nakkušša/i-

The occurrences mostly come from texts with Hurrian background (from MS onwards) and from Hittite parts of texts from the Kuwattalla tradition. A full list of attestations is offered in CHD L-N:376.

[E.R.]

The broken form na-k[u- at KUB 46.41, 2’ listed in CHD L-N:376 may or may not belong here.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The spelling with the determinative UDU as found in KUB 39.71 is exceptional. – The reading na-ak-ku-uš-ši-⸢uš⸣ at KBo 10.42 iv 4’ follows CHD L-N:376 (different Yakubovich & Mouton 2023a:268).

[E.R.]

First wrongly interpreted as ‘substitute’ (e.g. Sturtevant 1936a:107, Friedrich 1947-1948a:14, Otten 1953a:72 with n. 64, DLL:73, HW:148, 360, 425, HHw:110), the word was later shown to mean ‘scapegoat, sin carrier’ by van Brock 1959a:126-139, a translation now widely accepted (HW:402, 425, Starke 1990a:168f., CLL:153, HED N:53-56, CHD L-N:375, Ünal 2007a:471, EDHIL:594, Bawanypeck 2005a:244, Melchert 2014b:225, Yakubovich & Mouton 2023b:414, DCL:s.v., Ivanov 2024a:209; further references are provided in Richter 2012a:262f, s.v. nakkušše). More information about the role of the nakušša/i- ‘sin carrier, scapegoat’ in rituals and the terminological distinction from tarpalla/i- ‘substitute’ is offered by van Brock 1959a:117-126, Kümmel 1967a:19-22, Gurney 1977a:52-58, and most recently Ivanov 2024a (with references).

[E.R.]

The lexeme, attested only in Hittite transmission, belongs to the class of i-stems. The sole a-stem form probably remains unexplained. Most modern scholars now agree that nakkušša/i- represents a Hurrian participle nakk=u/o=šše ‘the one released’ (Giorgieri 2000b:292) built from the Hurrian verb nakk- ‘to release’, the meaning of which was finally ascertained by the Hurrian-Hittite bilingual (see Neu 1996a:325f.); for references regarding the Hurrian term, see Richter 2012a:262f.

[E.R.]

1. nakkuššaḫi(t)-
2. nakkuššā(i)-^(di)

With a single exception (nakkuššan at KUB 41.11 rev. 12’), the stem ends in -i-, and no by-forms in -i(t) are attested, which may speak for a direct borrowing from Hurrian. Also, the gloss wedge marked word at KUB 46.41, 2’ claimed to be another attestation of nakkušša/i- is less than certain, while nakkuššan is best understood as a pseudo-etymological analysis by the scribe (see under Stem). Therefore, neither the assumption that the word came into Hittite from Hurrian via Luwian (DLL:73, Melchert 2005a:449), nor the analysis as a genuinely Luwian word, viz. nakku- ‘damage’ with relational suffix -ašša/i- (cf. Melchert 1977a:285, Laroche 1986a, Starke 1990a:118, 168f., Rieken 1999a:203, HED N:53, 56, still considered by Sasseville 2021a:194f.; skeptical EDHIL:594; see Melchert 2014b:225 for counter-arguments) is not followed here. For a discussion of the circumstances by which the Hurrian term was introduced to the rituals of Kuwattalla tradition, see Yakubovich & Mouton 2023b:173; cf. also Richter 2012a:262f. for references.

[E.R.]

If the term nakkušša/i- was borrowed directly from Hurrian into Hittite, there is no need to look for Luwian models for the inner-Hittite derivative verbs nakkuššiye/a-^(mi) ‘to be a scapegoat’ and nakkuššešš-^(mi) ‘to become a scapegoat’ (thus Starke 1990a:168f., but see Melchert 2014b:225). Only the lack of stem-final -i- in nakkušsatar ‘scapegoat rite’ may reflect direct influence from Luw. nakkuššaḫi(t)- ‘scapegoat rite’ or a more general adaptation of the principles of Luwian i-mutation.

[E.R.]