šak(k)antat(t)ar

Attested in NS and LNS Hittite inventory texts (cf. Cammarosano 2013a:84).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.	ša-kán-ta-tar	KUB 12.1 iii 17’	(CTH 504, NS)
	˹ša˺-kán-ta-tar	KUB 42.69 obv. 2’	(CTH 245, NS)
	[ša]-˹kán˺-ta-tar	KUB 42.42 i 10’	(CTH 241, NS)
nom.-acc. pl. n.	˹ša˺-kán-ta-at-ta-ra	KUB 42.42 i 9’	(CTH 241, NS)
	ša-kán-ta-ad-da-ra	KUB 42.78 ii 22’	(CTH 504, NS)
	[ša-kán]-˹ta˺-ad-da-ra	KUB 42.69 obv. 19’	(CTH 245, NS)
	ša-ag-ga-an-ta-at-ta-˹ra?˺	KBo 13.61 rev. 5’	(CTH 832, LNS)

Attestations following Starke 1990a:515f.; CLL:185 (they do not include KUB 42.69 obv. 19’) and CHD Š:40 checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz (Ünal 2007a:582, Ünal 2016a:443 separates ša-ag-ga-an-ta-at-ta-˹ra^?˺ of KBo 13.61 rev. 5’ as “šaggantatattar”, which is obviously a misunderstanding). Starke 1990a:515f. and CLL:185 include one more attestation following the restoration of […]x-tar in KUB 42.42 i 13’ (Košak 1982a:57; Siegelová 1986a:470) as [ša-kán]-˹ta˺-tar by Košak 1982a:59. Although this restoration is contextually plausible, it cannot be proven, especially since only a horizontal tip is visible from the sign before <tar>.

Starke 1990a:516 with n. 1907 and CLL:185 read the form in KBo 13.61 rev. 5’ as šaggantattar[i] and thus separate it as a Hittite form, also pointing out the geminate spelling of the velar. However, CHD Š:40 reads here ša-ag-ga-an-ta-at-ta-˹ra˺ (followed by EDHIL:699). The photo of the Konkordanz shows only the beginning of a single horizontal wedge, which does not necessarily mean <ri>, since the tablet is diagonally broken, therefore one cannot exclude the existence of further horizontal wedges (i.e. <ra>). In other words, both restorations are possible, but the geminate <-tt-> points to a Luwian suffix (cf. under Origin) and thus to a Luwian ending, hence the restoration with <ra> seems more probable. The geminate spelling of the velar does not necessarily point to a Hittite form, since the different spellings can be caused by the underlying /sk-/ (cf. its probable Hieroglyphic Luwian cognate, sà-ka-ta/tá-li-sà- ‘?’ with Rieken 2010b for <sà-ka-> as /sk-/).

Starke 1990a:516 with n. 1907a and HEG II:718 add KBo 18.23 obv. 11’ following the restoration […ša-kán]-ta-tar-ša of Hagenbuchner 1989a:322–324, also accepted by Edel 1994a:228f. (nevertheless all with ˹ta˺). CHD P:370 protests against this solution arguing that there is no evidence for this restoration and Hagenbuchner’s restoration of the sentence is “grammatically questionable”. However, a questionably restored sentence does not refute the restoration of a single word (note that Edel 1994a:228f. accepts only the restoration of this specific word), especially since it fits the phrase (…]-˹ta˺-tar-ša ŠA KÙ.GI pu-ḪAR-ša-an[… – although ‘gold’ may refer to any of its adjacent words, one may recall that šak(k)antat(t)ar is usually made of gold) and the overall context (the Hittite – Egyptian royal correspondence). The problem is that the context is so fragmentary that Hagenbuchner’s restoration cannot be proven, and thus this form is not included here. Note furthermore that Torri 2003a:155 segments tar-ša from this word and identifies it with ^GIŠtar-ša ‘seed or seedling (of a tree)’ in KUB 7.53+ iv 18. Although this interpretation is graphically possible (the words are not really separated in this letter), the relatively well-established meaning ‘seed, seedling’ makes no sense here.

[Zs.S.]

Its meaning is defined either as ‘appliqué’ (Košak 1978a:108 [or ‘embroidery’], Košak 1982a:59, 202 [arguing why not ‘embroidery’], 234; CLL:185; CHD Š:40 [with question mark]; Ünal 2007a:582 [English version]; EDHIL:699) or, more cautiously, as ‘ornament’ (Siegelová 1986a:457, 459, 465, 471, 615; Starke 1990a:516; Ünal 2007a:582 [German and Turkish versions], Ünal 2016a:443 [also ‘inlay’ in the latter two]; HEG II:718, Tischler 2008a:154, Tischler 2016a:292).

Set aside KBo 13.61, which is too fragmentary to be helpful, the uninformative KUB 42.42 and KUB 42.69 obv. 19’ (contra CHD Š:40, cf. the translation by Košak 1978a:116), this word appearing in inventories of ornaments clearly refers to objects, since two pieces of them are mentioned in KUB 42.78 ii 22’ (Košak 1978a:113; CHD Š:40; Starke 1990a:516 n. 1906), and presumably twenty pieces in KBo 13.61 rev. 5’ (see the discussion under Graphic features). Similarly in KUB 12.1 iii 17’, where it seems to represent a set of six sun-disc- and two crescent-shaped ornaments (Košak 1978a:100, 104 [from a contextual point of view less probable is the separation of these ornaments from šak(k)antat(t)ar by HEG II:718]; cf. also KUB 42.69 obv. 2’, where it is part of a breast ornament, with CHD Š:40, contra Košak 1978a:116). Thus the translation ‘appliqué’ is probably precise.

[Zs.S.]

Treated as Luwian in Laroche 1959a:84; CLL:185 and HEG II:718, not included, however, in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a (and it is not Luwian according to CHD Š:40 and Tischler 2008a:154, Tischler 2016a:292). According to EDHIL:699 it is unclear whether we are dealing with a Hittite or with a Luwian word.

Although both suffixes of this word (-(a)nt-, Hitt. -(ā̆)tar / Luw. -ttar) are known from both Hittite and Luwian (and the oblique cases, where the latter suffix shows unmistakably different forms in these languages, are not attested yet), the geminate spelling of the dental in the plural forms of the latter suffix points to the Luwian form of the suffix and its Luwian origin is demonstrated by the nom.-acc. pl. n. ending -a, which is not attested with the Hittite -(ā̆)tar stems (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:126–128; note that KBo 18.23 obv. 11’ that would show the Luwian nom.-acc. sg. n. particle =ša is not included here, see under Form). The singular form šakantatar with a single consonant may be a “Hittitized” form.

[Zs.S.]

The wedges in front of ša-ag-ga-an-ta-at-ta-˹ra^?˺ in KBo 13.61 rev. 5’ are usually interpreted as 〈20〉 (cf. Starke 1990a:516 n. 1907; CHD Š:40; implicitly CLL:85). However, Ünal 2007a:582 (cf. Ünal 2016a:443) identifies them gloss marker. Although gloss markers sometimes appear in the form of U or MAN in Hittite texts, rather more often they have the shape of one or two diagonals, as can probably be observed in line 8’ of the same fragment, where an apparently hitherto unnoticed gloss marker appears before the sign PI. Thus, the interpretation as 〈20〉 for the instance in line 5’ is followed here (see also line 9’ for yet another 〈20〉 of very similar shape).

[A.B.], [Zs.S.]