ārtattar[(-)

The substantive is found only once in the narrative text of “Naram-Sîn in Anatolia” (NS).

[E.R.]

unknown

a-ar-ta-at-tar[(-)

KBo 3.13 iii 5’

(CTH 311, NS)

The tablet is broken off immediately after -tar-. Starting from the contextually supported assumption that the form must be a plural like the first of the juxtaposed words (ḫāriuš), Starke 1990a:503 discusses two options for the restoration: first -ra, which he dismisses because -ttarra is unattested for the nom./acc. pl. of -ttar/-t(ta)n- stems; secondly, -ša, which he erroneously classifies as a neuter nom./acc. pl. marker. Therefore, either restoration is problematic. If the singular were to be accepted in spite of the implausible semantics, a-ar-ta-at-tar-[ra could be understood as the singular form with additive particle -(y)a within the Hittite context, or else the word would end after -tar (nom./acc. sg.). However, positing a derivative of *ārtattar- solves the problems described (see under Meaning).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The context refers to the crossing auf the Taurus mountain chain: ^(4’)[…]x-li GIM-an GÌR-it an-da wa-ar-pa-nu-u[n] ^(5’)[…]  ḪUR.SAG^MEŠ-aš ḫa-a-ri-uš a-ar-ta-at-tar(-)[ ^(6’)[…]-un “when managed […]-li on foot, I […]-ed the valleys artattar(-) of the mountains.” The suggestion of Starke 1990a:503f. that the underlying root is art- ‘to saw, cut’, yields a good sense for a derived noun in the combination with valley, such as ‘cutting, gorge’ (followed in Tischler 2008a:s.v. and Ünal 2007a:62; more general CLL:31 "a topographic feature").

Since none of the restorations and analyses discussed under Forms allows a plausible restoration and morphological analysis, a third possibility needs to be taken into consideration. If ārtattar[(-) continues after the break, nothing precludes from assuming that the word is a derivative of an unattested noun *ārtattar-. For example, one could conceive of a neuter instrument noun *ārtattar- (suffix -ttar(a)- < *-tro-, cf. ipattar- < *h₁ēp-tro- restored in CLL:91), derived first as a verb *artattari(ya)- and further as an abstract noun *artattariyamman- ‘cutting, gorge’. This line of thought is presented here only as an illustration of the possibilities opening up if a-ar-ta-at-tar[(-) is considered incomplete, in order to warn against relying on a heteroclitic stem **ārtattar/-t(ta)n-. The morphologically and semantically implausible interpretation as ‘Gelangen, Betreten’ (Hrozný 1928a:158, HW:33, HW²:348f., HEG A-K:70) is outdated.

[E.R.]

Probably incomplete, the stem a-ar-ta-at-tar[(-) cannot be identified.

[E.R.]

The argument of Starke 1990a:503f. (cf. also Melchert 2005a:452) for a Luwian origin, i.e. the suffix -ttar/-t(ta)n-, is obsolete now. If the attested part of the word *ārtattar- really is a neuter instrument noun in -ttar(a)-, nothing can be said about its origin, because the root art- and the suffix -ttar(a)- exist in both Hittite and Luwian.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. *art-.