Why isn't atta translated as essence instead of self?

In Buddhist philosophy, the Pali term 'atta' is frequently translated into English as 'self.' However, this translation can be misleading since in common English usage, 'self' often implies an inherent identity or individuality that the Buddhist concept of 'anatta' (not-self) seems to refute. Some might argue that 'essence' could be a more fitting translation, as it suggests the fundamental qualities of a person or thing. Given this, why do translators choose to use 'self' rather than 'essence' when translating 'atta' from Buddhist texts, especially when the term 'essence' might avoid the misconception of an enduring, independent self that Buddhism actually seeks to dispel?