patalḫa-

Amply attested in Hittite mythological and ritual texts, in a historical fragment, as well as in an Akkadian – Hittite lexical list from MS until LNS.

[Zs.S.]

Attestations following CHD P:238 with additions from Hoffner 1988a:158f. (cf. also Friedrich 1952a:166; HEG L-S:537, and HED Pa:201) checked against the photos of the Konkordanz. As CHD P:239 remarks, there is no evidence for the suggestion of Alp 1957a:34f. that this word is the Hittite reading of ḪAR.GÌR ‘foot bracelet’ (with question mark in HED Pa:201; the “parallel” texts cited by Alp as evidence are in fact not parallel), although see under Meaning. Restoration of KBo 24.17 obv. 4’ follows Beckman 1983a:204f. based on parallel phrases (followed by CHD P:239 and Fuscagni 2013a); restoration in KUB 36.19, 3’ and emendation in KUB 33.115 iv 3’ follow Hoffner 1988a:158f. based on the context.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that this word (1) means a body part, (2) has a metaphorical usage, and (3) denotes an object worn on the foot or leg (CHD P:238f.; HEG L-S:536, Tischler 2008a:142, Tischler 2016a:409; EDHIL:658), with differing details (for exceptions see below).

(1) As for the body part, setting aside Starke 1990a:251, who gives only a very general meaning (‘Körperteil’), scholars assume either the sole (Friedrich 1952a:166 [but cf. below]; Goetze 1959a:69f.; Haas & Thiel 1978a:105; CHD P:238f.; Haas & Wegner 1988a:I/110, II/155; Hoffner 1988a:156 with n. 97 [with question mark]; HEG L-S:536, Tischler 2008a:142, Tischler 2016a:269; García Trabazo 2002a:235; Haas 2003a:734 n. 362, Haas 2006a:169; Ünal 2007a:533, Ünal 2016a:409 [or ‘clog’, not in the German version]; EDHIL:658; Rieken et al. 2009c; Marcuson 2016a:319) or the ankle (Alp 1957a:34f.; Friedrich 1961b:20 [cf. already Friedrich 1952a:166]; Kronasser 1966a:166; Bernabé Pajares 1973a:453; de Martino 1988a:64; Pecchioli Daddi & Polvani 1990a:160; Hoffner 1998b:63; HED Pa:201f.; Scheucher 2012a:679); Güterbock 1957a:353, 355 allows both (slightly preferring ‘ankle’). The assumption of ‘sole’ is based on the Akkadian – Hittite lexical list where patalḫa- is standing between ‘foot’ and ‘digit of the foot, toe’, without preserved Akkadian equivalent, only “[   GÌ]R” is visible (KBo 1.51 rev. 9). Since thus it must refer to the lower part of the leg or the foot, CHD P:238 allows two possibilities, ‘ankle’ and ‘sole’, and opts for ‘sole’, because ‘ankle’ is kiṣallu in Akkadian and it does not appear in a construction with following GÌR / šēpi (and thus [ki-bi-is GÌ]R is “the only possible restoration”, from Akkadian kibsu ‘sole’; not followed by Scheucher 2012a:678). This is obviously not a decisive argument, since nothing excludes such a construction semantically, and even if such a construction was ill-formed in Akkadian for whatever reason, this argument assumes an idiomatic knowledge of Akkadian by the Hittite scribes, which is at least questionable. More problematic is that while the ritual texts allow both meanings, there is a scene in the Ullikummi-myth, where Tašmišu kisses another god’s knees and then his patalḫa-s (KBo 26.65 ii 8’f.): if it is taken in figurative sense (as in many languages), it may mean ‘sole’, but due to the context a real meaning is more probable and then ‘sole’ must be excluded. ‘Ankle’ is not impossible, but the best fit is obviously ‘upper surface of the foot’.

(2) The metaphorical usage is derived from this body part, “sole of the foot or clog > walking, way of acting, behaviour” (CHD P:238f.; HEG L-S:536 [also ‘(Lebens-)wandel’], Tischler 2008a:142, Tischler 2016a:269 [also ‘Schreiten’]; Haas 2003a:756; EDHIL:658; Rieken et al. 2009a, Rieken et al. 2009b, Rieken et al. 2012a; Fuscagni 2013a; a completely different abstract meaning, ‘lien’, was assumed by Mazoyer 2003a:85, 87), this works of course with a basic meaning ‘upper surface of the foot’ as well. Only Ünal 2007a:153, Ünal 2016a:409 and Puhvel 2011:201f. are exceptions (latter suggesting instead the meaning ‘clog, hobble, trammel, incapacitation’): Puhvel denies the metaphoric usage since the change “sole > walk > behaviour” is “torturous” according to him (his claim that the Akkadian parallel cited by CHD is “forced” is simply false, since kibsu ‘sole of the foot’ does mean ‘behaviour’ too, CAD K:338f.). The rituals quoted by CHD are not decisive, but the term appears in a toposlike list in the myths of disappearing gods, where it is clear that it can only mean ‘behaviour’ and not ‘fetter’ (contra Asan 1988a [2014a]:40, 45 [with question mark] and Hoffner 1998b:20), see e.g. “so may the anger, wrath, sin, sullenness, evil words and evil patalḫa- of Telipinu go in” [KUB 33.8 iii 10’-13’, note that patalḫa- is in singular here despite its corresponding adjective, which is in plural], see also KUB 33.9 iii 5’-8’ + KBo 34.26 iii 2’-5’).

(3) The object worn on the foot or leg refers to the sixth dream of Kešši the Hunter in his tale, where he had a collar around his neck and a patalḫa- of women placed on him below. This led to quite different translations, ranging from ‘fetter (?)’ (also assumed in ambiguous ritual contexts, Friedrich 1952a:166; Güterbock 1957a:355 [but cf. also below]; Haas & Thiel 1978a:353; Hoffner 1988a:156 with n. 97 [with question mark]; Starke 1990a:251 [but also adding ‘Schmuckstück’]; CHD P:238f.; Haas & Wegner 1988a:II/155; Haas 2003a:167, 733f.; Ünal 2007a:533, Ünal 2016a:409; EDHIL:658; in another context Beckman 1983a:205) via ‘anklet (?)’ (HED Pa:201 [but also adding ‘shackle, gyve’, cf. also Puhvel 2007a:630]; Dijkstra 2014a:54) to ‘shoe’ (Rieken et al. 2009d), ‘(Schuh?-)Sohle’ or ‘Sandale’ (Friedrich 1952a:166; Güterbock 1957a:355; HEG L-S:536, Tischler 2008a:142, Tischler 2016a:269) and ‘foot bracelet’ (Alp 1957a:34f., cf. also Friedrich 1952a:166 and Kronasser 1966a:166). However, Alp 1957a:34f. rightly pointed out that this is an object of a woman (note that it is nicely paired with the collar, i.e. we are dealing with jewelleries), which excludes the meaning ‘fetter’. Considering this and the basic meaning, his translation as ‘foot bracelet’ is the most precise one, but also ‘anklet’ fits perfectly.

This word also appears in the myth of the Silver (KUB 33.115 iii 8), where it received quite different translations (‘goad (?)’ [Hoffner 1988a:156 with n. 97, Hoffner 1998b:50]; ‘Hirtenstock’ [Ünal 1993a:858]; ‘fetter (?)’ [CHD P:239]; ‘whip’ [Haas 2006a:150]; ‘Fußfessel’ [Haas 1994a:97; Rieken et al. 2009e, Rieken et al. 2009f]), but the fragmentary context does not allow any solution.

[Zs.S.]

1. patalḫāi-
2. [patal]ḫāimma/i-
3. patalḫiyama/i-

While some scholars assume that this word is of Hittite origin (Bernabé Pajares 1973a:453; HEG L-S:536f.; EDHIL:658), Starke 1990a:251 and Rieken 1999a:444 (and implicitly HED Pa:202) suggested Luwian origin (but it was not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a). Considering that all of its known derivatives show Luwian morphology (see s.vv. patalḫāi-, [patal]ḫāimma/i-, patalḫiyama/i-), this word must have been present in Luwian too (cf. Rieken 1999a:444) and thus one can assume with Occam’s razor that this is a Luwian loanword in Hittite.

[Zs.S.]