ku(wa)rša-

Amply attested in Luwian rituals and in a myth (from MS to LNS).

[Zs.S.]

Gen. adj.:

nom. sg. c.	[kur / ku-wa-ar-ša-aš-ši]-˹iš˺	KUB 35.46 iv! 8’	(CTH 761, NS)
nom.-acc. sg. n.	kur-ša-aš-ša-an	KUB 35.45 ii 4	(CTH 760, NS)
	˹ku˺-[wa-ar-ša-aš-ša-an]	KUB 35.49 i 8’	(CTH 761, MS)
	[kur / ku-wa-ar-ša-aš]-˹ša-an˺	KUB 32.14, 13	(CTH 761, NS)
nom.-acc. sg. n.?	ku-wa-˹ar-ša˺-aš-ša{-aš-ša}	KBo 29.55 + KUB 35.43 rev. iii 32’’	(CTH 761, NS)
nom.-acc. pl. n.	[kur / ku-wa-ar]-˹ša˺-aš-ša{-an}	KUB 9.6 i 30	(CTH 759, LNS)
abl.-instr.	ku-wa-ar-ša-aš-ša-a-[ti]	KUB 35.108, 16’	(CTH 765, MS)
	ku-wa-ar-[ša-aš-ša-a-ti]	KUB 35.48 iii 9’	(CTH 760, NS)
	[kur / ku-wa-ar-ša-aš-ša]-˹ti˺	KUB 35.45 rev. iii 8’	(CTH 760, NS)

Attestations following Laroche 1959a:60 and CLL:117 with additional material from Starke 1985b:150, 154, 160 checked against the photos of the Konkordanz. Restorations follow Melchert and Starke based on parallel passages. On the scribal mistake in [ku-wa-ar/kur]-˹ša˺-aš-ša{-an} see Starke 1990a:38 and Fortson 2004a:171. The form ku-wa-˹ar-ša˺-aš-ša{-aš-ša} was analysed by Yakubovich 2010d:39–43 as a genitive singular (but cf. now Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:212 n. 5) and as an archaic nom.-acc. sg. n. by Melchert 2012d:283f. (following a suggestion of P. Goedegebuure), see there for detailed discussions.

[Zs.S.]

While some scholars still do not translate the word (Yakubovich 2010d:41f., who, however, would translate it now as ‘detachment’ [pers. comm., but cf. below] and Ünal 2016a:962), Meriggi 1957b:63f. suggested ‘military (adj.)’, since it appears in pair with tūliya- (cf. below, followed by Laroche 1959a:60 [“très probable”] and Tischler 2008a:98, Tischler 2016a:186 [with question mark]), which led to similar translations: ‘soldier’ ([Carruba 1982a:48f.), ‘army’ (Kammenhuber 1986a:87 [with question mark]; Marcuson 2016a:295). Also ‘(military) division’ was proposed (CLL:117 [with question mark]; Hutter 2003a:262; Maier 2013a:214 [with question mark]; similarly Starke 1990a:37f. [‘Schar’]), undoubtedly inspired by the assonance with Luwian kuwar- / kūr- ‘to cut; to break^?’, Hittite kuer- / kur- ‘to cut’ and even kuerš- / kurš- ‘to cut off’. Finally a completely different solution, ‘individual’ is offered by Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:212f., partly on similar etymological grounds (the basic meaning of ku(wa)rša- would be ‘*separation’) and partly on tūliya-, what they translate as ‘group’.

The word appears almost always in a list of pairs (mother / father, brother / sister, dead / living, past / future, lūlaḫi(ya)-men [approx. ‘mountain dwellers’, see s.v.] / ḫāpiri(ya)-men [approx. ‘nomads’, see s.v.]), where ku(wa)rša- is paired with tūliya- (except KUB 35.108, 16’, the context of which is not helpful). Contra Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:212f., the word tūliya- does not mean ‘group’ (which also excludes their interpretation of ku(wa)rša- as ‘individual’): tūliya- is a terminus technicus for one of the institutions of the Hittite state, a kind of assembly, more precisely a judicial body composed of the members of the higher state bureaucracy (for an overview see Imparati 1999a:345–349 with refs., see esp. the important discussions by Beckman 1982a; Mora 1983a and Imparati 1991a, all with further refs.). Accordingly, ku(wa)rša- should also be a kind of terminus technicus for an institution and/or body of the Hittite state and thus translations like ‘soldier’, ‘(military) division’, and ‘detachment’ do not fit. It obviously refers to those who were not member of the tūliya-, i.e. members of the lesser state bureaucracy, or even to those who were not members of the bureaucracy at all, for instance ‘commoners’. From this point of view the translation ‘army’ could also be fitting, but there is no independent evidence to support this.

[Zs.S.]