*b^hēh₂āsi̯ā-

This lexeme is attested twice in inscriptions from Cilicia, dating to the early 7^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

The word should also appear in the parallel text KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §52, which is fully preserved, but it was apparently forgotten by the scribe, cf. under Meaning below. For the attestation in a new fragment from Karkamiš, see Peker & Weeden 2014a:133-134.

On the surface, the form attested at KARATEPE 1 (Ho.), §52 can be analysed as either singular /pihas=sa/ or (collective) plural /pihassa/, but see the discussions below.

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

The meaning is assigned tentatively to this word, and various scholars have advanced a number of different interpretations, not least since /pihassa-/ is the lexeme morphologically most closely related to CLuw. piḫaššašša/i- (see below).A further investigation of the wider use of CLuw piḫaššašša/i- and its cognates has been undertaken by García Trabazo 2019b. Thus, Yakubovich 2013b:157 n. 5 cautiously suggests ‘glory (?)’, changed to ‘aura’ later (Yakubovich 2017e:s.v.). Since the word is attested in the bilingual KARATEPE 1 inscription, Kloekhorst (EDHIL:674-676) and Sasseville 2018a:305 opt for a translation that is very close to what the Phoenician phrase ʿz ʾdr means, i.e. ‘powerful strength’ or ‘power, strength’. However, the HLuw. and Phoenician versions of this bilingual inscriptions diverge in a number of places in syntactic as well as semantic choices, leaving both scholars’ main argument somewhat weakened.

The only attestation at KARATEPE 1 (Ho.), §52 reads: pi-ià-tù-há-wá/í-tú 〈〈OMNIS.MI-ma-za-a〉〉 “FULGUR”-há-sá OMNIS.MI-za REX-ta-za SUPER+ra/i-ta, approx. /piyantu=ha=wa=du pihassa tanimanz hantiwattanz sarranta/,Comparing the Hu. and Ho. versions of §52, two analyses are possible. First, the Hu. version may be missing two words, viz. /tanima/i-/ ‘all, every’ and /pihassa-/, which is the solution favoured by Hawkins 2000a:55. The second analysis regards the Ho. version as the one containing the scribal error, viz. the first 〈OMNIS.MI-ma-za-a〉. Both analyses are possible from a HLuw. point of view, but the Phoenician version of the clause runs w-ʿz ʾdr ʿl kl mlk ‘and strength exceeding over every king’, containing only one quantifier. Since the Phoenician and HLuw. versions do not usually differ regarding the application of quantifiers, it is more likely that the second analysis is the correct one, cf. the discussion by Sasseville 2018a:304f. meaning ‘And they (scil. the aforementioned gods) shall give to him pihassa above all kings’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:55, 65f.), in which the noun /pihassa/ can be translated with either ‘vigour (= phoen. powerful strength)’ or ‘glory’ (cf. /pihamma/i-/).

[AH.B.]

The stem of this word has seen some discussion. Hawkins 2000a:65 evidently regards it as a form of HLuw. /pihai(ya)-/, likewise a neuter noun,Hawkins assumed it to be a simple a-stem */piha-/, which is however unattested in HLuw. yet the expected form for the nom./acc. sg. assumed by Hawkins should be /pihan=za/, spelt 〈-HA-ZA〉 because of the case ending /-n/, not 〈-há-sá〉 as attested at KARATEPE 1 (Ho.), §52. The attested form therefore suggests a different stem, which can be either an s-stem /pihas-/ (thus e.g. García Trabazo 2019b:183) or a derived /pihassa-/; from a HLuw. point of view, both are very much alike in degree of probability, since the writing system is incapable of showing gemination. However, the CLuw. evidence shows consistent gemination of /s/ in the stem, as pointed out by Melchert (CLL:176). Sasseville 2018a:304f. also analyses it as a substantivised adjective in /-assa/i-/ in the collective or plurale tantum, deriving from an unattested */piha-/. For reasons of economy of argument, a stem /pihassa-/ is therefore also assumed for HLuw. at least until evidence to the contrary comes to light.

[AH.B.]

This noun piḫašša- is attested mainly as the genitival adjective piḫaššašša/i-, a divine epithet for the Storm-god in various text genres, e.g. in Muwattalli’s prayer to the assembly of gods (CTH 381), in contracts with kings of Tarḫuntašša (CTH 106), in festival texts (CTH 613, 656, 670), in cult inventories (CTH 248, 529). There are no attestations that predate New Hittite. For the appearance of ^D10 piḫaššašši in relation to Muwattalli II, see Singer 1996a:185-189.

[D.S.]

The table contains only a selection of attestations. The attestation KUB 6.46 iii 65, listed as a nominative singular is actually used as a vocative.

For the restoration of [^Dpí-ḫa-ša-a]š-ši-i (KUB 56.13 rev. 3’), see de Roos 2007a:234 with n. 579.

Concerning the few attestations with the determinative URU in front of them, see the discussion in Singer 1996a:186.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – No photo is available for the lower part of col. iii of KUB 6.46, which concerns the attestations pí-ḫa-aš-ša-aš-ši-iš in KUB 6.46 iii 65 and pí-ḫa-aš-ša-aš-ši-iš in KUB 6.46 iii 69.*

[D.S.]

The epithet piḫaššašša/i- has been either left untranslated or translated with ‘of lightning’, which is based on various factors such as its use restricted to the Storm-god and its potential rendering with the Sumerogram ḪI.ḪI ‘to flash, shine’ (Friedrich 1930c:84f., 101 “Wettergott der Stadt Piḫaššaš (?)”, Götze 1951b:72 “meaning unknown”, Laroche 1959a:81f. “meaning unknown”, CHDP:256f. “meaning unknown, probably gentilic”, HEG P:604 “of lightning”, Hawkins 1992b:72 “of lightning, (metaph.) of effulgence, splendor”, Singer 1996a:33 “Storm-god piḫaššašši”, but on pp. 86 and 111 “Storm-god of lightning”, EDHIL:675 “of power”, Tischler 2008a:146 “blitzführend, blitzschleudernd”, Cammarosano 2018a:387 “Storm-god of lightning”), although some scholars have pointed out the problems with equating the meanings of ḪI.ḪI and piḫašša-; cf. Kümmel 1967a:84f., Neu 1970a:47 n. 17 “though it wouldn’t surprise”, CHD P:257, Singer 1996a:186). Starke 1990a:103-106 argues actively for the meaning ‘shine, lightning’, adducing further an Indo-European etymology with Skt. bhās- n. ‘light, shine’ (followed by Singer 1996a:185-189, Melchert in CLL:176, DCL:s.v.). For the faint possibility of piḫaššašša/i- being based upon a place name piḫašša, see Singer 1996a:185-189.

Considering the attestation in HLuw. FULGUR-há-sa /pihassa/, which refers to an attribute of the king, it becomes clear that the connection with the logogram ḪI.ḪI is genuine (thus also Hawkins 1992b:72), but that the meaning of the word does not necessarily have to be ‘lightning’. Based on the HLuw. contexts of all cognates and the one in Lycian (see below), piḫašša- cannot contextually mean ‘lightning’ but probably means something similar to ‘glory, victory (vel sim.)’. This would be conducive to translating ^D10 piḫaššašša/i- as ‘Storm-god of glory/victory’ instead of as ‘Storm-god of lightning’ (pace Hawkins 1992b:72). The meaning of ‘glory, victory’ can easily have arisen from ‘that which flashes or shines’ (i.e. as glory or victory makes someone shine), hence also the connotation with a lightning bolt.

In any case, a basic sense ‘power, strength’ (as in EDHIL: 675, which is taken from the Phoenician bilingual) is excluded by the compounds found in personal names such as ^mpiḫa-muwa- and ^mpiḫašša-muwa-, because the element muwa- already means ‘strength, power’. Therefore, as a possessive compound, *piḫa- is expected to mean something that modifies ‘power’ such ‘having the power of glory/victory’.

[D.S.]

The Luwian derivation in -ašša/i- from a base piḫašša- has long been clear (Laroche 1946-1947a:69, Götze 1951b:72). False Starke 1990a:104 “s-stem piḫaš-”, rectified in CLL:176, Rieken 1999a:189 n. 878 and Sasseville 2018a:303-305. For Luwian formations in -ašša- (c./coll.), see Sasseville 2018a:303-308.

[D.S.]

1. PN ^mpiḫašša-A.A- / ^mpiḫaššamuwa- (Starke 1990a:105, HEG P:604; now see also KBo 71.43 iii 14’ for the phonetically rendered -muwa-)

Its Luwian origin has been commonly accepted and is made clear by its suffix -ašša/i-, the attestations of the base piḫašša- in HLuw. and Lycian as well as the attestations of the nominal element piḫa- in other Luwian formations (Laroche 1959a:81f.,HEG P:604, Melchert in DCL:s.v.).

[D.S.]

*The forms in the table were checked together with Marian Wehrstein.

This lexeme is attested in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

Pace Schürr 2018b:75, pigasa is here the (dislocated) subject of the sentence. Contra Shevoroshkin 2002a:229 (and Shevoroshkin 2012a:473), there is no synchronic Lycian allative in -a.

[D.S.]

The word pigasa- occurs together with xeri[ga]zñ m͂qrẽ ‘the m͂qrẽ of Gergis’ and uwedri urasla ‘(his) whole great offering’ and thus represents something positive belonging to the Lycian king that has benefited the gods (see Sasseville 2021a:308, Schürr 2018b:75, contra Shevoroshkin 2014a:232 n. 1). This is further supported by the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription of Karatepe, in which FULGUR-há-sá /pihassa/ is likewise something powerful to be given by the gods to the king over other kings (see recently Sasseville 2018a:304f. and the HLuw. lemma). Therefore, a meaning such as ‘victory, glory (?)’ based on the Hieroglyphic Luwian cognate formations is the most suitable approach. Melchert (DLL:124) suggests the meaning ‘splendid (?)’, which goes in the right direction, but as such it is not adequate in the context. Shevoroshkin 2002a:229 suggests that pigasa represents an epithet of the Storm-god (cf. Luw. ^DU piḫaššašša/i-), which lacks morphological and contextual supported. Gehrisch 2018a:91 equates pigasa with the personal name Pigesere (i.e. Pixodaros), which is unconvincing and unmotivated.

[D.S.]

The word pigasa- is best taken as a collective formation (or plurale tantum) built on the genitival adjective, -ase/i- (parallel to Luwian collectives in -ašša-, see Sasseville 2018a, pace DLL:124). The root pig- is found in several personal names, see Starke 1990a:105,DLL:124, Schürr 2005a:129, Schürr 2018b:75.

[D.S.]

Reconstructed from a single personal name attested in a Sidetic name list of unknown date (cf. Nollé 2001a:642–644, cf. Zinko 2016a).

[Zs.S.]

The attestation follows Pérez Orozco 2007a:127 (cf. also Zinko 2016a:366) checked against the photograph of Zinko 2016a:360 Abb. 1. The form was restored by Nollé 2001a:643 based on the structure and the syntax of the text and, accordingly, it is generally accepted (Pérez Orozco 2003a:108, 2007:140; Zinko 2016a:363).

[Zs.S.]

The transcription ‹ś› for the sign N14 has been introduced by Pérez Orozco 2003a:104 following the proposal of G. Neumann. This transcription was rejected by Zinko & Zinko 2019a:419–421 (cf. already Zinko 2016a:361) claiming that ‹ś› (transcribed by them as ‹s›) continues Proto-Anatolian / PIE *s and ‹s› (N15, transcribed by them as ‹s₂›) was an “Allophon (?!)” of it, without defining the circumstances. Since this is not a sufficient argumentation, the transcription of Pérez Orozco is maintained here, especially since ‹ś› might be a palatalisation product from *s (see under Meaning).

[Zs.S.]

Nollé 2001a:644 identified the name with the well-attested Anatolian personal name stem Πιγ- / Πιξ- (referring to the onomastic evidence in Zgusta 1964a:427f. §1252–1255, 431f. §1263), more precisely with the names Πιξας (§1263-1) and Πιγασις (§1252-1). Without referring Nollé Pérez Orozco 2007a:127, 133 (followed by Melchert 2013c:34 and Zinko 2016a:366f.) provided a very similar account, but he derives the name from Luwian “piḫašša- ‘brillante’” and quotes the above names as parallels adding that Πιξας shows the same vowel syncope as *pigśe-. This identification is certainly correct, the only remaining problem is the ‹ś› instead of the expected ‹s› (cf. masara ‘god’ and Luwian maššan(i)- ‘dto’, see s.vv.). Pérez Orozco 2007a:133 explains this with its postconsonantal position after the syncope, but instead of this ad hoc explanation one can argue that *s was palatalized by the following *i̯ of the suffix seen also in piḫašša/i-. The ‹e› is the reflex of either the final vowel of the suffix or an additional suffix. More evidence is needed for a solid solution.

[Zs.S.]