Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:31:04.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Late Bronze Age Writing-Boards and their Uses: textual evidence from Anatolia and Syria*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Dorit Symington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has been known from textual sources for some time that besides clay tablets, the traditional writing material in the Ancient Near East, wooden writing-boards were also used by the scribes.

M. San Nicolò first drew attention to the fact that writing-boards were widely employed in temple and palace administration in Mesopotamia in the first millennium B.C. and the textual evidence gathered by him was soon to be confirmed archaeologically by the discovery of several such writing-boards at Nimrud. Equally, the existence of wooden writing material in Hittite context has long been established, but no example has ever been found. It is generally thought that private and economic records which are almost totally lacking in the archives at Boǧazköy must have been written on perishable material.

The elusive nature of wooden writing-boards manifests itself not only archaeologically by the unlikelihood of their survival but also by the fact that, as a rule, they deserved little mention in the cuneiform texts. Consequently, the quantity of wooden writing material that may have been in use and did not survive is impossible to gauge. Similarly, it would be unwarranted to deduce that centres whose archives have not contributed to the subject, were unfamiliar with writing on wood.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 41 , December 1991 , pp. 111 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hunger, H., RLA IV, 458 f.Google Scholar “Holztafel”; Posner, E., Archives in the Ancient World (1972), 18 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; Bossert, H. T., “Sie schrieben auf Holz“, Minoica, Fs J. Sundwall (1958), 67 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 “Haben die Babylonier Wachstafeln als Schriftträger gekannt?”, Or 17 (1948), 59 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Mallowan, M. E. L., Nimrud and its Remains Vol. 1 (1966), 149 ff.Google Scholar; Wiseman, D. J., “Assyrian Writing-Boards”, Iraq 17 (1955), 3 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Klengel-Brandt, E., “Eine Schreibtafel aus Assur”, AoF 3 (1975), 169 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 Bossert, H. T., Belleten 16 (1952), 9 ff.Google Scholar; Otten, H., Das Altertum 1 (1955), 79 ff.Google Scholar; Gurney, O. R., The Hittites, London (1952), 128Google Scholar.

5 For sources see CAD L, 157 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 The Mesopotamian evidence has been largely excluded here. Writing-boards are occasionally mentioned as the originals (Vorlage) in kudurru (boundary stone) inscriptions, MDP 6 pl. 10 III 11, 15, San Nicolò, op. cit. 62 n. 3 (Kassite); CAD, op. cit. (late MB). See also Brinkman, and Dalley, , ZA 78 (1988), 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 70.—Further references nn. 41, 77 below.

7 Arnaud, D., “Les Hittites sur le moyen-Euphrate: protecteurs et indigènes”, Hethitica VIII (1987), 13 f.Google Scholar n. 43, see below. The forthcoming publication by E. Laroche of the Hittite texts found at Emar (Emar V) may provide further evidence.

8 Bass, G. F., AJA 90 (1986), 269 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, IX Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı (I), Ankara (1987), 377 f., Fig. 12; Bass, G. F. and Pulak, C., AJA 91 (1987), 321Google Scholar; Pulak, C., AJA 92 (1988), 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Pulak, op. cit., 37. On the complex issue of determining the nationality of a ship with international cargo see Bass, G. F., “Cape Gelidonya and Bronze Age Maritime Trade” in Fs Gordon, AOAT 22 (1973), 34 ffGoogle Scholar.

10 See now Davesne, , Lemaire, and Lozachmeur, in CRAIBL 1987, 375–6Google Scholar.

11 From the Old Kingdom until the end of the 18th Dynasty wooden boards are covered with stucco, consolidated with a textile layer and written on with ink. Wax-covered tablets were not introduced until Greco-Roman times, Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Vol. V (1984)Google Scholar, “Schreibmaterial”, 702, “Schreibtafel”, 703 f.

12 Heinhold-Krahmer, S., Arzawa, THeth 7 (1977)Google Scholar.

13 I am indebted to Mr. J. T. Hooker of University College London for this information.—See also Chadwick, J., The Mycenaean World (1976), 27 fGoogle Scholar. where skins and papyrus are suggested as principle writing material used with pen and ink.

Clay sealings with “burnt string” or “folded sheet” impressions found in large numbers at Zakro (Crete) are thought to have sealed the above type of writing material. Olivier, J. P., World Archaeology 17 (1985), 387Google Scholar; Pini, , Arch. Anz. 1983, 562Google Scholar. There is, on the other hand, the Homeric reference to a “folding tablet” (πίνακι πτυκτῶ) containing “baneful signs” which Bellerophon carried to Lycia (Iliad VI: 169Google Scholar), already referred to by G. F. Bass, in the light of the Ulu Burun discovery, AnSt 37 (1987), 217Google Scholar.

The literacy of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age is clear from the Amarna Letters (EA 33–40), if we accept the identification of Alašiya with Cyprus or part of it, and from a small number of Cypro-Minoan texts found at Enkomi and Ugarit which remain as yet undeciphered (Catling, H. W., CAH Vol. II ch. XXII (b), 205 ff.Google Scholar, Hiller, S., Die Kyprominoischen Schriftsysteme, AfO Beiheft20, 1985Google Scholar).

14 Basic meaning “board,” see also the terms GIŠ.ZU and GIŠ.DA mainly in Neo Assyrian/Babylonian sources. CAD L, 156 ff.Google Scholar; San Nicolò, ibid., 59 ff.; Wiseman, op. cit., 10 f.; Hunger, H., Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, AOAT 2 (1968), 7 f.Google Scholar—According to CAD lē'u occurs in EA texts as lēḫu; EA 14 II 2, but here with the sense of an ornament, not a writing-board; EA 358: 9 le-e-a-ni (writing-boards) contrasted with ṭuppāti (tablets) line 7 (text very fragmentary, Artzi, P., XXV RAI, 317 ff.Google Scholar).

15 For exceptions see RS 19.53 line 23, n. 76 below and KBo V 1 I 5, below and n. 25Google Scholar.

16 First proposed by Laroche, , OLZ 58 (1963), 246Google Scholar which appears to be confirmed by the passages where gulzattar is contrasted with tuppu,… DUP.PA ḪI.A -ma GIŠgul-za-at-tar-ri ḪI.A [(1167/z, 6) for the above and other examples see Otten, H.—Siegelová, J., AfO 23 (1970), 35 and n. 4Google Scholar.

For the etymological connection of the verb guls- “to incise, draw, write” and the noun gulzi- “drawing” with gulzattar see Tischler, J., Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar (HEG) (1977), 627 ffGoogle Scholar. with previous literature; Oettinger, , Stammbildung, 202 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 GIŠ/GIŠ.ḪURkurta-, KUB XLII 100 I 17Google ScholarŠA 1NIR.GÁL GIŠkur-ta-za 12 EZEN × [“from the wooden kurta tablet of Muwatalli 12 festivals”, Beckman, G., StBoT 29 (1983), 161 f.Google Scholar with further references. GIŠ/;GIŠ.ḪURpitarha(i)ta, KUB XXXVIII 12 I 18, II 7 fGoogle Scholar; 22—EZENMEŠGIŠ.ḪURpi-tar-ḫa-i-da tar-ra-u-wa-an “the festivals are furnished (according to) the wooden pitarhaita tablet” (II 7 f.), Darga, M., Istanbul Univ. Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, No. 1825 (1973) 7 ffGoogle Scholar. The last term was discussed by the same author in RHA XXVII 84–5 (1969)Google Scholar, 20.

The above terms (of uncertain meaning), as well as gulzattar appear with simple determinative GIŠ or the more specific one GIŠ.ḪUR, see also Beckman, op. cit., 161.

It is not clear from the texts whether the various words referring to wooden tablets express technical differences or whether they represent regional preferences.

18 Text references in Pecchioli-Daddi, F., Mestieri, Professioni e Dignita nell'Anatolia Ittita, Roma, Edizione dell'Ateneo (1982), 166 ff., 527 f.Google Scholar See also n. 81 below.

19 Among the materials mentioned are cypress (GIŠ.ŠUR.MİN) and tamarisk wood (GIŠbīnu) as well as ivory (ZÚ.AM.SI) and lapis lazuli (ZA.GÌN), for sources see Wiseman, loc. cit., 3 f. The wood of the Ulu Burun writing-board has been analysed as “boxwood” (see Warnock and Pendleton, above) which is Akk. taskarinnu (cf. Wiseman op. cit., 4), frequently mentioned as a wood used for furniture, Salonen, A., Die Möbel des alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki (1963), 225 f.Google Scholar— See Old Assyrian text TCL 20 113 7 fGoogle Scholar… tù-pu-um na-qú-ru-um ša ta-as-kà-ri-nim “engraved tablet of boxwood,” Landsberger, B.WO 1 (1950), 369Google Scholar, probably not a writing-board but a decorative panel.

20 Parker, B., Iraq 23 (1961), 17, 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pl. XXII. The author has very rightly pointed out that daltu “door” is a very apt description for a hinged leaf of a writing-board, 41 n. 2.

21 Parpola, S., JNES 42 (1983), 2 ffGoogle Scholar.

22 Laroche, E., HH, p. 167 fGoogle Scholar. occasionally with phon. comp. -la, SCRIBA-la = tuppala-. The sign for “scribe” has also been found incised on masonry blocks (Temple I area), Güterbock, , Boǧazköy IV, (1969), 53Google Scholar; Otten, /Neve, , Boǧazköy V, (1971–1972), 17 f.Google Scholar, Abb. 6a-b.—Hieroglyphic SCRIBA-(la) does not appear to distinguish between “scribe (on clay)” and “scribe-on-wood” as a rule. For a possible exception see Bossert, , Minoica, Fs J. Sundwall, (1958), 69Google Scholar.

23 Laroche, , RHA XIV/58 (1956), 28Google Scholar; Bossert, ibid., 70.

24 Cf. Beckman, , StBoT 29 (1983), 116 f.Google Scholar and n. 307.—appa has-“Open up” also used for “doors”, see KUB XXIV 3 I 53Google Scholar, Gurney, O. R., LAAA 27 (1941). 24Google Scholar; Güterbock, , AnSt 30 (1980), 46Google Scholar.

25 This was suggested by Pringle, J. M., BiOr 42 (1985), 658Google Scholar who translated GIŠDUBḪLA as “document, record”.

“… they open up the boards” would be consistent with the fact that writing-boards were referred to in the course of rituals, discussed below.

26 San Nicolò, op. cit., 67 ff., another text gives a ratio of 4:1 which coincides with the analysis of the Nimrud examples, Wiseman, loc. cit.. 5 f.

27 CAD K, 94 f., see comment on kalû. 95.

28 Bass, G., AJA 90 (1986), 278CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Pulak, C., AJA 92 (1988), 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 PRU VI, 20Google Scholar (discussed below).

30 Hoffner, H. A. Jr., Alimenta Hethaeorum, 123 fGoogle Scholar.

31 Boehmer, R. M., Die Kleinfunde von Boǧazköy. WVDOG 87 (1972), 133 f.Google Scholar, Taf. XLI; idem, Die Kleinfunde aus der Unterstadt von Boǧazköy, Boǧazköy-Hattusa X (1979), 31, Taf. XIX.

It appears that at Boǧazköy the greater number of styli recovered belonged to the tabulae ceratae type.

On the subject of styli see also Mallowan, loc. cit., 162 f. An aspect which requires clarification is whether cuneiform could have been written on wax with a pointed stylus.

Prof. D. J. Wiseman informs me that in his view the stylus used for writing on wax was identical with the one used on clay but he considers a more detailed examination of the inscribed wax fragments from Nimrud would be worthwhile.

32 See n. 16 above, also used in the context of metal and stone, Friedrich, , JCS 1 (1947), 280 ff.Google Scholar with text sources. The mention of an annalistic stone inscription by Suppiluliuma II for his father Tudhaliya IV occurs in KBo XII 38Google Scholar II 14 LÚ-natar ḪLAandan gulsun (“I inscribed the manly deeds”), Otten, , MDOG 94 (1963), 16 f.Google Scholar See now the Bronze Tablet Bo 86/299 I 94–95, Otten, H., Die Bronzetafel aus Boǧazköy, StBoT Beiheft 1 (1988), 14, 44Google Scholar. The above mentioned monumental inscriptions would have been written in Hieroglyphic, the only script the Hittites used for writing on stone. However, whether the verb guls-denotes writing in Hieroglyphic at all times, as indicated by Otten, , ZA 58 (1967), 234CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is questionable.

33 First suggested by Güterbock, , Symb. Koschaker. 36Google Scholar who remarked on the cursive forms found on seals which he thought had developed by writing on wooden tablets.—In favour of the hieroglyphic theory see also Landsberger, B., Sam'al (1948), 107 ff.Google Scholar, Bossert, , BiOr 9 (1952), 172fGoogle Scholar; Friedrich, , HW, 274Google Scholar GIŠ.ḪUR = “Holztafel mit heth. Hieroglyphenschrift” and HW 3. Erg., 20; Gurney, loc. cit., 128.

34 Otten, , Das Altertum I (1955)Google Scholar, and in NHF, 17. See also Singer, I., STBoT 27 (1983), 40 fGoogle Scholar.

35 The relatively short epigraphs of Hittite rock-reliefs and stelae are as a rule written without grammatical endings and conjunctions. They can therefore be read in either language, Hittite or Luwian. However, the longer inscriptions, the Emirgazi Altars, Nisantaş and Ilgin were definitely written in Luwian.—See discussion by Hawkins, J. D., Writing in Anatolia: imported and indigenous systems, World Archaeology 17 (1985), 369 ff.Google Scholar For the Ilgin/Yalburt inscription see now Özgüç, T., Inandiktepe, T.T.K., Ankara (1988)Google Scholar, Plates 88–95.

36 A-NA GIŠ.ḪUR-kán handan, notation which occurs in colophons of festival texts. For the latest review of the phrase see Singer, I., The Hittite KI.LAM Festival, Part I, StBoT 27 (1983), 41 fGoogle Scholar. Mascheroni, L. M., Hethitica V (1983), 100 f.Google Scholar—Cf. Akk. kī pī GIŠle-i, “according to the word(ing) of the wooden tablet”, Hunger op. cit., 166.

37 Discussed by J. D. Hawkins, loc. cit., 373 f. who also remarks on the close relationship of Anatolian Hieroglyphic with the Aegean scripts which not only share the pictographic-Hieroglyphic aspects but also the evolution towards cursive forms, indicating writing with pen and ink.—See also the seal from Beycesultan VI a (c. 2000 B.C.) which is thought to depict Hieroglyphic characters, Mellaart, J., The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia, Beirut (1966), Pl XVI (b)Google Scholar.

38 See Otten, , Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi XIVGoogle Scholar, Vorwort; RGTC 6, 269Google Scholar.

39 F. Pecchioli-Daddi, loc. cit., 167.

From the “House of the scribes-on-wood” (É LÚ MEŠDUB.SAR.GIŠ) deliveries of textiles and other commodities for religious purposes are also mentioned. Singer, I., StBoT 28 (1984), 105Google Scholar; Haas, V., ZA 78 (1988), 288 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Arnaud, D., Recherches au pays d'Aštata, Emar VI 1–4 (1985–1987)Google Scholar, Emar VI I&2 (Plates), Emar VI 3 (Texts), idem, Hethitica VIII, 24 n. 43.

4l See KUB XXXVIII 19Google Scholar + IBoT 11 102 rev. 4fGoogle Scholar. k]aruliyanaz-at-kán GIŠ.ḪURgurda-[za(5) arha gulassanza “from the ancient kurta tablet it was copied”, (Tischler, , HEG, 661)Google Scholar

Cf. the colophon of a Middle Assyrian text (KAR 91) which refers to a copy of an ancient wooden tablet from the land of Akkad, Hunger, loc. cit., 34.

42 KBo IV 2 IV 42 fGoogle Scholar.… SISKUR an-na-la-az IŠ-TU GIŠLI-U5 gul-aš-ša-an, “Aphasia of Mursili” (CTH 486). Latest edition by Lebrun, , Hethitica VI (1985), 103 ffGoogle Scholar.

43 KUB XXXII 133Google Scholar, Kronasser, H., Die Umsiedlung der schwarzen Gottheit, (1963), 58 ff.Google Scholar; Lebrun, R., Samuha, 28 ffGoogle Scholar.

44 I 7 … dup-pi-ya-az EGIR-pa a-ni-ya-nu-un …—The above translation follows closely that of Kronasser, ibid., 58. Cf. Kammenhuber, , HW2, 83Google Scholar, “I performed them according to the tablet”. The mention of the scribes-on-wood in the text, would suggest that the original was written on a wooden tablet. For a similar construction with abl.-inst, see IBoT 1 31 4 fGoogle Scholar. (discussed below) where the contents of a wooden tablet is also transferred to a clay one.

45 Ph. Houwink, H. J. ten Cate and Josephson, F., RHA XXV/81 (1967), 101 ff.Google Scholar; Lebrun, R., Hymnes et Priêres Hittites (1980), 294 ffGoogle Scholar.: GIŠ].ḪUR.ḪLAgul-za-at-ta-na-az-z[i-y]a (obv. 21), interpreted as a single concept by Houwink ten Cate, loc. cit., 122, but cf. Lebrun who translates “dans les tablettes [sur bois] et dans les annales”, op. cit., 300.—(Cf. obv. 41 GIŠ.ḪURgul-za-at-ta-na-az), see comment by Laroche referred to above n. 16.—See also KUB L 6Google Scholar III 18 nu GIŠ.ḪURgulzattar uwanzi “and they consult (lit.see) the wooden tablet”, (oracle text), Archi, , SMEA 22 (1980), 19 ffGoogle Scholar.

46 Kümmel, H. M., StBoT 3 (1967), 36Google Scholar.

47 Cf. Singer, loc. cit., 42 who interpretes this passage as a case of recording, rather than consulting.

48 Beckman, G. M., Hittite Birth Rituals, StBoT 29 (1983), 144 fGoogle Scholar.

49 Hoffner, H. A., Or 49 (1980), 285 f.Google Scholar— See also the invocation ritual from Kizzuwatna, KUB XV 34Google Scholar + IV 56–57 … am-ba-aš-ši-ya-aš ut-tar IŠ-TU GIŠLI-E-I (57) gul-ša-an… “… the matter of the ambassi ritual is written on a writing-board”, Haas-Wilhelm, , AOATS 3 (1974), 208Google Scholar.

50 Goetze, A, Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography, New Haven (1940)Google Scholar.

51 Košak, S., Hittite inventory texts (CTH (241–250), THeth 10 (1982)Google Scholar.

52 D. Arnaud, op. cit., n. 40 above.

53 Proposed by D. Arnaud, personal communication.

54 New edition by Košak, op. cit., 4 ff.

55 The same container also holds 37 pieces of linen from Alašiya.

56 For comment on this passage see Goetze, , JCS 10 (1956), 32 n.4Google Scholar.

57 KUB XLII 11Google Scholar II 3, the line is incomplete, any qualifying remark on the boards is therefore lost.

58 Souček, H. Otten-V., StBoT 1 (1965), 28 fGoogle Scholar. and n. 13. Name probably to be restored LDU]-pi-ḫa-nu, cf. KBo XIV 142Google Scholar 5, see above (Laroche, Noms no. 1276).

For an army scribe holding a writing-board in Neo Assyrian context see the relief of Sennacherib (B.M. 124955), Wiseman, loc. cit., Pl. III. 2.

59 See also dup. KUB XXXI 86Google Scholar IV 6 f.… ma-a-an DI-NU-ma (7) ku-iš GIŠ.ḪUR tup-pi-az ši-ya-a-an-da ú-da-[i, von Schuler, E., Dienstanw., 47 fGoogle Scholar., 57.—Note also KBo XIII 207Google Scholar obv. 2 LÚDUB.SAR.GIŠ a-ú-ri-uš “scribe-on-wood of the border-post”.

This group of scribes would presumably have been resident. In this context see also the letter of Masa to his “Lord” (CTH 197) which alludes to a border incident involving the “men of Aššur” and refers to a “chief scribe-on-wood” in position of authority.

60 Werner, R., Hethitische Gerichtsprotokolle, StBoT 4 (1967)Google Scholar; O. R. Gurney, op. cit., 92 ff. (rev. ed. 1990, 77).

61 KUB XXXI 68 obv. 5 ffGoogle Scholar., Stefanini, , Athenaeum 40 (1962), 22 ff.Google Scholar; RGTC 6, 400Google Scholar.

62 This official states further that a certain Lilawanta also received a GIŠ.ḪUR from Hesni containing similar instructions (7–8).

63 Attested in Egypt where letters are occasionally marked with the determinative for “wood”, Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Vol. V, 705Google Scholar.

In the context of official documents see the treaty text CTH 123 which refers to a previously issued wooden tablet, context not preserved. KBo IV 14Google Scholar I 25 … nu-u]š-ši ka-ru-ú [GIŠL]I-U 5gul-aš-ta, “[and] formerly he wrote for him a [wooden] tablet” (reference to protocol, letter or treaty?). Friedrich, , JCS 1 (1947), 282Google Scholar; Götze, Madd., 121 n. 2Google Scholar; cf. Stefanini, , Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 20 (1965), 48Google Scholar.

64 Werner, op. cit., 1 ff.

It is not clear whether the text reflects trading activities or whether the listed goods were royal gifts from one court to another, in our case Kassite Babylon.

65 See Luw. la-/lala- “to take”, Laroche, DLL, 61 f.Google Scholar, lalami- “that which is taken” = receipt, Werner op. cit., 72; CHD Vol. 3/1, 26Google Scholar “list, accounting receipt” with references.

See also inventory text KBo IX 91Google Scholar mentioning lalami- for various containers, obv. 15 lalames GIŠ PISAN KUR Mizri… “receipt of the chest (from) Egypt…”, Košak, loc. cit., 24 ff. Cf. Hawkins, on Hier. Luw. CAPERE-ma-za (= la/lalama(n)za) “contract, agreement, document”, Mesopotamia 8 (1980), 221Google Scholar.

66 Cf. col. I 15–16 ANŠE.KUR.RA-wa ANŠE.GÌR. NUN.NA ku-i[n ḫar]-ku-un nu-wa-mu GIŠL[E-U 5] (16) du-uš-du-ma-aš-ša ši-ya-an [e-eš-ta] “(For) the horse(s) and mule(s) which I had, the dusduma writing-boards [were] sealed for me”. See Carruba, , OA 9 (1970), 85Google Scholar who identified dusdumassa as a nom.-acc. n. pl. of an -assi- adj. qualifying LE-U 5, redupl. form of isduwai- “to become manifest”. See also Puhvel, J., Hitt. Etymol. Dictionary, Vol. 2 (1984), 484 fGoogle Scholar. dusdumi- “manifest, voucher, evidence”.

Were the lalami and dusdumi both in the form of writing-boards?

67 Subject treated by Güterbock, H. G., Das Siegeln bei den Hethitern, Symb. Koschaker. 26 ffGoogle Scholar. The article written 50 years ago still stands as a valuable contribution on this topic and contains much of the material discussed here.

See also KUB XXXI 1114Google Scholar (frag.) referring to “immediate sealing”, … (7)] ANA GIŠ.HUR kissan tianz[i “they put on a wooden tablet as follows”.

68 See R. Payton above p.x, Pl.x.

69 Güterbock, , SBo II, 3 f.Google Scholar; Bittel, K., JKF 1 (1950–1951), 164 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 170. It was observed by Bittel, loc. cit., 171 f. that sealed bullae were found in association with land-donation tablets at Boǧazköy, emphasizing the archival function of the bullae, and similarly at Tarsus (Goldman, H., AJA 41 (1937), 281)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

The instruction text for temple personnel (CTH 264) stipulates on the procedure for the sale and purchase of royal gifts: “…and (about) what he buys, let them issue a wooden tablet (GIŠ.ḪUR) and let them seal it in front (piran)” (KUB XIII 4 II 41–42Google Scholar) which is followed by a subsequent “sealing” at the palace in the presence of the king (43–44), Chrest., 154 f.; Neu, E., WO 11 (1980), 79, 83Google Scholar; Cf. Güterbock, , Symb. Koschaker, 29 fGoogle Scholar. and n. 13 who translated “… let them seal it provisionally (?) (piran)”, before the GIŠ.ḪUR was “finally” sealed when the king was present in Hattusa.

70 Helck, W., JCS 17 (1963), 87 ff.Google Scholar, with arguments in favour of the addressee being the king of Egypt, and not Alašiya, as claimed by others. See Laroche entry in CTH (176).

71 Linder, E., The Maritime Texts of Ugarit; A Study in Late Bronze Age Shipping, Ph.D. diss., Brandeis Univ. 1970Google Scholar.

Helzer, M., Goods, Prices and the Organization of Trade in Ugarit, (1978), 150 ffGoogle Scholar.

72 Linder, ibid., 79 ff., cf. Helzer, ibid., 152.

73 The evidence from (alphabetic) Ugaritic texts, regarding writing-boards, is unclear. The term lḥt has been linked by Gordon, C. H. to Akk. lē'u, UT, 427Google Scholar and more recent discussions have confirmed Virolleaud's translation of lḥt as “tablet”, PRU V85 f.; Pardee, , BiOr 34 (1977), 7 f.Google Scholar; Brook, , UF 11 (1979), 74 fGoogle Scholar. The term lḥt occurs in a number of letters mainly in connection with previously made requests for commodities.

According to Prof. Gordon, lḥt which has the fem, suffix can be linked phonetically to lē'u as Sem. -aḥ- becomes -ē- in Akkadian. “There is, however, nothing in the context in which Ug. lḥt occurs that requires it to refer to writing on wax” (personal communication). There appears to be no other term in Ugaritic which denotes “tablet” (= Akk. ṭuppu).

74 Nougayrol, J., PRU VI, 19 fGoogle Scholar.—I am grateful to D. Arnaud for. the following comments on RS 19.53: The letter is thought to have originated in the Middle Euphrates valley, on the basis of characteristic sign values, wording of the address and PN of the writer.—The name of the scribe 1NIR-DKUR according to a Syro/Hittite digraphic seal from Emar is to be read Matkali-Dagan, Laroche, E., Meskéné-Emar, Dix ans de travaux 1972–1982, ed. Beyer, D., (1982), 56Google Scholar; idem, Akkadica 22 (1981), 8.

75 Read ši 2 for si, ši2-ma-an-ni imp. of šemû, not (w)asāmu as proposed by Nougayrol (D. Arnaud, see note above). See also entry in AHw, 1211 and Labat, , Akk.Bo, 209 fGoogle Scholar.

76 ṭuppa ša iškuri “tablet of wax” is an unusual turn of phrase for a waxed writing-board for which no parallels are known to me. The choice of this term by the scribe is particularly puzzling since lē'u and GIŠ.ḪUR are attested for the Middle Euphrates region where this letter originated.

77 The ownership of writing-boards is also implied in two Middle Assyrian ration texts from Kār Tukulti-Ninurta which mention a series of wooden documents (le-ú, le-a-ni) and their owners, on which requests for grain had been made (and sent to Aššur) in order to alleviate the famine amongst the troops in Babylon. Freydank, H., AoF 1 (1974), 68 ff.Google Scholar, 75.

See also the discussion by R. Payton above on writing-board markings. The marks on the Ulu Burun diptych appear to have no epigraphic content.

78 I wish to thank J. M. Pringle for drawing my attention to this letter and making her edition of the text (which included additional readings provided by F. Malbrant-Labat and J. D. Hawkins) available to me.

An additional text RS 34.138 (Ugar. VII Pl. XX), also a letter to the king of Ugarit mentions GIŠ.ḪUR (11. 16, 22) in broken context (personal communication by D. Arnaud).

The above letters are dealt with by Mme. F. Malbrant-Labat in the forthcoming publication of the “1973 texts” of Ugar. VII.

79 RS 34.136 is listed in Ugar. VII, 403Google Scholar as a letter from the Hittite king. However, the wording of the introduction (um-ma LUGAL-ma instead of the customary DUTUši) makes this unlikely. See Huehnergard, J., RA 11 (1983), 13Google Scholar n. 9 who suggested that RS 34.136 and RS 34.138, among others, originated in Karkamiš.

80 “Gifts” (šulmânu) and “tribute” (mandattu) are specified by Suppiluliuma I for Niqmadu in RS 17.227 + dupls. (edict), PRU IV, 40–44Google Scholar, reconfirmed by Mursili II RS 17.382/380 for Niqmepa PRU IV, 80–81Google Scholar. See also KUB XXVI 66Google Scholar IV 5 ŠUL-MAN URVÚ-ga-ri-it, Košak op. cit., 67, 71. See also note below.

81 Abbreviated writing of LUtuppalanuri (GAL LÚMESDUB.SAR) “Great one of the Scribes”—tuppalan + ura, composed of (Hitt.) tuppala- with gen. pl. ending -an + Luw. ura = great, cf. tuppan-uri “chief of the tablets”, Laroche, RHA XIV/58 (1956), 27 ff.Google Scholar; Imparati, Athenaeum 41 (1969), 158 fGoogle Scholar. LÚtuppa(la)n-uri is an important Hittite court official, according to Ugarit texts where he is also mentioned as a recipient of gifts/tribute from Ugarit in RS 17.272, PRU IV, 42Google Scholar and n. 1, RS 11.732, A 7 and B 5, PRU III, 181Google Scholar.

Could the tuppa(la)nuri also stand for “Chief Scribe-on-Wood”? The phonetic compl. in the text reference below indicates that this may be so, KBo XVI 58Google Scholar II 3 … A-NA GAL LÚMEŠDUB.SAR.GIŠ-ri = tuppa(la)nuri ?—The important rank of the GAL (LÚMKŠ) DUB.SAR.GIŠ—(“vizier, minister?”) has been stressed by Meriggi, and others, Fs Friedrich, 332 f.Google Scholar, WZKM 58 (1962), 94 f.Google Scholar— See 1Sahurunuwa GAL LÚMEŠDUB. SAR.GIŠ (KBo IV 10 rev. 30Google Scholar), GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ (Bronze Tablet Bo 86/299 IV 37, Otten 1988, 26, see n. 32 above) who appears among the list of witnesses, together with the king of Karkamiš and Amurru, in treaties for the king of Tarhuntassa.

See also the seal impressions of Sahurunuwa “Great Scribe” from Tarsus and Boǧazköy, Laroche, , Syria 35, (1958), 256CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 The contents of this letter are consistent with the role of Karkamišean kings as Hittite viceroys and mediators in Syrian affairs. For sources see Klengel, H., Gesch. Syr. I, 51–101Google Scholar; Hawkins, J. D., RLA V, 429 ffGoogle Scholar.

83 KUB XLII 22Google Scholar + KBo XVIII 79Google Scholar II 5, Košak, op. cit., 50 and comment p. 51 f. See also summary on containers and commodities. 193 ff.

84 ABL 425 obv. 6–14 rev. 1–2, CAD L, 157Google Scholar.