/hummad(i)-/

This lexeme is attested twice in inscriptions from Karkamiš, dating to the 10^th or early 9^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

dat./loc. sg.	/hummadi/	(“PODIUM”)hu-ma-ti	KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §17 (Karkamiš)
poss. adj. acc. sg. c.	/hummadassin/	“PODIUM”-ma-tà-si-na	KARKAMIŠ A20a1, §2 (Karkamiš)

Contra Hawkins 2000a:106, the present lexeme does not extend to the forms attested at KARKAMIŠ A1a, §§19-20, for which see HLuw. /tad-/ ‘block’, or KARKAMIŠ A21, §8, which probably belongs to HLuw. /alant-/ ‘place’.

[A.P.] [AH.B.]

The meaning ‘precinct’ (Yakubovich 2017e:s.v.) assigned to this word is somewhat tentative, just like that of its CLuw. cognate ḫum(ma)d(i)- ‘precinct’.For which cf. the suggestions and discussions by Otten 1953a:54 (generally identified as “Bestandteil des Hauses”), Meriggi 1957b:71f. (“stalla” comparing Hittite ḫumma- ‘stable, sty’), Laroche 1957a:23f. (“base, socle”), Melchert in CLL:73 (“pediment” vel sim.).Previous suggestions include ‘base’ by Meriggi 1934a:45, 99 and ‘podium’ by Laroche 1957a:23f. (followed by Hawkins 2000a:103), which are possible, but do not reflect the likely etymological connection with ḫūmmā- ‘stable, sty’ (cf. Puhvel in HED Ḫ:373). The context in KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §17 supports both meanings: *a-wa/i-ma-tá za-ti-i (“PODIUM”)hu-ma-ti (SOLIUM)i-sà-nú-wa/i-ha, approx. /a=wa=mu=ada=tta zatti hummadi isnuwahha/, translating as ‘(I myself saw the procession of my masters, the god Karhuha and the goddess Kubaba), and I myself settled them in this precinct (?)’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:103). Taking the probable etymological links into account, however, an interpretation as ‘precinct’ seems more suitable.

[AH.B.]

Although the grammatical gender does not become evident in the HLuw. attestations, the noun is assumed to be common gender just like its cognate CLuw. ḫūm(ma)d(i)- ‘precinct (?)’ (cf. CLL:73). It is likely a secondary noun in /-ad(i)-/, deriving from the noun attested in ḫūmmā- ‘stable, sty’.

[AH.B.]

All attestations come from the Puriyanni ritual (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

nom. sg.	[ḫ]u-u-um-ma-ti-iš	KUB 35.54 ii 50’	(CTH 758, MS)
	ḫ[u-u-u]m-ma-ti-iš	KUB 35.54 iii 28	(CTH 758, MS)
	ḫu-u-um-ti-iš	KUB 35.54 iii 32	(CTH 758, MS)
nom. pl.	ḫu-um-ti-i[n-zi]	KUB 35.53 iii 8’	(CTH 758, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Both attestations of ḫu-u-um-t° without -ma- are found at the end of a line, where the shorter spelling is used due to the lack of space.

[E.R.]

Already Laroche 1957a:23f. pointed out that ḫum(ma)ti- occurs in lists detailing the parts of a house, e.g. “houses, ḫum(ma)t(i)-, hearth, ḫuwaḫḫuršant(i)-, earth” (KUB 35.54 ii 49’-51’). He also drew attention to the Hieroglyphic Luwian match (“PODIUM”)hu-ma-ti-, which is interpreted as ‘base, socle’ on account of the shape of the determinative (thus also DLL:48, HW:384, CLL:73, HHw:54; different Meriggi 1957b:71f. “stable”). While ḫūm(ma)t(i)- certainly denotes a place where deities are set up in the house, other options are also possible, e.g. ‘niche’ (considered in Yakubovich & Mouton 2023a:16), ‘precinct’ (Rieken & Yakubovich forthcoming), or ‘interior wall’ (DCL:s.v.). The new proposals are suitable to square the evidence of the Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian corpora with the likely relationship with ḫūmma- ‘pigsty’ in Hittite context (on which cf., e.g., HEG A-K:283, HED H:373, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:712). In each case, the location is a space delimited by some kind of ‘enclosure’. Of these, the translation ‘niche’ is the most attractive, because it is also reconcilable with the Hieroglyphic pictogram PODIUM, where the part protruding from the rectangle does not indicate an elevated part (in vertical direction), but a horizontal extension of the floor.Outdated is the comparison between ḫūm(ma)t(i)- and Hitt. ḫuimpa- ‘?’ by Laroche 1954a:123.

[E.R.]

The stem ḫum(ma)t(i)- is interpreted here as a derivative with the suffix -t(i)- from the root ḫu(wa)mm- ‘to catch, grab’.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. ḫūmmā-.