*atta

This lexeme is attested twice in funerary inscriptions and once on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos (dated shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 404 BCE).

[D.S.]

nom. sg.

eti

TL 44b.42 (Xanthos), N 314b.5 (Kızılca), N 331.3 (Korba)

This lexeme occurs twice in curse formulas, where it stands in apposition to a divine name, i.e. eti… xaxakba (TL 314b.5-6), eti… ebuθis (N 331.3). On the Xanthos stele, it stands in apposition to a personal name, i.e. puwẽi (TL 44b.42). This allows us to conclude that it is an epithet, which can apply to either a man or a god (DLL:19). In TL 314b.5, the epithet is additionally modified by a demonstrative pronoun in the genitive plural, i.e. eti ebehẽ xaxakba meaning ‘their (scil. the grave’s owners) eti, (the god) xaxakba’. Based on the etymological connection with Hitt. atta- c. ‘father’, it is here assumed that eti refers to some kind of paternal title and is provisionally translated as ‘father’ (following Hajnal 1995a:115, Melchert ibid., Christiansen 2020a).For the term ‘father’ as a divine epithet in Hittite see HW (2nd ed.):560 and in Luwian see Hutter 2003a:224. For the more common word for ‘father’ in Lycian see tede/i-.

Differently, Neumann 2007a:79f. posits the meaning ‘body, building’ and Eichner (apud Neumann ibid.) suggests an etymological connection with Hitt. addi- c. (body part). This would imply that eti in the curse formulas would be the direct object of the ‘striking’ performed by the gods. This is theoretically possible, although the instance in TL 44b.42 occurring beside a personal name, makes the hypothesis of an epithet based on a family term more convincing. Outdated Carruba 1979b:83.

[D.S.]

1. Αta- (PN) (Gusmani 1988a:189f., Gusmani 1964a:69 with further literature)

1. HW (2nd ed.) A:541-560, HEG T,D:92f., HED A, E, I:224-226, EDHIL:225f.

Hapax (?) in a Greek tomb inscription from Cilicia Trachea (Topaların Çeşme / Dösene, 2nd/3rd c. AD, Keil & Wilhelm 1931a:30).

[Zs.S.]

acc. sg. m.	ATEIN	Dösene 9 = MAMA 3 No. 53, 1
or nom.-acc. sg.	NATEIN

Attestation following Neumann 1961a:34 (no photograph, just a drawing was published in the publication, Keil & Wilhelm 1931a:30f.), who rightly points out that due to the scriptio continua of the inscription an alternative reading τὸ νάτειν instead of τὸν ἄτειν is also possible and, accordingly, Keil & Wilhelm 1931a:31; Hagel & Tomaschitz 1998a:82; Elton 2000a:294 with n. 9 and Pilhofer 2015a:56 list both readings (for the text see under Meaning). Nevertheless, Neumann 1961a:34 also claims that the reading τὸ νάτειν is not probable, without providing any reason (for which he was rightly criticized by Laminger-Pascher 1973a:71). For a discussion of the possibilities see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

The text of the inscription is as follows (Keil & Wilhelm 1931a:31 [MAMA 3 No. 53]; Hagel & Tomaschitz 1998a:82 [Dösene 9]):

Ἄνθος τονατειν, Ἀθηνό-
δωρος τὴν αὑτοῦ γυνε͂-
κα μνήμης χάριν

The editors did not translate the term and treated it as an unknown kinship term (Keil & Wilhelm 1931a:31; also Pilhofer 2015a:56 treats it as “unbekannt”, without referring to the following discussions).

Brandenstein 1934a:222 saw the father (or grandfather, with question mark) of the deceased woman in Anthos and translated the word accordingly as ‘child’ (or ‘Liebling’, with question mark), segmenting it as τὸ νάτειν. According to him both proposals are supported by the Lydian inscription LW 53 ntes nts, where, in his view, Ntes represents a personal name (Νάθης) and nts (read by him as n(a)t(a)s) a kinship term (for a discussion of these words see s.vv.).

Kretschmer 1934a:220 identified this word with αττειν ‘grandfather (acc. sg. m.)’ attested in a single inscription from Boeotia (followed by Haas 1960a:15; also DELG:135 translates it as ‘grandfather’ connecting it with Gr. ἄττα, but without referring to Kretschmer). This was rejected by Neumann 1961a:34f. referring to the geographical distance, which is, of course, not a decisive argument. Note that formally speaking these words can be identical since geminates can be regularly spelled with a single consonant in Asia Minor Koine Greek inscriptions (Brixhe 1987a:32, Brixhe 2010a:234, both with examples).

Bossert 1954-1956a:70 translated it as ‘Nachkomme’ (without mentioning the proposals of Kretschmer and Brandenstein), since the gravestone shows only the bust of a single female and thus Athenodoros and Anthos would be, respectively, the husband (who mourns the wife) and the grandfather, who mourns the descendant.

However, Neumann 1961a:35f. (who quotes Bossert’s proposal, but does not comment upon it and does not quote that of Brandenstein) translated the word as ‘Vater, Papa’, suggesting a local word, which would be related to Hittite atta- and Lydian *ata- ‘dto’ with i-mutation (in current terminology). Since the word for ‘father’ is tāta/i- in Luwian (see s.v.), he suspects dialectal variation (note that the assumption of a dialectal variation is not necessary, since the notion ‘father’ is expressed by stylistically different words in many languages, see e.g. English father vs. dad, Hungarian apa vs. atya, etc.).

In order to decipher (ν)ατειν, one must first underline the methodological point that although it is not an unknown phenomenon that the depiction of a tombstone and its inscription are not consistent with each other, obviously those explanations are to be preferred where both can be explained consistently (the possibility of inconsistency cannot be excluded, of course, but in this case there is absolutely no clue for defining (ν)ατειν, set aside the assonance with the above mentioned word for ‘grandfather’). From this point of view, both the wife of Athenodoros and the (ν)ατειν of Anthos should be the same, deceased female person. This allows not only the proposed terms ‘child’ and ‘descendant’ (as well as ‘the favourite (one)’), but also e.g. ‘(step-)daughter’, ‘(step-)sister’, ‘(step-)mother’, ‘(step-)aunt’, ‘(step-)granddaughter’, ‘(step-)grandmother’, ‘daughter-in-law’, ‘mother-in-law’. At the same time it does not support the translations ‘grandfather’ and ‘father’ (contra Kretschmer and Neumann). Lacking any further cognates and information neither its segmentation nor its grammatical gender can be identified (note also that biologically female terms do not need to have feminine gender, cf. e.g. das Weib, das Mädchen).

However, a common and strange feature of all these explanations is that the deceased remains unnamed. It was only Laminger-Pascher 1973a:71f. who formulated a completely different view. She suggests that Ἄνθος is in accusative and refers to the deceased woman (quoting numerous parallels for such tombstone formulas), i.e. to the wife of Athenodoros. Then, according to her, the correct segmentation is τὸ νάτειν, since Ἄνθος can be only neuter and thus τὸ νάτειν must be also neuter. As for the meaning, she follows Brandenstein (‘Liebling’) adding further possibilities such as ‘bestimmte Art von Hetäre, Flötenspielerin, Tänzerin’ or similar as well as positive adjectives. Set aside that (ν)ατειν does not need to be in congruence with Anthos (e.g. if it refers to her profession) and thus neither its segmentation nor its gender can be defined, this solution is the most explicative and consistent in terms of the gravestone.

[Zs.S.]

Brandenstein 1934a:222 connected it with a Lydian word and both Bossert 1954-1956a:70 (his Luwian etymology is based on a reading that became obsolete in the meanwhile) and Neumann 1961a:35f. suggested a local, Cilician (Luwian) word (both Elton 2000a:294 with n. 9 and Pilhofer 2015a:56 cautiously treat latter as a possibility, without referring to these authors; it is Cilician also in Schwyzer 1939a:123; for unknown reasons Haas 1960a:15 books it as a Phrygian word, which can be surely excluded due to the geographical distance from Phrygian speaking territories). The problem with Brandenstein’s suggestion is that the meaning of the Lydian term is unknown and the segmentation of νατειν depends exactly upon this unknown term. From a formal point of view, Neumann’s assumption (*ata/i- ‘father, dad’, related to Hittite atta- and Lydian *ata-) could even provide a perfect equivalent of Lycian ete/i- ‘dto’. Nevertheless, as it was shown above, Neumann’s proposal is possible only if the depiction of the tombstone and the inscription are not consistent. All in all, at the current level of understanding nothing demonstrates that we are dealing here with a local, Anatolian word.

[Zs.S.]