ekebura-

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.), and on a dedicatory inscription of Arbinas (beginning of 4^th c. BCE). An attestation as a personal name has also been suggested in [k]eburehi (TL 95.1) (see Schürr 2005a:134), which is possible but not assured.

[D.S.]

nom. sg. or nom./acc. coll.	ekebura	TL 44a.16 (Xanthos)
dat./loc. pl.	[ek]eb[u]re	TL 44a.3-4 (Xanthos)
gen. adj. nom. sg./pl. c.	exburahi	N 324.21 (Xanthos)

The number assignment of the genitival adjective is not clear, since the head noun teteri could be either in the singular, i.e. ‘the town’, or in the plural, i.e. ‘the towns’. The form ekebura in TL 44a.16 could be either nom. sg. c. or nom./acc. coll. Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of the passage prevents any decision.

[D.S.]

The restoration of [ek]eb[u]re was suggested in Laroche 1974b:144-146 (followed by Bousquet 1992a:185, Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:21, Eichner 2006a:234, but not accepted by Schürr 2016d:159).

[D.S.]

Eichner 2006a:234f. hypothesizes based on the fragmentary attestation [ek]eb[u]re, found at the beginning of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, that [ek]eb[u]re ehb[ije … ] equates semantically to Greek συνγενέσιν ‘kinsmen, relatives’ attested in the Greek epigram of the pillar (TL 44c.27). Therefore, he argues, the beginning of the pillar means that the Lycian king Gergis has dedicated the pillar to himself, his wife and children, and his relatives. This is entirely persuasive, but since most of this information is lost in the lacuna, it must be considered highly hypothetical. Eichner 2006a:234 n. 26 suggests that the phrase exburahi teteri ‘the town(s) of the ekabura’ in N 324.21 can be understood as ‘the town (administered) by (his) relative(s)’, which would be plausible, since Merehi, Arbinas’ uncle, is mentioned within the same context. Shevoroshkin (apud Neumann 2007a:2) mentions similar ideas as Eichner, but without any concrete argumentation. Gehrisch 2018a:62 et passim takes ekebura as a personal name, which is completely unfounded and incompatible with the plural forms. The semantics ‘relative’ can be provisionally assigned, but should not be considered proven yet.

[D.S.]

The assignment of ekebura- to the a-stems is secured by the Lycian B attestations.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

nom. sg.	(e)kebura	TL 44d.66 (Xanthos)
acc. sg.	ekaburã	TL 44c.64-65 (Xanthos)
dat./loc. pl.	ekebure	TL 44d.58 (Xanthos)

The grammatical assignments follow the ones of Melchert (DLL:114). The nominative singular (e)kebura seems to be modified by xinasi ‘of the grand-mother’.

[D.S.]

The sequence serije kaburã could be read instead as serij(e) ekaburã, to avoid aphaeresis (similarly DLL:114, pace Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:25). Likewise, elision can be postulated for m͂qri kebura, since e tends to elide after -i (thus DLL:114, pace Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:26); cf. qlahi (e)bijehi (TL 44c.7).

[D.S.]

Eichner 2006a:234 and n. 26 suggests the meaning ‘relatives’ for ekebura- first based on the Lycian A attestations. Then, concerning the Lycian B context, he takes the phrase kaburã sebe masa ‘the relative(s) and the gods’ to be additional supporting evidence. This sentence, however, should be understood as:

trqqiz : tbisu : serij(e) ekaburã : sebe=masa (TL 44c.64-65)
‘The Storm-god and the (other) gods exalt(ed)(?) the ekebura.’

The king’s relatives as the ones being exalted due to his good deeds would be a plausible interpretation (contra Schürr 2016d:159). Schürr 2018b:66 assumes that ekebura- is a term for an individual, which supports Eichner’s hypothesis more than refuting it. Shevoroshkin 2011b:141 translates ekeburã in the passage cited above as ‘security’, which is completely unfounded. Gehrisch 2018a:83, 91 claims that ekebura- is a personal name, which is contradicted by its plural form.
Another piece of evidence in favor of Eichner’s hypothesis would be xinasi … (e)kabura ‘the ekabura of the grandmother’, which can be compared to a common topic in the Lycian A grave inscriptions, i.e. esedeñnewi xñnahi ‘for the descendance of the grandmother’ (see e.g. TL 39.3). The meaning proposed by Eichner can be tentatively adopted, but definite proof remains elusive.

[D.S.]

The existence of the base abura- attested in Lycian B points towards a compound of the shape eke- + abura-.

[D.S.]

For the second member of the compound, see Lyc. abura-.