*(i̯)ék-t-

This word is only attested in two NS Hittite manuscripts of the first tablet of the Gilgamesh epic in the part known as ‘Enkidu and the hunter’.

[A.B.]

acc. pl. c.	ag-ga-ti-uš	KUB 8.56 obv. i 12’’	(CTH 341, NS)
	[ag-]ga-ti-uš	KBo 10.47c obv. i 24’’
acc. pl. c.?	ag[-ga-ti-uš	KUB 8.56 obv. i 4’’

The attestations follow Laroche 1968c:9 (not in Laroche 1959a); HW (2nd ed.) A:53; CLL:5; EDHIL:235; HED:25 and HED:260 (cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:190; Güterbock 1956a:131; Starke 1990a:116; van den Hout 2007a: 246; Ünal 2007a:11 and Ünal 2016a:51). The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, additionally the restorations of Friedrich 1929a:40, CHD Š:1 (s.v. šaḫ-²) and Rieken et al. 2009b have been taken account of. The form in obv. i 4’’ is unclear but considering the context, it is likely the same form as in obv. i 12’’ (see below under Meaning).

[A.B.]

It is generally assumed that aggat(i)- is some kind of trap or a hunting net: ‘Netze’ (cf. Friedrich 1929a:40 with question mark, Haas 2006a:274), ‘snare’ (cf. Hoffner 1974a:125), ‘a net for trapping’ (cf. Hoffner 1974a:107), ‘hunting net’ (cf. CLL:5, Melchert 2005a:452, EDHIL:235), ‘catch-net’ (cf. Starke 1990a:116, cf. HEG A–K:10,12, Tischler 2008a:13, Tischler 2016a:5, HED E:260, HW (2nd ed.) A:53, Rieken et al. 2009b, Ünal 2007a:11 and Ünal 2016a:51, adding ‘mesh’). The only author who translates it more generally as ‘trap’ is Beckman 2001a:158.

The assumed meaning is based on the context of aggat(i)-, which appears always in the same sentence (scene repetition and duplicate text) and in the Akkadian version of this passage of the epic of Gilgamesh (cf. George 2003a:546f.). A man called Šangaššu (lit. ‘murderer’, cf. Beckman 2001a:226; Haas 2006a:274, cf. CAD Š:71 s.v. šaggāšu ‘murderous’) sets up traps in the steppe. Enkidu (who has been raised with wild animals) destroys his traps.

KBo 10.47c++ obv. 13’’–26’’ shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, also the hand copy as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Friedrich 1929a:40, Laroche 1968c:9, CHD Š:1 (s.v. šaḫ-2), Rychtařík 2001a:47, Beckman 2001a:158, Haas 2006a:274 and Rieken et al. 2009b have been taken into account):

(13’’)[…]⸢mša⸣-an-ga-šu-uš LÚg[uruš (14’’)⸢a⸣-na máš.anšeḪI.A ak-ku-u[š-ša …] (15’’)tar-ni-eš-ke-ez-zi de[n.ki.du-uš-ma-aš-ši …] (16’’)i-ia-at-ta-ri nu-k[án …] (17’’)ša-ḫi-iš-ke-ez-z[i…] (18’’)na-aš-kán íd-⸢i⸣[…] (19’’)pa-it nu ⸢a⸣-n[a? …] (20’’) LÚguruš-a[n-za-wa …] (21’’)nu-wa-aš-š[i(-) … -]⸢iš⸣ nu-wa-kán […] (22’’)⸢nu-wa⸣ [?]⸢ak⸣-ku-uš-ša ku-e am-mu-u[k ...] (23’’)[a-pa]-aš-ma-<wa->ra-at-kán saḫarḪI.A-a[z ...] (24’’)[ag]-ga-ti-uš-ma-wa ku-i-e-e[š ...] (25’’)⸢a⸣[-p]a-a-aš-ma-aš ša-ra-a d[a?-a-i? ...] (26’’)⸢iš-ḫu⸣-u-wa-iš-ke-ez-z[i]

(13’’)[…] Šangaššu, a yo[ung man …] (14’’)for the gazelles pit-tr[aps ...] (15’’)he keeps placing but E[nkidu …] (16’’)roams and […] (17’’)keeps fillin[g …] (18’’)and into the river […] (19’’)he went and to […] (20’’)“a young ma[n …] (21’’)and to hi[m …] and there […] (22’’)and the pit-traps, which I personal[ly …] (23’’)[but that o]ne with soil …] (24’’)but the traps, whic[h …] (25’’)but that one t[akes?] up (26’’)he keeps throwi[ng] / scatteri[ng …”]

The duplicate KBo 26.101++ obv. i 2’’–14’’ shows:

(2’’)⸢tar-ni-iš⸣-ke-ez-zi d[...] (3’’)i-ia-at-ta-ri nu-kán […] (4’’)ša-ḫi-iš-ke-ez-zi ag[-ga-ti-uš-ša ...] (5’’)na-aš-kán íd-i an-da i[š- ...] (6’’)mša-an-ga-šu-uš-ma pa-i[z-zi ...] (7’’)me-mi-iš-ke-ez-zi LÚguruš-a[n-za ...] (8’’)⸢pé⸣-ra-an i-ia-at-ta-ri nu [...] (9’’)⸢nu⸣-wa-kán gi-im-ra-an [...] (10’’)⸢nu⸣-wa ak-ku-ša ku-e [...] (11’’)a-pa-a-aš-ma-at-kán s[aḫarḪI.A-az ...] (12’’)ag-ga-ti-uš-m[a-wa ...] (13’’)a-pa-a-aš-ma-wa-r[a-aš ...] (14’’)⸢nu⸣-wa-ra-aš-ká[n ...]

(2’’)[ …] he keeps placing […] (3’’)he wanders and […] (4’’)he keeps filling and the ag[gatius …] (5’’)he thr[ows/scatters …] into the river (6’’)But Šangaššu go[es …] (7’’)he keeps saying a young m[an …] (8’’)he runs before and […] (9’’)“to the steppe […] (10’’)the pit-traps, which […] (11’’)that one [with] s[oil …”] (12’’)[but] the traps […] (13’’)but that one […] (14’’)he there [… ”]

Apart from the fact that the given context belongs to the sphere of hunting and trapping, the assumption that aggat(i)- has the meaning ‘net’ is based on two main arguments. The first one draws on the comparative consideration that aggat(i)- is the Luwian cognate of Hitt. ēkt-/ikt-. ‘net’ for which cf. under Origin.

Closer to the text at hand is the second point which refers to the Old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic (cf. the edition of George 2003a:546–547, 793–794) in which Akk. nuballu appears in the same passage were aggat(i)- is found in the Hittite version and has been identified as its semantic match (cf. Friedrich 1929a:40, Hoffner 1974a:125, n. 191, Hoffner 1977a:107, Hamp 1978a:119, HW (2nd ed.) A:53 cautiously and HED E:260).

It is noteworthy that Friedrich puts a question mark on the meaning ‘net’ of the Akkadian word. The reason for this might be the semantics of nuballu itself. CAD N 1:306 translates nuballu with ‘wing’ as its first meaning. However, CAD A:1 s.v. abru provides a more specific meaning in contrast to two other types of ‘wings’ or ‘feathers’ (abru and kappu) that the eagle needs to fly in the Etana-myth. Here the meaning of nuballu is ‘tail feathers’. These are primarily used to control and navigate. This probably explains the second meaning for nuballu that is given in CAD N 1:306, namely ‘vanguard’ – a military formation of troops in battle. The last meaning given for nuballu is (a trap) regarding the attestation in Gilgamesh. The archaeological background for hunting methods with different types of nets has been investigated by von der Osten-Sacken 1991a. There is indeed some evidence that shows the use of long nets established to lead animals to pits or canyons but von der Osten-Sacken 1991a:140 also mentions stone walls that have been used for the same purpose. In the given context, the animals are probably led to a dead end and fall into pits, represented by another Glossenkeilwort: Luw. akkušša- (cf. under the respective lemma). In the Hittite version Enkidu throws or scatters (išḫuwai-^zi) the aggat(i)- into the river but in the Old Babylonian text the nuballu is ‘uprooted’ (cf. George 2003a:546–547) and von der Osten-Sacken 1991a:141 considers fences or nets that have been set up as ‘wings’ along the trap. If one takes into account the contexts for nuballu and aggat(i)-, a common denominator seems to be that something is leading or forcing into a certain direction. Accordingly, here a meaning ‘(leading, routing trap, probably fenced by nets or sim.?)’ is suggested, cf. under Origin for a possible derivational base.

[A.B.]

The only attested form of this word, aggatiuš, shows Hittite inflection, hence it must be either a genuine Hittite word or a loanword. Similar Hittite words (e.g. āk-ⁱ/akk- ‘to die, to fade) do not fit in the context.

Being considered as possible loanword, aggat(i)- is generally assumed to be of Luwian origin (but note that the presence of gloss markers does not necessarily account for a Luwian origin, cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445). It appears in CLL:5, in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a:452 and van den Hout 2007a:246 (cf. Tischler 2008a:13, Tischler 2016a:5, HED E:260 ‘Luwoid’, EDHIL:235). Only HEG A–K:12 considers additionally a Hurrian foreign word, HW (2nd ed.) A:53f. remains undecided, but points out that the Gilgamesh epic came to the Hittites via Hurrian transmission (for a considerable Hurrian base cf. below).

Two scenarios are discussed for the alleged Luwian stem formation of aggat(i)- (note that the second -a- in aggat(i)- can also be a purely graphic phenomenon to render a consonant cluster, it does not have to be a thematic vowel or an a-insertion as Berman 1978a:123 considered, rejected by Starke 1990a:116, cf. HED E:260, Rieken 1999a:144, n.671): it is either an inherited t-stem and presumably a cognate to Hittite ēkt-/ikt- (cf. EDHIL:235, Hoffner 1977a:105–107) or it is formed with a Luwian suffix, cf. below.

An inherited t-stem is assumed by Hoffner 1977a:107, Starke 1990a:116, CLL:5, Hamp 1978a:119f., Rieken 1999a:144 and EDHIL:235. Since aggat(i)- shows an -i- in the acc.pl.c., it must either have been borrowed already with i-mutation or it contains a suffix with -i.

The second option is that aggat(i)- contains a suffix and since there is no suitable Hittite suffix, one could also consider a Luwian suffix. Berman 1978a:123 assumes a suffix -ti- and according to Melchert 2003b:197 there is a Luwian suffix -t(t)i- that forms deverbal action nouns (cf. kupiyat(i)- ‘plot’ < kup(iya)- ‘to plot’). The verbal base of this formation would then be *agg(a)- (one could still consider a relation of this base with *ek- in Hitt. ēkt-/ikt-). If one takes into account other derived nouns that could go back to the same base as aggat(i)-, the Hittite lexeme aggala- ‘plough’ (cf. HEG A–K:9f.) could be considered as a loanword from Luwian with the Luwian suffix -al- that forms neuter instrumental nouns. According to Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:54 (with examples) there are some Luwian loanwords of this type that appear in Hittite as common gender stems with either a- or i-stem inflection. In a similar way the noun aggat(i)- could have been derived from a base *agg(a)- with a Luwian suffix -t(t)i-. If aggat(i)- and aggala- eventually go back to a common Luwian base, this solution would be semantically plausible, as well (drawing, leading or forcing into a certain direction, cf. under Meaning), unfortunately this solution lacks further evidence at the moment.

From the other contact-languages there is a Hurrian verbal root ag-/akk- with a similar meaning ‘to lead, to direct’ (see Nozadze 2007a:55; Richter 2012a:4–6; Richter 2016a:366–368, cf. Wegner 2007a:245) which would fit the context in Gilgamesh but the rest of the stem formation would remain unclear.

Whether aggat(i)- is a loanword with i-mutation or with a Luwian suffix, in either way its origin is most probably Luwian.

[A.B.]

HW (2nd ed.) E:28f.