ḫanḫaman-

This word is attested only once and occurs with a gloss marker in a NS mythological fragment mentioning Ištar and the god Impaluri, who appears in the Hurrian myth of Kumarbi (cf. Frantz-Szabó 1976-1980a:74; Schwemer 2001a:451, n. 3736 and Haas 2006a:160f.).

 [A.B.]

nom./acc. sg. n.

ḫa-an-⸢ḫa⸣-ma-an

KUB 33.89+36.21 obv. 7’

NS, CTH 350

The attestation follows Laroche 1959a:39, CLL:51, HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:157, HED H:89 (under the lemma ()ḫanḫaniya-, Ünal 2007a:159, Ünal 2016a:149, cf. van den Hout 2007a:247, and Rosenkranz 1950a:191. The transliteration has been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

The form could be either acc.sg.c. (cf. Laroche 1959a:39) or nom./acc.sg.n. (cf. CLL:51, Tischler 2008a:42, Tischler 2016a:64). The stem may be an a-stem, as assumed by HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:157, or an n-stem. CLL:51 and van den Hout 2007a:247 remain undecided and list the word as ḫanḫama(n)- .

[A.B.]

No meaning has been suggested for this word yet, cf. Laroche 1959a:39, CLL:51, HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:157, Tischler 2008a:42, Tischler 2016a:64, Ünal 2007a:159, Ünal 2016a:149, Rieken et al. 2009e, and Zorman 2007a:759.

The context of KUB 33.89+36.21 obv. 2’–7’ shows the following. The transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copy as well as transliterations, restorations and translations of Rieken et al. 2009e and HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:157 have also been taken into account:

(2’)[… -i]a?-an-⸢du⸣ MUNUSšu.g[i …] (3’)[… -]tar-nu-ut ḫu-wa[- …] (4’)[…]x za-aḫ-ḫi-i[a- … (-)i]a[(-) …] (5’)[…]x d10-an! dištar-i[n-n]a x[…]x[…] (6’)[…]x d10 dumu dingirMEŠ na-a[n]-ni-an[-zi …] x[...] (7’)[…] ták-na-aš ḫa-an-⸢ḫa⸣-ma-an i-⸢ia⸣[- …]

(2’–3’)[… th]ey should [...] the ritual exper[t … hur]ried [- …] (4’)[…] figh[t- ...] (5’)[…] the Stormgod and the goddess Išta[r  ...] (6’)[…] the Stormgod, son of the gods the[y] le[a]d (7’)[…] the earth ḫanḫaman (or: the ḫanḫaman of the earth) d[o ...]

The context is very fragmentary. It is, however, likely that the form ḫanḫaman is a direct object here and taknaš ‘earth’ could either be the subject or its genitive attribute (cf. CLL:51 and Rieken et al. 2009e). The end of the sentence shows the beginning of the verb iya- ‘to do, make’, ḫanḫaman could hence be something that is either made by or of the earth, but the meaning cannot be further determined from the context alone.

With regard to its stem formation, ḫanḫaman- could include the Luwian suffix -mman- (cf. under Origin for morphological details and alternative possibilities) and thus represent an action noun, but its base and meaning remain unclear (cf. also HED H:89). A connection to the Glossenkeilwort ()ḫanḫaniya-(cf. under Origin and the respective lemma) is problematic and the meaning ‘to be vexed, perturbed’ (or sim.) would not fit in the context. 

At the moment, it is only safe to say that it denotes something done by or of the earth in the context of attestation.

[A.B.]

The word is generally assumed to be Luwian (cf. Laroche 1959a:39, CLL:51, the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a:452 and van den Hout 2007a:247, Ünal 2007a:159 and Ünal 2016a:149, Tischler 2008a:42 and Tischler 2016a:64). HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:157 considers a Luwian origin because of the gloss marker (note, however, that the gloss marker does not necessarily prove a Luwian origin, cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445).

HED H:89 suggests either an abstract noun or a participle of a ‘Luwoid’ verb (cf. Kronasser 1966a:568 who also assumed a nomen actionis or participle of an unknown verb). Four Luwian suffixes (cf. Melchert 2003b:195–197) could be considered for this form: -ma/i- (forms animate nouns from verbs), -ama/ī- (forms adjectives of appurtenance from nouns) and -m(m)a/i (forms verbal participles and secondarily possessive adjectives from nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:197), -mman- (forms neuter action nouns from verbs, cf. Melchert 2003b:197), or -an- (forming nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:197). The base would be either a noun or a verb of the form *ḫanḫ(a)- or *ḫanḫam(a)-. If the derived form is a participle or an adjective, the probable attribute taknaš in the attested context (cf. under Meaning) suggests its use as a substantivized form. If ḫanḫaman- contains one of these suffixes, its origin is Luwian. Since the suffix -mman- is very productive in Luwian, this would be a good candidate, and in that case, the base verb would be *ḫanḫ(a)-, yet no such verb is known in Hittite or Luwian at present.

HEG A–K:148f cautiously considers a connection to the Glossenkeilwort ḫanḫaniya- which also shows reduplication and could be a Luwian loanword in Hittite (cf. under the respective lemma), but a connection is problematic due to the phonological differences (cf. CLL:51) and (as noted under Meaning) the semantics of this verb (cf. under the respective lemma), also HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:157 excludes this option.

The details of the formation of the base remain unclear, however. At the moment, it can only be said with high probability that we are dealing with a Luwian loan word.

One could consider if ḫanḫaman- shows a similar reduplication like ḫunḫumazzi- ‘wave’ (attribute of a river) and its synonym ḫunḫuneššar- (used with regard to rivers and the sea), which also appears in this text (in lines 16’ and 20’ of this fragment), cf. HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:721–723 for both lexemes.

[A.B.]