Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:57:35.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

They wrote on wood. The case for a hieroglyphic scribal tradition on wooden writing boards in Hittite Anatolia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2012

Willemijn Waal
Willemijn Waal
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The wooden writing boards frequently mentioned in Hittite texts have given rise to much debate, mostly regarding the scale on which they were used and the type of script that was written on them (cuneiform or hieroglyphs). In this paper, the evidence for the use of wooden writing boards in Hittite Anatolia will be (re-)evaluated. It will be argued that they were used for private and economic documents, and that they were written on in Anatolian hieroglyphs. Important indications of this are the distinct terms consistently used in connection with writing on wood, which point to a separate scribal tradition. Further, the form and nature of the hieroglyphic script itself and the fact that it survived after the fall of the Hittite empire confirm that the script must have been widely employed. It is thus proposed that two parallel scribal traditions existed in Hittite Anatolia: a (lost) hieroglyphic tradition on wooden writing boards used for private and daily economic records, and a Hittite cuneiform tradition reserved for palace administration.

Özet

Hitit metinlerinde sıkça adı geçen ahşap yazı tahtaları, daha çok kullanıldığı ölçek ve üzerindeki yazıların türü (çiviyazısı veya hiyeroglif) açısından pekçok tartışmaya yol açmıştır. Bu makalede, Hitit Anadolusu'nda ahşap yazı tahtalarının kullanıldığına dair kanıtlar (yeniden) değerlendirilecektir. Bunların, özel ve mali evraklar için kullanıldığı ve Anadolu hiyeroglifi ile yazılı olduğu savunulacaktır. Bunun önemli göstergeleri, farklı bir yazı geleneğine işaret eden, ahşap üzerine yazı yazmayla ilgili sürekli kullanılan belirgin terimlerdir. Ayrıca, hiyeroglifin kendi biçim ve niteliği ve Hitit İmparatorluğu yıkıldıktan sonra da hala var olduğu göz önüne alındığında, bu yazının yaygın olarak kullanılmış olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Böylece, Hitit Anadolusu'nda iki paralel yazı geleneğinin yaşamış olabileceği önerilmektedir: özel ve günlük mali kayıtlar için ahşap yazı tahtaları üzerine yazılan (kayıp) hiyeroglif geleneği ve saray yönetimi için ayrılmış Hitit çiviyazısı geleneği.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 61 , December 2011 , pp. 21 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2011

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

Bachhuber, C. 2006: ‘Aegean interest on the Uluburun ship’ American Journal of Archaeology 110.3: 345–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittel, K. 1957: ‘Vorlaüfiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy im Jahre 1956. Untersuchungen in der Altstadt’ Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 89: 6–25Google Scholar
Bittel, K. 1976: Die Hethiter. Die Kunst Anatoliens vom Ende des 3. bis zum Anfang des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus. MunichGoogle Scholar
Boehmer, R.M. 1972: Die Kleinfunde von Boğazköy aus den Grabungskampagnen 1931–1939 und 1952–1969 (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 87, Boğazköy-Hattušla 7). BerlinGoogle Scholar
Bossert, H.T. 1950: ‘Kleine Mitteilungen. Zu drei Hieroglyphen-hethitischen Inschriften’ Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 1.2: 218–24Google Scholar
Bossert, H.T. 1952: ‘Schreibstoff und Schreibgeraet der Hethiter’ Belletin 16: 9–16Google Scholar
Bossert, H.T. 1958: ‘Sie schrieben auf Holz’ in Grumach, E. (ed.), Minoica. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Johannes Sundwall. Berlin: 67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, A.K., Thomas, J.D. 1983: Vindolanda: The Latin Writing-Tablets. LondonGoogle Scholar
CAD = The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago 1956—Google Scholar
Chadwick, J. 1976: The Myceanean World. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
CHD = The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago 1980—Google Scholar
CTH = Catalogue des textes hittites. Ed. Laroche, E.. Paris 1971Google Scholar
Dinçol, A.M., Dinçol, B. 2002: ‘Die “Anzeigen” der Öffentlichen Schreiber in Hattuscha’ in de Martino, S., Daddi, F. Pecchioli (eds), Anatolia antica: studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati (Eothen 11). Firenze: 207–15Google Scholar
Dörfler, W., Herking, C., Neef, R., Pasternak, R., von den Driesch, A. 2011: ‘Environment and economy in Hittite Anatolia’ in Genz, H., Mielke, D.P. (eds), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Leuven: 99–124Google Scholar
Dunford, S.P.B. 2010: ‘How old was the Ankara silver bowl when its inscriptions were added?’ Anatolian Studies 60: 51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrer, E. 1922: ‘Die Inschriften und Sprachen des Hatti-Reiches’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 76: 174–269Google Scholar
Gestermann, L. 1984: ‘Schreibmaterial’ in Helck, W., Westendorf, W. (eds), Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5. Wiesbaden: 700–03Google Scholar
Güterbock, H.G. 1937: ‘Schrifturkunden. A. Die Siegel’ Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 75: 52–60Google Scholar
Güterbock, H.G. 1939: ‘Das Siegeln bei den Hethitern’ in Friedrich, J., Lautner, J.G., Miles, G., Folkers, T. (eds), Symbolae ad jura Orientis antiqui pertinentes Paulo Koschaker dedicatae. Leiden: 26–36Google Scholar
Güterbock, H.G. 1967: ‘The Hittite conquest of Cyprus reconsidered’ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26: 73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 1986: ‘Writing in Anatolia: imported and indigenous systems’ World Archaeology 17: 363–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Berlin, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 2005: ‘A Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription on a silver bowl’ Studia Troica 15: 193–204Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 2008: ‘The disappearance of writing systems: hieroglyphic Luwian’ in Baines, J., Bennet, J., Houston, S. (eds), The Disappearance of Writing Systems. Perspectives on Literacy and Communication. London: 31–43Google Scholar
HED = Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Ed. Puhvel, J.. Berlin, New York 1984—Google Scholar
Henkelman, W.F.M. 2009: The Other Gods Who Are. Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts (Achaemenid History 14). LeidenGoogle Scholar
Herbordt, S. 2005: Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa – mit Kommentaren zu den Siegelinschriften und Hieroglyphen von J. David Hawkins (Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 19). MainzGoogle Scholar
HKM = Maşat-Höyük'te Bulunan çivi yazılı Hitit Tabletleri/Hethitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Maşat-Höyük. Ed. Ankara, S. Alp. 1991Google Scholar
Hunger, H. 2009: ‘Schreiber C. Im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend’ in Streck, M.P. (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie 12.3/4. Berlin, New York: 269–73Google Scholar
HW = Hethitisches Wörterbuch 2. völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Eds Friedrich, J., Kammenhuber, A.. Heidelberg 1975—Google Scholar
KBo = Keilschriftttexte aus Boghazköy. Leipzig 1916–1923, Berlin 1954—Google Scholar
Košak, S. 1988: ‘Review of H. Klengel, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 56 Hethitische Gelübde und Traumtexte sowie Rituale und Festbeschreibungen (KUB 56). Berlin 1986’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 78: 145–49Google Scholar
KUB = Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy. Berlin 1921–1990Google Scholar
Laroche, E. 1975: ‘Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi, Heft XXII (Ouvrages reçus)’ Revue Hittite et Asianique 33: 67–71Google Scholar
Lebrun, R. 2005: ‘Syro Anatolica Scripta Minora VI 1. Le scribe Pitiku-x’ Le Muséon 118: 209–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacGinnis, J. 2002: ‘The use of writing boards in the Neo-Babylonian temple administration at Sippar’ Iraq 64: 217–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marazzi, M. 1994: ‘Ma gli Hittiti scrivevano veramente su “legno”?’ in Cipriano, P., Di Giovine, P., Mancini, M. (eds), Miscellanea di studi linguistici in onore di Walter Belardi. Rome: 131–60Google Scholar
Mascheroni, L.M. 1983: ‘A propos d'un groupe de colophons problématiques’ Hethitica 5: 95–109Google Scholar
Melchert, H.C. 2005: ‘The problem of Luvian influence on Hittite’ in Meiser, G., Hackstein, O. (eds), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.–23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: 445–60Google Scholar
Miller, J. 2004: Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 46). WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Mouton, A. 2008: Les rituels de naissance kizzuwatniens. Un exemple de rite de passage en Anatolie Hittite. ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otten, H. 1967: ‘Zur Datierung und Bedeutung des Felsheiligtums von Yazilikaya. Eine Entgegnung’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 58: 222–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, A. 2005: ‘Überlegungen zur Hieroglyphenschrift der Assur-Briefe’ Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 137: 109–18Google Scholar
Payne, A. 2008: ‘Writing systems and identity“ in Collins, B.J., Bachvarova, M.R., Rutherford, I.C. (eds), Anatolian Interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours: Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, September 17–19, 2004. Oxford: 117–22Google Scholar
Popko, M. 2007: ‘Zu den Datierungsfragen in der Hethitologie’ in Groddek, D., Zorman, M. (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: 575–81Google Scholar
Postgate, J.N. 1986: ‘Middle Assyrian tablets’ Altorientalische Forschungen 13: 10–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulak, C. 2005: ‘Who were the Mycenaeans aboard the Uluburun ship?’ Aegaeum 25: 295–312Google Scholar
Rieken, E. 2006: ‘Zum hethitisch-luwischen Sprachkontakt in historischer Zeit’ Altorientalische Forschungen 33: 271–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
San Nicolò, M. 1948: ‘Haben die Babylonier Wachstafeln als Schrifttrager gekannt?’ Orientalia 17: 59–70Google Scholar
Schwemer, D. forthcoming: ‘Quality assurance managers at work: the Hittite festival tradition“ in Liturgie oder Literatur? Die Kultrituale der Hethiter. Workshop 2.–3. Dezember 2010, Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur MainzGoogle Scholar
Shear, I.M. 1998: ‘Bellerophon tablets from the Mycenaean world? A tale of seven bronze hinges’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 118: 187–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidel'tsev, A.V. 2002: ‘Middle Hittite inverted word order’ in Shevoroshkin, V., Sidwell, P.J. (eds), Anatolian Languages (Association for the History of Language Studies in the Science and History of Language 6). Canberra: 137–88Google Scholar
Singer, I. 1983: The Hittite KI.LAM Festival (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 27). WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Starke, F. 1990: Untersuchung zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 31). WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Stauner, K. 2005: ‘Kommunikation in Krieg und Frieden. Das offizielle Schriftwesen des Römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Gallienus (27 v.Chr.-268 n.Chr.)’ Antike Welt 1: 75–81Google Scholar
Symington, D. 1991: ‘Late Bronze Age writing-boards and their uses: textual evidence from Anatolia and Syria’ Anatolian Studies 41: 111–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ünal, A. 1989: ‘Drawings, graffiti and squiggles on the Hittite tablets. Art in scribal circles’ in Emre, K., Mellink, M., Özgüç, N. (eds), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüc. Ankara: 505–13Google Scholar
van den Hout, T.P.J. 2006: ‘Institutions, vernaculars, publics: the case of second-millennium Anatolia’ in Sanders, S. (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. Chicago: 217–56Google Scholar
van den Hout, T.P.J. 2009: ‘A century of Hittite text dating and the origins of the Hittite cuneiform script’ Incontri Linguistici 32: 11–35Google Scholar
van den Hout, T.P.J. 2010: ‘LÚDUB.SAR.GIŠ = “Clerk”?’ Orientalia 79.2: 255–67Google Scholar
Veenhof, K.R. 1995: ‘Old Assyrian iṣurtum, Akkadian eṣērum and Hittite GIŠ.ḪUR’ in van den Hout, T.P.J, de Roos, J. (eds), Studio historiae ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (PIHANS 74). Leiden: 311–32Google Scholar
Veenhof, K.R. 2010: Ankara Kültepe tabletleri. AnkaraGoogle Scholar
Volk, K. 2009: ‘Schreibgriffel’ in Streck, M.P. (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie 12.3/4. Berlin, New York: 280–86Google Scholar
Waal, 2010a: The Source as Object. Studies in Hittite Diplomatics. PhD thesis, Leiden UniversityGoogle Scholar
Waal, 2010b: ‘Review of P. Dardano, Die hethitischen Tontafelkataloge aus Hattusa (CTH 276-82). Wiesbaden 2006’ Bibliotheca Orientalis 67.5/6: 554–60Google Scholar
Weeden, M. 2011: Hittite Logograms and Hittite Scholarship (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 54). WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Yakubovich, I. 2010: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar