u/wpe

Amply attested in Memphis, from c. 625–590 until c. 500–470 (Kammerzell 1993a:169–171).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.	upe	E.Me 9
		E.Me 17
		E.Me 22
		E.Me 26
		E.Me 38
		E.Me 43a
	[u?]pe	E.Me 64a
	u?p?e	E.Me 4
	wpe	E.Me 36
		E.Me 41
nom.-acc. pl. n. ?	upa	E.Me 13

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:429, checked against the photographs in O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:Pl. I and in O. Masson 1978a:Pl. I.1, II.1, V.1, VII.2, X.1, XII.1, XVII.1, XVIII.1, XIX.2, XX.2 (there is no photograph of E.Me 64). Note that upe in E.Me 4 is practically not readable. The restoration in E.Me 64a by Kammerzell 1993a:217 (and followed by Adiego 2007a:78, 429, 446) is definitely possible. The grammatical gender (neuter contra Adiego 2007a:429, cf. also Melchert 2010f:181) depends on the grammatical analysis of the demonstrative pronoun sa in congruence with upe in E.Me 26, see the discussion s.v. For the given grammatical definition of upa see the cautious proposal of Melchert 2010f:182, which is formally fitting, but hard to prove semantically (for separating the two see already Hajnal 1995b:16 n. 11, Hajnal 1997a:197 n. 10 although following another, formally ad hoc idea of Melchert [upa would be the stem form and upe a derivative] as well as Duhoux 2008a:91f.). The vocalic alternation a/e assumed by Adiego 2010b:164 does not exist. Some scholars also add ue / w, which is not followed here, see the discussion s.v.

[Zs.S.]

There is a justified general agreement that u/wpe means ‘(funerary) stela’ or ‘tomb’ (see already Meriggi 1980c:36; Adiego 1993b:208, Adiego 2007a:430, Adiego 2010b:154, Adiego 2019a:29; Duhoux 2008a:85) or simply ‘stela’ (Schürr 1992a:155, Schürr 2010c:190; Hajnal 1997a:196 [also ‘Weihgabe’, which does not fit contextually], Hajnal 1998a:82 [here adding even ‘Grab]; Yakubovich 2005a:241 [adding ‘monument’]; Melchert 2010f:181), clearly demonstrated by the demonstrative pronoun sa ‘this’ referring to upe in E.Me 26 (for outdated suggestions see Yakubovich 2005a:241 n. 5 and Adiego 2007a:430, both with refs.). Since we are dealing with stela inscriptions, the meaning ‘funerary stela’ seems more probable than ‘tomb’.

On the basis of E.Me 4, Schürr 1992a:155 argued for a generic meaning ‘stela’ and against the meaning ‘tomb’, since E.Me 4 would be a stèle de donation without any Carian onomastic formula (cf. also Vittmann 2001a:40 and Yakubovich 2005a:241). However, Adiego 2007a:430 objected that the stela was reused and the reading problems of the Carian text do not allow a definition. While the Carian text is indeed hardly readable, it clearly does not use an onomastic formula and accordingly, it cannot be connected to any funerary context and thus, the more generic meaning seems most fitting (nevertheless, it does not necessarily exclude that the meaning of the word ‘stela’ had not secondarily been limited to ‘funerary stela’).

[Zs.S.]