ānnawanna/i-

Hapax in a Luwian ritual (MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.

a-an-na-wa-an-˹ni˺-[iš]

KBo 9.141 i 18’

(CTH 761, MS)

The attestation follows Melchert 1993g:16 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:27; HED A & E/I:65; HW 2nd ed. A:80), checked against the photograph of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The restoration is ubiquitous (cf. also Starke 1985b:126) due to the unambiguous context. Melchert calls attention also to a-an-na-x[ in KBo 9.141 i 15, that may belong here.

Following Otten 1976a:104, HED A & E/I:65 includes two more attestations:

1. ^MUNUSannawannin (KBo 55.204, 8’): However, already Otten pointed out that it can be a female personal name as well, and MUNUS is indeed used to indicate both, female professions and female personal names (Rüster & Neu 1989a No. 297; HEG T,D:471), but not kinship terms. Thus, it is omitted here.
2. ]-x-na-u-wa-an-ni-in (KBo 14.114, 13’, transliteration after Starke 1985b:257, read as a]n-na-u-wa-an-ni-in by Otten): However, the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv supports the more cautious reading of Starke and thus (and since the context is fragmentary), it is not assured that we are dealing here with the same word.

[Zs.S.]

This word is almost unanimously translated as ‘step-mother’ (Laroche 1959a:27; Melchert 1993g:16; HED A & E/I:65; EDHIL:179; Tischler 2008a:17, Tischler 2016a:12, for Ünal’s view see below). The word appears in a fragmentary context, but in pair with anna/i- ‘mother’ and this pair is juxtaposed to the pair tāta/i- ‘father’ and tātawanna/i- (for these words see s.vv.). There are two competing morphological analyses (with -wanna/i-, suffix of appurtenance in the meaning ‘of the sort of’ [Melchert 2003b:197f., where the example is exactly this word in the meaning ‘step-mother’] and -wa-ann(i)- ‘having the rank of’ [Starke 1990a:62; Rieken & Sasseville 2014a:305]), but none of them is specific enough to reduce the possibilities, which include not only ‘step-mother’ but also ‘aunt’, ‘mother-in-law’ and even ‘elder female relative’. Nevertheless, the Hittite cognate (and possibly a Luwian loanword, see s.v.) annawanna- clearly cannot refer to relatives, since according to §190 of the Hittite laws (Hoffner 1997b:150, cf. also Christiansen 2015a:50–52), it is not an offense if a man has sexual intercourse with his annawanna- – sexual intercourse with blood relatives was, however, strictly forbidden in Hittite society (see the detailed discussion in Cohen 2002a:74–93). Although this would still leave two options (step-mother and mother-in-law, this is also the translation of Ünal 2016a:950), the final clause claims that it is not a sin only if the father of the man is not alive anymore, which can be relevant only if we are dealing with the step-mother.

[Zs.S.]