šeḫelli(ya)-

Hapax in a Hittite oracle (NS).

[Zs.S.]

acc. pl. c.

še-ḫé-el-li-in-zi

IBoT 2.129 obv. 23

(CTH 574, NS)

Attestation following CLL:193 and CHD Š:347 (cf. also Laroche 1980a:223; HEG L-S:970) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz. As the context shows (nu IŠTU É.GAL^˹LIM˺ EZEN₄ šeḫellinzi pešker ‘they used to give purifying rituals from the palace’ [Tognon 2005a:76], for the translation cf. under Meaning), it is an acc. pl. c. (correctly already Laroche 1980a:223; CHD Š:347; HEG L-S:970, Tischler 2016a:314; Ünal 2007a:626, Ünal 2016a:473; implicitly Tognon 2005a:78, 85f.) and not nom. pl. c. as assumed by CLL:193.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that the word means something like ‘purification’ in its single attestation to date (cf. above, but no translation is provided in Ünal 1978a:18 [but cf. below]; Tognon 2005a:78, 85f. and Tischler 2008a:166), but the details are judged differently: CLL:193 (‘of/pertaining to purification’); Hutter 2013b:162 n. 20 (‘pertinent to purification’); Yakubovich 2010d:30 [“pure festivals”]; Ünal 2007a:626, Ünal 2016a:473 (‘pure, clean’) and HEG L-S:970 consider it as an adjective; while CHD Š:347 (^EZEN4šeḫellinzi ‘purification festival’) sees it as a noun (Tischler 2016a:314 allows both [‘pur, pureté’]; there is no evidence for the translation “consecration (?)” by Taggar-Cohen 2006a:288 and Ünal 2007a:626 [also adding “sanctification (?)”, abandoning both in Ünal 2016a:473], cf. below).

It is clear from the temporal clause of the same sentence that we are not dealing with a “festival”, but with rituals (cf. the plural) performed at the visit of the Hittite ruler (note that the word’s Hittite cognate is attested with the determinative SISKUR too, for its attestations see CHD Š:347 and see the alleged Glossenkeilwort šeḫell(i)- s.v.).

Since the Hittite cognate clearly means ‘purification’, we are dealing with an adjective of appurtenance derived by -iya-. Since it stands in plural, it cannot be a qualifying adjective of EZEN₄, thus one must assume its substantivization.

[Zs.S.]

The word is undoubtedly Luwian due to its Luwian ending (CHD Š:347; HEG L-S:970; cf. also Weitenberg 1984a:254; Ünal 2007a:626, Ünal 2016a:473 [but not included in his Luwian wordlist]; Tischler 2008a:166, Tischler 2016a:314 [but not in Laroche 1959a]), an adjective in -iya- to a Hurrian base (Laroche 1980a:223; CLL:193; CHD Š:348; Hutter 2013b:162 with n. 20; cf. HEG L-S:970 with refs.), on which see Laroche 1980a:221–223 and Richter 2012a:367–369), accordingly listed in the list of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2007a:254 (but not in Melchert 2005a).

Note that, as Yakubovich 2010d:29f. points out (cf. already van den Hout 2007a:40), this form belongs to the Empire Luwian dialect.

[Zs.S.]