5
Sun and Daughter
THE DIVINE SUNThe words for ‘sun’ in nearly all branches of the Indo-European family, or at
least of MIE, are related. Quite how they are related is a problem of great
complexity that has not yet been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.^1 The
most widely favoured approach is to postulate a prototype s.h 2 w.l, a neuter
noun with variable vowel gradation in either syllable, a susceptibility to
laryngeal metathesis (h 2 w > wh 2 ), and a heteroclite declension in which the
final-l of the nominative/accusative alternated with -n- in oblique cases. No
other such l/n heteroclite is found, though r/n heteroclites form a well-
established class. This neuter prototype is continued in one way or another by
Vedic súvar/svàr, Avestan hvarə (Ga ̄thic genitive xvə ̄ ng < swens), Gothic sauil
(all neuters), and Latin so ̄l (masculine). Other masculine or feminine forms
were created by adding the suffix-(i)yos/-ya ̄: suh 2 l-iyos > Vedic su ̄ ́r(i)ya-
(alsosu ̄ ́ra-); seh 2 wel-iyos > Greek ha ̄weliyos,q(f)λιο,kλιο; seh 2 ul-ya ̄ >
Lithuanian saule ̇. The oblique stem in -n- gave rise to Germanic sun-(n)o ̄n
(feminine), from which German Sonne, English sun, etc.
Solar deities are often mentioned in Hittite texts, their names largely con-
cealed under the Sumerogram dUTU, sometimes with a phonetic comple-
ment indicating the Hittite ending; this generally has the form -usˇ. We saw
in the last chapter that one name for the Sun-god in Old Hittite times was
Sius-summi, and that Luwian and Palaic had the cognate names Tiwat-,
Tiyat-. The usual later Hittite name for the Sun-god of heaven seems to have
been Istanus, adapted from a native Hattic goddess Esta ̄n, and dUTU-usˇ may
represent this. In just one text (KUB xvii. 19. 9) we find a dUTU-li-i-asˇ, which,
it has been thought, might represent something like Sahhulias. That would
be an isolated Anatolian instance of the name derived from *s.h 2 w.l.
(^1) For some recent discussions see R. P. Beekes, MSS 43 (1984), 5–8 (and in EIEC 556);
A. Bammesberger, ZVS 98 (1985), 111–13; M. E. Huld, ZVS 99 (1986), 194–202, who is criticized
briefly by E. Hamp, HS 103 (1990), 193 f.; R. Wachter, HS 110 (1997), 4–20.