/wanatt(i)-/

This lexeme is well attested in the Iron Age period. Its earliest attestation is in KARKAMIŠ A1 (10^th BCE, under the reign of Suhis II).

[D.S.]

For paleographic remarks on the sign L.79 (FEMINA), see Hawkins 2000a: 338 with further literature.

[D.S.]

The sign L.79 (FEMINA/MATER) was deciphered through the bilingual inscription of Karatepe (Bossert 1948a:180, for a summary of the literature see Laroche 1960c:46f.). Starke 1980b:83 equates HLuw. FEMINA-nat(i)- with CLuw. wanatt(i)-, MUNUS-tt(i)-. The Hieroglyphic-Luwian lexeme /wanatt(i)-/ can be used for the meaning ‘wife’ as well as ‘woman’. Examples with the meaning ‘wife’ are found from the beginning of the 10th century BCE onward (cf. MARAŞ 8, §7, KARKAMIŠ A1b, §2, A1a, §22). The earliest example found with the general meaning ‘woman’ is in HAMA 4, §3 (860-840 BCE under the reign of Urhilina).

[D.S.]

1. /wanatti(ya)-/
2. /wanattiyad(i)-/
3. /wanattiyadiya-/

Amply attested in Luwian rituals and incantations from MS to NS.

[Zs.S.]

Sumerographic spelling:

Attestations following CLL:255 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:106) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz and slightly corrected. For forms falsely booked by him under wanatt(i)- see s.v. wanatti(ya)-. The restorations [wa-na]-˹at˺-ti-iš in KUB 35.89, 7’ and [wa-na-at]-ti-iš in KUB 35.88 iii 4’ by Starke 1985b:228, 227, resp. are based entirely on the general context, thus not proven (and currently not provable), hence the question marks. The change wa- > u- (leading to unattiš here) is a well-known phenomenon in Luwian (cf. already Starke 1980b:78).

[Zs.S.]

The meaning of the logogram is of course beyond doubt and the meaning of the syllabically written forms was established by Starke 1980b and since then it is generally accepted (Beckman 1983a:211; CLL:255; Tischler 2008a:218, Tischler 2016a:420; EDHIL:501; Ünal 2016a:975). Since the context of these attestations is either fragmentary or obscure, Starke based his proposal on the overall context of u-na-at-˹ti˺-iš in KBo 8.130 iii 4’, which he plausibly defines as a kind of pregnancy ritual (cf. also Beckman 1983a:210f. calling it “birth ritual”), and etymological considerations (the expected form from PIE ‘woman’), which make his suggestion probable.

[Zs.S.]

Hapax in a Hittite ritual (LNS).

[Zs.S.]

Sumerographic spelling:

Attestation based on CLL:255 checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

Due to the Sumerographic spelling, there is no doubt regarding its meaning (Beckman 1983a:179; CHD L-N:163; CLL:255; Haas 2003a:209f.; Bachvarova 2013a:140).

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that this is a Luwian word in a Hittite text, partly without arguments (Starke 1985b:236; CLL:255), partly based on the phonetic complement, which points to the Luwian word wanatt(i)- instead of the n- (later thematic) stem Hittite equivalent (Beckman 1983a:197 and CHD L-N:163; followed by Bachvarova 2013a:138 n. 18, 147; note also that wanatt(i)- is a more probable reading than the theoretically also possible wāna(/i)-, since wanatt(i)- is more widespread and the i-mutating status of wāna(/i)- is not assured yet, see the discussion s.v.). Despite these, it was not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a.

[Zs.S.]