ḫarzazūn/t- (ḫarzašūn)
‘(collection of morsels)’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, c. and n.
- ID
- 3547
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Luwian in Hittite transmission
ḫarzazūn/t- (ḫarzašūn)
‘(collection of morsels)’1.1.1Transmission
The lexeme is attested more than a hundred times in Hittite festival texts, of which only a selection is presented below (from MS onwards, perhaps already in OS).
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. sg. | NINDAḫar-za-zu-un | KBo 30.58 ii? 4’ | (CTH 634, NS) |
| ḫar-za-šu-un | KBo 21.49 i 5’ | (CTH 660, NS) | |
| ḫar-za-šu-u[n] | KBo 65.360, 2’ | (CTH 660, N/A) | |
| ḫar-za-šu-ú-un | KUB 59.22 iii 15’ | (CTH 627, NS) | |
| [ḫar-za-zu-u]n(?) | KBo 25.98, 6’ | (CTH 670, OS) | |
| acc. sg. | ḫar-za-zu-ú-ta-an | KUB 20.99 ii 17 | (CTH 636, NS) |
| dat./loc. sg. | NINDAḫar-za-zu-u-ti | KUB 27.69 iii 6’ | (CTH 591, NS) |
| abl. (Hitt.) | [NINDAḫar-z]a-zu-ta-za | KUB 17.37 i 12’ | (CTH 528, NS) |
| instr. (Hitt.) | [NINDAḫa]r-za-zu-te-et | KBo 56.164, 2’ | (CTH 670, NS) |
| NINDAḫar-za-⸢zu⸣-i[t] | KBo 52.152, 4’ | (CTH 670, NS) | |
| acc. pl. (?) | [NINDAḫ]ar-za-zu-uš | KBo 46.151, 2’ | (CTH 670, NS) |
| nom./acc. pl. | NINDAḫar-za-zu-ú-ta | KUB 20.12, 5’ | (CTH 670, NS) |
| NINDAḫar-za-zu-ta | KBo 49.44, 14’ | (CTH 683, NS) | |
| ḫar-za-zu-ú-ta | KUB 21.85 i 50’ | (CTH 630, MS) | |
| ⸢NINDAḫar⸣-za-zu-u-ta | KBo 24.95 obv. 15’ | (CTH 683, NS) | |
| stem form | NINDAḫar-za-zu-un | KBo 30.58 ii 8 | (CTH 634, NS) |
In spite of the unexpected neuter gender form of ḫar-za-zu-ú-ta-an at KUB 20.99 ii 17, the syntax does not permit an interpretation as gen. pl. (contra Watkins 1993a:474).
[E.R.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The spelling iš-tu NINDAḫar-za-zu-un at KBo 30.58 ii 8 is discussed in HW 2nd ed. Ḫ.386, but contra HW 2nd ed., the subsequent sign should probably be read babbar, instead of an unparalleled instrumental ending -ut with broken spelling. If the interpretation is correct, ḫarzazun is used like a stem form. – The form NINDAḫar-zu-ú-zu-ta at KBo 11.15, 4’ is probably a misspelling. – The context-based restoration of [ḫar-za-zu-u]n at KBo 25.98, 6’ follows Neu 1983a:58, though it is less than assured.
[E.R.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
If the plausible etymological connection of word-initial ḫarza- with NINDAḫarši- is correct, it presupposes a substitution of -z- for -š- after -r-; cf. NINDAḫarzapauwant- (Bo 8250, 6’) beside normal NINDAḫar(a)špawant- (a bread), marš/za(š)tarri- ‘desecration’, arš/zana- ‘guesthouse’, arziya- ‘cultivated land’ vs. aršiye/a- ‘to plant’ (see also Melchert 1994a:121 for the sound change).
Phonological variation is found in two positions. First, the plene vowel of the third syllable alternates between U and Ú (each attested 3-4 times), with a single Ú spelling already in a MS manuscript. The latter corresponds to the spelling with Ú in its sister stem form nom./acc. sg. n. ḫīrūn / obl. ḫīrūt- ‘(false) oath’ and could be easily explained by analogy with it, which amounts to assuming that the spelling with U represents the original one. Secondly, there are three spellings with -š- instead of -z- in the third syllable, which may be explained as pseudo-etymological spellings based on the scribe’s attribution of the second member of compound -zuwa-/-šuwa- to the verb šuwe/a- ‘to fill’, assuming a meaning ‘one’s fill/share of ḫarši- bread’ (assumed to be original in HED H:208).
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
From KBo 4.13 iii 14-16, Hoffner 1974a:157f. (followed in Weitenberg 1984a:245f., Starke 1990a:574f., Watkins 1993a:471, HHw:45, Ünal 2007a:189) concluded that the NINDAḫarzazu(t)- was a crumb dish with a soupy consistency: (14’)1 DUGdílim.gal mušen TU7ḫu‑ru‑ti‑el 1 ninda.ku7 ba.ba.za ⸢½?⸣ up-ni (15’)1 NINDApu‑ni‑ki‑⸢iš⸣ ba.ba.za up‑ni 10? an.daḫ.šumSAR (16’)NINDAḫar‑za‑zu‑ta i‑ia‑an‑zi “One bird-shaped bowl with a chickpea-dish, one sweet-bread made of mash of half a handful, one puniki-bread made of mash of half a handful, 10 an.daḫ.šumSAR-plants.” However, the apparent ingredients of the soupy dish remain discrete entities, cf. ibid. iii 18’-20’: (18’)ta iš‑tu ninda.ku7 NINDApu‑un‑ni‑ki‑it TU7ḫu‑ru‑ti‑li‑it (19’)an.daḫ.šumSAR iš-tu kaš.geštin (20’)aš-riḪI.A ir‑ḫa‑a‑an‑zi “And with the sweet-bread, the punniki-bread, the chickpea-dish, the an.daḫ.šumSAR-plants, and the kaš.geštin-drink, they perform (the sacrifice for) all places in a row.” Moreover, IBoT 4.208 r. col. 1’-8’ + KUB 59.22 iii 11’-21’ shows that not only a ninda.gur4.ra paršiantan “loaf (in a) broken (state)” is distinct from a ninda.gur4.ra ‘loaf’ made into a ḫarzašūn (as noted already by Hoffner), but also that the result of the action (without the use of chickpea-soup) is a collection of several paršulli-s that can be distributed among several sacred places: (13’)1 ninda.gur4.ra pár‑ši‑ia‑an‑ta‑an (1’/14’)⸢pal⸣‑ḫa‑aš pé‑ra‑an da‑a‑i (2’/15’)1 ninda.gur4.ra ḫar‑za‑šu‑ú‑un (3’/16’)i‑e‑ez‑zi § (4’/17’)ugula LÚ.MEŠ⸢muḫaldim⸣ ḫa‑aš‑ši‑i pár‑šu‑ul‑li (5’/18’)da‑a‑i ⸢ku‑ut⸣‑ta‑aš pé‑ra‑an (6’/19’)pár‑šu‑ul‑l[i] da‑a‑i(7’/20’)ḫa‑at‑tal‑[wa]‑⸢aš!⸣ giš‑ru‑i (8’/21’)⸢pár‑šu⸣‑ul‑l[i da]‑⸢a⸣‑i ... “He places 1 loaf broken in front of the pithoi, he makes 1 loaf into a collection of morsels. § The chief of cooks places a morsel on the hearth, he places a morsel in front of the walls, a morsel at the wooden doorbolt ... .” Accordingly, an entire loaf of ninda.gur4.ra paršiantan “loaf (in a) broken (state)” is sacrificed broken into pieces in some places, but only morsels of a loaf appear to be sacrificed in other places. Thus, Güterbock’s (apud HW:340, Kronasser 1966a:192, followed in Carruba 1967a:154, Haas 1974a:219, Berman 1972a:95) semantic interpretation ‘morsel, piece of bread’ represents the most plausible one.Cf. also HEG A-K:191 and Ünal 2007a:189: undecided between ‘bread-soup’ and ‘morsel’; HED H:206-209: ‘breadmash’; Watkins 1993a:471: ḫarzazu-pudding’. Outdated Sommer & Falkenstein 1938a:172f., followed in HW:340, Friedrich 1947b:16; cf. Weitenberg 1984a for an argument against that proposal.
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
While most scholars operated with an original stem *ḫarzazuwant- showing syncope of -uwa- > -u- and graphic suppression of the nasal (since Laroche 1960a:164), Watkins 1993a:471-477 considered the stem in -ut- to be original. Weitenberg 1984a:245, on the other hand, believed that the word was a borrowing from Hattian, featuring both phonological and morphological irregularities.
A new approach was taken by Starke. Partly building on Carruba 1967a:154f., he started from Luwian nom./acc. sg. n. *ḫarzazu / obl. ḫarzazut- and explained ḫarzazuta- n. convincingly as a Hittitized stem (although a common gender stem would be expected instead of the attested neuter). Another Hittitized stem would be ḫarzazu- c., attested only rarely, whereas frequent ḫarzazūn is interpreted as the Luwian form of the nom./acc. sg. n. (like Luwian nom./acc. sg. n. ḫīrūn besides oblique stem form ḫīrūt-). This was modified by Melchert 2004d, who tried to demonstrate that ḫarzazun was built from the expected nom./acc. sg. n. *ḫarzazu (with loss of stem-final -t) by transfer to the thematic stems and syncopation of thematic ḫarzuzuwan to ḫarzazūn.
However, it is more likely that the nom./acc. sg. n. ḫarzazūn was the original form (i.e. a compound with the neuter noun zūwa- ‘portion, share’). As a consequence, it can be assumed that the oblique stem in -ūt- was built to cope with the irregular neuter nom./acc. sg. in -ūn, thus creating a stem with transparent morphological boundaries (Rieken 2006a:291f.).
[E.R.]
1.1.6Origin
The derivation of the stems and the inflectional parallelism with CLuw. ḫīrūn/t- ‘(false) oath’ points clearly to a genuinely Luwian lexeme borrowed into Hittite; cf. Starke 1990a:574f., HHw:45, Melchert 2004d, Melchert 2005a:449; contra Weitenberg 1984a:245 “Hattian”, Carruba 1967a:154 “ultimately Hurrian”, Kronasser 1966a:192 and HEG A-K:191 “Hurrian”.
[E.R.]