akkušša-

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

[A.B.]

nom./acc. pl. n.	ak-ku-ša	KUB 8.56 obv. i 10’’	(CTH 341, NS)
	ak-ku-u[š?-ša?	KBo 10.47c obv. i 14’’
	[]⸢ak⸣-ku-u[š-ša	KBo 10.47c obv. i 22’’

The attestations follow Laroche 1968c:9 (not in Laroche 1959a), HW (2nd ed.) A:53f., CLL:6; HED A:25 (cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:190; Güterbock 1956a:120; Starke 1990a:115; van den Hout 2007a:246, Ünal 2007a:12; Ünal 2016a:52, and Zorman 2007a:755).

The transliterations have been checked against the photos in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, additionally the restorations by Friedrich 1929a:40, CHD Š:1 (s.v. šaḫ-²) and Rieken et al. 2009b have been taken into account.

A further uncertain attestation without gloss marker ak-ku-u[š?(-) appears in the fragmentary KBo 10.48 obv. i? 1’ (cf. Rychtařík 2001a:47, n. 24; HW (2nd ed.) A:54) of the same text (CTH 341.III). Rieken et al. 2009b list it as an unconnected fragment (341.III.18), but according to the join-sketch in the Konkordanz, this fragment could belong to the same tablet as KBo 10.47c; for ⸢ak⸣-ku-u[š?(-) they refer to the form in KBo 10.47c obv. 22’’. With regard to the form attested in KBo 10.48, Rychtařík 2001a:47, n. 24 points out the preceding demonstrative pronoun k]a-a-aš, which is nom.sg.c. (but, as noted in CLL:6, akkušša- could be a plurale tantum as well).

HW (2nd ed.) A:54 mentions a further uncertain attestation ⸢ak⸣-ku-x[ in KBo 19.117 r. col. 4’ (cf. Rychtařík 2001a:42), the corresponding lexeme is not entirely clear, cf. under Meaning.

Another form booked under the lemma akkušša-2 in HW (2nd ed.) A:54 (cf. Ünal 2007a:12 and Ünal 2016a:52) is a-ku-u-uš(-)š[a, attested at KBo 19.156++ obv. ii 17 (CTH 752, OS). Its meaning cannot be determined from the context (cf. Neu 1980b:220–223 for the text edition) and there are formal differences (non-geminated guttural and plene writing of the u-vowel). Neu 1983a:12 assigned the form to Hitt. ⁽NA4⁾aku- ‘stone, sea shell (?)’ (also considered by Ünal 2007a:12 and Ünal 2016a:52). For this lexeme cf. HW (2nd ed.) A:53, HED A:24; HEG A–K:10f. and EDHIL:168 (who remains undecided about a-ku-u-uš(-)š[a belonging to this word). It is also not clear whether the fragmentary sign ša, which appears right-located in this line, belongs to the present or a following word that is broken off. If ša belongs to the present word, it probably shows the gemination of the enclitic conjunction -a/-ya (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:399). Hence, it is not very likely that this form belongs to the lexeme that is discussed here.

[A.B.]

Starke 1990a:116 points out that due to the break of the last sign in line 14’’ of KBo 10.47c it remains an open question whether this sign is to be read uš or ša, and hence the form could be ak-ku-u[š-ša or ak-ku-š[a.

[A.B.]

It is generally assumed that akkušša- in the attested context is a pit that is used as a trap: ‘(catch)hole’ or ‘trapping pit’ / ‘pit-trap’ (cf. Friedrich 1929a:40; HW (2nd ed.) A:53; HEG A–K:12; HED A:25; Tischler 2008a:13; Tischler 2016a:5; Starke 1990a:115; CLL:6; Melchert 2005a:452; Haas 2006a:274; Ünal 2007a:12, Ünal 2016a:52 and Rychtařík 2001a:47, n. 24), similarly ‘hunting pit’ (cf. CHD Š:1 sub šaḫ- 2’) or ‘animal pit’ (cf. Hoffner 1974a:125) and more generally ‘pit’ (cf. Güterbock 1956a:120, Beckman 2001a:158) or ‘trap’ (cf. Rieken et al. 2009b).

The meaning ‘pit trap’ is based on the context and on 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 the traps by e.g. filling them up with soil.

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 [… ”]

The Akkadian equivalent of akkušša in the same text passage of the Old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic is būru(m) (cf. Friedrich 1929a:40), which besides ‘well’ (for the motive of Gilgamesh digging wells, see George 2003a:94f.) also means ‘hole’ or ‘pit’ (cf. CAD B:342). In the given context, the animals are probably driven into dead ends and fall into pits (cf. Ebeling 1957–1971a:5), which are called akkušša in the Hittite version of this text. For the archaeological background of such hunting methods, cf. von der Osten-Sacken 1991a. For the use of another form of trapping in the same context, cf. under the lemma aggat(i)-. The meaning of the word in the attested context is reasonably clear, while the motive of designation and thus its etymology remain to be discussed (cf. under Origin).

For the fragmentary form ⸢ak⸣-ku-x[ in KBo 19.117 r. col. 4’ (cf. HW (2nd ed.) A:54 and Rychtařík 2001a:42), it is difficult to decide to which lexeme it belongs. The context shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copy as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Rychtařík 2001a:42 and Rieken et al. 2009c have been taken into account):

(1’)ninda?-x[ ...] (2’)pí-x-x[ ...] (3’)wa-ar-x[ …] (4’)na-at ⸢ak⸣-ku-x[ …] (5’)gim-an-ma-an dG[IŠ?.gim.maš? …] (6’)nu-uš-ma-aš dgiš.gim.ma[š-uš ...] (7’)ur.sag-in érinMEŠ[ …] (8’)nam-ma-at iš-tu[ …] (9’)nu ur.sag-iš érin[MEŠ …] (10’)nu-wa GU4a-lu-u[š ... ]

(1’-3´)bread? [...] (4’)and it akku[…] (5’)But when Gi[lgamesh? …] (6’)And (to) them Gilgame[sh …] (7’)the heroic / hero-troops […] (8’)Then it from / with [ …] (9’)the heroic / hero-troop[s …] (10’)“And the Bull of Heave[n …]”

Rieken et al. 2009c translate the form ⸢ak⸣-ku-x[ as “[sie?] trink[en]”, assuming that it belongs to Hitt. aku-^zi/eku- ‘to drink’. This is formally possible, since this word is attested with geminated guttural in the imperfective -šk-forms (cf. note 2 in Rieken et al. 2009c and EDHIL:236). But although ninda ‘bread’ in line 1’ might suggest a context of eating and drinking, this sign is likewise uncertain.

The context mentions the Bull of Heaven in line 10’. Gilgamesh’s fight with the Bull of Heaven is told in the corresponding Akkadian version. There is a passage where young men fall into pits caused by the bull (cf. George 2003a:475, 526f.). Hence the semantics would fit with the meaning ‘pit’, but since the Hittite context is too fragmentary, the determination of the lexeme remains uncertain.

[A.B.]

It is generally assumed that akkušša is of foreign origin (similar Hittite words: āk-ⁱ/akk- ‘to die, to fade’; aku-^zi/eku- ‘to drink’ do not fit semantically), namely Luwian or Hurrian, but the details are still discussed (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:6 as well as in the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a:452 and van den Hout 2007a:246. HED A:25 assumes the word to be probably Luwoid with unclear etymology.

Güterbock 1956a:120 points out the plural in -ša, but a form with the suffix -ša can be excluded, since it specifically marks singular neuter (it is hence not an uš-stem cf. CLL:6, contra Starke 1990a:115) and not plural forms in Luwian (here clearly indicated contextually by the pronoun kue).

CLL:6 suggests a substantivized adjective of a u-stem with the Luwian suffix -šša/i- like Luwian nakušša/i- (cf. Starke 1990a:153 and EDHIL:594), and since it is neuter, the stem does not show i-mutation: akušša-. This would require a base *akku- for which a Luwian or other foreign (e.g. Hurrian) origin can be considered. For Luwian there is no attested lexeme that would match the base.

HEG A–K:12 (with further rejected literature) cautiously considers a Hurrian origin, pointing out that in case of a Hurrian form, -ša- would not be a Luwian suffix but rather a morpheme indicating Hurrian ‘Lokalis Plural’, but such a suffix is not attested in Hurrian.

As mentioned under Meaning, akkušša- appears together with aggati- (cf. also Rieken 1999a:144, who assumes a connection between both words). For aggati- a Hurrian origin is possible based on the Hurrian verbal root ag-/akk- ‘to bring, to lead’ (cf. the lemma aggati-). One of the attested Hurrian forms of this root appears as a-ku-u-ša in the Mittani letter I 87 (cf. Laroche 1980a:36; Nozadze 2007a:55, de Martino & Giorgieri 2008a:31). But with regard to akkušša- and its context, this would not fit either formally (akkušša- is a noun) or semantically (the meaning ‘pit’ is almost certain).

To conclude, the form of the lexeme under discussion is either Hittite or Luwian, and due to the suffix a Luwian origin seems likely, although no corresponding base is known yet.

[A.B.]