mutmutāli-

The lexeme occurs three times in ritual texts (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The lexeme and its Cuneiform Luwian cognate are cited without translation in DLL:72 and CLL:152. CHD L-N:337f. suggests “a place from which the clay was taken, ... (a watering hole, a burrow, etc.)”, similar HHw:108 “Lehmgrube?”, whereas HED M:196 opts for “pigsty”.Ünal’s (Ünal 2007a:462) gloss as “something describing a statue or material of statue” does not fit the contexts. Outdated is Laroche 1949-1950a:19. In his recent treatment of tattawali(t)-, partarīnali(t)-, and mūt(a)mūtali(t)-, Oettinger 2015d:273-277 pointed to the relationship with Hitt. mūdan- ‘garbage, scraps’ and mūtā(i)-^(mi) ‘to root, dig, remove, neglect’ said to be done inter alias by a pig and a well (spluttering and stirring the mud). The connection with pigs is supported by the place name ^URUšaḫ.tur-mudaimi- /muda-mudaimmi-/ (cf. Starke 1990a:223). Since, as noted above, mud or clay comes from the mutmutali- and is used to form effigies (KBo 17.96 i 6’), Oettinger convincingly concludes that Hitt. mutmutali- and CLuw. mutamutali(t)- both denote the ‘rooting place of pigs’.

[E.R.]

The derivational relationship between the animal name mutamut(i)- and Hitt. mutmutali-/CLuw. mūtamūtali(t)- was noted in Starke 1990a:223 (instrument suffix -al-, HEG L-M:237 (suffix -alli-), CHD L-N:337f. (suffix -ali-), HED M:194-196 (no specification), Oreshko 2019c:176 (no specification); skeptical EDHIL:588. Adducing the parallel of tattawali(t)-, Oettinger 2015d:277 starts from the nominal base mutamut(i)- and assumes an adjectival suffix -al(i)-, further derived with -i(t)- to give CLuw. mūtamūtali(t)- (borrowed into Hittite as the i-stem mutmutali-). This is accepted here, in spite of the problems that arise for the derivational chain of CLuw. partarīnali(t)-, which occurs in the same context as CLuw. mūtamūtali(t)- and CLuw. tattawali(t)-.

[E.R.]

While the relationship between mutmutali- in Hittite transmission and CLuw. mūtamūtali(t)-  is obvious, it is less clear whether the former represents a borrowing of the latter into Hittite (thus Starke 1990a:222, Oettinger 2015d:277, DCL:s.v.). The consistent difference in phonological shape raises doubts. Although, in Hittite, the cluster /tm/ undergoes assimilation /mm/ normally, one could surmise that, in reduplication, /tm/ was preserved or restored for reasons of transparency, and mutmutali- was derived from the reduplicated verb mūtā(i)-^(mi) ‘to root, dig, remove, neglect’ with the Hittite instrument suffix -āli- n. (cf. ḫūl-āli- ‘distaff’). Differently, Oreshko 2019c:176 assumes syncope of -a-, which would also elegantly explain the /tm/ cluster as secondary. In view of the word length, this seems to be the easiest and most economic solution, as it also accommodates CLuw. mūtamūtali(t)-.

[E.R.]