xñtawata-

This lexeme is found in various inscriptions in the Lycian corpus.

[D.S.]

acc. sg.	xñtawatã	TL 44b.37 (Xanthos)
dat. sg.	xñtawati	TL 44b.58 (Xanthos)
loc. sg.	xñtawata	TL 29.9 (Tlos)
		TL 43.2 (Xanthos)
		TL 61.2 (Phellos)
		TL 67.2 (Timiusa)
		TL 77.3 (Ҫindam)
		TL 103.3 (Limyra)
		N 314a.7 (Kızılca)
	[xñ]tawata	TL 132.2 (Limyra)
	[xñtaw]ạt[a]	TL 64.2 (Isinda)
	xṇ̃ṭawata	TL 83.6 (Arneai)
	xñt[aw]ata	N 310.4 (Phellos)
	xñtaw{w}a[ta]	N 315.2 (Seyret)

Contra Neumann 2007a:128f., Lyc. xñtawata- c. ‘rule’ and xñtawate/i- c. ‘ruler, king’ do not belong to the same verbal stem class and they must therefore be treated as two different lexemes.

[D.S.]

For the restoration of [xñtaw]ạt[a] in TL 64.2, see Gusmani 1963a:285, who compares similar formulas.

[D.S.]

After the meaning of Lyc. ẽnẽ ‘under’ had been discovered by Laroche, Gusmani 1963a re-examined the syntagm ẽnẽ …-he xñtawata, in which the word xñtawata had been taken as an agent noun expressing a title of high rank. However, he interprets rightly that xñtawata must be an abstract noun meaning ‘rule’, because most personal names occurring in the formula refer to famous people whose names also appear on coins. This allowed the recognition of ẽnẽ …-he xñtawata ‘under the rule of …’ as a dating formula (further defended by Laroche 1979c:104f. and Heubeck 1979b:250 , followed by DLL:84).
The term xñtawata- ‘rule’ is used to designate the ruling periods of the Lycian royal family members, i.e. Harpagos and Gergis, of the East-Lycian dynast Perikle and the Persian satraps Autophradates and Mithrapates.

[D.S.]

1.  hrixñtawata-

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

nom. sg.

xñtawat!a

TL 44d.67 (Xanthos)

Although the inscription reads xñtawaza, the context calls for the meaning ‘rule, kingship’, whence the emendation into xñtawat^!a is justified (Schürr 1997b:65f., contra DLL:136). An agent noun in -aza- c. meaning ‘ruler’ would be contextually non-sensical; see below.

[D.S.]

The phrase in which xñtawata- is found refers either to the kingship of the maternal and paternal grandfathers of Gergis (Lyc. xeriga-) (thus Hajnal 2000a:182 and Schürr 2003b:113), or if brothers and sisters of royal blood were married to one another just like in the Carian Hekatomnos dynasty, it would refer to only one grandfather, i.e. the unique father of Gergis’ parents, which would be Kybernis (Lyc. kuprlle/i-). The latter option appears more likely, since there is only one known Lycian great ruler of that period, viz. Kybernis. However, this claim remains hypothetical until further evidence surfaces.

seb(e) ẽnesi=ke tedesi=ke : xugasi : xñtawat^!a (TL 44d.66-67)
‘and the kingship of (his) grandfather, of both the mother’s and the father’s.’

[D.S.]

Adiego 2019b:24 interprets Lyc. B xñtawaza at face value and suggests that the suffix -aza- goes back to an abstract formation in *-eh₂- derived from the relational adjective in *-i̯o- attested in HLuw. /hantawatti(ya)-/ ´of the king´. However, he neglects the fact that the relational adjective is already attested in Lycian A as xñtawati(je)-, in which no assibilation to -z- takes places. Therefore, his historical derivation lacks any basis and cannot be supported on comparative grounds. The otherwise well-known Lycian suffix -aza- (so far only attested in Lycian A) builds only agent nouns or professional titles.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see PAnat. *Hant-.