šakantama/i-

Attested in a NS Hittite inventory text (cf. Cammarosano 2013a:84 with refs.).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.	ša-kán-ta-ma-an-za	KUB 12.1 iii 20.23	(CTH 504, NS)
nom. pl. c.	ša-kán-ta-me-en-zi	KUB 12.1 iii 18	(CTH 504, NS)

Attestations following CLL:185 and CHD Š:40 (cf. already Laroche 1959a:84 and also Ünal 2007a:582, Ünal 2016a:443), checked against the photograph in the Konkordanz (the formal definitions given by Siegelová 1986a:614f. [and thus the separation of these forms into two words] are outdated). Laroche 1959a:84 suggested adding “x(-)x-kantāimma” from KUB 35.108 iv 23’ (followed by CLL:185 with question mark). Nevertheless, based on the photo of the Konkordanz, the sign traces (the top of a vertical wedge and the tops of two wedges in a vertical row) are compatible neither with <ša-ak> nor with <šak> (as pointed out already by Starke 1990a:517).

This word is generally booked as šakantama/i- (HEG II:718, Tischler 2008a:154, Tischler 2016a:292; van den Hout 2007a:249; Ünal 2007a:582, Ünal 2016a:443; EDHIL:699; CHD Š:40), except by Starke 1990a:516 and CLL:185, who spell it as šakkantamma(/i)- and šak(k)antamma/i-. However, both geminate spellings are problematic:

1. There is no assured Luwian evidence for the geminate spelling of the velar. Only its cognate šak(k)antat(t)ar is spelled with a single velar at one occasion, but this form is isolated among its attestations (see s.v.). Beyond this, only its assumed etymology from *sekh₁- ‘to cut’ via *šakkant(i)- *‘(that which is) cut (out)’ proposed by CLL:185 (and followed by CHD Š:40) supports the spelling with a geminate velar, which is of course a dubious argument. Nevertheless, if Hieroglyphic Luwian sà-ka-ta/tá-li-sà- indeed belongs here (as suggested by Starke 1990a:517f., followed by CLL:185), its spelling <sà-ka-> points to initial /sk-/ (Rieken 2010b), which could explain the different cuneiform spellings and justify the form <šakk°> (contra Starke 1990a:517 n. 1910), see the discussion under Proto-Luwian *skanda- and Hieroglyphic Luwian /skandal(l)issa-/ ‘to furnish with applications, to make gleam’.

2. The “evidence” for the geminate <-mm-> is only Melchert’s emendation of the forms into ša-kán-ta-<am>-ma-an-za and ša-kán-ta-<am>-me-en-zi (followed by EDHIL:699, but cf. above). However, even if it is a participle as usually assumed (Laroche 1959a:84 [from *šakanta(i)-]; Košak 1978a:108; Starke 1990a:516 [for his derivation see 516–518]; HEG II:718, Tischler 2008a:154, Tischler 2016a:292 [from *šakantai- ‘verzieren / décorer (?)’]; Ünal 2007a:582, Ünal 2016a:443) or just its suffix that can also be used secondarily for possessive adjectives from nouns (cf. Melchert 2003b:195; this might be the implicit derivation of CLL:85 himself [“denom. adj. to *šakkant(i)-”], followed by CHD Š:40), the word should be booked with single spelling, not only due to its consistent single spelling, but also because this suffix is spelled both single and geminate. Note furthermore that the form with single spelling allows an explanation with the suffix -ama/i- as well, that forms adjectives of appurtenance from nouns (Melchert 2003b:195).

[Zs.S.]

Based on the contexts, this adjective clearly denotes decoration or a type of decoration (that can be golden). Appliqué was assumed by Košak 1978a:104, 108 (alternatively ‘embroidery’, Košak 1982a:202 (here arguing that appliqué is “more likely” in the Ancient Near East), 234 followed by some scholars (CLL:185; Ünal 2007a:582 [English version; but ‘inlay or a corresponding technique’ in the Turkish version; similarly Ünal 2016a:443: ‘with inlay or a corresponding technique decorated’]; CHD Š:40; EDHIL:699 [although latter two with question mark]). Nevertheless, other scholars prefer a more cautious formulation, see Polvani 1988a:172 (“decorati”); Siegelová 1986a:445, 614f., HEG II:718, Tischler 2008a:154, Tischler 2016a:292 (‘(in einer bestimmten Technik) verziert’, also in the German version of Ünal 2007a:582). Since, however, the cognate šak(k)antat(t)ar indeed seems to mean ‘appliqué’ (cf. s.v.), it is plausible that šakantama/i- also means ‘decorated with appliqué’.

[Zs.S.]

Generally and rightly treated as Luwian (Laroche 1959a:84; Košak 1978a:108; Siegelová 1986a:615; Starke 1990a:516–518; CLL:185 (but not included in Melchert 2005a); van den Hout 2007a:249; Tischler 2008a:154, Tischler 2016a:292; CHD Š:40) due to its unambiguous Luwian endings.

[Zs.S.]