a connection to Hitt. ḫaršar/ḫarš(ša)n- ‘head, person’ (cf. Beckman 1983a:176f., 188f.; Haas 2003a:119, Tischler 2008a:49, Tischler 2016a:78, Ünal 2007a:185, Ünal 2016a:167), others assume some kind of ritual substance, cf. Giorgieri 2004a:414, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:343, HED H:189 (apparently also Bachvarova 2013a:137, 139).

The context of KBo 13.241+KUB 44.4 rev. 11–14 shows the following (transliteration is based on photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv and the hand copies, furthermore, the transliterations, restorations and translations of Beckman 1983a:176f.; Bachvarova 2013a:137,139; Starke 1990a:234; Haas 2003a:119; Torri & Barsacchi 2018a:269; Giorgieri 2004a:410; HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:343, HED H:189 have been taken account of):

⁽¹¹⁾(…) nu-uš-ši pé-ra^!-an^{! MUNUS.‹meš›}šà.zu ⁽¹²⁾kar-ši-kar-ši ˹x(-)ḪAR˺-ša-a-ni-in me-an‹-du› ša^! kaskal-ni ˹˺ku-wa-˹ri˺-in me-an-d[u] x[-a]r^?-di^?-˹ma^?˺ [saḫ]ar^ḫi.a-uš me-an-du ⁽¹³⁾tu-li-ia-aš na₄[-an me-]an-du ^na4pé-ru-na-aš gurun me-an-du ši-(eras)-ia-wa-x-x[ ]x [me-a]n-du ⁽¹⁴⁾ti-an na₄-an me-an-du na-˹at˺ ku-wa-aš-ku-wa-aš-ša-˹an˺-du na-at í.nun igi-an-d[a ...]

^(11–12)(…) before her the midwives shall take for^? the karšikarši x(-)ḫa/uršāni, they sha[ll] take the x(-)x-wari of the road but^? […] they shall take [as]hes ⁽¹³⁾they shall [take] the sto[ne] of the assembly, they shall take the fruit of the rock, […] they shal[l take] ⁽¹⁴⁾they shall take the living rock, they shall grind it, […] it wit[h] butter  

Beckman 1983a:177, 188f. translates as “for the head” (cf. Haas 2003a:119). He correctly points out that the Luwian word for ‘head’ is ḫarmaḫ(i)- and assumes that the word he reads as ḫaršānin belongs to the Hittite word for head ḫaršar/ḫarš(ša)n- suggesting the accusative is employed adverbially here.

HED H:189 raises doubts against this interpretation since the translation “for the head” should not involve an accusative case. Moreover, a meaning ‘head’ does not actually fit in this list. x(-)ḫa/uršānin is an acc. sg. form and since it appears in a repeated parallel construction of a list of ritual substances (mainly minerals) that are “to be taken” to mix a pastry (perhaps represented by the word karšikarši, which would fit here as dat.-loc. sg.), it is most probably another direct object, hence another ritual substance.

It remains unclear which kind of ritual substance x(-)ḫa/uršāni- could be. HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:343 cautiously considers a dialectal variant of ^(giš)karšani- “Seifenpflanze”. An alternation between k and ḫ is, however, only attested rarely and under different conditions in Hittite (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:47f.). Thus, a connection between these words is improbable (also rejected in HEG A–K:521).

Considering possible derivatives HED H:189 suggests that the word may be “related to ḫaršanili-, a vegetal substance…from which flour [and ointment?] was made”, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:343 lists this word as a type of cereal. If the word is to be read ḫaršāni- it could be the base of ḫaršanili- (cf. under Origin for possible derivational suffixes) and indeed be a kind of plant or part of a plant that is used as a ritual substance. Regarding stem formation a connection to the similar Hitt. verb ḫārš-^(ḫi) ‘to till (the soil)’, for this verb cf. EDHIL:312f. and HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:340, is morphologically problematic (cf. under Origin).

The i-stem of x(-)ḫa/uršāni- could point to a Kulturwort or Wanderwort that came as a loan from Hurrian, Akkadian or another language (cf. under Origin; a typological parallel could be Hitt. kappāni- ‘caraway seed, cumin’ that according to HEG A–K:488f. is a loan from a Semitic language transmitted via Hurrian).CAD Ḫ:115 lists a word ḫaršanānu, which seems to be a kind of precious stone. But a connection to a possible Hittite word ḫaršāni-, if it even exists, can hardly be established, not only, due to the morphological differences, but also, because the identification of the Akkadian word itself seems to be problematice since it appears as zarnanu in a parallel passage, cf. CAD Ḫ:115 and CAD Z:69.

If it is to be identified as ḫuršāni- a probable candidate could be an Akkadian term for a plant that is attested as ^úḫuršan in the Akkadian medical text (which also contains Hittite and Luwian translation glosses) KUB 42.30 obv. 20 (and 28 as ^úḫurzan), cf. Giusfredi 2012c:50–53. CAD Ḫ:254f. lists it under the lemma ḫuršānu-. This solution would be morphologically (cf. under Origin) and semantically possible.

The remaining problem is the beginning of the attested form x(-)ḫa/uršāni-. The traces of the first sign do not seem to fit the determinative ú. The use of determinatives is not obligatory, but as already noted, the form could also belong to a word maḫḫa/uršani-, unfortunately the meaning of this word is also unclear (cf. under the respective lemma).

[A.B.]

The origin of this word is unclear. Beckman 1983a:188f. assumes a Hittite word but as explained under Meaning, a meaning ‘head’ is rather improbable here. The word under discussion is also often assumed to be of Luwian origin and appears in CLL:60 as well as in the lists of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2006a:251 (not in that of Melchert 2005a), it is furthermore assumed to be Luwian by Tischler 2008a:49, Tischler 2016a:78, Ünal 2007a:185 and Ünal 2016a:167. The form is attested in a Hittite text with many Luwianisms, which makes a Luwian origin (or at least transmission) more probable and CLL:60 assumes more forms belonging to this word which show Luwian inflection (cf. under Forms). Another reason for the assumption of a Luwian origin is 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. However, as pointed out under Graphic Features, the gloss marker is quite uncertain.

The assumed derivative ḫaršanili- (cf. HED H:189) does not help to clarify the origin, since it could be either Luwian (cf. Melchert 2003b:195 for the Luwian suffix -il(i)- or Hittite (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:58 for the Hittite suffix -ili-).

The stem formation of x(-)ḫa/uršāni- remains unclear (a derivation from the similar Hitt. verb ḫārš-^(ḫi) ‘to till (the soil)’ lacks a fitting suffix and is problematic due to the fragmentary beginning of the word). But since x(-)ḫa/uršāni- is an i-stem, it might as well be a loanword from Akkadian or Hurrian (probably via Luwian transmission) since these usually appear as i-stems in Hittite (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:53). A possible candidate for a reading ḫuršāni- could be the plant name ^úḫuršan (or ḫuršānu-), cf. under Meaning.

But as noted above, the form could also belong to maḫḫa/uršani- and in this case a Luwian origin would be assured due to the attestations with Luwian inflection.

[A.B.]