/tabisa-/, CAELUM.PI

This word is attested three times on a silver bowl and a bronze bowl, both of unknown origin and only the first dating to the 12^th or 11^th century BCE;For the dating issues around ANKARA 2, see Simon 2009a. the dating of the latter is unclear.

[A.P.]

acc.sg.	/tabisan?/	CAELUM.PI	ANKARA 2 inscr. 1, §1 (unknown)
		CAELUM.PI	ANKARA 2 inscr. 2, §1 (unknown)
		CAELUM.PI	KINIK, §1 (unknown)

For the attestation on the KINIK bronze bowl, see Hawkins 1993a.

The transliteration as 〈CAELUM.PI〉 follows Bolatti Guzzo & Marazzi 2010a:21-23, who suggest that the sign 〈pi〉 is used intentionally as a phonetic indicator to differentiate the present usage of the logogram CAELUM (sign *182) from its more common one as representing /tiPas-/ ‘sky’. In fact, they suggest a new logographic reading for the combination altogether, viz. CRATER.

In the editio princeps, Hawkins 2005a:194, 196 transliterates it as 〈CAELUM-pi〉 for /tabi/, arguing that it appears to lack a case ending, followed by Payne 2015a:85f with n. 148 and 152, which is possible, but cf. also the discussion of the stem below. Simon 2009a:248f. n. 5 argues for /tapi/ as a loanword.

[A.P.] [AH.B.]

The meaning of this noun is contextually clear, since it occurs in dedicatory inscriptions on cups and is used to reference the objects themselves, see already Hawkins 1993a:716. The proposed etymological link with Hittite ^(DUG)tapišana- (also: tapišant-) ‘cup, bowl’ adds further substance to the claim. ANKARA 2 inscr. 1, §1 reads: za/i-wa/i-ti CAELUM.PI *a-sa-ma-i(a) REGIO.DOMINUS^! VIR₂.ARMA-sa₅ i(a)-za/i-tà (REX)ma-za/i-kar-hu-ha REX PRAE-na, approx. /zan=wa=di tabisan Asmayas wattani=niyas warpallis izzida Mazzakarhuha hantawatti parran/, meaning ‘Asmaya, country-lord (and) warrior, made this cup before King Mazzakarhuha’ (cf. Hawkins 2005a:194).For different readings and interpretations of this particular inscription, see e.g. Yakubovich 2008c:14, Simon 2009a:247f., and Payne 2015a:85.

[AH.B.]

The grammatical gender of the word is not entirely clear. On the one hand, Melchert 2002e:299 suggests viewing it as a neuter i-stem because of the phrase 〈za/i CAELUM-pi〉 in KINIK, §1, which he interprets as /za tapi/, i.e. an endingless nom./acc. sg. neuter. On the other hand, the word is later generally assumed to be a common gender noun, following Hawkins 2005a:196, because ANKARA 2 inscr. 1, §3 contains the acc. sg. c. of the enclitic 3sg. pronoun, viz. /=an/, which is assumed to refer back to /tabisa-/ in §1. However, Simon 2009a:248f. rightly points out that this is an interpretation and not proof, as the pronoun can also refer to something else, and the likewise adduced common gender Hittite cognate tapišana- ‘cup’ shows a different stem formation. Of greater concern for an interpretation as a neuter as envisaged by Melchert and Simon is the fact that the attestations show no sign of the otherwise ubiquitous neuter particle /=sa, =za/, which may, however, be due to the early attestation. Simon 2009a:248f. n. 5 suggests that it may be a loanword in /-pi/, since HLuw. has several words for vessels with that ending. No stance is taken here until further textual evidence surfaces.

[AH.B.]