*tebeheze/i- (tabahaza)

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./acc. pl. n.

tabahaza

TL 44b.53 (Xanthos)

The meaning of tabahaza is debated; Deecke 1887b:329 and Neumann 2007a:337 take it as an ethnicon, based on the suffix -(e)ze/i- as well as on the context, in which tabahaza kumezija seems to be parallel to the following tuminehija kumezija ‘Altars in Tymnessos’ and xãkbija kumezija ‘Altars in Kandyba’. However, this is misleading, since tabahaza kumezija is completed by padritahi arñna ‘in the Aphrodision at Xanthos’, which means that tabahaza cannot refer to a place name but rather defines the kind of altars that are set up in the temenos of Aphrodite at Xanthos.

Shevoroshkin 1971a:234 suggests the meaning ‘heavenly’ based on an etymological comparison with Luw. tappaš- ‘sky, heaven’ (followed by Gehrisch 2018a:69). Later, Shevoroshkin 1979a:193 takes it as dative plural and suggests the meaning ‘sky-dwellers’, which would stand in asyndetic relation to trqqñti ‘to the Storm-god’ (Neumann 1983a:148 leaves all possibilities open). This is essentially possible, but not likely considering the fact that it refers to the second kumezija ‘altars’ and not to the first ones dedicated to the Storm-god, as pointed out above. Nonetheless, the semantics obtained by the etymological comparison with Luwian still holds. The adjective *tebeheze/i- (see under Stem) would refer to the place in the sky, where the twelve main gods of the pantheon live, e.g. “Olympian” (from a Greek perspective). Therefore, tabahaza kumezija padritahi arñna can be understood as ‘Olympian altars in the Aphrodision at Xanthos’.

[D.S.]

Schürr 2008a:182 takes tabahaza as an agent noun in -aza- (also suggested by Eichner 2005a:34), which would imply a nominative singular or a dative plural (thus Schürr 2012a:129), none of the two are however supported by the syntax. Eichner 2005a:34 suggests that tabahaza might be an adjective in -i(je)-, i.e. -ezi(je)-, although the nom./acc. pl. n. would be expected to be -ezija. His ad hoc assumption of a “metaplasmus” is unacceptable. Therefore, it is preferable to take tabahaza as an adjective in -eze/i-, i.e. *tebeheze/i- with vowel harmony in the nom./acc. pl. n.

[D.S.]