*Habā́d-

This lexeme is only attested in the Iron Age period. It is found in early inscriptions of the 11th or 10th century BCE (e.g. IZGIN 1, §5), but its first full phonetic spelling is attested in KARKAMIŠ A11b+c §25 dated to the reign of Katuwa (10th/9th c. BCE).

[D.S.]

The meaning ‘river’ for the logogram L.212 was suggested by Gelb 1931a:14 and decisively assigned by Laroche 1973a:181; cf. Laroche 1960c:116f. Mittelberger 1962a:285 suggests the meaning ‘river-valley’ for (FLUMEN.REGIO)ha-pa-tà-si. Laroche 1973a:181 follows him and connects etymologically the new lexeme with CLuw. ḫāp(i)- ‘river’. For a discussion of the Phoenician equivalent in the bilingual inscription of Karatepe 1 §48 and its problematic see Morpurgo Davies & Hawkins 1987a:270-272.

The lexeme /habad(i)-/ may refer to the topographical feature ‘river-land’ or ‘river-valley’. In a sacrificial or architectural context, it can be the agent of the action thus referring to its inhabitants.

[D.S.]

1. FLUMEN.REGIO.DOMINUS

1. /habadai(ya)-/
2. /Habadil(i)-/ (PN) (TELL AHMAR 1, §1)

Attested only thrice in the Hittite text known as the “Indictment of Madduwatta” (CTH 147) in MS.

[Zs.S.]

Attestations following CLL:55 and HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:219 (cf. also Ünal 2007a:168, Ünal 2016a:155), checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[A.B.], [Zs.S.]

The word appears always in the same phrase, see e.g. KUB 14.1 obv. 20 (translation and restoration [based on the parallel phrases] follow Beckman in Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:72f.):

namma=ma=wa[=z] parā tamāin ḫapātin tamai KUR-e ZI[-it] lē [ēš]tari
‘You shall not occupy in addition another ḫapāti- (or) another land on your own authority’

In other words, there is a pair of terms, KUR and ḫapāti-, types of political units, both having their own ruler. This should be confronted with the proposed meanings (for early opinions based on philological misunderstandings see the overview of HEG A-K:163f. with refs.):

1. Riemschneider 1970a:66 suggested ‘verwüsteter Landstrich, Ödland’, which, however, does not fit the context: why would any overlord wish to rule over any wasteland or desert?
2. Neumann 1971a:270 sees ‘a geographical term’ in it, which, however, can be specified, see the next proposals.
3. Carruba 1976a:124 assumes a meaning ‘fiume, vallata’, which, however does not fit the political context (followed by HEG A-K:164, but see below).
4. Starke 1990a:514 proposed ‘bewässertes Land, Kulturland‘ (similarly CLL:55: ‘irrigated land’, but cf. below; Tischler 2008a:45, Tischler 2016a:956: ‘bewässertes Land, Ackerland’), obviously based on etymological grounds. Although this etymology is correct (see below), the definition of the meaning should be based on the context. In this case this proposal does not reflect the pair of political units KUR vs. ḫapāti-, since ‘irrigated land’ (not to mention ‘Ackerland’) does not appear in the Hittite political vocabulary.
5. Melchert 2003b:196 and Beckman in Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:73 and passim chose to translate it as ‘river valley’, which may be literally correct, but does not reflect the political sense of the term.
6. This is why many scholars opt for a meaning ‘river land’ (adopted also here), a well-known subtype of political units in Anatolian historical geography (Laroche 1973a:182; HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:219; Ünal 2007a:168, Ünal 2016a:155; EDHIL:294 [with question mark]), since we are dealing here with two types of political units.

[Zs.S.]

There is no agreement regarding the origin of this word. While Starke 1990a:514 n. 1897 and CLL:55 treats it as Luwian, it is not included in the lists of Luwianisms either by Melchert 2005a or van den Hout 2007a. Moreover, many scholars (Laroche 1973a:182f.; HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:219; Ünal 2007a:168, Ünal 2016a:155 [although includes an unattested ḫapatti- ‘?’ among the Cuneiform Luwian words, Ünal 2016a:956]; Tischler 2008a:45, Tischler 2016a:69; EDHIL:294) assume that it is a Hittite word.

There is an almost general agreement, however, that the word goes back to ḫāpa/i- ‘river’ (Carruba 1976a:124; HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:219; EDHIL:294) via its denominal verb, ḫāpāi- ‘to wet, to moisten’ (Laroche 1973a:182f.; HEG A-K:164; Starke 1990a:514; CLL:55, but cf. below; for the form, meaning and etymology of this verb see s.v.). Its suffix is usually assumed to be “eine deverbale -tti-Ableitung” (Starke 1990a:514 n. 1897, followed by CLL:55, similarly already Laroche 1973a:182f., cf. also HEG A-K:164). While this is certainly possible (with -t(t)(i)-, Melchert 2003b:197, thus its single -t- does not exclude this derivation, contra HED H:120), Melchert 2003b:196 now opts for a derivation with -t(t)a/i-, a suffix forming adjectives (often later substantivized) from nouns. This suggestion is to be preferred, since it is built on an attested noun (the Luwian status of ḫāpāi- is not assured, see s.v.) with a meaning that perfectly fits, unlike the meaning of the verb. Note that Hittite has no such suffixes (contra Laroche 1973a:182f.), and thus both suggestions prove the Luwian origin of the word.

The Luwian origin is further supported by an identical Hieroglyphic Luwian word, cf. already Carruba 1973a:37; Starke 1990a:514; CLL:55, see s.v.

[Zs.S.]

This lexeme is only attested on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, which is dated to the period shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE.

[D.S.]

The instance xbade (TL 55.4) might represent the dative plural of this lexeme (DLL:135) or the 3^rd sg. pret. of the verb xba(i)-^(di) ‘to irrigate’. Pace Gusmani 1968c:14, the form xbade (TL 44c.63) can hardly be nominative singular, since e-stems have a nominative and an accusative plural in -ez, but not in -iz; cf. nom./acc. pl. xbadiz.

[D.S.]

The restoration in xba[da]siz (TL 44d.51-52) is taken from Friedrich 1932a:68.

[D.S.]

Shevoroshkin 1978a:254 suggests an etymological connection between xbad(i)- and CLuw. ḫapāt(i)- ‘river-land, river-valley’. However, his assumption that xbad(i)- is an ethnicon referring to the people of xbide- ‘Caunos’ (in spite of the attestation of xbidewñn(i)- ‘Caunian’) is unpersuasive. The etymology is taken over by Melchert (DLL:135), who however keeps the basic meaning ‘river-valley’ (id. Schürr 2009c:100). The meaning ‘river-valley’ is both contextually and etymologically convincing. The lexeme xbad(i)- is used as a topographic feature of Lycia (e.g. TL 44c.37). But, when used as the subject of the action, it refers to its inhabitants (e.g. TL 44c.49-50, d2).Pace Gusmani 1968c:14, the assumption that xbad(i)- is a military term based on a comparison with waxssa- can no longer be maintained. For an overview of further outdated hypotheses see Neumann 2007a:116.

[D.S.]

This lexeme has a mutated stem with a genitival adjective in -ase/i-, which speaks for an original consonantal stem; see Sasseville 2018a:314-316.

[D.S.]

1. xbadasa- (deity) (Sasseville 2018a:309-311)

A Carian name attested in a Greek inscription from Halicarnassus (Zgusta 1964a:221, §567-1; Blümel 1992a:16; Adiego 2007a:460), c. 425-350 BCE (Blümel 1993a:3).

[Zs.S.]

Attestation following Zgusta 1964a:221 (§567-1) and Blümel 1992a:16; checked against the available photographs.

[Zs.S.]

This name is generally connected with *Hab-, the Luwic word for ‘river’ (Meier-Brügger 1998a:43; Schürr 2001c:64, Schürr 2003c:69 with n. 2; Blümel & Kızıl 2004a:136; Adiego 2007a:334). Meier-Brügger 1998a:43 cautiously entertains the possibility of connecting this word to *kbid-, but points out the difference in vocalism. More convincing is the proposal of Schürr 2001c:64, who explains it as the cognate of Luwian ḫapāta/i- ‘river land’, which would fit phonologically (cf. PA *ā > Carian o, Adiego 2007a:258). However, a personal name meaning ‘river land’ is problematic. One may thus perhaps assume a derivative *ḫapātiya- > * ḫapāti- ‘one of the river land’, but none of these proposals can be verified.

[Zs.S.]