Outline.8 is unusual in that its description of the first day appears only at the end of col. i, raising the question of what was reported in the now-missing preceding lines. The tablet was written by the same scribe responsible for Outline.1 and Outline.11.

In Nakamura’s edition (Nakamura M. 2002a: 6 and 34–47), the two texts forming Outline.8 are treated independently and designated as Ü 2.A (KUB 59.2) and Ü 2.B (IBoT 2.8). Nakamura, however, already noted the possibility that both pieces belonged to the same tablet (Nakamura M. 2002a: 34f.). Corti C. 2007a treated them as joins and further proposed that they should be combined with DAAM 3.116 (Bo 3893), KBo 51.130 (582/u), and Bo 7689. Owing to the identification of new joins to KBo 51.130 (Outline.11), Corti’s proposition is not followed in the present edition (see ”History of Publication“ in the Introduction to Outline.11 for details).

KUB 59.2 preserves the end of col. i and col. ii on the obverse, as well as the beginning of col. iii on the reverse. From IBoT 2.8, the beginning of col. ii on the obverse, and the end of col. iii on the reverse are preserved.

Outline.8 is written in the New Script and shows the same handwriting as Outline.1 and Outline.11 (see the corresponding discussion in the Introduction to Outline.1). Since the scribe who wrote these tablets used predominantly IIIa or IIIb sign forms, Outline.8 may be tentatively regarded as one of the youngest preserved outlines of the nuntarriyašḫa- festival.

A striking feature of Outline.8 is that its day 1 corresponds to DAY 12 in the ‘united’ version and its description appears only near the end of col. i. Because the remainder of the column is missing, the content of roughly the first forty lines is unknown.

As a solution to this problem, Houwink ten Cate Ph.H.J. 1988a proposed that the tablet employed a double day-count: the missing portion of obv. i would have contained the description of days numbered 1–11, after which the numbering would begin anew with the preserved text. If this reconstruction were correct, one might even suspect a join between Outline.8 and Outline.1. However, no evidence supports the hypothesis, and the purpose of such a double numbering remains unclear.

An alternative solution, suggested by Nakamura M. 2002a: 35, is that the lost part of col. i would contain a lengthy introduction, including the filiation of the king who commissioned the tablet. Introductions of this kind are known from some day-tablets of the nuntarriyašḫa- festival.

If Houwink ten Cate’s hypothesis is rejected, then Outline.8 represents a very short version of the festival, with its day 17 at the very end of col. iii corresponding to DAY 32 of the ‘united’ version.