ḫattara-

The word is found in passages from the Tauriša tradition and the Puriyanni ritual.

[E.R.]

acc. sg.	ḫa-at-ta-ra-am(=)	KBo 13.260 ii 1	(CTH 766, NS)
	ḫa-at-⸢ta⸣-ra-an	KBo 13.260 ii 16	(CTH 766, NS)
	ḫa-at-ta-ra-an	KBo 13.260 ii 17	(CTH 766, NS)
		KBo 29.27 i 8’	(CTH 766, NS)
abl./instr.	GIŠḫa-⸢ta⸣-ra-a-ti	KUB 35.52, 10’	(CTH 758, NS)
	GIŠḫa-at-ta-ra-a-ti	KUB 35.54 ii 33’	(CTH 758, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

Several different translations have so far been proposed by scholars: ‘hoe’ (Starke 1990a:310, CLL:64, Lehrman 1998a:156, HHw:47, EDHIL:334f.), ‘prick’ (HED H:264), ‘pickaxe’ (Sasseville 2021a:148), generic ‘tool for tilling the field’ (HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:497).

In both its contexts of attestation, ḫattara- denotes a wooden tool that has a destructive force, used either against seed for magic analogy or on the ritual opponent himself. At KBo 13.260 ii 1-4 and ii 14-23, ḫattara-, itself ultimately deriving from ḫatt- ‘to pierce, strike’, occurs in a list together with other tools for piercing: ii 1 ḫattara-, ii 2 muḫatra-, ii 3 pizzarna-, and ii 4 tur(i)-. Likewise, at KUB 35.54 ii 33’f., it is paired with ^GIŠtur(i)- ‘spear’. Thus, both the contextual and the etymological analysis point in the same direction, viz. that ḫattara- is likely a long, pointed tool suitable for destruction.

[E.R.]

There is a broad consensus that ḫattara- derives from ḫatt- ‘to pierce, strike’ (Starke 1990a:310, CLL:64, HEG A-K:221, Lehrman 1998a:156, Rieken 1999a:390, HED H:264, EDHIL:334f., HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:497). Regarding the suffix, Starke 1990a:310 (followed in Rieken 1999a:390; different HEG A-K:216) posits a formant -ra- used to build common gender substantives (cf. also Hitt. ḫūp(pa)ra- ‘basin’, gimra- ‘field’). Accordingly, the medial -a- vowel between geminate -tt- and -r- should be mute, i.e. a purely graphic feature. Nevertheless, the spelling with °t-ta-r° in the derivatives in both Luwian and Hittite transmission is consistent and contrasts with the likewise consistent spelling °t-r° in ḫatra(i)- ‘to write’ and its derivatives, which are said to be genuinely Hittite (Starke 1990a:415 n. 1491). If correct, the two spellings would render the same phonological sequence /-ttr-/, but be deliberately deployed by the scribes to distinguish the semantically divergent word families, one of them from Luwian and the other from Hittite.

In contrast, Puhvel (HED H:264) writes: “hatt-ara- is an instrument noun from hatt-, allomorphic with hatt-alla- ‘club, bolt’ ..., like e. g. aku-ttara- ‘drinker’ beside the more common -talla-.” Although one would no longer relate the respective -r- and -l- suffixes or posit an -ara- suffix, the idea that -a- in -ara- represents a full phonological vowel has much to recommend itself in view of the consistent graphic distinction between ḫattarV- and ḫatrV-. Assuming then that the vowel is real, the unmutated common gender noun in -a-, ḫatta- ‘piercing, striking’ provides the basis for an adjective in -ra/i- (< *-ro-), *ḫatta-ra/i- ‘related to/suitable for piercing/striking’. The latter was individualized by way of transfer to the stems in non-mutating -a- yielding a substantive ḫatta-ra- with concretized semantics, viz. ‘tool for piercing/striking’.Unless it is a spelling mistake, a further piece of evidence in favor of this derivation is provided by the spelling of the participial form ḫa-ad-da-a-ra-an with medial plene -a- (Hitt. ḫattara(i)-^(mi), cited in HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:497).

The second option is given preference here, because it does not require any additional assumptions regarding the spelling conventions. The derivational chain assumed for Luwian also applies to Hitt. ^GIŠḫattara- and its word family (ḫattara(i)-, ḫattariye/a-, ḫattareššar/n-, for which see HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:497-499). This renders unnecessary the loanword hypothesis for these lexemes (as advanced in Oettinger 1979a:379, Starke 1990a:310, Rieken 1999a:390, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:497). The same skepticism is expressed in EDHIL:334f.

[E.R.]

1. ḫattari-^(ti)

For the lemma head see CLuw. *ḫatt-.

It is debated, whether Hitt. ḫattara- is a genuine inherited word or a loanword from Luwian (see above), especially since words for weapons or tools can be easily borrowed. The perspective offered below prefers the inherited view, which would then lead to a Proto-Anatolian dating of the formation.

Two additional attestations not mentioned in HW 2nd ed.:497 are found in the ritual for the disappearing deity containing a mix of Palaic and Luwian incantations (CTH 752), i.e. acc. sg. ḫa-at-ta-ra-an (KUB 32.117 + KUB 35.93 + KBo 19.156 iii 11´/16´/4´ and KBo 8.74 + KUB 32.117 + KBo 19.156 iii 1´/12´/5´). Its attestation in the myth of Telipinu mentioned already in HW 2nd ed.:497 is noteworthy, considering the two new attestations recognized in a Palaic-Luwian ritual with the same mythological context.