īnzagan-

Attested in Luwian ritual texts in MS and NS.

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.	i-in-za-ga-an	KBo 29.6 obv. 25’	(CTH 762, NS)
nom.-acc. pl. n.	in-za-ga-a-an	KUB 35.54 ii 32’	(CTH 758, MS)

Attestations following CLL:90 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:51) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz.

Melchert apud Arbeitman 1992a:14f. (followed by Jasanoff 2010a:167f., 173f.) convincingly argues on contextual grounds that =za= in īnzagan=za=pa of KBo 29.6 obv. 25’ has a deictic value, i.e. this is the enclitic form of the demonstrative pronoun. In this case, however, synchronically speaking it is not identical with the particle =ša/za (implicitly already Jasanoff 2010a:173f.) and thus the nom.-acc. sg. n. form of this word is īnzagan and not īnzaganza (contra CLL:90), which fits Jasanoff’s observation (Jasanoff 2010a:171f.) that Cuneiform Luwian n-stems do not show this particle (cf. Jasanoff 2010a:173).

[Zs.S.]

The meaning of this word was considered to be unknown for a long time (Laroche 1959a:51, CLL:90; Ünal 2016a:959; also Starke 1990a:310; van den Hout 2001a:168 and Haas 2004a:217 left it untranslated). However, Melchert 2003c:145–148 (cf. also Melchert 2015a:410) proposed ‘inhumations, things inhumated’ (followed by Tischler 2008a:68, Tischler 2016a:125 and Jasanoff 2010a:168); while EDHIL:861f., 900 suggested ‘tools’ (followed by Francia 2014:8). Finally, I. Yakubovich (pers. comm.) opts for ‘dust’.

inzagān is attested in the following sentence (KUB 35.54 ii 31’-32’, transliteration following Starke 1985b:67):

zāwi ziyar NUMUN^ḪI.A-na [p]ūnāta inzagān wašḫa
‘here lie all the seeds (and) i. (and) w.’

This sentence refers to “all the seeds” and to a list of only partially identified five objects (partly probably agricultural implements, cf. below) of the previous paragraph, all presented for the ritual. Although an adverbial meaning of inzagān is not impossible (and then wašḫa would refer to all the objects), this is improbable in view of its other instance, where it is clearly a substantive (KBo 29.6 obv. 25’-26’, transliteration following Starke 1985b:129, with the restorations of EDHIL:862, on the translation see below):

īnzagan=za=pa kuwatin šapiyaimman awidu=a[š=ta] waškulimmāti malḫaššašši[š EN-aš]
‘Just as this ī. is šapiya-ed / is šapiya-ing, (so) may the ritual patient come (away) from the sin.’

Another possibility is that inzagān is an apposition to “all the seeds” and wašḫa alone refers to the five objects or both of them are appositions to “all the seeds” (the meaning of wašḫa is debated, see the discussion s.v.). However, as EDHIL:862 rightly pointed out, it would be “awkward” that only the seeds would be mentioned from the previous list of objects presented for the ritual and none of the other ones and thus he prefers coordinated nouns instead of appositions. Although Kloekhorst believes that this excludes Melchert’s suggestion, Melchert (and his translation) allows in fact both coordinated nouns and appositions (Melchert 2003c:148).

The final possibility is, as Kloekhorst pointed out, that NUMUN^ḪI.A-na [p]ūnāta inzagān wašḫa is similarly a list only without any qualification, just a shorter list of the objects (since probably summarizing) than the list in the previous paragraph, which nicely fits that all of them are nom.-acc. pl. n. inzagān wašḫa would thus refer to the five objects, out of which only the first and third one can be more or less identified as a rake and as a shovel, respectively (see HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:8 s.v. ^(GIŠ)ḫaḫḫara-, ^(GIŠ)ḫaḫra-, ^(GIŠ)ḫaḫḫar-, and I:65–67 s.v. ^(GIŠ)int/daluz(z)i-, resp., cf. also CHD L-N:319 s.v. ^(GIŠ)muil(a)-). In order to explain the plural of wašḫa, inzagān refers probably only to the three first objects at most (unless the reference of wašḫa is a collective noun), who thus seem to be agricultural implements. Accordingly, inzagān should be either a kind of generic term of or a pars pro toto for these tools that can also be used in an analogy of relieving of sin. Although ‘tools’, the proposal of Kloekhorst, is indeed generic, it is, on the one hand, too generic and, on the other, it does not fit the analogy of the other ritual (contra EDHIL:862), exactly because it is too generic (the phrase would mean ‘*just as this tool is šapiya-ed / is šapiya-ing, (so) may the ritual patient come (away) from the sin’).

Melchert’s translation as ‘inhumations, things inhumated’ is also generic, but there is nothing that would point to buried objects (his argument [Melchert 2003c:147f.], the Hittite phrase “katta ḫikzi” ‘offers downward’ used for the ritual act obviously does not necessarily imply burying the objects and imprecise, since the meaning of this phrase is ‘to hand over, to present’, cf. HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:603). Moreover, Melchert’s translation is excluded by the other passage, since whatever the meaning of šapiya- is (he proposes ‘to cleanse’), the phrase ‘*just as this inhumated thing is šapiya-ed / is šapiya-ing / is cleansed / is cleansing, (so) may the ritual patient come (away) from the sin’ is not really coherent semantically (he implicitly admits this problem, Melchert 2003c:149f.).

Considering that the meaning of the verb šapiya- is ‘to cleanse, to rub off, to scrape off’ or the like (Melchert 2003c:149, contra EDHIL:862 [“unclear”], for a full discussion see s.v.), Yakubovich’s proposal (‘dust’) fits the analogy of relieving of a sin (‘*just as the dust is rubbed off, (so) may the ritual patient come (away) from the sin’), but it does not fit the other passage as it does not refer to any of the objects of the list. Semantically speaking it may be an adverb instead, but this is excluded, as per above.

The meaning of the verb šapiya- ‘to cleanse, to rub off, to scrape off’ in the analogical spell fits very well to the fact that īnzagan refers otherwise to agricultural implements. It is important to note at this juncture that the form šapiyaimman of this sentence is a participle (the other theoretical possibility, a deverbal neuter action noun in -mman- does not fit semantically), which has, by definition, both active and passive meaning (see most recently Giusfredi 2017a:100–103 with refs.). In other words, the precise translation of the phrase is ‘just as this ī. is šapiya-ed / is šapiya-ing’, not only ‘just as this ī. is šapiya-ed’, as it is usually assumed (e.g. Melchert 2003c:149; EDHIL:862, for a full discussion see s.v.). Since īnzagan refers to agricultural implements, one rather expects an active meaning as it cleanses / rubs off / scrapes off something, as an analogy to the removal of the sin. Among the possible garden tools a rake stands closest to this meaning (note that this is also one of the garden tools mentioned in the first list) and thus inzagān of the list may refer to a type of rake either as a generic term or (perhaps rather) as a pars pro toto.

[Zs.S.]