SCRIBAL FAMILIES OF HATTUŠA IN THE 13 CENTURY BCE

SCRIBAL FAMILIES OF
HATTUŠA IN THE 13 th
CENTURY BCE
A Prosopographic Study
Tel Aviv University
Faculty of Humanities
Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures
M.A. thesis
by
SHAI GORDI
Under the supervision of Prof. Itamar Singer
December 2008

To Father
per diligo quod veneratio

Table of Contents
List of Figures, Tables and Diagrams vii
Acknowledgments x
Abbreviations
Bibliographical and Textual Material Abbreviations xi
Frequently Abbreviated Terms and Conventional Markings xviii
I. A Short Introduction to Hittite Prosopography 1
1. Objectives, drawbacks and significance of the present study 2
2. Previous literature on Hittite prosopography 4
3. Overview of Hittite textual and glyptic sources considered 5
4. Methodology and structure of the prosopographical study 7
5. Chronological framework for the prosopographical study 8
II. The Scribal Profession in Hattuša 12
1. The archives of Hattuša: main work places of the scribes 13
2. Organizing the archives: colophons, tablet catalogues and labels 18
3. The scribal personnel 22
III. The Chief Scribe (GAL DUB.SAR) and Chief Scribe on Wood
(GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ) and their Families in Cuneiform Texts 38
1. Family of Mittannamuwa 39
a. Enter Mittannamuwa: Deposition of Hattušili III in favor of
Mittannamuwa the chief scribe and his family (CTH 87) 39
b. Prosopography of individual family members and affiliated scribes 46
Mittannamuwa and affiliated scribes 46
Family of Kuruntapiya 47
Mittannamuwa in fragmentary context 54
Purandamuwa 55
Walwaziti and Alihešni, their descendants and affiliated scribes 57
iv

Administrative evidence 57
Hieroglyphic Luwian evidence on LEO/LEO2-VIR.zi/a 62
Walwaziti's scribal bureau 64
Scribes of the (h)išuwa festival 65
Hulanabi 70
Talmi-Tešub 72
Kuruntaili 80
Son of Alihešni 81
Summary: the chronology of the (h)išuwa festival
scribes and the dating of its versions 87
Other scribes in the bureau of Walwaziti 89
Hiliya 89
Pariziti 90
Pihaziti 91
Conclusions: the dating, function and possible location
of Walwaziti's scribal bureau 95
Nani(n)zi and affiliated scribes 100
c. Summary of key arguments 109
2. Families of Ziti (LÚ) and SAG 111
3. Family of Šahurunuwa the chief scribe on wood 125
4. Conclusions 132
IV. The Chief Scribe (MAGNUS.SCRIBA) on Seals and Affiliated Scribes 134
1. Matu: a single case of Early Empire Period MAGNUS.SCRIBA? 135
2. Prosopography of Late Empire Period MAGNUS.SCRIBA 137
a. Princes (REX.FILIUS / DUMU.LUGAL) 139
Arnilizi 140
Mahhuzzi 144
The family of Halwaziti 150
v

Penti-Šarruma 155
Šahurunuwa 160
Šauškaruntiya 161
Armaziti 165
Šakkapi 174
Angulli 175
Zuwa 176
Taki-Šarruma 184
b. Princes with fragmentary seals 192
c. Muwaziti: a non-royal MAGNUS.SCRIBA? 194
d. Uncertain evidence: Tarhuntapiya and TONITRUS.URBS+li 195
Tarhuntapiya 196
TONITRUS.URBS+li 198
3. Conclusions 202
V. General Conclusions 210
Table of Correlations 214
Prosopographic Index of the Hattuša Scribes 216
Appendix: Hieroglyphic Luwian Titles and Professions 224
Bibliography 231
vi

Figures
List of Figures, Tables and Diagrams
Fig. 2.1: Hattuša, the Hittite capital 15
Fig. 3.1: Sealings of d LAMMA-SUM 49
Fig. 3.2: Sealings of TONITRUS-BONUS2
Fig. 3.3: The family of Kuruntapiya ( d LAMMA-SUM) and its connection with the
scribal families of the chief scribes Mittannamuwa and Ziti
Fig. 3.4: Seal impression of Pupuli found on a bulla from the north storerooms of
T.1
Fig. 3.5: Hand-copy of VBoT 87 made by Götze 61
Fig. 3.6: Inscription of Walwaziti on a Bronze Spearhead 61
Fig. 3.7: Sealings of Walwaziti 62
Fig. 3.8: HL signs LEO and LEO2 on cuneiform tablets, signatures of Walwa(ziti)? 63
Fig. 3.9: KBo 15.37 obv. II 13-21, III 17-26 (photo) 74
Fig. 3.10: KBo 35.260 rev. IV 5'-7' (photo) 76
Fig. 3.11: Seal impressions of MAGNUS.TONITRUS 77
Fig. 3.12: Seal impressions and seal of Ku(wa)lanaziti 85
Fig. 3.13: Chronology of the (h)išuwa scribes and related scribal families 88
Fig. 3.14: Seal impressions and seal of Pihaziti 93
Fig. 3.15: HL stone inscription of Pi-ha-zi/a BONUS2 SCRIBA 94
Fig. 3.16: The bureau of Walwaziti during the reigns of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV 95
Fig. 3.17: Seal impressions of Ana(n)zi/a 101
Fig. 3.18: The career of Nani(n)zi and affiliated scribes parallel with the development
in the work on CTH 616
Fig. 3.19: Seal impressions of the scribe Halpaziti, father of GUR-Šarruma 118
Fig. 3.20: HFAC 53 obv.? 2'-7' (photo) 121
Fig. 3.21: The scribal families of the chief scribes Ziti (A) and SAG, their work
relations and synchronisms
Fig. 3.22: Seal impressions of Šahurunuwa 128
Fig. 3.23: HL documents mentioning Tarhuntamana(wa) 129
Fig. 3.24: The family of the chief scribe on wood Šahurunuwa and the marriage with
the Mittannamuwa family
Fig.4.1: Seal impressions of Matu 135
Fig. 4.2: Seal impressions of Arnilizi 141
vii
51
53
60
108
124
131

Fig. 4.3: Seal impressions of Mahhuzzi 145
Fig. 4.4: L. 23 also transcribed LIS 147
Fig. 4.5: Seal impressions of L. 417.5-wasa / Suwasa 148
Fig. 4.6: TAŞÇI A 150
Fig. 4.7: Career of Mahhuzzi and affiliated scribes 154
Fig. 4.8: Seal impressions of Penti-Šarruma 156
Fig. 4.9: Nis 381 162
Fig. 4.10: Seal impressions of Šauškaruntiya 163
Fig. 4.11: BOǦAZKÖY 22 165
Fig. 4.12: KÖYLÜTOLU YAYLA inscription of Labarna, probably Tudhaliya IV 168
Fig. 4.13: A section of the obv. of Bo 2089 (photo) 175
Fig. 4.14: A section of the rev. of Bo 2089 (photo) 175
Fig. 4.15: Signets of Zuwa 177
Fig. 4.16: Two name signet of Zuwa and Armaziti 178
Fig. 4.17: Scribes in the "house of craftsmen" from the reign of Hattušili III to that of
Šuppiluliuma II
Fig. 4.18: Synchronisms between Šauškaruntiya and other scribal families 183
Fig. 4.19: Nis 391 184
Fig. 4.20: Seal impressions of Taki-Šarruma 186
Fig. 4.21: Nis 250 191
Fig. 4.22: Seal impressions of Pili 193
Fig. 4.23: Seal impression of [...]-Šarruma and seal impression of a prince and
MAGNUS.SCRIBA whose name was not preserved
Fig. 4.24: Seal impressions of Muwaziti 195
Fig. 4.25: Seal impression of Tarhuntapiya MAGNUS.SCRIBA? 196
Fig. 4.26: Seal impressions of Tarhuntapiya A 196
Fig. 4.27: Seal impressions of Tarhuntapiya B 197
Fig. 4.28: Seals and seal impressions of TONITRUS.URBS+li A 199
Fig. 4.29: Seal impression of TONITRUS.URBS+li MAGNUS.SCRIBA? 199
Fig. 4.30: Seal impressions of TONITRUS.URBS+li B 201
Tables
Tab. 1.1: Chronological Sequence of Great Kings of Hatti and Kings of their Vassal
Countries in the 13 th Century BCE
Tab. 2.1: Cuneiform titles and designations of the Hittite scribal personnel in Hattuša 25
viii
180
193
11

Tab. 2.2: HL designations, ranks of specialization and combined titles of the Hittite
scribal personnel in Hattuša
Tab. 2.3: Princes, dignitaries and other officials with SCRIBA numbered ranks, their
combined titles and homonyms
Tab. 2.4: Other titles of scribal personnel in Hattuša 31
Tab. 2.5: Learned officials in Hittite HL seals and seal impressions 32
Tab. 2.6: Learned officials in Hittite cuneiform texts 33
Tab. 3.1: Seals of MAGNUS.TONITRUS, a.k.a Talmi-Tešub the scribe 78
Tab. 3.2: Seals of Ku(wa)lanaziti 84
Tab. 3.3: Seals of Pihaziti 93
Tab. 3.4: Seals of Šahurunuwa 127
Tab. 3.5: The chief scribes during the Empire Period as inferred from the cuneiform
data
Tab. 4.1: Seals of Arnilizi 141
Tab. 4.2: Seals of Mahhuzzi 144
Tab. 4.3: Seals of Penti-Šarruma 155
Tab. 4.4: Seals of Šauškaruntiya 162
Tab. 4.5: Seals of Taki-Šarruma 185
Tab. 4.6: Titles and offices of Taki-Šarruma in cuneiform vs his Hieroglyphic titles 192
Tab. 4.7: Seals of Tarhuntapiya B 197
Tab. 4.8: Seals of TONITRUS.URBS+li B 200
Tab. 4.9: The chief scribes in the 13 th century BCE 205
Tab. 4.10: Archives in which sealed bullae with MAGNUS.SCRIBA seals were found 208
Diagrams
Tab. 5.1: Chronological sequence of the chief scribes 211
Tab. 5.2: Main duties of the chief scribes 212
Tab. 5.3: Main duties of the chief scribes on wood 213
Diagram 2.1: Relation between the number of SCRIBA and number of DUB.SAR in
Empire Period Hattuša
Diagram 2.2: Schematic scribal hierarchy in Empire Period Hattuša 37
ix
26
27
133
36

Acknowledgments
It is a rare occasion in academic life when one finds a mentor which has such an impact on his
studies that he wishes to follow in his footsteps and learn from him all that he can. I do believe that
I have found such a man in Itamar Singer, my supervisor and a master of all things Hittite and
otherwise, who has devoted his experience, time and funds to support me throughout my studies.
For all these my gratitude to him is deep and unabated. This work could not have been produced
without his teaching and guidance. I wish him health and many more years of research.
This master thesis is in part a derivative of a project on Hittite Prosopography of Itamar
Singer, funded by the Israeli Science Foundation. It has been two years since I have commenced my
study, during which time I have enjoyed the advice, encouragement, aid and critic of my friends,
colleagues and teachers to whom I wish to thank: Shirly Ben-Dor Evian, Shlomo Bunimovitz,
Yoram Cohen, Meir Edrey, Amir Fink, Nurith Goshen, Ze'ev Herzog, Meital Kaufman, Mario
Martin, Jared Miller, Assaf Nativ, Shimrit Salem, Benjamin Sass, Deborah Sweeney, Giulia Torri,
Jak Yakar, Assaf Yassur-Landau, and Ran Zadok.
The research could not have been accomplished without the help and support of Leora Pick,
secretary of the Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures in
Tel-Aviv University, and Sarah Shachar Lev, head secretary of the Sonia and Marco Nadler
Institute of Archaeology. Na'ama Scheftelowitz and Alexandra Shavit from the Institute Library
deserve special credit as well in this matter for their helping hand and advice.
To the research assistants of Itamar Singer throughout the years, but mainly my dear friends:
Shatil Emanuelov, Amichay Findeling, Israel Kaner, and Or Siman Tov, I have a special gratitude
for helping me with copying, scanning and cataloguing glyptic and textual material, and for their
kind words and friendship.
There is much to say about the wisdom of my collegeues throughout my Hittite studies, Ilan
Peled and Boaz Stavi, their prespective and unfailing rapport are to be much appreciated and I thank
them deeply.
Guy Fisher, Roi Raz, and Daniela Ziering helped bring the database of Hittite officials to
reality, for that and for their encouragement I am grateful.
Sincere thanks are owed to Sivan Kedar, for all our discussions which have enriched this
work so much. Also, I wish to thank Sharon Napchan for her editing of the fourth chapter.
I am forever in the debt of the Dudkevitz family, Rivka, Aharon, and Yehudit, my father and
mother, my sister Lital, and Sagi Zwirn, for all their help, love and support.
It would have been impossible to take this journey without Limor, the love of my life, whose
respect, support and devotion to me throughout my studies were unfailing and unmatched.
x

Abbreviations
Bibliographical and Textual Material Abbreviations
AA Archäologischer Anzeiger. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Berlin
ABoT Ankara arkeoloji müzesinde bulunan Boğazköy tabletleri. Istanbul
ADTCFD Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi. Ankara
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung. Berlin – Graz
AHw W. von Soden,1965-1981, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Unter Benutzung
des lexikalischen achlasses von Bruno Meissner (1868-1947). Wiesbaden
AJA American Journal of Archaeology. Boston
AMM Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi. Ankara
AnSt Anatolian Studies (Journal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara).
London
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament: Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und
Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments. Münster
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen. Berlin
ArAnat Archivum Anatolicum. Anadolu Arşivleri (Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-
Coğrafya Fakültesi, Eskiçağ Dilleri ve Kültürleri). Ankara
ArOr Archív Orientální. Praha
AS Assyriological Studies. Chicago
ASJ Acta Sumerologica. Hiroshima
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis. Leiden
BLMJ Emar Tablets from the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem
bmsaes British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan
(http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/bmsaes). London
Bo Inventory numbers of Boǧazköy tablets and glyptics excavated 1906-1912
Bo year/… Inventory numbers of Boǧazköy tablets and glyptics excavated 1968ff.
Bog. III Seal impression cited according to no. in Boğazköy III
Bog. V Seal impression cited according to no. in Boğazköy V
Boğazköy III K. Bittel et al., 1957, Boğazköy III. Funde aus den Grabungen 1952-1955.
Berlin
Boğazköy V K. Bittel et al., Boğazköy V. Funde aus den Grabungen 1970 und 1971.
Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft und des Deutschen
xi

Archäologischen Institutes. Berlin
BoHa Boğazköy-Hattuša, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Berlin
BYZAS 4 D. P. Mielke,U.-D. Schoop & J. Seeher (eds.), 2006, Strukturierung und
Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie. Instanbul
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. Chicago
CAE J. C. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient ear East. New York
CHD The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Chicago
CHM Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale. Paris
ChS Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler. Rome
CLL H. C. Melchert, 1993, Cuneiform Luwian Lexicon (Lexica Anatolica 2).
Chapel Hill
CM Cuneiform Monographs. Leiden – Boston
CoS W. W. Hallo (ed.), 1997–2003, The Context of Scripture. Leiden – Boston
CRAIBL Comptes-rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres
CRRAI Compte rendu de la … Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
CTH Emmanuel Laroche, 1971, Catalogue des textes Hittites. Paris
DBH Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie. Dresden
DLL E. Laroche, 1959, Dictionnaire de la langue louvite. Paris
DMOA Documenta et monumenta Orientis Antiqui. Leiden
DŠ Deeds of Šuppiluliuma cited according to the edition of Güterbock 1956
Eothen Collana di studi sulle civiltà dell’Oriente antico. Firenze
EVO Egitto e Vicino oriente. Pisa
FHL J. M. Durand & E. Laroche, 1982, “Fragments hittites du Louvre”. Pp. 73–
107 in Mémorial Atatürk. Études d'archeologie et de philologie anatoliennes.
Paris
Fs Alp H. Otten et al. (eds.), 1992, Hittite and Other Anatolian and ear Eastern
Studies in Honor of Sedat Alp. Ankara
Fs Boehmer U. Finkbein, R. Dittmann & H. Hauptmann (eds.), 1995, Beiträge zur
Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer.
Mainz
Fs Carratelli F. Imparati (ed.), 1988, Studi di storia e filologia anatolica dedicati a
Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli (Eothen 1). Firenze
Fs Carruba 2004, atalicium. Studi di Ittitologia in onore di Onofrio Carruba (Or 73/4).
xii

Rome
Fs Deller G. Mauer & U. Magen (eds.), 1988, Ad bene et fideliter seminandum.
Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987, (AOAT 220).
Neukirchen – Vluyn – Kevelaer
Fs Dietrich O. Loretz et al. (eds.), 2002, Ex Mesopotamia et Syria lux. Festschrift für
Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Münster
Fs Dinçol M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan & H. Peker (eds.), 2007, Belkıs Dinçol ve
Ali Dinçol’a Armağan VITA Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali
Dinçol. Istanbul
Fs Fronzaroli P. Marrassini (ed.), 2003, Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to
Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden
Fs Güterbock K. Bittel, Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate & E. Reiner (eds.), 1974, Anatolian
Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th
Birthday (Uitgaven van het ederlands Historisch-archaeologisch instituut te
Istanbul 35). Istanbul
Fs Güterbock 2 H. A. Hoffner & G. M. Beckman (eds.), 1986, Kaniššuwar: A Tribute to Hans
G. Güterbock on his Seventy-fifth Birthday May 27, 1983 (AS 23). Chicago
Fs Haas T. Richter, D. Prechel & J. Klinger (eds.), 2001, Kulturgeschichten:
Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag. Saarbrücken
Fs Hoffner G. M. Beckman, R. Beal & G. McMahon (eds.), 2003, Hittite Studies in
Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Winona
Lake, Indiana
Fs Howink
ten Cate Th. P. J. van den Hout & J. de Roos (eds.), 1995, Studio Historiae Ardens.
Ancient ear Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate on
the Occasion of his 65 th Birthday. Leiden
Fs Košak D. Groddek & M. Zorman (eds.), 2007, Tabularia Hethaeorum.
Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag. Herausgegeben
von Detlev Groddek und Marina Zorman (DBH 25). Wiesbaden
Fs Landsberger H. G. Güterbock & Th. Jacobsen (eds.), 1965, Studies in Honor of Benno
Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1961, (AS 16). Chicago
Fs Laroche 1979, Florilegium Anatolicum: Mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche. Paris
Fs Lebrun I M. Mazoyer & O. Casabonne (eds.), 2004, Antiquus Oriens. Mélanges offerts
au Professeur René Lebrun (Volume I). Paris
Fs Lebrun II M. Mazoyer & O. Casabonne (eds.), 2004, Studia Anatolica et Varia.
xiii

Mélanges offerts au Professeur René Lebrun (Volume II). Paris
Fs Mazar A. M. Maeir & P. de Miroschedji (eds.), 2006, “I Will Speak the Riddles of
Ancient Times”. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai
Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake, Indiana
Fs Meriggi 2 O. Carruba (ed.), 1979, Studia Mediterranea Piero Meriggi Dicata (StMed 1-
2). Pavia
Fs eumann J. Tischler (ed.), 1982, Serta indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter eumann
zum 60. Geburtstag, (Innsbrucker Beiträge tur Sprachwissenschaft 40).
Innsbruck
Fs eve 1994, Festschrift für Peter eve, zum 65. Geburtstag am 3. April 1994 von
Freunden und Kollegen, (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43). Istanbul
Fs Oppenheim R. D. Biggs & J. A. Brinkman (eds.), 1964, Studies Presented to A. Leo
Oppenheim. Chicago
Fs Otten 2 E. neu & Ch. Ruster (eds.), 1988, Documentum Asiae minoris antiquae.
Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden
Fs . Özgüç M. J. Mellink, E. Porada & T. Özgüç (eds.), 1993, imet Özgüc’e Armağan.
Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its eighbors. Studies in
Honor of imet Özgüc. Ankara
Fs T. Özgüç K. Emre et al. (eds.), 1989, Anatolia and the Ancient ear East: Studies in
Honor of Tahsin Özgüc. Ankara
Fs Popko P. Taracha (ed.), 2002, Silva Anatolica, Anatolian Studies Presented to
Maciej Popko on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Warsaw
Fs Römer M. Dietrich & O. Loretz (eds.), 1998, dubsar anta-men: Studien zur
Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines
70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen.
Münster
Fs de Roos Th. P. J. van den Hout (ed.), 2006, The Life and Times of Hattušili III and
Tudhaliya IV. Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Honour of J. de Roos, 12-
13 December 2003, Leiden. Leiden
Fs Sjöberg H. Behrens, D. Loding & M. T. Roth (eds.), 1989, DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A.
Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg. Philadelphia
Fs Sundwall E. Grumach (ed.), 1958, Minoica. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von
Johannes Sundwall. Berlin
GHL H. A. Hoffner & H. C. Melchert, 2008, A Grammar of the Hittite Language.
Part 1: Reference Grammar, (Languages of the Ancient Near East 1).
xiv

Winona Lake, Indiana
Glyptik R. M. Boehmer & H. G. Güterbock, 1987, Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von
Boğazköy, (BoHa 14). Berlin
Seal impression/Seal cited according to no. in Glyptik
Gs Forrer D. Groddek & S. Rößle (eds.), 2004. ŠARIKZEL. Hethitologische Studien
zum Gedenken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer (19.02.1894-10.01.1986), (DBH
10). Dresden
Gs Güterbock K. A. Yener & H. A. Hoffner (eds.), 2002, Recent Developments in Hittite
Archaeology and History. Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock. Winona
Lake, Indiana
Gs Imparati S. de Martino & F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds.), 2002. Anatolia antica. Studi in
memoria di Fiorella Imparati, (Eothen 11). Firenze
Gs Jacobsen T. Abusch (ed.), 2002, Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient ear Eastern
Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Winona Lake, Indiana
HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik. Leiden – Boston – Köln
HED J. Puhvel, 1984ff., Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin – New York
HEG J. Tischler, 1977ff., Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar, (Innsbrucker
Beiträge tur Sprachwissenschaft 20). Innscbruck
HFAC Beckman & Hoffner 1985
HKM S. Alp, 1991, Hethitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Maşat. Ankara
HT L. W. King, 1920, Hittite Texts in the Cuneiform Character in the British
Museum. London
HW J. Friedrich, 1952–1966, Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg
HW 2 J. Friedrich, A. Kammenhuber & I. Hoffmann, 1975ff., Hethitisches
Wörterbuch. 2nd ed. Indogermanische Bibliothek. 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher.
Heidelberg
HZL Ch. Rüster & E. Neu, 1989, Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon: Inventar und
Interpretation der Keilschriftzeichen aus den Boğazköy-Texten, (StBoTB 2).
Wiesbaden
IBoT Istanbul arkeoloji müzelerinde bulunan Boğazköy tabletleri 1–4. Istanbul –
Ankara
ICH 1 1992, Uluslararası 1.hititoloji kongresi bildirileri (19-21 Temmuz 1990).
Çorum, Ankara
___ 2 1995, Atti del II congresso internazionale di hittitologia, Pavia 28 giugno - 2
luglio 1993, (StMed 9). Pavia
xv

___ 3 S. Alp & A. Süel (eds.), 1998, III. Ulusrarası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri,
Çorum 16-22 Eylül 1996. Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of
Hittitology, Çorum, September 16-22, 1996. Ankara
___ 4 G. Wilhelm (ed.), 2001, Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für
Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.-8- Oktober 1999, (StBoT 45). Wiesbaden
___ 5 2005, V. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 02-08 Eylül 2002
– Acts of the Vth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum September 02-
08, 2002. Ankara
___ 6 2007-2008, VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia. Roma, 5-9 settembre
2005. Parte I, (SMEA 49), Parte II, (SMEA 50). Rome
JAES Journal of the Ancient ear Eastern Society of Columbia University. New
York
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society. Baltimore, Maryland
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies. New Haven
JKF Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung (=Anadolu Araştirmalari).
Heidelberg – Istanbul
JES Journal of ear Eastern Studies. Chicago
KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi. Leipzig – Berlin
Košak, Konkordanz S. Košak, 2002-2006, Konkordanz der hethitischen Keilschrifttafeln. In
http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/hetkonk/
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi. Berlin
Mainz, Portal G. W. Müller et al., 2002-2008, in http://www.hethiter.net/
MAOG Miteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig
MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin. Berlin
MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung. Berlin
MSL 13 M. Civil et al. (eds.), 1971, Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon 13. Rome
Mşt Maşat text, cited by inventory number
MVAeG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig
ABU .A.B.U. ouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. Paris
H E. Laroche, 1966, Les oms des Hittites. Paris
H suppl. E. Laroche, 1981, “Les noms des Hittites: supplément“. Hethitica 4: 3–58.
is Seal impression from Nişantepe cited according to no. in Herbordt 2005
OA Oriens Antiquus. Rome
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung. Leipzig – Berlin
xvi

Onomastique
on line M.-C. Trémouille, 2006, Répertoire onomastique. In http://www.hethport.
uni-wuerzburg.de/hetonom/ONOMASTIdata.html (entered 14/05/2006).
Rome
Or Orientalia. Rome
OrA Orient-Archäologie. Rahden, Westfalia
Oxford Online
Dictionary C. Soanes & A. Stevenson (eds.), 2005, The Oxford Dictionary of English
(revised edition). Oxford Reference Online
PIHASt Publication de l'Institut Historique et Archéologique éerlandais de
Stamboul. Leiden
PRU III J. Nougayrol, 1955, Le palais royal d'Ugarit III: Textes accadiens at
hourrites des archives est, ouest et centrales. Paris
PRU IV J. Nougayrol, 1956, Le palais royal d'Ugarit IV: Textes accadiens des
archives sud. Paris
PRU VI J. Nougayrol, 1970, Le palais royal d'Ugarit VI: Textes en cunéiformes
babyloniens des archives du grand palais et du palais sud d'Ugarit. Paris
RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale. Paris
RGTC Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes. Wiesbaden
RHA Revue hittite et asianique. Paris
RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie (und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie). Berlin
RS Ras Shamra text, cited by inventory number
RSO Rivista degli Studi Orientali. Rome
RSO 7 P. Bordreuil, 1991, Une Bibliotheque au Sud de ville. Les Textes de la 34e
Campagne (1973), (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 7). Paris
SBo I H. G. Güterbock, 1940, Siegel aus Boğazköy I (AfO Beiheft 5). Osnabrück
SBo II H. G. Güterbock, 1942, Siegel aus Boğazköy II (AfO Beiheft 7). Osnabrück
SCCH Studies on the Civilization and Culture of uzi and the Hurrians. Bethesda
SCO Studi Classici e Orientali. Università degli Studi di Pisa. Istituto di
archeologia e di storia. Pisa.
SMEA Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici. Rome
StBoT Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten. Wiesbaden
StBoTB Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten: Beihefte. Wiesbaden
StMed Studia Mediterranea. Pavia
xvii

Tars. Tarsus seal impression cited according to inventory no. in Goldman et al.
1956
Tel Aviv Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Tel-Aviv
THeth Texte der Hethiter. Heidelberg
TÜBA-AR Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi. Ankara
UF Ugarit-Forschungen. Kevelaer
Ugar. III Cl. F.-A. Schaeffer et al., Ugaritica III. Sceaux et cylindres hittites, épée
gravée du cartouche de Mineptah. tablettes chypro-minoennes et autres
découvertes nouvelles da ras shamra. Paris
Ugar. V Cl. F.-A. Schaeffer et al., Ugaritica V. ouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites
et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d'Ugarit; commentaires
des textes historiques (première partie). Paris
VAT Inventory numbers of tablets in the Staatliche Museen in Berlin
VBoT A. Götze, 1930, Verstreute Boghazköi-Texte. Marburg
VO Vicino Oriente. Rome
VS F L. Jakob-Rost, 1997, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköy im Vorderasiatischen
Museum (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Staatlichen Museen zu
Berlin, eue Folge, Heft XII). Mainz
WdO Die Welt des Orients. Göttingen
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete. Leipzig – Berlin
ZAR Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte. Wiesbaden
Frequently Abbreviated Terms and Conventional Markings
Akk. Akkadian
Arnu. Arnuwanda
bib. bibliography
Bk. Büyükkale (with A, B, etc. designates a specific building on Büyükkale)
cun. Cuneiform
CL Cuneiform Luwian
dupl(s). duplicate(s)
ed(s). edition(s)
GN Geographical Name
HaH House am Hang (House on the Slope)
Hatt. Hattušili
xviii

Hitt. Hittite
HL Hieroglyphic Luwian
Hurr. Hurrian
IE Indo-European
lit. literally
LNS Late New Hittite Script
Luw. Luwian
MH Middle Hittite
MS Middle Hittite Script
Mur. Muršili
Muw. Muwattalli
n. footnote
NA Neo-Assyrian
NB Neo-Babylonian
NS New Hittite Script
OA Old Assyrian
OB Old Babylonian
obv. obverse
pers. comm. personal communication
PN Personal Name
pret. preterite
rev. reverse
Sum. Sumerian
St. T.1 Storerooms Temple 1
Šupp. Šuppiluliuma
translit. transilteration
Tudh. Tudhaliya
Ur.-T. Urhi-Tešub
= equivalences in dupls., lexical texts, etc.
⸗ marks clitic boundaries
( ) in lemma encloses omissible part of the stem
in translation encloses words not in the Hittite but needed to make sense in English
[ ] encloses material lost in break
[( )] encloses material restored from a duplicate
< > encloses material omitted by scribal error
xix

I. A Short Introduction to Hittite Prosopography
During the 13 th century BCE the main organizational body under the Hittite King was an intricate
structure made up of the Royal family members, circles of the nobility, craftsmen and artisans.
These persons fulfilled the tasks of officers, palatial and religious title holders as well as lowly
officials. It is usually the role of the social historian to trace the person, Greek prosōpon, 1 behind
each office, in order to map out the administrative structure. Prosopography, its name derived from
the above mentioned Greek term, is the historical discipline which engages in such a collective
study of officials, their duties and position in the state hierarchy (Stone 1971). A dictionary
definition of prosopography is “a description of a person's appearance, personality, career, etc., or a
collection of such descriptions” (Oxford Online Dictionary). The Prosopographical approach is
mainly used in Classical studies, but has found its way into the study of Ancient Near Eastern texts
as well. 2 Specifically, the integration of prosopography into the study of Hittite society and history
has already retained some fascinating results (see I.2).
The main tool of prosopography is onomastics, or in other words the research of the
structure and origin of proper names, mainly personal names. The onomasticon of the Late Bronze
Age Ancient Near East is quite large and has been studied extensively. Whether names found in
documents from Anatolian and North-Syrian venues (Laroche 1966, 1981a; Gröndahl 1967;
Tischler 1982; Beckman 1983a; Pruzsinsky 2003; Trémouille 2006a), or those known from other
sources, such as Egyptian (Helck 1971; Schneider 1992; Hess 1993) and Mesopotamian (Saporetti
1970; Freydank & Saporetti 1979).
Hittite sources, which include cuneiform inscribed clay tablets, and Hieroglyphic Luwian
(henceforth HL) inscriptions on seals, seal impressions, stone and various objects, attest to around
1,800 Hittite nobles, officials, title holders and craftsmen. Most of the documents originate from the
palace, temples and state archives of the Hittite's capital Hattuša – near modern day Boğazköy, 150
km east of Ankara. This corpus significantly expanded with the 1990-91 discovery of an enormous
bullae depot at an area of Hattuša named Nişantepe, inside a basement of a burnt down building
called simply the Westbau (Neve 1992: 52–63). Approximately 3,500 Imperial seal impressions on
1 Πρόσωπον has a wide semantic field ranging from “face” to “personality” (Liddell & Scott 1996: 1533).
2 Principally one may cite here the many studies made on first Millennium individuals, especially the
prosopographies of Radner (1998; 1999) and Baker (2000; 2001; 2002) on the enormous NA corpus of
texts, and those of Bongenaar (1997) and Zadok (2002) on the NB documents.
1

clay bullae, the remnants of sealed wooden writing boards and containers, along with several older
land donation texts were found in the basement and on the slope west of it. Herdbordt (2005: 75),
who published the sealings of the Hittite officials from this venue, 3 notes that out of 1,364 such seal
impressions one can count up to 280 names of nobles and officials. This substantial update in the
glyptics and onomastics of officials dating to the Hittite Empire Period (13 th century BCE) was the
main impetus for a fresh prosopographic study, the present study.
The following introduction describes the aims of the research, its drawbacks and
significance, and provides a short look into the literature on Hittite prosopography, the sources used
for the present undertaking, the methodology of the study and its chronological framework.
1. Objectives, drawbacks and significance of the present study
Since the present thesis could not encompass all the different profession groups attested in the
Hittite documents of the Empire Period, a specific group had to be chosen. The group finally
selected was the scribes of Hattuša, for two main reasons. First, in contrast to most Hittite officials
mentioned in our sources, the scribes share a feature with members of the Hittite royal family: their
patronyms can be retraced (van den Hout 1995: 2f.). 4 This is accomplished through the genealogical
data the scribes inserted in their signatures on cuneiform texts they copied and archived. This helps
avoid the inherent difficulty of homonymy in Hittite texts and seals. Namely, persons who bear the
same name but are in fact different altogether. Therefore, a better dating scheme of the scribes could
be established. Second, since most of the scribes identified were the ones who actually wrote the
texts, I was able to study not only their kinship ties and duties but also look at the final products of
their daily work. Mind you, this was done in a limited way, because I had no access to the tablets
themselves, and had to rely chiefly on photographs published on the website of the Hethitologie
Portal Mainz (www.hethiter.net); invaluable to the work of modern day Hittitologists. An added
bonus in this matter was the Konkordanz der hethitischen Texte of S. Košak and G. G. W. Müller
(henceforth Košak, Konkordanz), published on the same internet site, which traces the find-spots of
many Hittite texts found to date. This allowed me to attempt locating where signed tablets were
copied, consequently giving general indications on the possible location of scribal schools and
bureaus in Hattuša.
3 The royal impressions will be published in Herbordt, Bawanypeck and Hawkins forthcoming; see also
Otten 1993; 1995; Bawanypeck 2006.
4 On the general significance of genealogy in prosopography see Thornton 1997: 23f.
2

Given the advantages of the scribal material just described, my objectives in this study are
three fold: 1. Consider the evidence on the scribal personnel of Hattuša: their archives, structure of
their colophons, tablet catalogues and labels, and study their titles and professions on cuneiform and
HL documents based on a quantitative study of the identified scribes; 2. A selective individual
prosopography of the highest members of the scribal class, the chief scribes, and their known family
members and associates. When possible it is also my wish to pinpoint their main bureaus; 3. Present
the social matrix of the scribal personnel as studied in the prosopographical examination in a
tangible form, along with an index of the scribes of Hattuša identified in the cuneiform colophons.
One main drawback in studying Hittite families is paponymy, the custom of naming a
newborn after the father or grandfather. When trying to date certain family members I encountered
some difficulty in separating the son from his ancestors. Another problem lies in the nature of the
Hittite cuneiform texts. Unlike many of those uncovered in Mesopotamia, they have no dating
system and originate almost entirely from state archives (Singer 1997: 416). Therefore, there are
virtually no private documents and specific information on the activities of officials, and in our case
of the scribes, outside the administrative sphere of Palace, Temple etc. One more problem worth
mentioning is the mobility within the Hittite officialdom between offices (van den Hout 1995: 3–5;
Herbordt 2005: 75), which is even greater with regard to the scribal professions. Many persons
seem to hold the scribal titles next to other professions, thus making it difficult to decide whether it
is their primary occupation or a secondary title, which indicates on their added scribal skills and
literate abilities.
A study of the scribes of Hattuša is significant, first and foremost, as a reference work.
Although Hittite prosopography was studied from the very beginning, the basic literature on Hittite
scribes was somewhat limited to specific groups of scribes (Laroche 1949; Mascheroni 1984;
Beckman 1983b; van den Hout 1995: 148f., 151–154, 172–178, 180–193, 216–226, 235–242;
Houwink ten Cate 1998; Miller 2004: 37–39; Torri 2007a). Therefore, I believe a more cohesive
study of this profession group is needed, specifically of the many scribal families known from
Empire Period colophons. 5 Furthermore, the importance of this study could be considered on three
levels: (1) Historical. Dating of the scribes helps to date other officials mentioned in the texts beside
them, resulting in new historical and chronological information; (2) Social. Processing of the
prosopographical data will provide a possible social matrix of the Empire Period scribal class, their
organization and hierarchy; (3) Administrative. Some titles and duties of scribes and officials
5 Note also the recent remarks made by Miller (2004: 37 n. 62) and Torri (2007a: 772 n. 6) on the need of
such a study or monograph.
3

connected with them are not wholly understood. This study can suggest new venues towards a
clearer definition of some of them.
2. Previous literature on Hittite prosopography
As said above, there is no definitive study, either monograph or article, which deals with the
prosopography of Hittite scribes in the Empire Period. Nevertheless, the accumulation of Hittite
sources, textual and glyptic, during the past two decades, has given rise to studies which deal with
officials from a specific profession group or social class in this period of Hittite history, many of
them either scribes themselves, or connected to the scribal class.
The most prominent study on Empire Period officials is certainly van den Hout's (1995)
prosopography of the witnesses to the three important state documents of Hattušili III and
Tudhaliya IV, namely, the Ulmi-Tešub treaty (Hatt. III), the Bronze Tablet and the Šahurunuwa
decree (both Tudh. IV). 6 Otherwise, one should note d'Alfonso's recent study of Syrian legal
sources and the many officials appearing in them (2005), Beal's monograph on the Hittite military
(1992), Beckman's studies of Mesopotamian officials in Hattuša (1983b), the Hittite administration
of Syria (1992a), and Hittite provincial administration (1995), Cohen's studies on the scribes of
Emar (2004; forthcoming), the research on seals of officials made by B. Dinçol (1998a;1998b;2001)
and A. Dinçol (1983; 1993; 2001; 2007) and their joint studies (1987; 2002), Imparati's reviews of
augurs and scribes (1985) and Hittite princes (1987), Mascheroni's study of Hurrian scribes (1984),
Mora's insights into the Hittite administration of Carchemish and its major players (2004a; 2004b),
Singer's study on the Hittite princesses (1991) and many more. 7
Another interesting aspect of Hittite prosopographical literature is the existence of many
studies focused on certain major historical characters, or studies on different persons that seem to
share the same name in different venues and sometimes at different periods of time (homonyms).
Among these studies, one should note for example Bryce's on Telepinu the 'Priest' of Aleppo
(1992), del Monte's on Mašhuiluwa (1974), Freu's on Kantuzili (2004), Hawkins's on Kuzi-Tešub
(1988), Heinhold-Krahmer's on Piyamaradu (1983; 1986) and Šahurunuwa (2002), Imparati's on
Armaziti (1988), Klengel's on Nerikkaili (1989) and Tudhaliya (1991), Mora's on Halpaziti and
Kukulana (1988), Singer's on Takuhlinu (1983b), Kantuzili (2002a), Danuhepa (2002c) and Taki-
6 See also the debate on their dating scheme under I.5.
7 Note many of the studies used throughout the present undertaking.
4

Šarruma (2003), Tani's on Hešni (2001) and many others. Therefore, the road is already paved for
the present undertaking which can incorporate the results of such a vast array.
3. Overview of Hittite textual and glyptic sources considered
The sources at our disposal can be divided into two main groups:
1. Cuneiform Texts written mainly in Hittite, Akkadian and Hurrian which are predominantly
found in the archives of the Hittite capital, Boğazköy–Hattuša. These texts and their data can
also be cross-referenced with what we know from documents found in archives of the two main
cities under Hittite rule in North-Syria, Ras-Shamra–Ugarit and Meskene–Emar. As regarding
the texts of Hattuša, most of the preliminary data, including editions and secondary literature can
be found in the Košak, Konkordanz already mentioned above.
The main body of texts which is of interest are the Empire Period texts copied by the scribes
of Hattuša, that can be dated to this period either on the basis of their ductus being NS or LNS
(also IIIb/c or jh./sjh.), 8 or on prosopographical grounds. 9 The majority of these texts are Late
Hittite copies of older rituals and festivals. Otherwise many other officials connected with the
scribes were dated based on their appearance in administrative documents of the Late Empire
Period, which survived from the latter half of the 13 th century BCE that include:
A. Economic and administrative lists such as government censuses of certain persons, families or
estates (CTH 231-239; Souček 1959), inventory lists (CTH 240-250) of items such as raw
materials, tribute, and products of palatial workshops (Košak 1982; Siegelová 1986), and cult
inventory lists prepared mainly in the wake of Tudhaliya IV's cult reform (Carter 1962;
Hazenbos 2003).
B. Court depositions (CTH 293-297) which record statements of witnesses in court proceedings
against persons who misappropriated palace property (Werner 1967; Tani 2002; Hoffner 2003a).
C. Oracle inquiries (CTH 561-582) which are divine counsel on matters ranging from political to
personal, for example note an intense series of inquiries performed during the days of Tudhaliya
IV (van den Hout 1998).
8 On the dating of Hittite texts according to their ductus, namely, the sign forms they exhibit see Neu &
Rüster 1975, Singer 1996a, Hoffner 1997, van den Hout 1995, Miller 2004; for the Hittite cuneiform
signs and their classification see HZL.
9 Some are based on previous studies of Empire Period officials, such as the one cited under I.2. Other
synchronisms were established in the process of the research (mainly chapters III and IV).
5

D. Vows and dream records (CTH 583-590) which document lists of objects and estates
promised by a certain member of the royal family, usually the king or queen, to a certain deity in
order to win its favor (Otten & Souček 1965; de Roos 1984; 1998; 2007).
E. Correspondence (CTH 151-210) is a very important source of information about officials in
contact with the royal family and its representatives in other kingdoms of the Ancient Near East
(Hagenbuchner 1989; Edel 1994; Beckman 1999; Mora & Giorgieri 2004), and of the scribes
that wrote them, who seem to append a personal note from time to time to their letters (Otten
1956).
F. Treaties, instructions and land concessions which might contain lists of witnesses or the
names of court officials from Hattuša as well as from other vassal states of Hatti (Beckman
1999; Singer 2001a).
Outside Hattuša the archives of Ugarit and Emar have already been noted upon for their
ample reference to Hittite officials, some of them are also scribes. Among the texts found in
Ugarit one should mention treaties and edicts, as well as correspondence with the kings of Hatti
and Carchemish found in the southern palace archives (PRU IV), legal issues decided by Hittite
intervention found in the central palace archives (PRU III), administrative texts which may refer
to Hittite officials (PRU III; PRU VI), and correspondence with Hittite officials found mainly in
private archives of important persons such as Rapanu (Ugar. V) and Urtenu (Malbran-Labat
2004; Lackenbacher & Malbran-Labat 2005b). In Emar most of the documents relating to Hittite
officials are legal documents and letters uncovered in the archives of the palace (Arnaud 1986),
Temple (Arnaud 1991) and in private archives, such as that of the Zu-Bala family (Cohen 2005).
2. HL documents which include predominantly seal impressions on bullae, but also the actual
seals and a several inscriptions on stone and other items, 10 usually carry the name of an official
with one or more of his titles and/or professions inscribed in HL. 11 In the glyptic tradition of
Anatolia the seal used is usually a stamp seal, and it is rarely found impressed on the clay tablet
itself; from Hattuša only three such cases of officials are known (Herbordt 2005: 26). The
majority of impressions were made on clay bullae or container sealings found in two major
archives in Hattuša: Building D on the Büyükkale (SBo I; SBo II) and the above mentioned
Nişantepe in the Upper City (Herbordt 2005). Smaller numbers of sealed bullae were uncovered
in the storerooms of the Great Temple in the Lower City (Güterbock 1975a) and the Temples of
the Upper City (Herbordt 2005: 21).
In the courts of Ugarit and Emar the officials of Hattuša and Carchemish as well as local
10 As regarding the Stone inscriptions see recently Dinçol & Dinçol 2002.
11 For the titles of Hittite officials in HL see Appendix.
6

officials seem to follow the Mesopotamian tradition by sealing on the tablets, frequently using
seal forms more common in this area such as the cylinder seal and later the signet ring (Gonnet
1991; Beyer 2001; Herbordt 2006). At Ugarit, only several seal impressions of Hittite officials
were found, almost exclusively on tablets from the southern palace archive (Ugar. III). In Emar,
on the other hand, there is a great number of tablets sealed by Hittite as well as local officials
(Gonnet 1991; Singer 2000; Beyer 2001), some of them Hittite scribes (Cohen forthcoming).
Apart from these two sites, the bullae and seals of Hittite officials, including many scribes, may
be found in various other venues (Mora 1987; 2000), such as Korucutepe (Güterbock 1973) and
Tarsus (Gelb in Goldman et. al 1956), as well as in private collections (Poetto & Salvatori 1981)
and Museums (Dinçol 1983; Dinçol & Dinçol 1987).
4. Methodology and structure of the prosopographical study
There are two kinds, or levels, of prosopographical research methods utilized in the present study. 12
The first, undertaken in the second chapter, treats the Hittite scribal profession as a whole, and
therefore coincides with what is called "collective prosopography". Collective prosopography gives
an overhead picture of the social institution in which a person operated. Thus, chapter two considers
some key elements of the Hittite scribal profession or community: the archives of Hattuša and their
organization, and the scribal personnel. Basically, it provides the background for the second level of
prosopography, employed in chapters three and four, which is the "individual prosopography". This
level of prosopography gives the classic focus on the person (prosōpon), as considered above,
dealing mainly with specific textual sources. In this case, who were the chief scribes, when did they
operate, what titles did they hold, and who were their relatives, co-workers and students. Chapter
three deals specifically with the chief scribes (GAL DUB.SAR MEŠ ), chief scribes on wood (GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ), and related persons, as reflected mainly from the Hittite cuneiform texts. Chapter
four deals specifically with the chief scribes (MAGNUS.SCRIBA) appearing in HL evidence, and
tries to clarify their chronology and specific scribal duties. Chapter five, the final one, considers the
main conclusions and displays a schematic diagram of scribal relationships, i.e. kinship ties,
hierarchy, etc., established in the course of the individual prosopographies. Throughout the chapters
there are references to the individual prosopographies or sections within the study in the form of
CHAPTER.SECTION(.SUB-SECTION.NAME), for example: II.3 or III.1.a.Mittannamuwa.
12 Cf. Bulst 1986: 3–5.
7

5. Chronological framework for the prosopographical study
Houwink ten Cate (1973a: 257) has defined a classical 'starting-point' for a prosopogrphical study
of the Hittite Empire Period: the two large witness lists of the Ulmi-Tešub treaty (KBo 4.10+) and
Šahurunuwa land concession (KUB 26.43), now supplemented by the witnesses of the later
discovered Bronze Tablet (Bo 86/299). 13 One can be certain that the witnesses, who were of the
highest echelons of the court such as the crown prince ( LÚ tuhukanti) and chief of the royal guard
(GAL MEŠEDI), lived and operated during the reigns of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV. Although
there is an ongoing controversy regarding the chronological sequence of these three texts and other
fragments connected with them which needs attention.
Two of the lists recorded in KBo 4.10+ and Bo 86/299 are gatherings of witnesses to the
signing of treaties between Hatti and its vassal state Tarhuntašša, which was given by Hattušili III
to Kurunta, son of Muwattalli II, in gratitude for his support against Urhi-Tešub (Singer 1996b:
64). 14 The first text refers to a king of Tarhuntašša named Ulmi-tešub and an unknown Hittite king,
the second mentions Tudhaliya IV and Kurunta of Tarhuntašša. The third list in KUB 26.43 records
the witnesses to a land grant of Tudhaliya IV, with Puduhepa at his side, to a high state official by
the name of Šahurunuwa. 15 Other texts which concern the dating sequence of the lists are ABoT 57,
a parallel of KBo 4.10+ containing a decree on the military obligations of Kurunta (Beckman
1989/90), KUB 31.32, a historical fragment (Rosi 1984: 124 n. 62), and KUB 48.119, a fragment of
a royal vow to the storm-god of Nerik (del Monte 1978: 180f.).
One group of scholars believes, based on the content, orthography and prosopography of the
texts mentioned, that the king referred to in KBo 4.10+ is Tudhaliya IV and the document is
roughly based on the earlier Bronze Tablet. Their main argument identifies Ulmi-Tešub as third son
of Muwattalli II and brother to Kurunta, hence his heir to the throne of Tarhuntašša (van den Hout
13 See also the preface to van den Hout's study (1995: 1f.). The first two witness lists were initially studied
by Laroche (1947/48: 40–48). KUB 26.43 was edited by Imparati 1974, KBo 4.10+ by Korošec 1943
and van den Hout 1995, and the Bronze Tablet, discovered in 1986, was published and edited by Otten
1988.
14 Van den Hout has argued that the setting of these events is to be assigned to the domain of royal family
private legal affairs as in the case of land grants for example (van den Hout 1995: 6–7). For a different
interpretation see Gurney (1983: 98–99).
15 See NH 1076 and a detailed profile in van den Hout 1995:151–154; see also here under III.3.
8

1989; Heinhold-Krahmer 1991/92; Houwink ten Cate 1992; Imparati and Pecchioli Daddi 1991;
Stefanini 1992; Mora 2003). More convincing, on my account, is the evidence raised by a second
group derived from a suggestion made by Güterbock long ago (1961: 86 n. 3) that Kurunta is the
Luwian name Ulmi-Tešub adopted after his accession (Klengel 1991; del Monte 1991/92; Beal
1992: 387 n. 1466; Sürenhagen 1992; Gurney 1993; Hawkins 1995: 62; Singer 1997; A. Dinçol
1998; Beckman 1999: 102). 16 Therefore associating KBo 4.10+ with Hattušili III and clarifying
some unexplained changes of office manifested as a result of the former theory. 17
Following the latter dating scheme, ABoT 57, which might have been an earlier composition
of the scribe of KBo 4.10+, 18 is to be associated with Hattušili III and Puduhepa. A reference to
them is made in ll. 10-11: [kinun⸗ma LUGAL SAL.]LUGAL⸗ya m d LAMMA-an [I-A URU d ]U-
da[šš]a [LUGAL-un i-e-er], “[But now the king] and [Qu]een [made] Kurunta [king in]
Tarhuntašša” (Beckman 1989/90: 292). 19 Not accepting the sequence proposed by van den Hout
(1995: 13–15), which relates KUB 31.32 and KUB 48.119 with Tudhaliya IV, the dating of the first
fragment remains uncertain while the latter is to be assigned to Hattušili III and Puduhepa, as
already proposed by Beal (1992: 387 n. 1466) and Gurney (1993: 24 n. 35).
With regard to the third list the question of its dating is still complicated (Pecchioli Daddi
1997: 172), but I see no reason to place it twenty years after the Bronze Tablet, c. 1220 B.C., as van
den Hout (1995: 14–19) suggests. The more sensible assumption, taking into account Puduhepa's
age at the time, would be to place it some time after the events of the Bronze Tablet, thus
concurring also with the information given by the oracular inquiry KUB 22.70 (Imparati 1992: 63;
Pecchioli Daddi 1997: 173). 20 The final outcome of this discussion would be the following
16 A third hypothesis not accepted, based on the current evidence, but still not altogether refuted, identifies
the unknown king of KBo 4.10+ with Ur.-T. (del Monte 1991/92: 141; Mora 2003: 295).
17 For example, the demotion of Tattamaru while his father promoted (Beal 1992: 387 n. 1466) or the case
of Nerikkaili named tuhukanti a second time by Tudh. IV, his half-brother (Singer 1997: 421f.).
18 Van den Hout (1995: 10–11) suggests it was an earlier composition incorporated later into KBo 4.10+
and places both texts under CTH 106. Contra his opinion see Imaparti and Pecchioli Daddi 1991: 51ff.
19 Kurunta describes in Bo 544/f (=SBo II Text 1: 10f.), sealed by him as Prince (REX.FILIUS), how Hatt.
III and Puduhepa placed him on the throne of Tarhuntašša when he was a prince (Beckman 1989/90:
291f.). For a possible depiction of his coronation scene told by Hatt. in the fragmentary text KUB 21.37
(ll. 37'-44') and its relation to the former sealed fragment see Singer 2001b: 401–403.
20 On the dating of KUB 22.70 to Puduhepa see Ünal 1978: 36–52; Singer 1991: 331. For a dating of KUB
26.43 before the Bronze Tablet suggesting that Puduhepa was not alive when the latter was signed see
del Monte 1991/92: 135.
9

chronological sequence of texts: KUB 48.119 – ABoT 57 – KBo 4.10+ – KUB 31.32(?) – Bronze
Tablet – KUB 26.43.
A chronological table (Tab. 1.1) is further supplied here to facilitate the discussions made in
the following chapters. It incorporates the Hittite great kings, vassal kings and a few major events,
some considered throughout this study, of the 13 th century BCE. The chronology used is based on
the chronological tables and synchronisms supplied in three major historical studies: Klengel (1999:
388–393) on the Hittite sources, Singer (1999a: 734) on the political history of Ugarit, and
d'Alfonso (2005: 209 Tab. 2) on the legal documents from North-Syria.
10

Tab. 1.1
11

II. The Scribal Profession in Hattuša
Hittite scribes, like their Mesopotamian counterparts, 21 traced their origin back to prestigious
patronyms. While some Mesopotamian patronyms had no grasp in reality, merely used to enhance
a particular scribe’s invented lineage, Hittite scribal lineages seem to be genuine; at least those
cited in Empire Period colophons. For example, one might refer to the lineage of the 13 th century
scribe Hanikkuili, 22 restored by Beckman (1983b: 103–106) from the colophons of two tablets
(KBo 19.99, KBo 6.4): the first member in his lineage is the Babylonian scribe Anu-šar-ilāni, who
lived in the 15 th century. Such scribes, like Anu-šar-ilani, brought from Mesopotamia their writing
system 23 as well as the current schooling curriculum, 24 which was studied at the É.DUB.BA.A
“Tablet House” – the archival institution and scribal school whose offices were situated both in the
palace and temples of Hattuša and in other provincial centers (Archi 1973: 214; CAD Ṭ: 149). A
21 Hattuša is considered one of the largest schooling centers of Akk. in the periphery, studies in
Boğhazköy Akk. are in much need of an update, see Labat 1932 and also the unpublished 1976 diss. by
Durham. Other noted centers were Syrian Ugarit (Huehnergard 1989; Van Soldt 1991) and Emar
(Seminara 1998), and to a much lesser extent El-Amarna (Izre'el 1997), Ammuru (Izre'el 1991),
Alalakh, Nuzi, Qatna, Susa and Cannan (Izre'el 2005).
22 H and H suppl. 272; Onomastique on line. His activities are dated by Beckman (1983b: 106f.) to the
later reign of Tudh. IV or Arnu. III's reign (cf. also Salvini 1980: 165 who prefers Arnu. III). Note,
however, the redating of his career by Miller 2004: 37f., and also in the present study under III.2.
23 Borrowing of the cun. script took place sometime in the late 17 th cent. (OH) probably from a Syrian
center (Gamkrelidze 1961; Beckman 1983b: 100), which could very well be Alalakh VII (Güterbock
1954: 393 apud Speiser; Klinger 1998: 371), although the OA colonies in Anatolia have also been
suggested as a possible source (Hecker 1992).
24 On Mesopotamian curriculum see Michalowski 1991. The curriculum of the OH period seems to have
been influenced by the Akk. Sargonic tradition and OB narû literature (Beckman 1983b: 100f.; Cohen
forthcoming). Other influenced genres include for instance Akk. versions of Hitt. historical texts and
heavily Akkadographic land grants (Easton 1981; Beckman 1983b: 102f.). In MH times Hurr. scribes
introduced their elements into the learning material in the form of vocabularies, mythological
compositions, omina etc. (Güterbock 1954; Kammenhuber 1976: 60ff.; Hoffner 1992; on the scribes see
Mascheroni 1984). The Hurr. material extended well into the LH period followed by an increasing
influence of Luw. on scribal works (i.e. Luwianisms), studied recently by Melchert 2005, van den Hout
2006a and Singer 2005:444–447. Moreover, on the learning material of Ugarit and Emar see van Soldt
1995; Cohen forthcoming.
12

shared religious world incorporated into the scribal tradition manifested in the cult of the patron
deities of the profession: Nisaba, Nabû and Ea (Oppenheim 1965: 256), though more evident in
Ugarit and Emar, 25 this cult was also introduced to the Hittite world through Hurrian mediation, as
evident in a number of festivals from Hattuša (Lebrun 1983: 56; Haas 1994: 813f.; Archi 2006:
154, 156). The scribal community just described, during the 13 th century at least, was certainly
biscriptual if not bilingual, using HL script on seals and monumental inscriptions adjacent to
cuneiform writing on clay tablets (Melchert 2005; Singer 2005; van den Hout 2006a).
The present chapter aims to be both a short introduction into scribal society in Hattuša and a
collective prosopography of the scribes in the city. First, the character and organization of the main
work places of the scribes will be explored, namely, the buildings which housed clay tablets, and
those where in all likelihood wooden writing boards were stored, in which only clay bullae
remained as evidence. Second, the ways in which the scribes documented the organization of the
archives are treated, through a brief review of colophons, tablet catalogues and shelf labels. The
third and last part of the chapter includes a survey of the titles held by Hittite scribes and educated
officials (as those officials who held scribal titles but did not perform any scribal duty per se [i.e.
drafting texts, supervising, etc.] are called here), and the results of a statistical study made on the
scribes of Hattuša in the Empire Period; namely, the abovementioned collective prosopography of
all scribes and educated officials which I could find in cuneiform and HL documents of the 13 th
century BCE.
1. The archives of Hattuša: main work places of the scribes
Studies into the organization of Ancient Near Eastern archives have become a main issue in the
scholarship over the past decades, ever since archaeological missions began to methodically
document the find spots of archival finds, such as clay tablets and seal impressions. This approach,
sometimes termed "archival", is nicely described by Posner in his 1972 book on archives in the
ancient world: "A cursory study of the more recent excavation reports–those on Mari, Ugarit,
Pylos, and Nimrud, for instance–reveals that the archival approach to the tablets has been accepted
de facto: the exact spots where the tablets were found are entered on survey maps, and the tablets
themselves are numbered as found so that the original relationships between them are on record,
even if the texts are published in a different, possibly a subject arrangement." In the Hittite capital
Hattuša (Fig. 2.1), however, excavated since the beginning of the 20 th century, the find spots of at
25 Vita 1999: 473; Cohen forthcoming
13

least a third of the clay tablets, those found during the early excavations, were practically lost due
to lack of documentation (Alaura 2001; van den Hout 2002a: 858f.; 2006b: 77). Nevertheless,
owing to improved methods employed by the excavators from the 1930's onwards, and the efforts
of scholars to retrace the find spots in several buildings, 26 we have a much better view on the
organization of the tablet collections in Hattuša, specifically during the last few decades of the
Empire Period. 27
The major tablet collection were found in and around buildings A, B, D, E and K on the
acropolis, 28 also known as Büyükkale, and in the Lower City of Hattuša in the area of the Great
Temple (henceforth Temple 1); more specifically in some of the storerooms which surround it and
in a building to its south-west known as the Haus am Hang (henceforth House on the Slope). 29
Smaller tablet collections were unearthed in some of the Upper City temples and at the Westbau of
Nişantepe, the latter holding primarily large amounts of sealed clay bullae (see below).
The premise of such ancient archives is that they grow from the ruling body and the officials
serving under it, who daily cared after, copied and studied the documents stored within them
(Veenhof 1986: 9). Therefore, it is no surprise that the Hittite scribes seem to distinguish between
records with long term significance, 30 which were recopied and edited, sometimes over a period of
centuries, and records of a short term relevance, 31 which were as a rule discarded, recycled or
destroyed after only one or two generations (van den Hout 2002a: 863–865; 2005: 282f.; 2006a:
219f.; 2006b: 78f.). Nevertheless, since these genres are found mixed within the major tablet
collections, it is problematic to impose the modern notions of "archive" or "library" on any of them
(van den Hout 2005). 32 In any case, this characteristic of some of the tablet collections is what, in
my opinion, indicates on the multi-functionality of the buildings which housed them as
administrative bureaus, archives and perhaps scribal schools.
26 Especially Güterbock 1991/92; Košak 1995; Alaura 1998; 2001 and the invaluable Košak, Konkordanz.
27 See for example the reconstruction of the "paper trail" in the administrative offices in the reign of Tudh.
IV as suggested by van den Hout 2006b.
28 Tablets were also found in buildings C, F, G, H, J, M and N, most likely in secondary context (van den
Hout 2006b: 83).
29 For a review of the archives of Hattuša see Pedersén 1998: 44–56.
30 Historigraphical compositions, instructions, laws, prayers, festivals, rituals, mythology, lexical lists etc.
31 Primarily administrative documents: letters, court depositions, non-celestial oracles, vows, cult
inventories, etc.
32 On the definitions of archive and library see the bib. cited in van den Hout 2002a: 876 n. 69.
14

Fig. 2.1: Hattuša, the Hittite capital
(adopted with my additions from www.hattuscha.de/Deutsch/stadttour.htm)
For example, building A on Büyükkale (henceforth Bk. A) seems to have been both an
archive and bureau where texts of long term relevance were stored, copied and edited, such as
important festivals, rituals, and celestial and non-celestial omens (Singer 1983a: 21f.; Košak 1995;
Alaura 2001: 25f.; van den Hout 2005: 288; 2006b: 96; Klinger 2006: 13f.). 33 The presence of such
an archive in this building finds further support in archaeological evidence: charcoal traces and
pillar bases, which suggest the use of shelves (van den Hout 2002a: 860). Evidently, Bk. A had also
the function of a library, since it seems to have housed the bulk of the Sumero-Akkadian literature
33 For more on this archive see under III.1.b.conclusions.
15

(van den Hout 2005: 287f.), which was probably kept of scholarly interest and also played a role in
scribal education, thus implying, in my view, the presence of a scribal school at one point, 34 as
already suggested by Neve (1982: 107) based on the presence of several long halls in this building.
A further example of such multi-functionality of venues housing large tablet collections is
that of the storerooms surrounding Temple 1 and the House on the Slope. Both van den Hout
(2006b: 97) and Torri (2007a: 780f.) seem to find a connection between the more general
administrative function of the storerooms around Tample 1 and the more specific function of the
nearby House on the Slope, namely, that texts copied in the latter venue were moved to the former.
Archaeological evidence supports the activities of many scribes in the Südareal, south of Temple 1,
where 12 bronze styli were found in several rooms of complex XIII (Boehmer 1972: 133f., 196f.).
Both this latter location, which is sometimes referred to as the É GIŠ.KIN.TI, 35 and the House on
the Slope have been suggested to accommodate also a scribal school (Güterbock 1975b: 132; Bryce
2002: 65; Torri 2007a: 776 and n. 31). Supporting the existence of such a school in the É
GIŠ.KIN.TI, at least, is the fact that the primary find spot of lexical texts – the building blocks of
the scribal curriculum – in Hattuša is the storerooms around Temple 1 (van den Hout 2005: 288);
among them one Izi=išatu vocabulary found in the Südareal itself. 36
Certain venues also housed archives of a more administrative/economic nature, in which one
finds grants of land, recently redated to the Middle Kingdom (15 th century; Wilhelm 2005), issued
to prominent individuals, written in formulaic Akkadian and sealed with a royal tabarna seal
(Herbordt 2005: 27f.; Bawanypeck 2006: 117f.). Such land grants were as a rule not copied, but as
long as they were valid it deemed necessary to keep them, sometimes for several centuries (van den
Hout 2002a: 871). The land grants were found in two archives next to large collections of sealed
clay bullae, which generally date from Šuppiluliuma I onwards: building D on Büyükkale (the so
called Siegeldepot, henceforth Bk. D), 37 and the Westbau in Nişantepe, 38 and next to a smaller
collection of sealed bullae in some Upper City temples. 39 A fair amount of clay bullae, not related
34 See also the evidence under III.1.b.Walwaziti which seems to support this notion.
35 According to Bittel 1976: 131–134; cf. also Neve 1975: 79 and Güterbock 1975b: 131f.
36 KBo 26.49 (CTH 303); for the find spot see the Košak, Konkordanz. More evidence supporting the
existence of such as a school is discussed under IV.2.a.Šauškaruntiya.
37 The c. 200 bullae were published as SBo I and II.
38 Roughly 3,500 sealed bullae were uncovered, the largest such find in the Hittite Empire to date. The
official sealings were published by Herbordt 2005. On the royal seal impressions see Otten 1993; 1995
and Bawanypeck 2006.
39 Herbordt 2005: 21.
16

with the land grants, was uncovered in some of the storerooms surrounding Temple 1 (Güterbock
1975a). Outside Hattuša sealed bullae were found almost in every site with a Hittite presence, such
as Maşat-Tapikka, Kuşakli-Šarišša, Tarsus, Korucutepe, Kaman Kalehöyük and more (Mora 1987;
2000; Herbordt 2005: 21f.; 2006). The bullae were sealed primarily with three types of seals: 1. di-
graphic royal seals, which portray in the center the HL name of the king or queen flanked by royal
titular and on the outside field a cuneiform legend with name, titles and blessings, 2. anonymous
royal Labarna seals (Otten 1995; Bawanypeck 2006), and 3. HL seals of officers, court officials,
temple personnel and other title holders (Herbordt 2005: 91–112; Hawkins 2005a). As we will see
further below, out of the bullae sealed by officials, the most were sealed by scribes (HL SCRIBA)
of various rank and status, thus hinting on the large numbers of scribes, or persons with a certain
degree of scribal education (educated officials), in all levels of the administration.
It is generally assumed that in Empire Period Hattuša the bullae were attached to strings
bounding wooden writing boards which recorded land grants, because of the bullae's close affinity
in the archives to the Middle Kingdom land grants (Bawanypeck 2006: 115f.; Marazzi 2000; 2007).
A wooden writing board was recovered from the Late Bronze shipwreck of Ulu-Burun (Payton
1991), and the use of such writing boards is further attested in Late Bronze Age texts from Hittite
Anatolia and North-Syria (Symington 1991), as well as in contemporary Assyria (Postgate 2003:
133–136). 40 However, this was certainly not the only function of these wooden writing boards, as
they were also likely used to record content lists and other economic activities, later summarized on
the more durable clay tablets (Mora 2007). Furthermore, the Hittite scribes also used wooden
writing boards to record letters, festivals, 41 and during army campaigns (Symington 1991: 116–
123).
Apart from being attached to Middle Kingdom land grants and Empire Period writing
boards, bullae were also likely attached to important state treaties, which were at times written on
metal such as bronze or silver (Herbordt 2005: 27–29). State treaties were also one of those
exceptional tablets that the Hittites from time to time sealed; otherwise, only rarely does one find
sealed tablets at the archives of Hattuša, as was the custom in sites under Hittite control in North-
Syria, such as Ugarit and Emar (Ugar. III; Beyer 2001; Herbordt 2005: 30–32). Lastly, we have
sealed clay bullae and sealings not used for archival purposes, but for economic and administrative
uses: container sealings, which sometime have residue on their back side of leather or other
40 The common terminology used is Sum. GIŠ.HUR, Akk. lēʾu, Hitt. gulzattar (Symington 1991: 113).
41 Note the phrase in the colophons: ANA GIŠ.HUR-kán hāndan "according to the wooden writing board"
(Mascheroni 1983; Singer 1983a: 41f.; Torri 2007a: 778f.), for which see also under II.2.
17

materials hinting on their use, and storeroom door sealings (Herbordt 2005: 34–36; Bawanypeck
2006: 115; Hagenbuchner 2007).
So in conclusion, it would seem that the tablet collections of Hattuša were organized
according to a certain system which reflects the multi-functionality of the buildings that housed
them as archives, bureaus and from time to time also as libraries and schools. Sealed bullae
archives were probably large archives of land grants, but also of other types of economic and
administrative texts, as well as various sealed containers, which indicate of the involvement of
scribes in such tasks, and their versatility with other types of tablets such as wood and even metal.
Next, we shall touch upon some of the important textual tools used by the scribes in the
organization of the tablet collections that also help to identify their daily tasks.
2. Organizing the archives: colophons, tablet catalogues and labels
In order to facilitate their daily tasks in the tablet archives, and organize the tablet collections, the
Hittite scribes utilized three main tools: colophons, tablet catalogues and shelf labels. Colophons
were the primary means of Mesopotamian scribes to record key archival information on the tablets
themselves, usually on their last column, such as the name of the composition, the number of its
tablets, the title of the series, the number of the lines and so on (Leichty 1964; Hunger 1968; Borger
1970; Gesche 2000: 153–166). This method was taken up by the Hittite scribes as well, 42 but
seemingly in their own style, which is less detailed than that of their Mesopotamian counterparts
(Karasu 2001). 43 The position of the colophon, on the back of the tablet or its left edge (Laroche
1949: 7; Otten 1980-83: 187), facilitated the tablet's retrieval from a shelf or a container without
having to read through its entire content (Karasu 1996: 54f.). Therefore, the wording of the
colophon was certainly important for the daily copying work. However, this was not the case from
the very beginning of the Hittite Kingdom, as the following chronological review shows. 44
It appears that already during the Old Hittite Kingdom the scribes entered a brief remark
regarding the state of the composition: "finished" or "not finished" (QATI / TIL.LA or ŪL QATI /
42 On Hittite colophons see the studies of Laroche 1949; Mascheroni 1983; Otten 1980-83; Singer 1983a:
40–43; Karasu 1995; 1996; 2001; Torri 2007a; Cohen forthcoming.
43 Other close contemporary colophons are those of Ugarit (Van Soldt 1988) and Emar (Cohen
forthcoming).
44 Such a review does not seem to exist in the present literature (cited in n. 42).
18

NU.TIL), or a short title of the work (Otten 1980-83: 188). From the Middle Hittite Kingdom
onwards the colophons evolved and more data was inserted, including, for example, the signature of
the scribe and his supervisor, 45 the sources used and the purpose of the copy. 46 During this period
we find in the colophon of the prism of the Naram-Sîn epic (KBo 19.99, side b; CTH 819) the only
occasion, which is known to me, where the scribe mentions the patronage of the scribal deities, both
the Mesopotamian and Anatolian (Beckman 1983: 103f.).
In the Empire Period, the colophons are even more elaborated on the procedure of the
copy, 47 its purpose 48 and the disposition of the tablet. 49 One of the most noteworthy procedures
documented in the colophons of this period is found in the festival colophons, which from time to
time denote that the texts were copied or collated according to a wooden writing board (ANA
GIŠ.HUR-kán hāndan). 50 The work on some of these texts seem to have been performed by a team
of scribes, a scribe of clay tablets and a scribe of wooden writing boards, 51 working in a sort of
collaboration denoted in the colophons with the ambiguous term KASKAL "road, journey, mission"
45 See for example KUB 32.19+++ (CTH 777.8) signed by AMAR-ti (Hubiti?) and copied in front of
NU.GIŠ.SAR (Mascheroni 1984: 157 [note, however that her dating of the colophon to the Empire
Period is incorrect]).
46 See KUB 29.8++ (CTH 777.2.A) in Salvini 1980: 157f.
47 Namely, in the presence of whom the text was copied (PAI PN), who was perhaps the proofreader or
dictator, or both (Singer 1996a; Karasu 2001: 253). Some scribes denote in the colophon who copied the
text before them, see for example: KBo 23.1+++ (CTH 472.A; Mascheroni 1984: 163f.; Strauß 2006:
264); KBo 42.28 (CTH 616; ed. of the colophon under III.1.b.Nani(n)zi).
48 For example, note the famous (h)išuwa colophons which describe how Puduhepa ordered the chief
scribe Walwaziti to search for the tablets of Kizzuwatna in order to reedit the festival in honor of Hatt.
III (Salvini 1980: 163; Salvini & Wegner 1984: 177–179; Wegner & Salvini 1991: 3–6; see also under
III.1.b.Walwaziti). Another pertinent example is the colophon of KUB 13.7 (CTH 258.2) which
indicates that the tablet was made anew by the scribe after the previous copy was destroyed (Karasu
2001: 250). At least in two other cases the colophon indicates that the tablet was previously refurbished
by another scribe who was not the copyist (Güterbock 1979: 141).
49 Note for example parkui tuppi "pure tablet", namely, a corrected tablet (CHD P: 166a) or a final
(literally genuine) copy (Singer 1983a: 4); see also under III.1.b.Nani(n)zi.
50 For these colophons see Mascheroni 1983; Singer 1983a: 41f.; Houwink ten Cate 1973b: 187 and n. 41;
Karasu 1995; see also under III.2.
51 There are a few instances in which another scribe of clay tablets is mentioned, thus resulting in a team
of three scribes (Mascheroni 1983; Torri 2007a: 778; see also under III.2).
19

(Mascheroni 1983; Singer 1983a: 41f.; CHD P: 77; Torri 2007a: 778f.). 52 Colophons of festivals
and rituals also frequently enumerate the number of the tablet which is copied, and sometimes have
more elaborated titles, which include not only that of the festival but also that of a specific daily
celebration (Otten 1980-83; Cohen forthcoming).
As for scribal signatures, they become much more frequent in the Late Empire Period,
containing longer genealogies, additional titles, reference to instructors, and even the scribe's city of
origin. 53 Apart from the frequent signature of ŠU + PN "hand of PN" to designate the hand of the
copyist, one finds also a unique use of EME by a certain Attanalli, probably meaning "(thus) speaks
Attanalli", 54 in the colophon of the very late tablet VS NF 12.58+ (CTH 495). 55 Very rare are
signatures in HL, of which I could recognize at least three instances. 56 In two of these cases it is not
certain if the HL signatory was the copyist, since the tablet also contains a cuneiform signature of a
different name, 57 whereas in the third case it seems likely the HL signatory is the scribe, since his
signature follows a colophon containing only the title of the work. 58
Finally, the following entries show the most common traits of Empire Period colophons
discussed above, more or less in the order in which they usually appear on the tablet. 59 Be aware,
however, that there is no one formula, all entries are entirely optional and may or may not be
included by the scribe (nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 frequently appear):
1. Tablet number, status of the work (completed / not completed)
2. Title of the series, specific tablet, daily celebration (of a festival or ritual)
52 Note Doǧan-Alparslan 2007: 248, which follows Karasu in interpreting KASKAL as referring to the
title of the scribes, thus "Wandertafelschreiber" or "Wanderholtztafelschreiber", which seems unlikely
given its position before the name of scribe.
53 See the various colophons edited throughout this study and the titles studied in the next section (II.3).
54 Maybe indicating on dictation?; on EME see HZL no. 147, and its attestations and uses under the Hitt.
phonetical reading lala- in CHD L-N: 21–25.
55 For a translit. of the text and the dating of its ductus see Groddek et al. 2002: 98; the peculiar
characteristics of the rituals to the deities of the city of Arušna that are described in it were recently
presented by Miller in the VII. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum, 25-31 Ağustos, 2008.
56 The signatures in KBo 13.62 rev. (CTH 209.23), KBo 22.214 VI (CTH 620) are listed in Ünal 1989; cf.
Mascheroni 1983: 102 and Torri 2007a: 779f. A third signature on VBoT 87, listed by Ünal as
"unidentified hieroglyphic signs", is suggested under III.1.b.Walwaziti to be a scribal signature.
57 KBo 13.62 rev. and KBo 22.214 VI.
58 VBoT 87.
59 Cf. Karasu 2001: 252–254.
20

3. Purpose; disposition; source
4. Name of the copyist (usually denoted with ŠU PN "hand of PN") / team of scribes (only
festival texts copied from wooden writing boards, denoted with KASKAL) / EME ("(thus)
speaks", only once by Attanalli)
5. Titles (most common DUB.SAR); genealogy; city of origin (almost exclusively URU Ukkiya)
6. Name of instructor (the copyist is usually denoted as GÁB.ZU.ZU ŠA PN "student of PN")
7. Name of Supervisor + titles (usually denoted with PAI PN "in front of PN")
Moving to the issue of tablet catalogues and labels, these can provide us with pertinent
information of how certain shelves in the archive may have looked at some point. The catalogues,
or shelf-lists, as they are commonly called, are stock taking lists of tablets in the archive, which
generally record one or more of the following information under each entry: the title of the
composition, usually the first line of the text; the author of the text, if there was one; the number of
the tablets in a given series; the physical disposition of the tablet (for example IM.GÍD.DA "long
tablet"); and whether or not the composition on the shelf is complete (Laroche 1949: 14–23; van
den Hout 2002a: 860–862; Hoffner 2003c; Dardano 2006). These catalogues originate from several
buildings on Büyükkale, the Temple 1 storerooms and the House on the Slope, and generally date to
the Late Empire Period, with only a few MH pieces (van den Hout 2002a: 860f.; Dardano 2006:
12). Whether the catalogues are inventories of the tablets in the buildings where they were found is
still a matter of some debate, 60 but what is certain is that they record the texts in a very selective
fashion, focusing on genres which were as a rule copied, but even then not all of this material, thus
suggesting it was stored in a specific shelf or room separated from the other genres (van den Hout
2002a: 877f.).
As for the labels (Etiketten), they are small elliptic shaped pieces of clay which contain the
title of a tablet or a series of tablets, thus facilitating their recognition when placed on the shelf in
front of them (Karasu 1996: 55–59). Their use does not seem to be widespread, since only a small
number of these labels were uncovered, mainly in room 5 of Bk. A (Güterbock 1933: 38f. and Abb.
19; 1991/92: 132f.). Perhaps this indicates on a use with a specific set of tablets.
In conclusion, the day-to-day work of the copyists and supervisors in the bureaus, archives
and schools required the organization of the compositions. Already during the MH kingdom came
into use the more elaborate colophons and shelf lists, which seem to be tools for selective
60 Regarding the situation in Bk. A see Otten 1986: 189, Güterbock 1991/92: 133–137; Košak 1995: 175
and van den Hout 2002a: 861f.
21

organization of the tablet collections in the buildings of the Hittite capital. During the Late Empire
Period this evidence becomes much more solid, as we identify in the colophons many of the tasks
performed by the scribes, such as the renewing of older tablets, the transferring of wooden writing
boards onto clay tablets and more. However, the evidence of the tablet catalogues is much more
limited and may relate to specific archival collections. This certainly seems to agree with the
possibility that buildings housing large tablet collections had several functions, as concluded in the
previous section. Next we will conclude our brief review of the scribal work in the Hittite capital by
studying the titles and professions of the scribes in the tablet colophons and on HL seals and seal
impressions, according to a statistical study of the title holders.
3. The scribal personnel
Scribes were identified in the various Hittite sources according to established cuneiform and
Hieroglyphic professional designators (Tab. 2.1, 2.2). 61 Most common are the general designations
for "scribe": sumerographic title DUB.SAR in cuneiform sources, 62 and SCRIBA(-la) (L. 326 (– L.
175)) in HL documents, 63 which is phonetically read as Hittite/Luwian tuppala- (Laroche 1956c:
61 Cf. Herbordt 2005: 98–100 and Doǧan-Alparslan 2007: 247–249.
62 For DUB.SAR see HZL no. 99 and textual attestations in Pecchioli-Daddi 1982: 161–166. This term for
a scribe was widespread in the Ancient Near East starting from the Ur III and OB periods. During these
earlier periods it has been suggested that such a title held an honorific designation of one that graduated
from the scribal school (Hallo 1972: 88 n. 7). Another term used in connection with the scribal school in
Mesopotamia is the DUMU É DUB.BA(.A), maybe connected more with accounting, administrative
duties and registration of goods (Sasson 2002: 213–214; CAD Ṭ: 149f.). Note that in Hittite Ugarit (RS
17.28/76) we find also the use of the sumerogram ZA A.BA for "scribe" (Laroche 1956a: 147).
63 The SCRIBA sign is one of the earliest HL signs used as a profession or title marker on seals already in
the OH period quite frequently, sometimes accompanied by the added blessings BONUS "good,
wellbeing" and VITA "life" (Glyptik: 43–46; Hawkins 2003: 167; Bolatti Guzzo 2004: 233). BONUS2 is
also sometimes added to SCRIBA as part of the logographic title on seals, thus BONUS2 SCRIBA,
which was interpreted by Hawkins (1979: 153) on the Late Period MEHARDE stele as "noble scribe".
Hawkins (2005a: 311), however, has since abandoned this translation, and follows Güterbock (1975a:
73f.; cf. Herbordt 2005: 91) in perceiving BONUS2 as merely wishing the title bearer good fortune, as
was established for BONUS2 VIR2 "good (to) the man"; mainly since cuneiform does not show any such
hierarchy between "noble scribe" and any other type of scribe.
22

27f.). Whereas the DUB.SAR's who signed the colophons seem to copy clay tablets, another type of
scribe was associated with wooden writing boards: the scribe on wood (DUB.SAR.GIŠ). HL has no
specific title for this position, and though all three scribes on wood identified in the cuneiform texts
of Hattuša had HL seals, only Pihawalwi has seals with the title SCRIBA combined with number
signs, which may or may not have a bearing on his cuneiform title (Herbordt 2005: 98; see also
Tab. 2.3 below). A different set of titular was reserved for the overseers of scribal activities, known
as chief scribe (GAL DUB.SAR) and chief scribe on wood (GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ), both phonetic
tuppalanuri-. 64 Again, HL does not seem to distinguish between these two positions, designating
both 'chiefs' as MAGNUS.SCRIBA (L. 363 – L. 326) (Herbordt 2005: 98; Singer 2006b: 243f.).
In Empire Period cuneiform documents we find other rarely attested combinations with
DUB.SAR which designate various ranks of scribal specialisation or status (Tab. 2.1), such as:
"junior / apprentice scribe" (DUB.SAR.TUR), 65 "scribe on wood of the army camp"
( LÚ DUB.SAR.GIŠ KARAŠ), scribe on wood of the border post ( LÚ DUB.SAR.GIŠ auriuš) and
"overseer of scribes on wood" (UGULA LÚ.MEŠ DUB.SAR.GIŠ). In comparison, markers of scribal
status or specialisation occur more often in HL documents (Tab. 2.2). Starting from the Early
Empire Period onwards we find combinations of SCRIBA with number signs, such as II, III or IV
line strokes, or a less frequent 'Haken' like sign (Herbordt 2005: 98f.). A reasonable explanation for
these number signs was given by Güterbock (Glyptik: 61, 76; cf. A. Dinçol's 1993: 129), who
suggested they were scribal ranks. However, the actual relationship between these SCRIBA
numbered ranks and the sporadically attested cuneiform ranks of scribal specialization mentioned
above lacks any reasonable explanation. 66 For example, out of 27 Empire Period officials who bear
the titles SCRIBA II, III, IV or 'Haken' (Tab. 2.3), only five are found drafting cuneiform texts.
Among these five, two are seemingly scribes on wood (Pihawalwi and perhaps also Ukkura 67 ), thus
suggesting that the numbered ranks of SCRIBA do not distinguish between DUB.SAR and
64 The latter term composed from OH gen. pl. tuppalan with a Hitt./Luw. suffix ura- “great” (Laroche
1956c: 27f.). Symington (1991: 122 n. 81) cautiously suggested that tuppa(la)nuri may refer to the
reading of GAL ( LÚ.MEŠ )DUB.SAR.GIŠ-ri (KBo 16.58 II 3) based on its phonetic compliment. This,
however, only shows that, as MAGNUS.SCRIBA, also tuppa(la)nuri does not differentiate between
chief scribe and chief scribe on wood.
65 These title holders were perhaps used from time to time as messengers (Houwink ten Cate 1998: 170).
66 Cf. Herbordt 2005: 100.
67 Although Ukkura does not bear the title DUB.SAR.GIŠ in any document, he is attested handling
wooden writing boards in the deposition KUB 13.35++ (CTH 293), issued against him by Puduhepa;
see n. 69.
23

DUB.SAR.GIŠ, indicating that we will likely not find any one-to-one cuneiform equivalents of
these HL ranks.
Nevertheless, there seems to be a differentiation in the HL documents between the SCRIBA
ranks and those of another specialised scribe, which is designated with the HL title
SCRIBA.EXERCITUS or EXERCITUS.SCRIBA "army scribe" (Herbordt 2005: 101; Hawkins
2005a: 309). Among these army scribes we find one in Nişantepe bearing the title
SCRIBA.EXERCITUS II (Ukkura) and another among the Temple 1 bullae with two seemingly
separate titles: EXERCITUS.SCRIBA and SCRIBA III (Armazi(ti?)) (Tab. 2.3). Their seal
impressions clearly show that "army scribe" was also a ranked title and that one can be on one level
as a scribe and on a different level as an army scribe. There are two other known army scribes:
Lupakki from the TAŞÇI A stone inscription (Hawkins 2005a: 292f.), 68 and a certain Pitikus[a ? ],
owner of a biconvex seal found in Malatya (Mora 1987: 309 no. XIIb 1.32). Indeed, these four
cases can be argued to be sporadic attestations, nevertheless, one should consider that such scribes
spent most of their time with the army camp or on various missions, 69 as also indicated from the
biconvex seal found in Malatya, and therefore had less to do with the capital's daily administration
(A. Dinçol 1993: 129 n. 7; Herbordt 2005: 101). It is clear to me that these army scribes worked on
wooden writing boards. This is also suggested from a possible cuneiform parallel of
SCRIBA.EXERCITUS in the abovementioned title "scribe on wood of the army camp" (Hawkins
2005a: 309). 70 Other rare HL specialised scribal titles, perhaps related to the military, seem to be
attested only in the Nişantepe archive: SCRIBA L. 400, which Hawkins (2005a: 270) interprets as
"thousand / army scribe", and ASINUS2A.DOMUS.SCRIBA "scribe of the É targassanas"
(Herbordt 2005: 101).
68 Likely father of Halwaziti, scribe of the Bronze Tablet; see under IV.2.a.Mahhuzzi.
69 Note for example the famous court deposition KUB 13.35++ (CTH 293), in which queen Puduhepa
prosecuted Ukkura the "overseer of ten" ( LÚ UGULA 10) and his son GAL- d U on the misappropriation
of horses, mules and equestrian equipment while on a diplomatic expedition to Babylon (Werner 1967:
3–20; Hoffner 2003a). This Ukkura is surely to be identified with Ukkura the holder of SCRIBA
EXERCITUS II seals mentioned above (cf. Hawkins 2005a: 277), since from the deposition it seems
evident that he handled writing boards (Symington 1991: 120); see n. 67.
70 On the relationship of the scribes on wood with the army see Symington 1991: 119.
24

Title (logogram)
Identified
officials 71
Scribes (generally work with clay tablets)
DUB.SAR.TUR 2 -
Title (Hitt./Luw.) Translations Ref.
25
junior / apprentice
scribe
DUB.SAR 83 tuppala- scribe, educated 72
GAL DUB.SAR MEŠ 5 tuppa(la)nuri chief scribe
Scribes on wood (specialize in writing on wooden writing boards)
DUB.SAR.GIŠ 3 - scribe on wood
LÚ DUB.SAR.GIŠ
KARAŠ
LÚ DUB.SAR.GIŠ
auriuš
UGULA
LÚ.MEŠ DUB.SAR.GIŠ
1 -
0 (1 73 ) -
0 (2 74 ) -
GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ 2 -
scribe on wood of
the army camp
scribe on wood of
the border post
supervisor / chief
of scribes on wood
chief scribe on
wood
Singer 1983a: 33f.; Torri 2007a:
773
Laroche 1956c: 26–29;
Pecchioli-Daddi 1982: 161–
166; HZL: 140 no. 99; HEG 10:
445
Laroche 1956c: 27f.; HEG 10:
444f.; Arnaud 1996: 58–61;
Singer 2003; Marizza 2007a:
271–275
Bossert 1958; Pecchioli-Daddi
1982: 166–168; Klengel 1996:
266f.; Symington 1991
Symington 1991: 119
Symington 1991: 119
Marizza 2007a: 283
Pecchioli-Daddi 1982: 527f.;
Symington 1991; Marizza
2007a: 271–275
Tab. 2.1: Cuneiform titles and designations of the Hittite scribal personnel in Hattuša
71 When a title is attested, but has no identified bearers, the unnamed attestations are entered in brackets
with references to their location in footnotes.
72 On this translation see Herbordt 2005: 98f. and more below.
73 KBo 13.207 obv. 2', a festival fragment (Otten & Součeck 1965: 28 and n. 13).
74 VS NF 12 106 15-20 (Groddek et al. 2002: 150–152); KUB 11.21a VI 11' (CTH 598.1.B).

HL Title Rendering
General scribal designations
L. 326
(- L. 175)
L. 326 + II
L. 326 + III
L. 326 + IV
L. 326 -
'Haken' (Late
L. 400?)
L. 363 -
L. 326
(- L. 175)
Identified
officials
SCRIBA(-la) 141
Cun. Hitt./Luw. Translation Ref.
DUB.SAR
(.GIŠ)
26
tuppala-
SCRIBA II 5 - -
SCRIBA III 11 - -
SCRIBA IV 1 - -
SCRIBA.
MILLE ?
MAGNUS.
SCRIBA(-la)
Specialized scribal designations
L. 101 -
L. 247 -
L. 326
L. 326 -
L. 269
ASINUS2A.
DOMUS.
SCRIBA
SCRIBA.
EXERCITUS
1 - -
10 75
GAL
DUB.SAR
(.GIŠ)
tuppa(la)n
uri
1 - -
3 76
LÚ DUB.
SAR.GIŠ
KARAŠ?
scribe or
scribe on
wood
2 nd degree
Scribe?
3 rd degree
Scribe?
4 th degree
Scribe?
Thousand /
army scribe?
chief scribe or
chief scribe on
wood
scribe of the É
targassanas
- army scribe
Laroche 1956c:
26f.; Herbordt
2005: 98–100
Glyptik: 61, 76;
Herbordt 2005:
98–100
Hawkins 2005a:
270
Laroche 1956c:
27f.; Herbordt
2005: 97
Hawkins 2005a:
301
Hawkins 2005a:
309
Tab. 2.2: HL designations, ranks of specialization and combined titles of the Hittite scribal personnel in Hattuša
75 Two uncertain attestations were not considered here, see chapter IV.2.d.
76 Considering only those identified in Hattuša.

SCRIBA +
ame (BOUS2) SCRIBA(-la ) SCRIBA II SCRIBA III SCRIBA IV MAGUS. SCRIBA Additional Titles Homonyms
'Haken'
Princes
Šauškamuwa Nis 366-367; 368-370 Nis 371 REX.FILIUS (Nis 365) Nis 372 (BONUS2 x)
Nis 670-674;
VITA+RA/I Nis 173
Beran, Glyptik Nis 675-676 REX.FILIUS, SCRIBA? (Nis 665-666)
no. 142
Kuni-lara / LINGUA+CLAVUS Nis 177 Nis 179-180?
Nis 45-48 (Nis 47=Bog V
MAGNUS (BONUS2) VITIS,
Nis 29-38 (-); Nis 39 (BONUS2 VIR2) = Nis 40
Armanani Nis 42-44
9=Glyptik 246); Bog III 11
MAGNUS.HATTI .DOMINUS (Nis 47-48, Bog V 9) (CULTER, BONUS2 VIR2) Nis 141(=Glyptik 217)-142;
144-149; Glyptik 189α
Inimuwa
Dignitaries
DEUS CERVUS3-ti REX SERVUS (Nis 497),
HASTARIUS (Nis 498), AVIS3+MAGNUS (Nis 494-496) Bog III 23 (BONUS2 VIR2) Nis 491-493; 494-496
(SCRIBA II EXERCITUS)
Ukkura Nis 497-498
Nis 247?? MAGNUS.PASTOR
Nis 243-246, 248-249, SBo II
80-81
Mizrimuwa
Scribes III and 'Haken'
Pirinkirwasu(?) SBo II 160; Nis 682-685 Nis 686
Nis 309; SBo II
94-95
Pihawalwi Nis 308, 558 Nis 310-311
Armapiya Nis 58-60; Glyptik 187 SBo II 102 Nis 61 (URCEUS); Nis 62 (BONUS 2 VIR 2)
Talmi-Tešub Nis 626-629; SBo II 109 Nis 630 L. 414-DOMINUS+MI (Nis 628) Nis 625 (-), same man?
Malaruntiya Nis 224-226 Nis 227
Armapihami Nis 53 Nis 54 EUNUCHUS2 (Nis 55-57); no title (SBo II 20)
L. 125-iaziti SBo II 205 Nis 679
*521-L. 461-L. 398 Nis 698-699 Nis 700
Armazzi / Armazi(ti) Glyptik 247 SCRIBA.EXERCITUS (Glyptik 247)
RS 18.20+17.371 (merchant of Ura/BONUS2 L.
443); SBo II 106 (-)
Kummayaziti Bog V 26 L. 414-DOMINUS (Nis 174)
AURIGA-niya Nis 446 Nis 444 (EUNUCHUS2) Scribes II
SBo II 56; Nis 112; Glyptik
Halpaziti
SBo II 57
193 (Bog V 26)
Tuwa Nis 471 Nis 486?
Tapaziti SBo II 93 SBo II 90
TONITRUS-LINGUA+CLAVUS Nis 648
L. 417.5-wasa Nis 580; SBo II 113
Fragmentary ames
[Tu]wani? Nis 579
Penti-[...] ANKARA silver bowl L. 414-[DOMINUS?]
]muha[ Nis 250
Ziti? Glyptik 157=Bog V 40
Ukkura – persons who are also DUB.SAR
27
Tab. 2.3: Princes, dignitaries and other officials with SCRIBA numbered ranks, their combined titles and homonyms

In a similar fashion to the Mesopotamian scribal profession (Hunger 1968: 8–11), the Hittite
scribal personnel were not made up only of various types of DUB.SAR's. One finds in Hittite
cuneiform sources several other types of officials performing scribal duties, such as drafting texts or
supervising other scribes (Tab. 2.4). One such title which refers to social class is LÚ SAG, 77 carried
by three scribes, all from the Empire Period. The most prominent of these is the supervisor
Anuwanza, dated to the reigns of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV (van den Hout 1995: 238–242;
Miller 2004: 38; Torri 2007a: 777). The question of how to translate the title LÚ SAG is still
debatable, 78 while Hawkins (2002) believes that the Late Empire Period social group relates to
eunuchs as its Mesopotamian counterpart, Starke (1996) would rather see it as a group of
"Vorrangige", part of the princes and lords. Nevertheless, their position in the scribal circles as well
as in other profession groups was quite prominent during the 13 th century (Starke 1996: 163). The
HL equivalent of LÚ SAG, EUNUCHUS2 (L. 254), also seems to appear quite frequently together
with SCRIBA on seals of officials (Tab. 2.5). The most common status marker which, in the case of
SCRIBA and SCRIBA II at least, seems to appear only on the seals is that of REX.FILIUS
"prince". 79 Less common are the combinations with VIR2 "man" and DOMINUS "lord", of which
the latter title is easily confused with the three strokes in SCRIBA III. 80
Returning to scribes attested in the cuneiform colophons, we find titles which directly relate
with levels of proficiency in the scribal circles, such as GÁB.ZU.ZU or the unicum ŠAGAN.LÁ,
both terms for "trainee", or EN GIŠ.KIN.TI "master of craftsmen", a title for a teacher attested up
till now only from the reign of Tudhaliya IV onwards. 81 Although the use of these designations is
sporadic, it gives us at least some clue as to standards of education and cursus honorum in the
scribal schools of Hattuša. 82
First, it seems that at least during the level of GÁB.ZU.ZU (or ŠAGAN.LÁ) the scribes
were educated either in tutorial style or in groups no larger than two, since the latter is the
77 On the reading of the LÚ as determinative rather than part of the title see Miller 2004: 318f. and more
evidence cited under III.2.b.Nani(n)zi.
78 Since we still lack clear evidence on the matter, I have avoided translating this title throughout the
study.
79 Cf. Hagenbuchner 2006: 3.
80 Note the ambiguous case of Kuni-LINGUA+CLAVUS/-lara (Nis 179-180; Herbordt 2005: 145).
81 See references to previous bib. on these titles in Tab. 2.4.
82 For more on possible locations of scribal schools in Hattuša see under II.1; III.1.b.Walwaziti;
IV.2.a.Mahhuzzi; Šauškaruntiya.
28

maximum number of students attested for a certain teacher. 83 In some cases the teacher could also
be the supervisor of the student, but, there was an obvious pedagogic difference between teaching
and supervising, because there seems to be no real limit to the number of scribes one could
oversee. 84
As for the teachers, it has been suggested that they were the fathers of the scribes (Bryce
2002: 60). Mainly because the genealogies in the colophons show that the scribal profession was
passed from father to son, thus indicating that the education was done within the family circle, as
was the custom in Mesopotamia. 85 Otten (1956) has even suggested that the kinship terms of
endearment, such as "sweet father", "sweet son" or "sweet brother", with which scribes seem to
address each other in several scribal letters, indicate on the continuation of the OB É.DUB.BA.A
tradition in the scribal schools of Hattuša. Ultimately, this evidence does not prove that the use of
the term DUMU in the colophons was to indicate student-teacher relationship instead of actual
kinship (Hagenbuchner 1989: 10–14). Though the fathers of the scribes likely had a prominent part
with their education, the fathers of the GÁB.ZU.ZU (or ŠAGAN.LÁ) are never attested as their
teachers, but could, nevertheless, be their supervisors. 86
Thus, hypothetically the first stages in a scribe's education would be the following: as a boy
he receives most of the curriculum from his elders. At a certain point he becomes GÁB.ZU.ZU (or
ŠAGAN.LÁ), and his education is given to a scribal expert outside the family circle, 87 usually a
supervisor. My tentative suggestion receives further weight from two trainees who bear the titles of
DUB.SAR.TUR "junior scribe" and A.ZU.TUR "junior physician", respectively. To a certain
extent, they are already considered trained in their profession, but are still "young" or "junior" title
holders, namely, lacking a crucial part of their education and professional experience.
As can be seen from the example just given, we know of other specific professions, such as
LÚ A.ZU "physician" or LÚ SANGA "priest", who seem to copy documents, and therefore have
received a certain degree of scribal training, for obvious purposes, since they also needed to write
83 Teachers with two students each are: Ziti B (III.2) and Halwaziti (IV.2.a.Mahhuzzi).
84 The most prolific scribal supervisor of the Empire Period seems to be Anuwanza the LÚ SAG, with 15
scribes, as could be observed from his prosopography in van den Hout 1995: 238–242.
85 On this Mesopotamian OB tradition see Veldhuis 1996: 13f.; Cohen forthcoming.
86 See for example the case of Talmi-Tešub and his father Walwaziti (III.1.b.Walwaziti).
87 Cf. Imparati 1999: 353 n. 122; for similar cases in Mesopotamia when they invite an instructor to a
certain house in order to educate the scribes see Robson 2001: 40, 62; Tanret 2002: 455f.; Cohen
forthcoming.
29

and consult the cuneiform documents. 88 Though their attestations are quite rare in the colophons, at
least in the case of SANGA, which is attested only once in the colophon of KUB 4.17 (Akk. ritual
fragment; Schwemer 1998: 147f.), we find HL evidence of scribal training in the form of the
combination SCRIBA and SACERDOS2 "scribe and priest" (Tab. 2.5), which appears on the HL
seal impression of HEROS, probably read Hastali (Nis 610; Herbordt 2005: 221).
Beside the above mentioned professions, whose bearers obviously copied documents, there
are other Hittite dignitaries and officials, who bear scribal titles but did not sign any documents,
working in the palace and temple bureaus, as well as stationed in the army ranks. Only seven are
known from cuneiform Empire Period evidence (Tab. 2.6), but many more are attested as SCRIBA
on their seals (Tab. 2.5). 89 Whether these officials received scribal training essential for their duties
(Beckman 1995: 25; Herbordt 2005: 98), or were actually at some point during their career scribes
(Marizza 2007c: 168f.), is yet to be determined. Many studies actually support the notion that
various types of officials, such as the LÚ MUŠEN.DÙ “augur” (Imparati 1985: 290; Bawanypeck
2005: 206f.; Hazenbos 2007: 106f.), or GAL LÚ.MEŠ MUBARRÎ "lord of declarations" (Singer 1999b;
Hawkins 2005a: 299f.), needed to consult written documents and possibly produce written reports.
Indeed, in the case, for example, of the two professions mentioned, we find among the SCRIBA
also AVIS3+MAGNUS "chief of augurs" and LIS.DOMINUS "lord of declarations".
88 Especially regarding the physicians in Hittite sources see Burde 1974; Beckman 1987-90; Imparati
1999: 353f.; Haas 2003: 7–10; in Egyptian sources see Nunn 1996: 113–135.
89 Cf. examples in Doǧan-Alparslan 2007: 248f; on the HL titles, their classification and translation see
here Appendix.
30

Title (logogram)
Identified
officials
Title (Hitt./Luw.) Translations Ref.
Ranks of scribal proficiency without DUB.SAR and other professions who drafted texts
GÁB.ZU.ZU 9 - trainee, assistant
ŠAGAN.LÁ 1 - trainee, assistant
EN GIŠ.KIN.TI 2 -
LÚ SANGA 1
šankunni /
šakkunni
31
master of
craftsmen
priest
Güterbock 1946: 40f.; CAD K:
29; Pecchioli-Daddi 1982: 168;
Mauer 1988: 190–194; HZL:
115 no. 49; CAD T: 103
(talmīdu); Torri 2007a: 776 n.
31; Cohen forthcoming
Hunger 1968: 9f.; CAD Š/1:
291–294; HZL: 228 no. 270
Güterbock 1975b: 132; HZL:
110f. no. 40; Torri 2007a: 774
n. 18
HZL: 208 no. 231; Klinger
2002; Tagar-Cohen 2006: 140–
228
LÚ
A.ZU.TUR 1 - junior physician Burde 1974: 10; HZL: 274–276
no. 364; Beckman 1987-90:
LÚ
A.ZU 1 - physician 630f.
(ŠA) LÚ SAG(-uš) 3 -
Uncertain officials with scribal duties or education
-
-
LÚ ašušatalla-
LÚ halipi-
either eunuch(?) or
chief (dignitary)
Tab. 2.4: Other titles of scribal personnel in Hattuša
HZL: 183f. no. 192; Starke
1996; Hawkins 2002; Pecchioli
Daddi 2006: 121–125
cultic functionary
(bard?, performer?) HW2 6/7: 538f.; HED 1: 221
-
AHw 1: 312; Beckman 1983b:
105 n. 44

Title/Profession (BOUS2) SCRIBA(-la) SCRIBA II SCRIBA III MAGUS.SCRIBA
REX.FILIUS
EUNUCHUS 2
DOMINUS
(BONUS 2) VIR 2
MAGNUS (BONUS) VITIS
MAGNUS.HATTI .DOMINUS
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
MAGNUS.PASTOR
Nis 42-44 (Armanani); 177, 179-180 (Kuni-
LINGUA+CLAVUS / Kunilara); 223
(Mahhuzzi); 366-367 (Šauškamuwa); 463, Bog
III 12 (Tiwataura); Nis 524 (x-zi/a-na ); 610
(Hastali); 666? (VITA+RA/I ); 771-773 (-);
SBo II 16 (Hešmi?-Šarruma); 31 ([…]-AVIS-
BOS 2); 23, Bog III 10 (Tarhuntapiya);
Nis 82-84 (Azatarhunta); 162 (Kilani?); 205
(Lulaku/Kulalu?); 622 (LINGUA+CLAVUSi(a)
); 774? (-); 775 (Kukku?); SBo II 92, Bo
82/84, RS 17.231 (Taprammi);
Nis 179-180? (Kuni-LINGUA+CLAVUS /
Kunilara); 240? (Miramuwa);
Nis 50? (Armananiya); 418 (Tarhuntapiya);
469? (Tutuwa); 582 ([…]-wa/i-zi/a ); 616
(LINGUA+CLAVUS-a );
Nis 243-246, 248-249, SBo II 80-81
(Mizrimuwa); Bo 82/202 (Anatali);
Tab. 2.5: Learned officials in Hittite HL seals and seal impressions (on the HL titles see Appendix)
32
Nis 45-48 (Nis 47=Bog V
9=Glyptik 246), Bog III 11
(Armanani); Nis 144-148
(Inimuwa);
Nis 45-48 (Nis 47=Bog V
9=Glyptik 246), Bog III 11,
Bo 84/575 (Armanani);
Nis 45-48 (Nis 47=Bog V
9=Glyptik 246), Bog III 11
(Armanani);
Nis 247? (Mizrimuwa);
AVIS 3+MAGNUS Nis 286 (Nanuwa); Nis 494-496 (Ukkura);
SBo II 28-29 ([…]-Pili); 8, 67,
30, Nis 376-378
(Šauškaruntiya); 72, 74
(Arnilizi); 221 (Mahhuzzi); 323-
326 (Penti-Šarruma); 571 ([…]-
Šarruma); Nis 394-403 (Taki-
Šarruma); 770 (-); Tars II 40,
Bog III 15 (Šahurunuwa);
SBo II 8, 30, Nis 376-378
(Šauškaruntiya); 324-326 (Penti-
Šarruma);
LIS.DOMINUS Nis 222 (Mahhuzzi); RS 17.109 (Ana(n)zi/a); Nis 219-220 (Mahhuzzi);
PITHOS.VIR.DOMINUS RS 17.231 (Taprammi);
PITHOS SBo II 36? (ASINUS 2-sà?);
URBS?-x Nis 755 (-);
SACERDOS 2
Nis 610 (Hastali);
VIR.TONITRUS SBo II 36 (ASINUS 2-sà / Šauška[…]);
CRUS 2.DOMINUS Nis 416-417 (Tarhuntamuwa);
HASTARIUS Nis 498? (Ukkura);
SCRIBA.EXERCITUS
SCRIBA.EXERCITUS II Nis 494-496 (Ukkura);
ASINUS 2A.DOMUS.SCRIBA Nis 634 (Nini);
L. 414-DOMINUS(+MI )
Nis 76-77 (Atta); 160? (ka- G. 195-i(a) ); 382
(Šauškawalwi); 628 (MAGNUS-TONITRUS);
SBo II 36 (ASINUS 2-sà?); Bo 84/412
(Kuniapiya);
DEUS CERVUS3-ti REX
SERVUS
Nis 497 (Ukkura);
FEMINA Nis 203?? (Lara);
MAGNUS L. 402 SBo II 63 (LINGUA+CLAVUS-su / Hata);
L. 402 Nis 439 (Tarkasnatali); Bo 83/994 (Malasu)
L. 490
Status
Chiefs/Greats
Palace/Civilian
Temple/Religious
Army
Uncertain affiliation
Glyptik 247
(Armazi(ti)?);
Bog III 15, Tars II 40
(Šahurunuwa);

Date ame Titles Text
Tudh. I or
Tudh. II/III 90
Muw. II
Beginning of
Tudh. IV
Kukkuwa
Kuruntapiya
( d LAMMA-SUM)
Kammaliya
ŠEŠ-zi
EN-tarwa
[Palla]
Kammaliya
Mahhuzzi
Anuwanza
DUMU.É.GAL,
DUB.SAR
LÚ antuwašalli LUGAL,
DUB.SAR
LÚ DUB.SAR, GAL
LÚ.MEŠ MUHALDIM
LÚ DUB.SAR MEŠ ,
UGULA MUBARRĪ
DUB.SAR,
UGULA É.GAL, LÚ SAG
[EN URU H]urme,
LÚ DUB.SAR, LÚ SAG
DUB.SAR,
GAL LÚ MUHALDIM
DUB.SAR,
GAL MUBARRĪ
DUB.SAR, EN URU Nerik,
LÚ SAG
33
KUB 34.45+KBo 16.63 obv. 11
(Legal Protocol)
KBo 1.6 rev. 21'f. (Aleppo Treay)
Bo 86/299 IV 41 (Bronze Tablet)
Bo 86/299 IV 41 (Bronze Tablet)
KUB 26.43 rev. 32 // 50 rev. 25'
(Šahurunuwa Decree)
KUB 26.43 rev. 32 // 50 rev. 26'
(Šahurunuwa Decree)
KUB 26.43 rev. 33 (Šahurunuwa
Decree)
Tab. 2.6: Learned officials in Hittite cuneiform texts
KUB 26.43 rev. 33 // 50 rev. 27'
(Šahurunuwa Decree)
KUB 26.43 rev. 34 // 50 rev. 28'
(Šahurunuwa Decree)
Note the frequent combination of SCRIBA with various chiefs of the army, 91 as well as with
the title L. 414-DOMINUS(+MI); the latter used by six different seal bearers (Tab. 2.5). The title is
interpreted by B. Dinçol (2001: 101) as EN hekur, since L. 414 could also be read as L. 413, the
sign hi, which could stand for an abbreviation of NA 4hekur "eternal peak". 92 However, there is no
such combination attested in cuneiform titles. The only scribal related title with logographic EN,
equivalent of HL DOMINUS, is EN GIŠ.KIN.TI "master of craftsmen". In any case, this is likely a
90 The dating of this text was controversial. First dated to the Empire period by Werner (1967: 79), now
most scholars agree on a MH dating based on paleography (van den Hout 1998: 64f.), perhaps in the
reign of Tudh. I or II/III, taking into consideration the persons it mentions (Marizza 2007a: 174); cf.
Alaura 1999a: 492.
91 Cf. Marizza 2007c: 169.
92 For this institution see van den Hout 2002b: 74–80, 86–89 with bib.

dead end since a phonetic reading of EN GIŠ.KIN.TI is unknown and the seal bearers of L. 414-
DOMINUS do not coincide with the two known EN GIŠ.KIN.TI, Miramuwa and Zuwa.
Among the very few attested cuneiform title combinations with DUB.SAR, LÚ antuwašalli is
quite interesting. It has been equated, without much supporting evidence, to two other known titles.
Archi (1973: 216) following an analysis of the title as šalli- “grand” + antu- “goods”, suggested
originally by Neu, opted for a correspondent in EN É ABUSSI “master of the storehouse”, matching
semantically a writing of LÚ antubšalli documented in Ugarit (RS 17.227 = PRU IV: 40–44). This
view was the dominant one until recently (del Monte 1975: 9; HED 1: 84f., “inventorial chief,
storemaster”). However, the discovery of the Bronze Tablet, where the LÚ antuwašalli appears 7 th in
the witness list, while the EN É ABUSSI is mentioned closer to the end of it, raised serious doubts
regarding the equation between the titles. The current view follows two courses, both relating to the
military office of the UGULA LÚ.MEŠ KUŠ7.GUŠKIN “overseer of golden chariot fighters” (Beal
1992: 410–413). One is that of van den Hout (1994: 326 n. 69; 1995: 171; cf. Beal 1992: 411) who
takes LÚ antuwašalli as a career advancement of UGULA LÚ.MEŠ KUŠ7.GUŠKIN, the other is that of
Pecchioli Daddi (1997: 177; 2003: 91f.) who sees these two offices as one and the same. In any
case, the scribal relation of this title compliments the frequent attestations of SCRIBA with military
titles in HL documents (see above).
There are also at least two other phonetically written titles: LÚ halipi and LÚ ašušatalla, which
are related with scribes and their family members, but the exact nature of this connection is yet to
be determined. Whereas the LU halipi has no attestation which hints on its character, apart from a
connection to the KUR.UGU "upper land" (Beckman 1983b: 105 n. 44; HED 5: 32f.), the
LÚ ašušatallaš is documented once in a colophon signature:
KBo 35.198(++) rev. IV (Groddek 2004c: 76)
9' [ (x LÚ )]˹a˺-šu-ša-tal-la-aš
10' [ ( URU Hur-mi)] IŠ-ṬUR
The LÚ ašušatallaš, perhaps of the city Hurma (mentioned in a dupl.; Groddek 2004c: 76), whose
name is lost in a break, seems to have signed this tablet which has been pre-lined by the scribe. The
text is the second tablet of the ritual of king Palliya from Kummanni/Kizzuwatna to the erection of
a statue of Tešub of Kummanni (CTH 475.c.2.A), 93 which recounts the events of the 13 th day of the
ritual. Trémouille (1999: 117) suggested that the anonymous LÚ ašušatallaš was the scribe of the
text. But is there any evidence that the LÚ ašušatalla had scribal education?
93 For the find-spots see Košak, Konkordanz under the relevant CTH number.
34

From looking in the dictionaries we find that the LH title LÚ ašušatalla seems to be an
Empire Period form of an OH Luwian title LÚ ašušala, perhaps a cultic dancer (HW 2 6/7: 538f.;
HED 1: 221). The LÚ ašušatalla participates as a functionary in the festivals of the cult of Ištanuwa
(Starke 1985: 294), an important Luwian cult centre in the Lower Land (Hutter 2003: 239–243).
The festivals connected with Ištanuwa have a central theme of dancing and singing, and the
LÚ ašušatalla is indeed documented singing in KUB 53.15+ in the language of Ištanuwa (HW 2 6/7:
539a; Schuol 2004: 136b), most likely a Luwian dialect. The relation of the LÚ ašušatallaš
functionary with oratory suggests that the anonymous LÚ ašušatallaš of the above mentioned
colophon rather dictated the text than actually copy it in his own hand. The use of the frozen
Akkadogram IŠṬUR "(he) wrote" does not actually prove that the causative form in Š-stem ušašṭir
"to have (PN) write/copy a tablet (for PN)" was not perhaps meant by the scribe. Although this form
of Akkadian šaṭāru is not documented in the archives of Boǧazköy (HZL: 369; CAD Š/2: 238–240).
From the availabel evidence the LÚ ašušatalla appears to be a kind of bard or performer and not
specifically an official who had scribal education.
Consequently, from the material at hand two basic lists of scribes could be compiled:
cuneiform texts yielded a total of 93 officials – 83 scribes, 3 scribes on wood, 5 chief scribes and 2
chief scribes on wood 94 ; stone inscriptions, seals and seal impressions from Hattuša yielded a total
of 153 officials – 141 SCRIBA and 10 MAGNUS.SCRIBA. The discrepancy between the two lists
became even greater when the names on both were compared. It would seem that out of the 93
attested names in cuneiform only about 27% (25 names) appear to have scribal seals (Diagram 2.1).
This further proves the wider use of SCRIBA, encompassing not only the scribes working in the
tablet archives, but all Hittite officials educated in a scribal school. From another point of view, this
discrepancy could be explained within the context of personnel lists enumerating scribes in the
capital during this period. For example, the famous list of 19 scribes and 33 scribes on wood listed
in KBo 19.28 (CTH 237), the personnel list of the É GIŠ.KIN.TI (Güterbock 1975b: 131f.). Since
we know only three scribes on wood by name from the texts, part of the SCRIBA seals must
somehow also belong to the rest of these scribes on wood. 95
94 For the list of scribes in cuneiform texts see Prosopographical Index.
95 Note also the street scribes operating in Hattuša, whose names and titles in HL writing were found
etched on stone blocs lying in the street near several temples (Müller-Karpe 1980: 304f. and Abb. 23;
Dinçol & Dinçol 2002).
35

1. Scribes
2. Scribes on wood
3. Educated officials
In conclusion, three groups of officials could be distinguished:
(1) Scribes who appear almost exclusively in colophons of cuneiform texts indicating they spent
most of their time copying them. General layout of these colophons is "hand of PN (+title
+patronyms) in front of PN (+title) wrote". There are also few exceptional cases of Hieroglyphic
signatures on cuneiform texts. The colophons present us with a schematic scribal hierarchy
(Diagram 2.2). In most cases texts are written in the presence of a supervisor who is an experienced
scribe. Commonly a chief scribe or scribe and LÚ SAG, but he can also be designated simply scribe.
The most frequently attested supervisor is Anuwanza, scribe, LÚ SAG and lord of Nerik, who served
at his post under Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV. The young scribes were perhaps first taught the
basic phases of education from the father, after which they were entrusted to an expert from outside
the family circle. The trainees could have been designated as inexperienced title holders in their
profession (DUB.SAR.TUR / A.ZU.TUR). A specific type of teacher who instructed some trainees
(GÁB.ZU.ZU) was titled "master of craftsmen" (EN GIŠ.KIN.TI). The exact counterparts of all
these cuneiform scribal ranks in HL cannot at present be established. However, a ranking of scribes
on seals is attested: SCRIBA with number signs (II, III and IV) and 'thousand' SCRIBA
(2) Educated Officials, primarily attested on seals, seem to combine the scribal titles as second
branch to their main profession, perhaps indicating on their scribal education. These include princes
(REX.FILIUS), various dignitaries such as the "chief palace attendant" (MAGNUS.DOMUS.
FILIUS), palace / civilian officials such as the "lord of declarations" (LIS.DOMINUS), temple /
religious officials such as the L. 414-DOMINUS and army personnel such as the army scribe
(SCRIBA.EXERCITUS)
(3) Scribes attested only on seals, classified according to the number of different seals they own.
Commonly, scribes held up to three different seals, although higher numbers are also attested (the
ten seals of Tuwarsa for example). These officials could have been scribes, scribes on wood (see
above) or educated officials.
SCRIBA
36
DUB.SAR
DIAGRAM 2.1: Relation between the number of SCRIBA and number of DUB.SAR in Empire Period Hattuša

Supervisors
GAL DUB.SAR (tuppa(la)nuri), LÚ SAG
DUB.SAR
Teachers
DUB.SAR
Trainees / Drafting Scribes
DUB.SAR
DUB.SAR.TUR,
LÚ A.ZU(.TUR)
LÚSANGA (position unclear)
37
Teacher / Supervisor? (Tudh. IV – Šupp. II)
EN GIŠ.KIN.TI
DIAGRAM 2.2: Schematic scribal hierarchy in Empire Period Hattuša

III. The Chief Scribe (GAL DUB.SAR MEŠ ) and
Chief Scribe on Wood (GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ)
and Their Families in Cuneiform Texts
This chapter deals with the Empire Period GAL DUB.SAR MEŠ "chief scribe" and GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ "chief scribe on wood" of Hattuša, their relatives and colleagues. As already seen in
the previous chapter, cuneiform evidence does not list so many of them, five chief scribes are
mentioned in Empire Period cuneiform texts: Mittannamuwa, his sons Purandamuwa and
Walwaziti, LÚ (henceoforth Ziti) and SAG, and only two chief scribes on wood: Šahurunuwa and
[…]-Šarruma. Chief scribes in HL seals are more numerous, but since the HL title for chief scribe,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA, is ambiguous, 96 they will be dealt with separately in the following chapter.
In the present chapter four large families of chief scribes are considered, those of
Mittannamuwa, Ziti, SAG and Šahurunuwa. The remaining chief scribe on wood […]-Šarruma is
now considered by most scholars to be a high dignitary, found also in two letters from Ugarit,
named Penti-Šarruma, rather than Taki-Šarruma as previously believed. 97 The latter Taki-Šarruma
probably also held the cuneiform title of chief scribe, however, since it is fragmentary, 98 we must
rely more on his glyptic evidence, which is treated in the next chapter (IV.2.a.Taki-Šarruma).
An overview of what is known from previous studies on the titles and office of the chief
scribe and chief scribe on wood has already been given in the previous chapter (II.3). The following
more personal prosopographic inquiries go into specific textual and glyptic sources on each chief
scribe, in order to reconstruct their careers and recognize their next of kin and possible colleagues.
Namely, identifying their main body of literary works, characterizing their administrative duties,
and if possible locate their bureaus.
The work and didactic relations between chief scribes and the scribes they supervised are
checked through their collaboration in the various colophons and references in other sources, textual
96 It does not distinguish between GAL DUB.SAR and GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ (II.3).
97 See Singer 2006b: 243f. with previous bib. on the issue.
98 The seal impression of Taki-Šarruma on RS 17.403 gives his title as MAGNUS.SCRIBA, therefore the
equivalent title in the text is restored by Singer (2003: 343) as GAL L [ Ú.MEŠ DUB.SAR], rather than GAL
L [ Ú.MEŠ DUB.SAR.GIŠ]
38

and glyptic. 99 The chief scribe on wood is never mentioned in colophons. As for the chief scribe, it
is interesting that he never appears as a drafter of texts, only as supervisor of other scribes. 100
Otherwise, one commonly finds him mentioned in passing in the genealogical data inserted into the
colophons. This genealogical data also provides another important facet of each chief scribe: their
elaborate family trees. These family trees helped retrace at least fifteen other first degree family
members in total, most of whom were scribes themselves. Marriage connections between the scribal
families are reflected through the only example known thus far: the marriage between Alihešni, son
of Mittannamuwa the chief scribe, and Tarhuntamanawa, daughter of Šahurunuwa the chief scribe
on wood (III.1.b.Walwaziti).
1. Family of Mittannamuwa
Previous Literature: Laroche 1947/48: 44; 1949: 10f.; del Monte 1975: 6; Salvini 1980: 164–166;
Mascheroni 1984: 160f.; Siegelová 1986: 535; van den Hout 1995: 172–178; Singer
2001: 396f.; d'Alfonso 2005: 77; Herbordt 2005: 83; Mora 2006: 141f.; Doǧan-
Alparslan 2007: 249–254; Marizza 2007a: 277f.
a. Enter Mittannamuwa: deposition of Hattušili III in favor of Mittannamuwa,
the chief scribe, and his family (CTH 87)
This document, issued by Hattušili III, describes in some detail the background and family history
of Mittannamuwa, 101 noted in the text as the GAL DUB.SAR MEŠ of Muršili II and his descendants.
It revolves around the intimate relationship between Hattušili III and Mittannamuwa, which began
when the latter cured an illness that struck Hattušili III as a child (Klengel 1999: 239; Doğan-
Alparslan 2007: 252). As del Monte (1975: 6; cf. Doğan-Alparslan 2007: 252) states in his study on
Mittannamuwa, the deposition was in all likelihood written when Mittannamuwa was already dead
and his sons inherited his estate.
99 The basic corpus of Empire Period sources used in this study is reviewed under I.3.
100 Cf. the rab ṭupšarrī in the Mesopotamian colophons who according to Hunger (1968: 9) never appear as
actual copyists. Most of the references are in Genealogical lists.
101 On Anatolian names incorporating the lexeme muwa- “vigor, power” see most recently Tischler 2002:
76f. with bib.
39

KBo 4.12 was edited quite impeccablly by Götze (1925: 40–45) long ago. 102 But for the sake
of the historical discussion on the career of Mittannamuwa and his sons, I supply here a new
transliteration and translation of the entire text:
Obv.
1 UM-MA d UTU ŠI m Ha-at-tu-ši-li LUGAL.GAL LUGAL KUR URU [Ha-at-ti]
2 DUMU m Mur-ši-li LUGAL.GAL LUGAL KUR URU Hat-ti UR.SAG [ ]
3 Ù DUMU.DUMU-ŠU ŠA m Šu-up-pí-lu-li-u-ma LUGAL.GAL UR.SAG
4 NUMUN m Ha-at-tu-ši-li DUMU URU Ku-uš-šar LUGAL.GAL UR.SAG
5 A-A PA-I A-BU-YA-mu kap-pí-in DUMU-an HUL-lu
6 GIG.GIG-at nu-mu-kán A-BU-YA A-A m Mi-it-tan-na-A.A GAL DUB.SAR[ MEŠ ]
7 ŠU-i da-a-iš na-aš-mu-kán an-da da ! -a-ri-ia-at
8 nu-mu-kán GIG-az TI-nu-ut m Mi-it-tan-na-mu-u-wa-aš-ma
9 IŠ-TU A-BI-YA ka-ni-eš-ša-an-za UKÙ-aš e-eš-ta
10 am-mu-uk-ka ku-wa-pí GIG-az TI-nu-ut na-an-kán am-mu-uk-ka
11 an-da ka-ni-eš-ta nu-ut-tak-kán a-pát-ta ka-ni-eš-šu-u-wa-ar
12 ha-an-ti te-ik-ku-uš-še-eš-ta
13 ma-ah-ha-an-ma-za A-BU-YA DINGIR LIM -iš DU-at m NIR.GÁL[-iš-ma-ká]n ŠEŠ-YA
14 LUGAL-iz-na-an-ni e-ša-at am-mu-uq-ma-za GAL ME-ŠE-DI
15 e-šu-un nu m Mi-it-tan-na-mu-u-wa-an m NIR.GÁL-iš [ ]
16 ŠEŠ-YA ka-ni-eš-ta na-an pa-ra-a hu-it-ti-ia-at
17 nu-uš-si URU Ha-at-tu-ša-an pí-eš-ta am-me-el-la-aš-š[i a]-aš-šu-ul
18 tu-uk-ka-a-at m Pu-ra-an-da-A.A-an-ma DUMU m Mi-it-tan-na-mu-u-wa
19 da-a-aš na-an GAL DUB.SAR MEŠ i-ia-at
20 GIM-an-ma-za ŠEŠ-YA DINGIR LIM -iš DU-at m Úr-hi- d U-up-an-ma DUMU ŠEŠ-YA
21 ša-ra-a da-ah-hu-un na-an LUGAL-iz-na-an-ni ti-it-ta-nu-nu-un
22
m Mi-it-tan an -na-mu-u-wa-aš-ma 103 ka-ru-ú ir-ma-li-an-za e-eš-ta
102 A translation of obv. 13-33 is given in Singer 2001: 396. CHD L-N: 155b, 261b, 416b supplies
translation for ll. 24-27. Another short passage from the end of the text is quoted in translation by
Knoppers 1996: 689; for general remarks see Klengel 1999: 221, 239 and Doǧan-Alparslan 2007: 249–
253.
103 The scribe changed the spelling of Mittannamuwa's name three times throughout the text. First writing it
in a partial logographic manner with the suffix -muwa written A.A (l' 6), then switching to a full
40

23 nu-uš-ma-aš-kán GAL DUB.SAR-UT-TA da-a-ma-uš UKÙ.MEŠ-uš
24 ar-nu-uš-ki-ir m Úr-hi- d U-up-aš-ma-mu ma-a-an HUL-lu-uš-ša
25 e-eš-ta am-mu-uq-ma IŠ-TU INIM m Mi-it-tan an -na-mu-u-wa
26 Ú-UL-pát ka-ru-uš-ši-ia-nu-un nu A-A DUMU.MEŠ m Mi-it-tan an -na-mu-u-wa
27 še-ir me-mi-ia-ah-ha-at nu-uš-ma-aš-kán GAL DUB.SAR-UT-TA
28 ku-i-e-eš da-a-ma-uš ar-nu-uš-ki-ir nu-uš-ma-ša-at Ú-UL
29 É a-ra-an-nu-uh-ha 104 nu A-A GAL DUB.SAR-UT-TI
30
m UR.MAH-LÚ-in DUMU m Mi-it-tan an -na-mu-u-wa ti-it-ta[-nu-nu-un]
31 [GIM-an-ma am-mu]-uq LUGAL-iz-zi-ih-ha-at am-mu-u[q ]
32 [INIM 105 m Mi-it-ta]n an -na-mu-u-wa-aš ŠÀ-ta-pát 106 e-eš-ta [ ]
33 [ m Mi-it-ta]n an -na-mu-u-wa-aš ar-ha Ú-UL [ ]
34 [ ] nu m M[i-it-tan an -na-mu-u-wa]
Rev.
1'
m [Mi-it-tan] an [-na-mu-u-wa ]
2' a-ra-an-ta-ru nu[ ]
3' pa-ah-ha-aš-du-ma-at [na-at]-ma 107 [DU]MU.MEŠ [ d UTU ŠI ]
4' DUMU.DUMU.MEŠ d UTU ŠI QA-TAM-MA pa-ah-ša-an-du nu[ ]
5' nu d UTU ŠI GIM-an m Ha-at-tu-ši-li-iš f Pu-du-he-pa-aš-ša [MUNUS.LUG]AL.GAL
6'
m A-li-ih-hi-eš-ni-in LÚ ha-li-pí-en m UR.MAH-LÚ-in GAL DUB.SAR MEŠ
7' m Ad-du-wa-an m ŠEŠ-zi-na DUMU.MEŠ m Mi-it-tan an -na-A.A 108
8' ka-ni-eš-ta kat-ta-ma DUMU.MEŠ-I DUMU.DUMU.MEŠ-I DUMU d UTU ŠI
phonetic spelling of the name (ll' 8, 15, 18). From a certain point the scribe decided for some reason
(clarity perhaps?) to add into the name an extra -an following the KAL sign, indicating that it should be
read DAN (GHL: 18).
104 For the meaning translated here see HW 2 : 250 and HEG 1: 53, “verlängern”, both denote that arannu- is
derived from Luw. ara(i)- following Laroche (DLL: 30). Puhvel (HED 1: 126f.) does not mention this
under his treatment of the Luw. lexeme, translated there as “raise”. Whereas Melchert (CLL: 25) rather
states that it cannot be derived from ara(i)- and leaves it untranslated.
105 Following Singer 2001: 396.
106 A missed sign by Götze.
107 Götze restored [nu-uš]-ma.
108 Although he has room to spare at the end of the line the scribe suddenly returns here to write the sufix -
muwa logographically (see also n. 103).
41

42
DUMU.DUMU.MEŠ d UTU ŠI
9' NUMUN f Pu-du-he-pa MUNUS.LUGAL.GAL PAP 109 -an-du nu-kán ŠA d UTU ŠI
10' da-li-ia-an-zi nu-uš-ma-aš-kán aš-šu-la-aš
11' A-ŠAR-ŠU-U-ia li-e ú-e-ih-ta-ri
(blank space of about 23 lines)
12' ki-e-da-ni ud-da-ni-i d U URU Hat-ti d UTU URU PÚ-na-ia
Obv.
1 Thus (speaks) my Sun, Hattušili, great king, king of the land of [Hatti],
2 son of Muršili, great king, king of the land of Hatti, Hero
3 and grandson of Šuppiluliuma, great king, Hero,
4 offspring of Hattušili the son of the city Kuššar, great king, hero
5 During the reign of my father, as a small child, an evil
6 illness happened to me. My father placed me in the hand of Mittannamuwa
7 the chief of scrib[es]. He invoked (a deity) 110 for me
8 and cured me from the illness. Whereas Mittannamuwa
9 was (already) a man favored by my father,
10 when he cured me from the illness, he rewarded
11 him on my account also. For that reason he
12 accordingly showed you 111 recognition.
13 When my father died (lit.: became a god), Muwattalli, my brother,
14 sat himself in kingship, while I was chief of the royal bodyguard.
109 Götze erroneously reads DU.
aš-su-la-an an-da li-e
110 For this meaning see HEG 9: 171f., “anreden, anrufen (einen Gott)”, though the translation of this
specific line there is somewhat different and less clear: “und mein Vater gab mich dem Mittannamuwa,
dem Vorsteher der Schreiber, in die Hand, und der sprach auf mich ein und heilte mich von der
Krankheit” (the bold parts are my addition). Another feasible translation, already suggested by Otten
(1975: 10 n. 13), would be to choose the second known meaning of dariya- (cf. HEG 9: 172–174) “sich
anstrengen, müde werden”, thus: “...He (Mittannamuwa) exerted himself for me and cured me from the
illness”.
111 To whom did Mur. II show his recognition? Singer suggested one of Mittannamuwa's sons later
mentioned in the text, either Purandamuwa or Walwaziti (pers. comm.).

15 Muwattalli, my brother, favored Mittannamuwa,
16 promoted him,
17 and gave Hattuša to him. Furthermore, my good will towards him
18 was patent. He took Purandamuwa, son of Mittannamuwa,
19 and made him the chief of scribes.
20 But when my brother died (lit.: became a god), I took up my nephew Urhi-Tešub
21 and installed him in kingship.
22 And Mittannamuwa was formerly ill.
23 Other men seized for themselves the office of the chief scribe.
24 But when Urhi-Tešub was hostile towards me,
25 I was, nevertheless, not indifferent about the matter of Mittannamuwa,
26 and spoke up on behalf of the descendants of Mittannamuwa.
27 As for the others, who seized for themselves the office of the chief scribe,
28 I did not extend ? it for them.
29 I installed in the place of the chief scribe
30 Walwaziti, son of Mittannamuwa.
31 [And when] I became king, I [ ]
32 [And the matter of Mitta]nnamuwa was as before 112 with (my) heart [ ]
33 [ Mitta]nnamuwa not [ ] away [ ]
34 [ ] and M[ittannamuwa? ]
Rev.
1' [Mitt]an[namuwa? ]
2' They should stay and [ ]
3' Whereas he should protect them. [They] should likewise protect the sons of my Sun
4' and the grandchildren of my Sun [ ]
5' And as my Sun, Hattušili, and Puduhepa, [the Great que]en,
6' favored Alihešni the LÚ halipi, 113 Walwaziti the chief of scribes,
7' Adduwa and Nani(n)zi, sons of Mittannamuwa,
8' so will our sons and grandsons protect the sons of my Sun and the grandsons of my
112 See this meaning of -pat in CHD P: 219b.
113 For this office see II.3.
43
Sun,

9' the progeny of Puduhepa the Great Queen. Let them not waste the good will of my Sun
10' and let (that) good will
11' and their position not change for them 114
(Blank space of about 23 lines)
12' In this matter (witnessed) the Storm-god of Hatti and Sun-goddess of Arinna
Hattušili III recounts in chronological order historical and political events, pertaining to
Mittannamuwa and his descendants, which occurred during the reigns of the three kings who
preceded him. Towards the end of the text he reaches the present time, where a reciprocal obligation
for loyalty and support between the remaining Mittannamuwa clan and the royal line of Hattušili III
is made in the presence of the Sun-goddess of Arinna and the Storm-god of Hatti. 115
Several stylistic features of this text resemble those of treaties signed between the Great
King and his vassals. For example, the historical introduction that takes up most of the obverse, and
the list of divine witnesses at the end. 116 However, the tone is much more personal and establishes
the connection between the families of Hattušili III and Mittannamuwa. The dividing lines placed
by the scribe between the different historical sections build up this long standing connection to its
climax manifested in the reciprocal obligation:
(§1) Genealogy of Hattušili III (obv. 1-4) / (§2) Reign of Muršili II (obv. 5-12):
Mittannamuwa, already an honored chief scribe, cures the illness of Hattušili III and
receives the favor of the royal family / (§3) Reign of Muwattalli II (obv. 13-19):
Following the transfer of the capital to Tarhuntašša, Hattuša is left under the
supervision of Mittannamuwa. His first born son, Purandamuwa, succeeds him in the
position of chief scribe / (§4) Reign of Urhi-Tešub (obv. 20-30): Mittannamuwa
became ill, and his descandents lost the post of chief scribe to other men. 117 Hattušili
III, possibly during his coup d'etat, 118 removed them and places in their stead
Walwaziti, a son of Mittannamuwa 119 / (§5) Reign of Hattušili III (obv. 31-?): The
114 For the translation of ll' 9-11' see CHD P: 334a.
115 On the importance of this divine couple see Haas 1994: 425f.
116 For the features of such treaties see Backman 1999: 2–6.
117 In all likelihood the family of the chief scribe LÚ (Ziti), for which see van den Hout 1995: 148f. and
further below.
118 On the other events leading to this dramatic historical event ending with the banishment of Ur.-T. see
Parker 1999 and Bryce 2005: 259–262 with bib.
119 See more under III.1.b.Walwaziti.
44

text becomes fragmented, but it seems as though Hattušili III emphasizes that the
matter of Mittannamuwa and his family never left his heart. Perhaps the break in the
text mentions the reason for the issuing of the deposition, or lists provisions/land given
to the family of Mittannamuwa for their loyal service to the king / (§6) Reciprocal
obligations (rev. 3'-11'): The two families promise to sustain the long standing mutual
relationship between them. 120 Note the sons of Mittannamuwa are probably listed
chronologically / (§7) Divine witnesses (rev. 12').
Five sons of Mittannamuwa are listed in §6, as noted, probably in chronological order. They
are: Purandamuwa, Alihešni, Walwaziti, Nani(n)zi (ŠEŠ-zi) and Adduwa. What appears to be either
a mixed use of Luwian elements and Hurrian toponyms in some names, such as Purandamuwa 121
and Mittannamuwa, or a good Luwian name such as Walwaziti, led Salvini (1980: 164, 166), and
later Mascheroni (1984: 171f.), to place the origins of this family in Hurrian-Luwian Kizzuwatna.
Indeed, scribal work on Hurrian-Luwian material, specifically kizzuwatnaen, 122 attested for some
members of this family corresponds with this origin.
The scribal nature of the work carried out by the members of the Mittannamuwa family is
obvious. According to KBo 4.12 Purandamuwa and Walwaziti followed their father in becoming
chief scribes. Walwaziti, Alhešni and Nani(n)zi appear in tablet colophons. From some of these
colophons we learn on their scribal tasks, from others on their families and workers. For example,
Walwaziti had two sons, Hulanabi and Talmi-Tešub, both scribes (Salvini 1980: 164–166; van den
Hout 1995: 175; Doğan-Alparslan 2007: 253f.). Adduwa is the only member of Mittannamuwa's
family nowhere else attested.
In the following section five family members are considered in chronological order:
Mittannamuwa, Purandamuwa, Walwaziti, Alihešni, and Nani(n)zi. Since most of their
prosopographic elements have been treated in previous studies, 123 my main focus will be scribal-
administrative duties and relations with other scribes.
120 Note that neither Mittannamuwa nor any of his descendants are titled DUMU.LUGAL, here or in any
other source. Alihešni, one of Mittannamuwa's sons, did marry into the royal line through the scribal
family of Šahurunuwa (see III.1.b.Walwaziti).
121 Note however, that I disagree with the notion that this name is made of Puranti, the Hurr. name of the
Euphrates, but rather with Puranda, a city Mur. II subdued in Arzawa (see III.1.b.Purandamuwa).
122 See especially Walwaziti's work on the (h)išuwa under III.1.b.Walwaziti.
123 See those listed in the Previous Literature above.
45

. Prosopography of Individual Family Members and affiliated Scribes
MITTANNAMUWA
Most scholars agree that Mittannamuwa was elevated to the position of chief scribe in the time of
Muršili II (del Monte 1975: 6; Mascheroni 1984: 160; Houwink ten Cate 1998: 177; Bryce 2005:
231f.; Doğan-Alparslan 2007: 251). In this period we learn of his activities only from the deposition
of Hattušili III (KBo 4.12). The text describes how Mittannamuwa invoked a deity in order to
remedy a disease of the young Hattušili III (l. 5-8). Otten (1975: 10) interprets this passage as a
literary topos: service to Mittannamuwa equals cure of illness, the same way a service to a deity
equals long life. Otherwise, taking this information literally, Beckman (1987-90: 630) suggested
that Mittannamuwa was trained as a LÚ A.ZU "physician".
In fact, there is a strong connection between physicians and scribes. 124 Some physicians also
had scribal training since they are found drafting texts. 125 Magical healing rituals were also part of
the scribal curriculum in Hattuša. For example, we know of two school tablets which incorporate
medical literature. The first is KUB 4.53 (CTH 537), 126 an exercise tablet 127 written in Akkadian,
dated to the Empire Period, which has on its reverse a diagnostic medical omen (Wilhelm 1994:
73f.). The second is the school tablet KUB 37.1 (CTH 808), an Akkadian medical recept glossed in
Hittite and Luwian (Torri 2007b: 679f. with bib.).
Finding a cure for Hattušili III could have been done in various means. The deposition states
that a deity was invoked by Mittannamuwa, but not how this was performed. One common way to
do this was via oracle, 128 an active way of communicating with the gods. 129 Many oracles concern
illnesses of Hattušili III, some particularly involving his later eye sickness, in which physicians
played a key role (Kammenhuber 1976: 138–140; Alaura 1999b). If indeed Mittannamuwa had the
knowledge and skills of a physician, I belive that he could have conducted an oracle inquiry to find
a cure for young Hattušili III.
124 Cf. Imparati 1985: 280f.
125 See also under II.3 and under III.1.b.Nani(n)zi.
126 This is how the text was catalogued by Wilhelm 1994. In the Košak, Konkordanz this fragment is
attributed to CTH 813.
127 "Die Vorderseite der Tafel enthält isolierte Wörter und Wendungen...” (Wilhelm 1994: 5 n. 28).
128 For oracles concerning sickness of the Hittite king in general see Beal 2002: 13–19.
129 As opposed to more passive/one sided ways of divine communication such as prayers and natural and
celestial omens (van den Hout 2003a: 118); on the different oracle techniques in Hittite texts see van
den Hout 2003b: 118–120.
46

Further evidence indicates that the chief scribe had a specific role in conducting important
oracle inquiries (Doğan-Alparslan 2007: 249). Walwaziti, Mittanamuwa's son and the chief scribe
under Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV, performed an oracle using patta- stones in a dream the queen
had regarding a military campaign of the king (KUB 48.118). The stones were scattered, recollected
and the oracle came out favorable. Van den Hout (1995: 176) has already commented on
Walwaziti's role in the process of this oracle, which lies in conjuncture with his knowledge of
Akkadian oracle literature. Apparentlly, at least two Akkadian omen texts were written under his
supervision (KUB 8.9 and KUB 37.164; see also III.1.b.Walwaziti). This coincides with the role of
scribes as diviners elsewhere in the Hittite Empire, for example at Emar (Durand 1988: 63f.; Cohen
forthcoming).
During the reign of Muwattalli II the capital was moved to Tarhuntašša and the deposition of
Hattušili III informs that Mittannamuwa was appointed governor of Hattuša (Singer 2006a: 44).
Prior to this, Mittannamuwa witnessed KBo 1.6, the treaty which Muwattalli II reestablished with
Talmi-Šarruma king of Aleppo, after the first treaty drawn in the days of Muršili II was lost (obv. 3-
4). 130 The new treaty, incorporating parts from the older lost version of the text, was witnessed by
some other known dignitaries and high officials of Muwattalli II's time (del Monte 1975). Among
these nobles one might note Šahurunuwa (rev. 18'), son of Šarri-Kušuh and viceroy of Syria during
the reigns of Muršili II and Muwattalli II (Klengel 1992: 123–124). At the end of the witness list we
find two scribes, 131 the name of the latter, probably the drafter of the text is unfortunately broken.
The name of the preceding scribe is d LAMMA-SUM (Kuruntapiya), also LÚ anduwašalli of the king.
Since this colleague scribe of Mittannamuwa is also known from other sources, it is interesting to
review his career and family in more detail.
FAMILY OF KURUNTAPIYA: d LAMMA-SUM, which should phonetically read Kuruntapiya, 132
bears the interesting title LÚ anduwašalli of the king, which is connected in some way with UGULA
LÚ.MEŠ KUŠ7.GUŠKIN “overseer of golden chariot fighters” (Beal 1992: 410–413; van den Hout
1994: 326 n. 69; Pecchioli Daddi 1997: 177). It seems to be among the military positions which had
scribal training, some of which were considered in the previous chapter (II.3).
130 KBo 1.6 was edited by Weidner 1923: 80–89; cf. Götze 1928/29 and Klengel 1964. A recent translation
may be found in Beckman 1999: 93–95.
131 Rev. 21-22 ... m d LAMMA-SUM LÚ a[n-t]ù-wa-šal-li LUGAL DUB.SAR [o o ] DUB.SAR IŠ-ṬU[R].
132 Although first element d LAMMA is rare in personal names (Hawkins 2005a: 290).
47

Kuruntapiya is also known from several Empire period texts. Only two colophons, however,
refer to the known scribe of Muwattalli II. 133 The first is the colophon of KBo 13.240 (CTH 470), a
ritual found in the House on the Slope, in which he appears as the drafter of the text: rev. x+1
˹ m ˺ d ˹LAMMA-SUM˺ IŠ-ṬUR (Torri 2007a: 775). According to Torri (2007a: 776) he is the oldest
scribe documented in the House on the Slope. The second is the descriptive colophon of the known
song of Kumarbi or "Kingship in Heaven" (KUB 33.120+++, CTH 344.A), in which Kuruntapiya
emergaes as the grandfather of Ašhapala, drafter of the text (Mascheroni 1984: 153f.). A join made
by Corti (2007: 111f.) updates this genealogy as follows:
KUB 33.120 + KUB 33.119 + 1194/u + KUB 48.97
Rev. IV
28' DUB I KAM ŠÁ SÌR GÁxÈ.A ˹NU.TIL˺ [
29' ŠU m Aš-ha-pa-la DUMU md U-ta-aš-šu
30' DUMU.DUMU-ŠU Š[Á] ˻ m ˼ d LAMMA-SUM
31' Ù DUMU.DUMU-ŠU ŠÁ m Wa-ar-ši-ya
32' GÁB.ZU.ZU ŠÁ m LÚ ki-i ṬUP-PU
33' ar-ha har-ra-an e-eš-ta
34' na-at am-mu-uk m Aš-ha-pa-aš
35' PA-I m LÚ IŠ-ṬUR
Before looking more closely at the genealogy in this colophon, I wish to consider two Late
Empire Period seal impressions with the name d LAMMA-SUM (Fig. 3.1). The first is Nis 604, a
ring seal impression found at Nişantepe which bears the name CERVUS2-zi/a-pi-i(a) ? and titles
MAGNUS.PITHOS and EUNUCHUS2 (Herbordt 2005: 220, Taf. 47). The name is likely read
Runzipiya (Hawkins 2005a: 283), 134 a possible equivalent of the wiriting d LAMMA-SUM. 135
133 KBo 41.218 rev. 7' (CTH 582, Bk. E) is an oracle fragment which mentions a certain “dream of
d LAMMA-SUM” reported to an unknown king. Van den Hout (1995: 240) dates the text to Muw. II,
based on the appearance of Kuruntapiya. But since in the previous line appears the name of Anuwanza,
LÚ SAG and scribe of Hatt. III and Tudh. IV, this must be either a later Kuruntapiya, or a historical
reference to the known scribe of Muw. II. Note that in 473/z and its dupl. KUB 60.117 (CTH 530, T.1;
Groddek 2006: 114f.), where temples and other objects are listed as the property of several deities,
primarily Ištar, Kuruntapiya is found listed as part of the cult of Ištar (right col. 32' // 14'); although his
title is not mentioned he must have been an official in the temple of that deity.
134 Whether the flanking lions on the seal represent another name with the element LEO2 is uncertain
(Hawkins 2005a: 283).
135 On the reading of CERVUSx, cun. d LAMMA, as Luw. Runtiya and late Runza see Hawkins 2005a: 290;
48

However, both titles, "chief of the pithos (house)" and "eunuch", 136 do not seem to parallel the
scribe under Muwattalli II. Also, the use of the ring seal dates this official to the later half of the
13 th century at least (Herdbordt 2005: 43f.), the reign of Hattušili III onwards. The second seal
impression, Tars. 36/19, was found on a conical bulla from Tarsus (Gelb in Goldman et al. 1956:
247 no. 3, Fig. 401, 405). The name on the seal should read CERVUS3-ti-pi-i(a), and not CERVUS2
/ Rú-ti-pi as previously suggested. 137 As indicated long ago by Laroche (1958: 254), both the name,
equivalent of Kuruntipiya, and the SCRIBA title on the seal correspond with the above mentioned
scribe of Muwattalli II. It is interesting to find this scribe attested in Tarsus, apparently he had
activities in Kizzuwatna, perhaps attending the local archive. 138
Returning to the elaborate colophon of the "Kingship in Heaven" composition we find that
the entire family of Kuruntapiya is documented. All the names mentioned belong to scribes attested
in other sources. Ašhapala appears to be a trainee who recopied this text under the supervision of
Ziti (LÚ), also his teacher, after the existing archive copy became worn. Ašhapala's ancestor,
Waršiya, is likely a distant forefather, since a known scribe by that name served under Huzziya II
and Muwattalli I (Marizza 2007a: 286, 337). Kuruntapiya, his grandfather, is the above mentioned
scribe of Muwattalli II. The name of his father, identified in the join as Tarhuntaššu, was until
recently fragmentary.
the second element piya- is the known equivalent of SUM (CHD P: 40).
136 These titles are treated in Hawkins 2005a: 303, 306; see also here under Appendix.
137 For previous readings of the name as CERVUS2 / Rú / RUNTA-ti-pi see Mora 1987: 304 XIIb 1.11.
Note that she erroneously identifies the i(a) sign at the base of the seal impression as BONUS2.
138 On "tablets of Kizzuwatna" see the colophons of the (h)išuwa festival (Wegner & Salvini 1991: 3; also
under III.1.b.Walwaziti); on the glyptic evidence suggesting that there was an archive in Tarsus see
Mora 2000.
49

Originally, prior to Corti's join of the text (see above), the name of Ašhapala's father was
restored as [Hanti]taššu (Mascheroni 1984: 154), a person otherwise unknown. Now we can safely
read his name d U-aššu or Tarhuntaššu, who could be identified with d IM.SIG5, 139 an official listed
among the addressees of the double letter KBo 18.101 (CTH 190, Bk. A), 140 likely a scribal letter as
suggested from the post scriptum on its reverse (Hagenbuchner 1989: 12 n. 37, 14f.). This letter is
dated based on paleography to the Late Empire Period, both in the Košak, Konkordanz and by de
Martino (2005: 306). 141 An earlier Tarhuntaššu, probably an augur, is known from the MH letter
KBo 15.28 (CTH 195, Bk. D) and several other texts from the time of Arnuwanda I and Tudhaliya
II/III (Corti 2007: 114f.). 142
The name d U/IM.SIG5 is also known from several HL seals (Fig. 3.2). The reading of the
name was first established by Laroche (1956a: 144) as logographic TONITRUS-BONUS2. He listed
at least six sealings of this name found in Bk. D: SBo II 116-119, 121, 210 (cf. Hawkins 2005a:
288). Out of these, three (SBo II 117-119) are of distinct MH style, 143 and must belong to the
abovementioned official from the reigns of Arnuwanda I - Tudhaliya II/III. To these seals one might
add a MH type seal (Esy 73-82) found in Eskiyapar (Corti 2007: 114f.). One of the Bk. D sealings
(SBo 210) is in the Late Empire Period style bearing the title PITHOS.VIR (B. Dinçol 2001: 100).
A title which should perhaps read “pithos man”, but does not seem to have a good cuneiform
equivalent. Laroche suggested LÚ( MEŠ ) UTÚL “pot man” (Hawkins 2005a: 306). In any case,
139 Although note that the reading of this name could also be Tarhuwaššu (Imparati 1985: 281–284; Corti
2007: 114 n. 46).
140 Ed. in Hagenbuchner 1989: 169f. no. 114 (rev.), 174f. no. 121 (obv.)
141 But cf. Klinger 1995: 101 who opts for a MH date.
142 KBo 5.7 (CTH 223): the LSU of Arnu. I to the Hierodule Kuwattalla (Imparati 1985: 275); KBo 32.197
rev. 5, 9, 11: an unidentified historical fragment; KBo 32.198 rev. 5: a list of persons; HKM 99: an
administrative text from Maşat (Corti 2007: 115).
143 SBo II 117 has the “grid triangle” elements encompassing the border of the sealing. These were studied
by Mora (1987: 109f.), who has established that they are not so common and may have originated from
a single production center. She dates them to the Early Empire Period. Moreover, the flat surface of the
impression and the fact that the triangle elements take up most of the seal concur with some elements
dated recently by Herbordt (2006: 101–106) to the MH period; for other examples of such seals cf.
Glyptik: 63 n. 17 and abb. 47. These triangle elements, also referred to by Güterbock (SBo II: 30f.) as
“Zackenkranz”, can be found on Kassite seals as well. SBo II 118-119 are both of similar style, bearing
the MH form of VITA (L. 369) “life, well-being” (Herbordt 2006: 104).
50

Tarhuntaššu PITHOS.VIR was probably a type of storehouse official, and can not be securely
identified with the Empire Period scribe Tarhuntaššu.
Since the exact term of Tarhuntaššu could not be dated, in order to chronologically place
Ašhapala one must explore the last person named in the colophon of the "Kingship in Heaven"
composition: the teacher and supervisor Ziti (LÚ). Ziti is a rather common anthroponym that will be
studied further below (III.2). Initially, Laroche (1949: 12) dated Ziti to the later reign of Tudhaliya
IV, but this dating needs to be revised following Miller (2004: 38). Both van den Hout (1995: 148)
and Miller (2004: 38 n. 66) now identify the teacher of Ašhapala with Ziti the son of the scribe
NU.GIŠ.SAR, and grandson of Ziti, chief scribe of Urhi-Tešub. At the early stages of his career Ziti
seems to have worked under the guidance of Anuwanza, the known scribe and LÚ SAG active during
the reigns of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV (van den Hout 1995: 238–242; Miller 2004: 38; Torri
51

2007a: 777). Therefore, the career stage represented in the colophon of the "Kingship in Heaven"
text is somewhat later, probably during the second half of Tudhaliya IV's reign.
To conclude the evidence on Kuruntapiya, it seems the anthroponym was quite popular
during the Empire Period. The scribe of Muwattalli II and contemporary of Mittannamuwa, was
part of a large family of scribes whose generations span a very long period in Hattuša; from the
days of Arnuwanda I till the end of Tudhaliya IV's reign. The names of the various family members
do not seem to indicate on a Hurrian origin, as previously indicated by Mascheroni (1984: 154 and
n. 23). Corti (2007: 116) calls them "typically Anatolian names", and notes on their earlier MH
parallels. In my opinion, the long documented history of the family in the archives of Hattuša, as
well as its use of good Anatolian names, shows that we are dealing with a local family of Hittite
scribes. The structure and dating of this family in relation with the families of the chief scribes
Mittannamuwa and Ziti is summarized in the following schema (Fig. 3.3).
52

Fig. 3.3: The family of Kuruntapiya ( d LAMMA-SUM) and its connection with the scribal families of the chief scribes Mittannamuwa and Ziti
53

Mittannamuwa in Fragmentary Context
As for Mittannamuwa, I wish to conclude by considering his appearance in two further fragmentary
texts, KBo 50.180 and KUB 60.81.
In KBo 50.180, a small fragment classified by Miller in the Inhaltübersicht under CTH 215
(cf. Mainz, Portal, “Undifferenzierte Fragmente historischer Texte”), Mittannamuwa is mentioned
in broken context in l. 4'. At the beginning of the next fragmentary line a MEŠ sign is visible
prompting that his title [GAL DUB.SAR].MEŠ should be restored, identifying him as the known
chief scribe. Here is my transliteration and discussion of the fragment:
x+1 -a]l-la x[
2' -]iz ? -it na-a[t
3' ]x ha-an-ti-i Ṭ[UP-PU 144
4' m ]Mi-it-tan-na-mu[-u-wa
5' GAL DUB.SAR] MEŠ ha-lu-ki AŠ-P[UR ?
6' ] ar-ku-wa-ar i ? [-ya-aš(?)
7' x-]e ? ka-ru-ú f? [
8' ]x an-ne-eš-x[
9' ]x-iš-tén [
10' ] x[
The contents of ll. 3'-6' might be restored in the following manner: “...]the t[ablet] copy [...]
I s[ent] Mittannamu[wa the chief of scrib]es a message [...asking him], to m[ake(?)] a prayer 145 [...“.
The context of this hypothetical translation suggests that Mittannamuwa received a messenger on
behalf of an unknown sender. I would suppose that such a high dignitary must have received his
orders from the king himself, probably the first person speaker in l. 5'. This king could be either
Muršili II or Muwattalli II, for Mittannamuwa was the noted chief scribe during their reigns. Singer
proposed that this king could be Muwattalli II, who sent a message to Mittannamuwa asking him to
144 The sign near the lacuna is barely visible in the copy, however, it might be ṬUP (see HZL: 140f.) for
two reasons: first, the use of hanti, dat.-loc. sg. adverb of hant-, with tuppi/ṬUPPU to denote “copy
tablet” is known from other texts (note the examples in HED 3: 92f.); second, the next line mentions the
“chief scribe”, thus, the context hints toward such a restoration. Another common NH use of hanti- is
with tiya- (Dardano 2002: 354f.). Because the sign after hanti can also be Ú, it brings up a second less
likely restoration hanti [Ú-UL / le-e ti-ia-mi?] “I did not accuse PN”, choosing here first person tiyami
following AŠPUR in the next line.
145 Otherwise "make a plea, present one's case" (Melchert 1998: 45–47).
54

pray for the health of his brother Hattušili III (pers. comm.). Indeed, this would coincide with
Mittannamuwa's care for the health of Hattušili III from a young age, as attested in KBo 4.12.
KUB 60.81 (CTH 470) is a ritual fragment. 146 The first passage is followed by a single
paragraph dividing line and three broken lines of text at the bottom (ll. 15'-17'). Mittannamuwa
(Spelled Mi-tan-na-A.A) is mentioned three times, once in each of the broken lines. Perhaps this is
a colophon with genealogy of one of Mittannamuwa's descendants. It is certainly not a text written
by Mittannamuwa himself, since his appearance in colophons is mainly limited to genealogical data
of his offspring (del Monte 1975: 6). The contents of the text itself is irrelevant here, except for a
reference to a “father of his majesty” made in l. 12'. Klengel suggested in the Inhaltübersicht of
KUB 60 that this king is Hattušili III (cf. CHD P: 270a, “Hattušili III?”). If this is correct then the
father of his majesty would be Muršili II, under whom Mittannamuwa was chief scribe.
Summary. The main source on the life of Mittannamuwa is the deposition issued to his
family by Hattušili III (KBo 4.12; see III.1.a). It informs us of Mittannamuwa's intimate connection
with this king, and on the key political role he played in the reign of Muwattalli II during the
transfer of the capital to Tarhuntašša. Nothing is actually mentioned on his scribal activities. We
only learn that he treated an illness of Hattušili III, suggesting that he had medical training. It was
further considered that Mittannamuwa performed this treatment via oracle, such as those
documented later in the life of Hattušili III aimed at curing his eye sickness. A contemporary scribe
of Mittannamuwa, whose family members are known from other sources, is Kuruntapiya, a scribe
of Muwattalli II. The ultimate fate of Mittanamuwa is unknown, due to a break in KBo 4.12. We
only know that he was ill during the reign of Urhi-Tešub perhaps dying shortly after.
PURANDAMUWA
From the deposition of Hattušili III (KBo 4.12) we learn that Muwattalli II placed Mittannamuwa as
overseer of Hattuša upon moving the capital to Tarhuntašša (obv. 15-17). Following this step,
Purandamuwa, first born son of Mittannamuwa, was placed in his father's position (obv. 18). This
must have happened only after the signing of the Aleppo treaty (KBo 1.6) in which Mittannamuwa
is still titled chief scribe.
When Urhi-Tešub reinstated the capital in Hattuša, after the death of his father, it becomes
clear from KBo 4.12 that other men seized the office of the chief scribe (obv. 23-24). Who are these
146 A translit. and previous bib. is found in Groddek 2006: 82.
55

other men? And what might have happened to Purandamuwa who was until that moment the chief
scribe?
Several scholars have argued that a rival family headed by a man named Ziti (LÚ), whose
name is sometimes written by mistake SAG, took over with Urhi-Tešub's support (Hagenbuchner
1989: 84; van den Hout 1995: 147–149; Marizza 2007a: 278). It is preferable, in my opinion, to
separate Ziti from SAG (see III.2). Ziti had a large scribal family which will be considered further
below. SAG was probably a different chief scribe who replaced Walwaziti in the reign of Tudhaliya
IV. As will be shown later on his term of office was probably very short and not much is known of
his family.
As for the fate of Purandamuwa, practically nothing is known, only what is portrayed so
laconic in KBo 4.12. One can deduce, though, that Purandamuwa was not alive during the writing
of KBo 4.12, i.e. during the reign of Hattušili III, because his name is omitted from the list of
Mittannamuwa's sons in the reverse (ll. 6-7).
The name Purandamuwa is a geographical compound as described by Larcohe (H: 274). It
is currently more probable to identify the first element of this name with URU Puranda, the Arzawan
refuge-city subdued by Muršili II as described in his Annals, 147 than with Puranti (Hitt. Mala-), the
Hurrian appellative of the Euphrates, as Laroche and others previously assumed (Salvini 1980: 166;
Mascheroni 1984: 162). 148
Purandamuwa does not appear in any other document found in Hattuša or any other location
thus far. The only reasonable conclusion is, as Marizza (2007a: 278 n. 64) now believes, that he
moved together with Muwattalli II to Tarhuntašša, perhaps modern Kizildağ (Singer 2006a: 42f.
with bib.), acting as the chief scribe from the new Hittite capital.
147 Most likely nowadays Bademgediği Tepe (Hawkins 2005c)
148 The name itself is quite unique and could have been given by Mittannamuwa to his son upon the
occasion of Mur. II's victory on the Arzawan city. If this is so, one can very cautiously suppose that he
was born around the time of that battle, the spring of Mur. II's 4 th year (KBo 3.4 II 57-86 // KBo 16.1 IV
7-37; Götze 1933: 62–67).
56

WALWAZITI (UR.MAH-LÚ) AND ALIHEŠNI, THEIR SONS AND AFFILIATED SCRIBES
Walwaziti, son of Mittannamuwa and one of the most documented chief scribes, was subjected to
many prosopographical reviews, the most thorough of which by van den Hout (1995: 173–178).
The points considered here focus on Walwaziti's term of office, administrative issues, HL evidence
and a detailed examination of his scribal bureau.
The beginnings of Walwaziti as chief scribe are recounted in KBo 4.12: following a short
interlude in the reign of Urhi-Tešub - during which others filled the office of chief scribe - the
position returned into the hands of the Mittannamuwa family (see III.1.a) and was given by
Hattušili III to Walwaziti (spelled UR.MAH 149 -LÚ). Walwaziti was the younger brother of
Purandamuwa, chief scribe of Muwattalli II in Tarhuntašša (see III.1.b.Purandamuwa). According
to KBo 4.12 this happened already in the reign of Urhi-Tešub, probably backed up by political
pressure from Hattušili III (Doğan-Alparslan 2007: 253; de Roos 2007: 35).
Walwaziti was an integral part of the highest circles of state nobility during the reign of
Hattušili III and most of the first half of Tudhaliya IV's reign (Siegelová 1986: 535). He witnessed
Ulmi-Tešub's treaty with Hattušili III, Tudhaliya IV's Bronze Tablet and Šahurunuwa's land
concession (van den Hout 1995: 172). Since he was already a grown man when nominated as chief
scribe, his appearance in the latter land concession must be very late in his career, which possibly
ended shortly afterwards; sometime in the second quarter of Tudhaliya IV's reign. Pecchioli Daddi
(1997: 178) rightfully dismisses the extreme longevity ascribed to Walwaziti by van den Hout
(1995: 175–178), according to his dating of the Ulmi-Tešub treaty to Tudhaliya IV. 150
Administrative evidence
Walwaziti's political activities are only outweighed by his documented scribal and administrative
duties. Whereas his scribal bureau is extensively treated later on, his administrative activities should
now be briefly considered.
These revolve around three main issues: religious, judicial and economic. The first issue is
documented in two depictions of vows made in dreams (KUB 15.5+; CTH 583 151 , KUB 48.118;
CTH 584.7 152 , KUB 15.30; CTH 590 153 ) and an oracular inquiry (KUB 52.44; CTH 582 154 ), most of
149 On the established equation of UR.MAH (cun.) = LEO (HL) = walwi- (Luw.) see the evidence
summarized in Hawkins 2005a: 293–295 with bib.
150 For the dating of this important treaty see discussion under I.5.
151 Ed. in de Roos 1984: 203–214, 341–353; 2007: 71–88.
152 Ed. in de Roos 1984: 295f., 434f.; 2007: 123–125; on the town of Ušša see recently Lebrun 2001: 328–
330 with bib.
57

which are related to Hattušili III and Puduhepa. 155 The majority of these texts are not so descriptive
about the role Walwaziti played in the cult. However, in some instances he is depicted
communicating to the gods on behalf of the king and queen.
Such a case is the vow KUB 15.30, which informs us that the queen was told about a chest
of unspecified material Walwaziti sent to Ištar of Šamuha in exchange for her care regarding the
health of the king (van den Hout 1995: 176f.). In another text, KUB 48.118, a dream of the queen
which took place in the city of Ušša, Walwaziti performs an oracle inquiry using patta- stones about
a dream the queen had on a military campaign of the king. The stones were scattered, recollected
and the oracle came out favorable. This last piece of evidence further indicates on the knowledge
Walwaziti had in literature of divine signs and oracles, which is also apparent from two Akkadian
omens copied under his inspection (van den Hout 1995: 176). 156 Such knowledge was also
considered above to have been shared by his father, Mittannamuwa, who is most likely depicted in
KBo 4.12 performing an oracle inquiry on behalf of Hattušili III's health (III.1.b.Mittannamuwa).
While most of the duties just described seem to involve acitivities in the court of Hattuša,
Walwaziti did not spend his entire career at the Hittite capital. He appears to have acted also as a
high civilan official on behalf of the royal court of Hattušili III in the North-Syrian principalities.
This was suggested by two Italian scholars, who identify Walwazidu the mākisu, 157 arbitrator of the
court case RS 17.135+ (= PRU IV: 235) from Ugarit, 158 and UR.MAH, 159 witness to the Emar
153 Edited by de Roos 1984: 264f., 402f., 2007: 198f.
154 The text is an oracular inquiry fragment concerning the reasons to the anger of Šarruma of Urikina
towards the king (Trémouille 2006b: 207).
155 Excluding KUB 15.5+, a vow or requisition protocol described in a dream of the king, mainly dealing
with Danuhepa, which is dated by most scholars to Ur.-T. (de Roos 1984: 55–62; 2007: 33–36;
Houwink ten Cate 1994: 251; Klengel 1999: 219).
156 The two omens, KUB 8.9 and KUB 37.164, are treated further below.
157 A title probably denoting "tax collector" (CAD M-1: 129f.; Arnaud 1996: 61f.), which might coincide
with some of the duties Walwaziti exercised in inventories from Hattuša (see below). For a possible
reading of the title mākisu as hand holding a silver pocket on the HL seal impression of Zazzalla(?) in
RS 17.232, a verdict from Ugarit, see d'Alfonso 2007: 164.
158 The other Hittite official who cooperated with Walwaziti Tuttu the kurniyalu, probably the known
Hattuša dignitary (Mora 2006: 140f.).
159 Abbreviated writing of Walwaziti's name as UR.MAH is surely a hypochoristicon (d'Alfonso 2000:
284); see also Beckman 1982: 23 on the colophon of Iluyanka (KBo 3.7).
58

verdict ASJ 10/B (= Tsukimoto 1988: 157–160), 160 with Walwaziti the chief scribe (d'Alfonso
2000: 284; 2005: 77; Mora 2006: 141). Less likely, in my opinion, is the proposal of van den Hout
(1995: 175) and Malbran-Labat (2004: 84 n. 140) to dismiss the identification of the Ugarit mākisu
official with the chief scribe.
The last of Walwaziti's administrative duties to be considered are those of the economic
aspect. They are inferred chiefly from inventory texts, in which Walwaziti is found either inspecting
(KUB 40.96+; CTH 242.5 161 ) or handling (KBo 18.153; CTH 242.2.B 162 ) goods and precious
objects of the Hattuša storehouses. 163 On both occasions he appears next to several known officials
of the time of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV (Siegelová 1986: 285–291). Two officials, a certain
KI- d UTU, 164 and a metal worker names Pupuli, specifically collaborated with Walwaziti.
It has been known that scribes collaborated with craftsmen and metal workers in some
inventory texts (Siegelová 1986: 121). I presume that this was meant in order to document the
outcome of the work and later bear witness to the process of transactions. The scribes recorded the
various products and transactions on wooden tablets which were thereafter sealed with tin bullae,
and only later made into clay hardcopies which contained only summary data (Mora 2007: 537–
541).
160 The other two Hittite dignitaries who witnessed the case are Puhi-šenni of Carchemish and prince
Hišmi-Šarruma, son of Hatt. III (d'Alfonso 2000: 284f.). Skaist (2006: 610–614) offers a new
interpretation of several texts from Emar, mainly Emar 201, re-dating the accession of Ini-Tešub to the
reign of Mur. III/Ur.-T. or even that of Muw. II. This changes d'Alfonso's (2000: 274) dating of ASJ
10/B to the reign of Ur.-T., at least.
161 Eds. by Košak 1982: 81–84 and Siegelová 1986: 276–281. This type of inventory is known for its
recurring scheme of entries always ending each one with the name of the official(s) who inspected
(Akk. ĪDI) the various goods (Mora 2006: 138); Kempinski & Košak (1977: 88), and now also Mora
(2006), suggest these goods were incoming tribute from various provinces directed personally to each of
the inspecting officials. Contra them Siegelová (1986: 258–261) prefers that these goods are shipments
of final commodities to the diverse communities mentioned, each under the jurisdiction of the
inspecting official.
162 Dupl. KUB 26.66; see the eds. of Košak 1982: 66–75 and Siegelová 1986: 96–108 and the translit. in
Groddek 2006: 1f. with previous bib. on the text.
163 The receipt FHL 31 (CTH 247.5) in which a large amount of bitter peas and emmer wheat are rationed
to Walwaziti could be a scribal exercise (III.1.b…Pihaziti).
164 d UTU is not usually attested as final element in local Anatolian names; see HZL: 250f. and Hawkins
2005a: 296. The only other such name is md AMAR.UTU and its variations (HZL: 164).
59

But it appears that also some craftsmen were scribes themselves. 165 Palla, scribe, LÚ SAG and
lord of Hurma under Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV was identified by van den Hout (1995: 223)
with his namesake, a goldsmith. Also Pupuli, the metal worker who collaborated with Walwaziti,
was suggested by Siegelová (1986: 121) to be a scribe, as indicated from the title BONUS2
SCRIBA he bears on a seal impression, found in the north storerooms of T.1 (Bog. V 12; Fig.
3.4). 166
Fig. 3.4: Seal impression of Pupuli found on a bulla from the north storerooms of T.1 (Güterbock 1975a: 56f.)
A possible HL signature of Pupuli on a tablet, previously not recognized, might further
indicate on Pupuli's scribal education. On the fragment VBoT 87 IV (CTH 503), colophon of an
inventory of a certain Arnuwand[a] which lists items of the "seal-house" (É NA 4KIŠIB), 167 three HL
signs are evident (Fig. 3.5). Ünal (1989: 506), who studied these signs, comments that the pair of
identical hieroglyphs on the left are unidentified and the sign on the right resembles an animal head.
After close examination of Götze's hand copy of the tablet, I believe the left signs should be
identified as two HL pu (L. 328) turned 90° counter clockwise. They compare quite nicely with the
double pu used in Pupuli's seal impression Bog. V 12 (Fig. 3.4). The interpertation of the remaining
animal head which resembles in the drawing a caprid head, HL sà (L. 104), is still problematic. But
I belive it should be a peculiar form of li (L. 278) turned 90° counter clockwise. Perhaps a further
inspection of the tablet photograph can yield better results, but this was not possible here.
Thus, the present reading of the name signature on VBoT 87 reads either pupusa or better
yet pupuli, likely the above mentioned metalworker. Since the signature follows the colophon,
Pupuli might even be the scribe who copied/composed the inventory. Interestingly enough, this list
of items which belongs to the "seal-house" is comparable in content with the above mentioned
inventory KBo 18.153, in which Pupuli and Walwaziti collaborate, that deals with the removal of
165 Note that scribe Penti-[…] who signed his name on the ANKARA silver bowl (Hawkins 1997; 2005b),
could he have been also a silver smith?
166 This seal impression was found next to that of another known metal worker called Zuzuli (Güterbock
1975a: 55–57); on the attestations of Zuzuli and Pupuli see Siegelová 1986: 118f.
167 Ed. in Siegelová 1986: 453.
60

objects from the "seal-house".
Fig. 3.5: Hand-copy of VBoT 87 made by Götze (Ünal 1989: 512 Fig. 3, 2)
As for the objects handled by Walwaziti in the inventories, Mora (2006: 141f.) suggests that
many of them were personal tribute which he received in the form of precious metal gifts, that were
often sent to the nobility of Hattuša from vassal countries. One of these precious metal objects may
have been the unique Aegean type bronze spearhead (Fig. 3.6), which bears Walwaziti's name and
titles in HL: LEO-VIR.zi/a MAGNUS.SCRIBA-la "Walwaziti chief scribe" (A. Dinçol 1989b).
This is the only confident HL evidence of Walwaziti's knwon cuneiform title, GAL DUB.SAR.
Nevertheless, his name is attested on several seal impressions, let us further consider them.
Fig. 3.6: Inscription of Walwaziti on a Bronze Spearhead (Bilgi 1989: 30 fig. 2)
61

Hieroglyphic Luwian evidence on LEO/LEO2-VIR.zi/a
Three seal impressions, SBo II 99, 100 from Bk. D and Nis 515 found in Nişantepe, bear the name
Walwaziti, 168 but carry either uncertain scribal titles or no titles at all (Fig. 3.7). SBo II 100, a
partial seal impression of Walwaziti (spelled LEO2-VIR.zi/a) on a tablet, either a legal text or land
grant, 169 is particularly striking and according to Mora (2006: 142) must belong to our chief scribe.
Its rare context implies on the high status of the Walwaziti who signed it, since such tablets in
Hattuša were usually signed by royal seals (Herbordt 2005: 30; Mora 2006: 142). 170 Van den Hout
(1995: 177) believes SBo II 99 might carry the title SCRIBA. But this is less certain, since the HL
title situated in the left portion of the middle field is quite eroded. Nis 515 has the title BONUS2
VIR2, and was therefore attributaed by Herbordt (2005: 83) to an earlier phase in Walwaziti's caeer,
during the reign of Urhi-Tešub, prior to his nomination as chief scribe.
168 Note the alternating use of the sign LEO (L. 97a) and LEO2 (L. 97b) in the spelling of the first element
of the name.
169 See SBo II: 19 and Herbordt 2005: 30.
170 Only three other such cases are known: two of them are registered by Herbordt (2005: 30), the sealing
of Kuruntiya on a treaty fragment (SBo II: 65), and that of Taprammi the LÚ SAG on a festival tablet
(CTH 681, McMahon 1991: 53–55). Another extremely worn tablet, Bo 2006/09, was discovered in
2006 at a house southwest of Sarıkale. It is a rare Hittite legal text or land grant sealed four(!) times
with cylinder seals of witnesses (Wilhelm 2007: 89f.).
62

Apart from appearing on seal impressions, LEO and LEO2, the alternating HL signs which
make up UR.MAH "lion", the first and main element in the HL spelling of the name Walwaziti, 171
are also found inscribed on two tablets (Fig. 3.8): an unidentified fragment SBo II 239 and KUB
28.4 (CTH 727), a fragmentary Hattic-Hittite bilingual which describes the old Anatolian myth on
the attempts of the gods to retrieve the Moon-god who fell from the sky on the gate complex. 172 Can
we interpret these LEO signs as abbreviated signatures of Walwa(ziti)?
171 See n. 168.
172 See translation in Hoffner 1998: 34–36.
63

The first instance of LEO on the fragment SBo II 239 (VAT 7766) seems to be most
definitely a scribal signature, since it is accompanied by the HL title SCRIBA-la. It could be further
suggested that this LEO sign displays a “canine” shape, similar to the LEO used on the bronze
spearhead and Nis 515 of Walwaziti (see above). Since the title on the tablet fragment is only
SCRIBA, this would be an earlier attestation of Walwaziti's scribal career probably from Urhi-
Tešub's reign. 173
The second instance of LEO2 on KUB 28.4 is generally regarded not as a HL sign, but as a
clever drawing of a lion (Ünal 1989: 508), perhaps the sacred animal of the Moon-god mentioned in
the text (Güterbock 1957b: 70). 174 Assuming that it is in fact a nicely depicted LEO2 it might be
taken as a scribal signature, although a title is not visible. Note that the clever word play and story
telling techniques found in this text could be compared to other old Anatolian myths such as
Iluyanka and Telepinu (Haas 2007b: 311). It might therefore be no coincidence that Walwaziti
wrote his name in the abbreviated manner UR.MAH in the colophon of Iluyanka (KBo 3.7, CTH
321.A) which he supervised. 175
Walwaziti's scribal bureau
As his predecessors - the chief scribes Mittannamuwa, Purandamuwa and Ziti - Walwaziti did not
seem to copy any texts himself, 176 unless of course we should interpret his HL signatures presented
above as evidence for texts which he copied. His main duty was supervising the writing of other
scribes, a duty in which he was very active, appearing in at least 26 colophons (Mascheroni 1984:
173 Another possible attestation of Walwaziti as scribe (UR.MAH-˹ZA-iš˺ LÚ D[UB.SAR]) is found in KUB
60.102 (CTH 237), a list of officials or more likely a government census of their property/estates (van
den Hout 1995: 174; Groddek 2006: 101; Marizza 2007a: 278 n. 65); other dignitaries known from the
reigns of Hatt. III and Tudh. IV, such as Maraššanta, Alalimi and Hešni, appear next to Walwaziti in the
text (Van den Hout 1994: 321–327; 1995: 138–142, 206–211). Similarly to Walwaziti, Alalimi - better
known as a GAL LÚ ŠU.SILÀ.DU8.A and GAL UGULA LIM MEŠ under Hatt. III and Tudh. IV - is titled
with the lower designation UGULA L[IM MEŠ? ]. This supports the dating of KUB 60.102 to Ur.-T. or the
end of Muw. II's reign, otherwise dated by some to the later years of Hatt. III (Siegelová 1986: 231; van
den Hout 1995: 138), and by others as late as Tudh. IV's reign (Kempinski & Košak 1977: 91; Singer
1985: 114 n. 80).
174 The lion is also considered the attribute of the Sun-god and of the Hurr. Storm-god Šarruma (Herbordt
2005: 62f.).
175 For the text see Beckman 1982 and Haas 2006: 97–103 with bib.; the colophon is also discussed below.
176 Note that in the matter of Purandamuwa we have no actual data to prove this point.
64

167–169; van den Hout 1995: 175f.). Mostly those of the (h)išuwa festival, which he reedited under
the orders of queen Puduhepa, 177 and of a few other texts (van den Hout 1995: 175f.). According to
these colophons six scribes can be identified as his workers: his two sons, Talmi-Tešub and
Hulanabi, and the scribes Hiliya, Pariziti, Pihaziti and LAMMA-DINGIR LIM (Salvini 1980: 164–
166; Mascheroni 1984: 167–169; van den Hout 1995: 175f.).
Salvini (1980: 166) called the group of (h)išuwa scribes who worked under the inspection of
Walwaziti: "scuola di UR.MAH-ziti". Was there actually a scribal school under Walwaziti? What
was the nature of the work done under his inspection? It is my wish to devote the rest of this
prosopography of Walwaziti to examine these questions more closely, considering the scribes, their
main body of work, their chronology, and finally the function and supposed location of Walwaziti's
bureau.
Scribes of the (h)išuwa festival
One of the most documented scribal endeavors of Walwaziti as chief scribe is the redaction of the
Kizzuwatnean Hurrian-Hittite (h)išuwa festival (CTH 628). 178 The festival is celebrated in honor of
the Storm-god of Manuz(z)i from Kummanni/Kizzuwatna and his close circle. 179
The “standard” version of the festival drafted under the supervision of Walwaziti is written
in LS and is enumerated by tablets: 13 six-columned tablets which describe 9 days of diverse rituals
(Salvini & Wegner 1984: 176; Wegner & Salvini 1991: 1f., 8–10). 180 Other versions of the festival
also existed, arranged as two-columned 181 and four-columned 182 exemplars. The tablet series of the
“standard” version was divided into two main parts by Salvini and Wegner (1984: 177–179):
177 See Haas 1994: 848f. and further below.
178 An ed. and discussion of the Hitt.-Hurr. tablets of the festival are found in Wegner & Salvini 1991; see
also Salvini & Wegner 1984 and A. Dinçol 1989a. Haas 1994: 848–875 has a review of the entire
festival.
179 On the town/mountain of Manuz(z)i in Kizzuwatna see del Monte & Tischler 1978: 259f.; for d U
URU/HUR.SAG Manuz(z)i see van Gessel 1998: 797, 804f., 811, and for its epithet d Ešuwa see van Gessel
1998: 69 referring inter alia to other linguistic variations such as d Išuwa etc.
180 Another festival enumerated by tablets is for example the KI.LAM (Singer 1983a: 40–43).
181 KUB 47.74 is the 2 nd tablet, KUB 47.75+ is the 3 rd tablet, and KUB 27.19 is the 4 th tablet (Salvini &
Wegner 1991: 2; Haas & Wegner 2001: 702)
182 KBo 15.50(+)15.49, belonging to the 5 th tablet which has also been uniquely “pre-lined” by the scribe
(Trémouille 1999: 116f.), KUB 44.49+, which is manuscript B of the 8 th tablet (Groddek 2004c: 81–83),
KBo 35.260, dupl. of the 12 th tablet, and KBo 39.43.
65

1. 2 nd -3 rd tablets (1 st not preserved): these tablets describe the first two days of the festival, are
mainly written in Hurrian, and have three parallel versions which differ in their
wording and some other elements (A. Dinçol 1989a: 42–46; Salvini & Wegner
1991).
2. 5 th -13 th tablets (4 th is fragmentary): these tablets describe the remaining seven days of the
festival, and are written in Hittite apart for some Hurrian termini, namely
individual words and geographical names, such as rivers and mountains (Otten
1969; Groddek 1997).
The surviving colophons are almost entirely those of Walwaziti's “standard” version. 183
They are arranged on the tablets of the festival in three different styles, 184 perhaps according to
where the text ended and also with regard to symmetry. 185 Each colophon in turn can be generally
divided into three sections according to the reconstruction of Wegner and Salvini (1991: 3–5; cf.
Salvini 1980: 163). First comes the formula which contains the tablet number, the name of the
festival and the state of the composition (DUB x KAM ŠA EZEN4 (h)išuwaš Ú-UL QA-TI), with some
variation. In several instances it is followed by a short description of the ritual acts performed. 186
The second part of the colophon recounts how Puduhepa commissioned the writing of the festival
on Walwaziti. 187 The third, and final part, names the scribe who copied the tablet in the presence of
Walwaziti, rarely the scribe refers to his genealogy. For example, here is the colophon of the 5 th
tablet as restored by Karasu (1992: 337):
183 Two surviving colophons of the four columned version were also found in KBo 35.260 and KBo 39.43
for which see further below.
184 Wegner & Salvini (1991: 4f.) divide the colophons to Type a which takes up all of column VI, Type b
written on column VI and on the l.e. of the tablet, and Type c written on the end of column V and most
of column VI.
185 See also the note of Haas (1994: 848) on the strict symmetry of the text.
186 For instance on the 8 th tablet, KUB 40.102 VI 20'-23', and on the 6 th tablet, KUB 20.74 VI and KBo
33.181 VI (Wegner & Salvini 1991: 3f.).
187 See the restored colophon in Otten 1951: 225; following him Salvini 1980: 163, Mascheroni 1983: 96
and Wegner & Salvini 1991: 4.
66

KBo 33.175 + ABoT 2 188 (CTH 628.5.T.G, Bk. A)
Rev. VI
2' DUB 5[ KAM Ú-UL QA-TI]
3' ŠA EZE[N4 hi-šu-wa-a-aš]
4' MUNUS.LUGAL f Pu-d[u-hé-pa-aš-kán]
5' ku-w[a-p]í [ m U]R.[MAH-LÚ-in GAL.DUB.SAR.MEŠ]
6'
7'
URU Ha-a[t-tu-ši A-A ṬUP-PA HI.A ]
URU Ki-iz-z[u-wa-at-na ša-an-hu-wa-an-zi]
8' ú-e-ri-ia-[at na-aš-ta ki-e ṬUP-PA HI.A ]
9' ŠA EZE[N4 hi-šu-wa-a-aš a-pí-ia]
10' UD-at [ar-ha a-ni-ia-at]
11' ŠU [ m Hu-la-na-bi 189 LÚ DUB.SAR]
12' DUMU [ m UR.MAH-LÚ GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ]
13' DUMU.DUMU-Š[U ŠA m Mi-it-tan an -n]a-mu-u-wa
14' PA-[I m UR.MAH-LÚ] GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ
15' [IŠ-ṬUR]
Rev. VI
2' 5 th tablet of the [(h)išuwa] festiv[al,]
3' [not complete.]
4' Wh[e]n queen Pud[uhepa]
5' instructed [U]R.[MAH-LÚ, the chief scribe,
6' [to investigate] at Ha[ttuša into the tablets]
7' from Kizz[uwatna.]
8' [Later on, on the same] day,
9' [he copied (lit.: redid) 190 these tablets of]
10' [the (h)išuwa] festival.
11' Hand [of Hulanabi the scribe]
12' son [of Walwaziti, the chief scribe]
13' grandson [of Mittann]amuwa.
188 Formerly joined as ABoT 2 + 2520/c (+) KUB 32.100 by Salvini & Wegner 1984: 182. For the
rearrangement of the manuscripts belonging to the 5 th tablet of the festival see Trémouille 1999: 117.
189 Restored according to Salvini & Wegner 1984: 182 and n. 20.
190 On the meaning of arha an(n)iya- see HED 1: 66–69.
67
Part I
Part II
Part III

14' In the presenc[e of Walwaziti] the chief scribe
15' [he wrote.]
It would appear that in order to write this festival Walwaziti searched the archives of Hattuša
for older tablets, originally from Puduhepa's homeland in Kizzuwatna (Cilicia). This perhaps even
prompted a search in the archives of Kizzuwatna (Güterbock 1964: 113). Indeed, there are at least
ten sealings of SCRIBA from the site of Tarsus in Kizzuwatna, which indicate that scribes from
Hattuša had contact with the local administration or resided there (Mora 2000: 67f.). Note that
Šahurunuwa the chief scribe on wood, a contemporary of Walwaziti, is among the Hittite scribes
who signed the Tarsus bullae (Tars. 40; see III.3).
Wegner and Salvini (1991: 3) expect that no Kizzuwatnean model text (Archetypus) served
Walwaziti's cause. They cite several points which indicate that Walwaziti newly constructed the
“standard” version of the (h)išuwa from the older Hurrian-Luwian tablets of Kizzuwatna, and most
likely other sources, in a genuine scholarly fashion (Wegner & Salvini 1991: 1–3): (1) Evidence
that some of the festival texts were dictated 191 ; (2) Alternating use of the term for an individual
ritual (SISKUR) and a festival (EZEN4) in the colophons 192 ; (3) The existence of some rituals
performed within the scope of the festival as separate texts outside the 13 "standard" version tablets;
(4) Mixture of Hurrian and Luwian terminology throughout the festival. 193
Some of Walwaziti's sources can be traced to their MH origins, 194 and a few of the rituals
ascribed to the festival also have MS copies in the archives of Hattuša. 195 One source is even
191 See for example the erasures in KBo 33.173++ V 4' and its dupl. KUB 47.75+ rev. 20', and other
evidence cited here below and in Wegner & Salvini 1991: 2; cf. also the suggestion that the Hurr.
corpus of texts was dictated in Klinger 2001: 200f. However, one should not dismiss the possibility that
the erasures were not made in the course of dictation and rather signify corrections made later by the
supervisor, in this case Walwaziti. For such evidence on proofreading by a person other than the
original scribe see CTH 381, the prayer of Muw. II to the assembly of gods (Singer 1996a: 141f.).
192 See for example Dinçol 1989a: 7f., who counts four appearances of SISKUR.
193 Dinçol (1989a: 8f.) notes on the various Luw. and Hurr. terminology common also in other rituals of
Kizzuwatna.
194 See most recently Klinger 2001: 208 and n. 48 with bib.
195 Six MS fragments are documented in the Košak, Konkordanz: KBo 34.235 (CTH 628.IV?, Bk. A); KBo
41.10 (CTH 628.?, Bk. A); KBo 46.143 (CTH 628.8.T, Bk. A); KBo 33.131 (CTH 628, Bk. E); KUB
54.48 (CTH 628, -); KUB 55.29 (CTH 628, -). Other nine fragments listed in the Košak, Konkordanz
are considered as possible MS: KBo 43.200 + KBo 24.64 (CTH 628.10.T.B, Bk. A); KBo 8.84 (CTH
628.12.T.B, Bk. D); KBo 53.125 (CTH 628, T.1); KUB 47.74 (CTH 628.II.3a.B, -); KUB 25.43 (+) VS
68

attributed to Muwattalli II, possibly in retrospect, according to notes inserted in the 8 th tablet of the
festival. These tell us that some of the offerings, those of zammuri-bread (KUB 40.102 rev. 5'-7')
and beer vessels for the feast (KUB 51.21 rev. 16'-17'), were “made by the Great King Muwattalli”
(Wegner & Salvini 1991: 6; Haas 1994: 848).
At least three scribes signed colophons of the “standard” version of the (h)išuwa festival:
Hulanabi and Talmi-Tešub the trainee (GÁB.ZU.ZU), who according to their genealogies are the
sons of Walwaziti, and a certain Kuruntaili (LAMMA-DINGIR LIM ). Salvini (1980: 164–166,
especially Schema 3) dated these scribes approximately to the end of Hattušili III's reign, and made
a rough division of their work on the festival according to the tablets they drafted. He associated the
first tablets with Hulanabi, the 10 th tablet with Kuruntaili and the final tablets with Talmi-Tešub.
Several “standard” festival colophons survived partially without the scribal signature. All of
them identified as colophons of this composition based on the surviving name of Walwaziti. Two of
these colophons can be ascribed to a specific tablet: the colophon of KUB 40.102, which is
manuscript A of the 8 th tablet, 196 and the colophon of KBo 15.58, identified by A. Dinçol (1995:
118) as belonging to the 9 th tablet. Three more festival fragments contain a colophon which can not
be ascribed to a certain tablet: KBo 33.178 (Bk. D), KBo 41.66 (Bk.) and the unpublished Bo
5921. 197
Apart from the many colophons of the “standard” version, there are also two instances I
found of colophons belonging to the four-columned version of the festival. 198 At least two scribes
copied this version: Talmi-Tešub, who also worked on the “standard” version as a trainee, and a
certain son of Alihešni, whose name is lost in a lacuna. This Alihešni is one of the brothers of
Walwaziti (see III.1.a), what makes the latter unknown scribe a nephew of Walwaziti.
The new data supplied by the colophons of the four columned version and new fragments
and joins of the "standard" version, 199 make it necessary to update Salvini's results on the dating and
NF 12.22 (CTH 628.II.1.G); IBoT 2.45 (CTH 628, -); KUB 45.52 (CTH 628, -); Bo 5241 (CTH
628.10.T, -); Bo 5601 (+) Bo 7006 + KUB 47.72 (CTH 628, -).
196 Dupls. are listed under text no. in the Košak, Konkordanz; see also Haas 1994: 862 n. 63.
197 Cf. van den Hout 1995: 174 n. 314.
198 KBo 35.260 and KBo 39.43; another such colophon which did not survive belongs to KBo 40.65, see
van den Hout 1995: 174 n. 314.
199 New fragments of CTH 628 are continuously identified: 267 is the current number listed in the Košak,
konkordanz; for recent joins of (h)išuwa fragments see Trémouille 1998, 1999.
69

division of the work on the (h)išuwa festival tablets (see above). Therefore, a brief consideration of
the scribes who worked on the festival and the tablets they copied is in order 200 :
HULANABI: the most prolific scribe of the (h)išuwa and one of the sons of Walwaziti. He
signed the colophons of at least four “standard” version exemplars, and in five more his name may
be restored. He positively copied the 3 rd Hurrian-Hittite tablet 201 and the 5 th tablet of the festival,
and most likely also the 2 nd Hurrian-Hittite tablet. 202 In what must have been a later stage in his
career, likely during Tudhaliya IV's reign, Hulanabi trained his own student: NU.GIŠ.SAR, son of
SAG the chief scribe, who copied the medical text KUB 44.61 designating himself in l.e 5
GÁB.ZU.ZU of Hulanabi "trainee of Hulanabi" (Salvini 1980: 166; Mascheroni 1984: 157). Next is
a more specific commentary on the texts Hulanabi copied and supervised during his career:
3 rd (h)išuwa tablet (Third parallel version): the drafting of this tablet testifies of
Hulanabi's knowledge in Hurrian. 203 His signature is found on KUB 12.12 204 and KBo 33.173++, 205
manuscripts A and E, respectively, of the third parallel version of the 3 rd festival tablet. 206 The 3 rd
tablet describes mostly in Hurrian the purification rites held in the temples of the Storm-god of
Manuz(z)i and of d Malia. 207 Another colophon of the same tablet belongs to the duplicate Bo
10293. 208 Though the name of the scribe is broken, it could also be restored Hulanabi. 209 In the
above mentioned KBo 33.173++ (=E) and its duplicate KUB 47.75+, Wegner and Salvini (1991: 2)
noted erasures and corrections, which they recognize as evidence for dictation (see also above). The
200 Unless otherwise specified, all the (h)išuwa tablets discussed below were copied under the inspection of
Walwaziti.
201 Third parallel version (Salvini & Wegner 1984: 181).
202 First parallel version (Salvini & Wegner 1984: 180).
203 Although Salvini (1980: 166f.) is skeptic about the actual use of Hurr. by Hitt. scribes, suggesting that
only the Hurr. incantations in the (h)išuwa tablets were copied word by word, not actually understood.
Since his article, however, there is plenty of evidence that Hittite scribes translated Hurr. works into
Hittite, see Hoffner 1992: 98f.; Klinger 2001; Corti 2007: 120f.
204 For the dupl. Bo 6051 see under text no. in the Košak, Konkordanz.
205 See under KBo 33.194 (+) 33.173 (+) 14.131+30.159 with dupl. Bo 5519 in the Košak, Konkordanz.
206 For the various manuscripts of this version see Salvini & Wegner 1984: 181.
207 The events of this tablet are more thoroughly discussed in Haas 1994: 851–855.
208 See ed. in Wegner & Salvini 1991: 193f. (text no. 30).
209 According to the number of broken lines it must contain genealogical information (Wegner & Salvini
1991: 194). For its dupl. Bo 5519 see under text no. in the Košak, Konkordanz.
70

similar type of mistakes found in both texts might suggest that Hulanabi also copied the duplicate
KUB 47.75+, which unfortunately lacks a colophon.
5 th (h)išuwa tablet: Hulanabi drafted KUB 32.128 210 and KBo 33.175 + ABoT 2, 211 whose
colophons contain his extended genealogy. These texts are manuscripts A and G, respectively, of
the festival's 5 th tablet, which describes the keldi and ambašši offering rites, held in several temples,
including those of the Storm-god and of d Malia. 212 Some fragments belonging to KBo 7.45+++ (=
C), an almost complete manuscript of the 5 th tablet, are according to Trémouille (1999: 116) strewn
with corrections supplemented by a few errors. In her opinion this exemplar was made by the hand
of an inexperienced scribe. But because the text has a broken colophon we cannot tell which scribe.
I believe that since Hulanabi wrote other manuscripts of the 5 th tablet, he may have copied also KBo
7.45+++. The corrections and errors it contains, in fact, could be compared with those evident on
manuscript E of the 3 rd festival tablet (KBo 33.173++), known to have been copied by Hulanabi. If
this is correct, then dictation or proofreading seem more logical explanations for the characteristics
of KBo 7.45+++, than Trémouille's abovementioned assumption on the scribe's lack of proficiency.
A further investigation of the actual tablets would probably lead in the right direction; however, it is
beyond the scope of the present study.
(h)išuwa tablets of uncertain ascription: two more (h)išuwa festival documents can
possibly be ascribed to Hulanabi, though the scribe's name in them is lost. The first is KBo
23.28+++, 213 manuscript B of the first parallel version of the 2 nd tablet (Wegner & Salvini 1991:
57–63, text no. 2). Since the extant colophon of the text refers to a grandson of Mittannamuwa, and
we know that Talmi-Tešub did not draft any of the Hurrian-Hittite tablets of the festival (see
below), it should be Hulanabi. He certainly possessed the required knowledge in Hurrian, which
allowed him to draft the 3 rd tablet of the festival (see above). The second text is KBo 15.60,
manuscript B of the 5 th tablet (Salvini & Wegner 1984: 182). Only the first and second parts of the
extant colophon survived, but considering Hulanabi's work on other manuscripts of the 5 th tablet
(see above), it is possible he also wrote this one.
210 KUB 32.128 (+) 32.99 in Trémouille 1999: 116; the colophon is found in Mascheroni 1984: 156; for the
dupl. Bo 5593 see under the text no. in the Košak, Konkordanz.
211 See this colophon above. Hulanabi's name is restored in the colophon according to Salvini & Wegner
1984: 182f. and n. 20.
212 For this tablet see Haas 1994: 857–860 with bib.
213 See under KBo 33.191 + KUB 32.65 + 32.61 + KBo 23.28 in the Košak, Konkordanz.
71

Medical text (KUB 44.61): the colophon of KUB 44.61 (CTH 461.A) indicates that
Hulanabi was the teacher of the scribe who drafted the text, NU.GIŠ.SAR, son of SAG the chief
scribe. 214 According to van den Hout (1995: 148) the mixed ductus of many older and some
younger sign forms suggests the text is a LH copy from an older forerunner (Vorlage). But this fails
to give a more precise dating scheme of the later stage in Hulanabi's career. Several scholars have
suggested that the name of the chief scribe SAG could be a scribal mistake for the name of the chief
scribe Ziti (which is written with LÚ) who also had a son by the name of NU.GIŠ.SAR
(Hagenbuchner 1989: 83f.; van den Hout 1995: 148; Torri 2007a: 779 n. 47). However, a
prosopographical study of NU.GIŠ.SAR and his father SAG, the chief scribe, which is presented
under section III.2, contradicts their assessment. How else can one chronologically explain
Hulanabi, Walwaziti's son, as the teacher of the son of SAG? If SAG was indeed the same as Ziti,
this could not have been possible, since Ziti was likely the chief scribe under Urhi-Tešub, and his
son NU.GIŠ.SAR already a fully educated scribe under Hattušili III. Certainly, SAG was a chief
scribe after Walwaziti. This would date the drafting of KUB 44.61, and Hulanabi's later career
phase, to the second quarter of Tudhaliya IV's reign at least, but only some time after the signing of
the Šahurunuwa land grant, in which Walwaziti is still the chief scribe.
TALMI-TEŠUB: this is the other son of Walwaziti, brother of Hulanabi, who worked on the
(h)išuwa as first established by Otten (KBo 15, Inhaltübersicht p. VI). Otten restored his name in
the colophon of KBo 15.37 according to the colophon of KBo 35.260, then not yet published. Van
den Hout (1995: 157–164, 1998: 71) separated this scribe from the other bearers of the common
Empire Period anthroponym Talmi-Tešub, spelled either Tal-mi- d U/IM-ub/p, 215 or GAL- d U/IM. 216
214 An ed. of the text is found in Burde 1974: 18–25; for more on the nature of the gastro-intestinal disease
described in it see Melchert 1983: 137f.
215 A certain Talmi-Tešub, not titled, who is dated to Ur.-T. by de Roos (1984: 308 n. 7; cf. van den Hout
1995: 164), appears in KBo 16.22 1 and KUB 48.123++ III 10 (CTH 590); another Talmi-Tešub
LÚ ŠÀ.TAM (“chamberlain”), from the reigns of Hatt. III or Tudh. IV, is listed among groups of palace
administrative workers in KUB 31.62 I 8 (CTH 232.1); most famous is Talmi-Tešub the known king of
Karkemiš, son and successor of Ini-Tešub, during the reigns of Arnu. III and Šupp. II (Klengel 1992:
127; Mora 2004b: 428–432); lastly, a broken name Talmi- d [...] in the inventory protocol KUB 42.84 20
(CTH 247.1) was suggested by Siegelová (1986: 125) to read either Talmi-Šarruma or Talmi-Tešub,
opting for the latter option.
216 These were separated from the scribe mainly for reasons of different patronyms (their father was not
Walwaziti) or irrelevant office (their title was far removed from the scribal occupation). Three are listed
in van den Hout (1995: 157f.). One is GAL- d U son of Kantuzzili the ABU BITI (“estate manager”) who
72

The earlier stage in Talmi-Tešub's career is designated in the colophon of KBo 15.37 (CTH
628.II.1, Bk. A), 217 the 13 th tablet of the "standard" version of the (h)išuwa festival, in which he is
the GÁB.ZU.ZU "trainee" of a certain MAH.DINGIR MEŠ -na, likely a Hurrian scribe (Mascheroni
1984: 167). 218
In what should be the later stage of his career, since he can not be titled student (see below),
Talmi-Tešub appears as the copyist of KBo 35.260 (CTH 628.12.T.K, Bk. M), 219 the 12 th tablet of
the four-columned version of the (h)išuwa. This indicates that at least some of the four-columned
exemplars were, as the “standard” version, written under the supervision of Walwaziti. It also
means that this 12 th tablet of the four-columned version was written after the "standard" version 13 th
tablet, on which Talmi-Tešub worked in his school days.
To his attestations in colophons one may add the two seals impressed on bullae from Bk. D
of the scribe MAGNUS.TONITRUS (SBo II 55, 109), already noted by van den Hout (1995: 158),
and four seals with scribal titles which sealed bullae from the Nişantepe archive (Nis 625-630;
was the protagonist in KUB 26.58 (CTH 224), a land concession issued by Hatt. III in his favor.
Another GAL- d U was son of Ukkura the LÚ UGULA 10 of the queen, both accused by Puduhepa of
embezzlement and misappropriation of palace property (mostly of equestrian sphere) in the court case
KUB 13.35+ (CTH 293; Werner 1967: 3–20). Third is GAL- d U, a KARTAPPU of his majesty sent to
Ugarit in order to inspect the ranks of Ibiranu's army in RS 17.289 (= PRU IV: 192), who was later
promoted to GAL KARTAPPU and witnessed the signing of the Bronze Tablet. The specific identity of
this last GAL- d U is debated, some believe he could be the same as the above mentioned son of
Kanttuzzili (Archi 1971: 214 n. 84; Imparati 1974: 145), whereas, van den Hout (1998: 71) recently
supported Klengel's original suggestion that chronologically speaking he could better be Talmi-Tešub,
son of Ini-Tešub king of Karkemiš, prior to his accession. There is, however, a third option: he was the
son of Ukkura who seems also connected to equestrian equipment in KUB 13.35+. Note that van den
Hout (1995: 163) already dismissed the latter option, since he believes that after Puduhepa's prosecution
there could be no option that this GAL- d U found himself promoted to one of the highest positions in the
military hierarchy, that of GAL KARTAPPU.
217 A list of dupls. may be found in the Košak, Konkordanz. The colophon is edited by Karasu (2001: 251f.)
and is also transliterated here below.
218 For the reading of DINGIR MEŠ -na as Hurr. enna see Laroche 1978/79: 80–82. Attestations of Hurr.
DINGIR MEŠ -na may now be found in van Gessel 1998: 1002–1017; the phonetic compliment of
DINGIR MEŠ -na may also render it as Akk. pl. ilūna, but this is not otherwise attested as a reading of
DINGIR MEŠ in names (H: 221) or in van Gessel.
219 Bo 5296 is a dupl. of col. IV 13'ff.
73

Herbordt 2005: 223–225, Taf. 49–50). Simliarly to the two stage career Talmi-Tešub exhibits in his
colophons, the seals tell a story of promotion to a higher scribal rank, from SCRIBA to SCRIBA
III. 220 Some of the bullae he signed were also signed by other officials, most of them scribes.
In light of the two chronologically distinguished stages in Talmi-Tešub's career, let us
compare a few characteristics of his earlier and later work, followed by a short discussion on his
seal impressions:
13 th (h)išuwa tablet: KBo 15.37, copied by Talmi-Tešub, is the most comprehensive
exemplar of the 13 th tablet of the festival. 221 The tablet was joined from several fragments to a near
complete state. 222 The colophon according Karasu (2001: 252) reads as follows:
KBo 15.37 VI (CTH 628.II.1, Bk. A)
12 [ŠU m Tal-mi]- d IM-ub
13 [DUMU] m UR.MAH-LÚ GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ
14 [DUMU.DUM]U-ŠU ŠA m Mi-it-ta-an-na-mu-u-wa
15 GÁB.ZU.ZU ŠA m MAH.DINGIR MEŠ -na
16 PA-I m UR.MAH-LÚ GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ
17 IŠ-ṬUR
Fig. 3.9: KBo 15.37 obv. II 13-21, III 17-26 (exerpt of photo no. B0325, Mainz, Portal)
KBo 15.37 was written by Talmi-Tešub early in his career when he was still in school,
maybe as an exercise. This is not the place to perform an autopsy of Talmi-Tešub's handwriting and
its development. 223 However, one could draw some preliminary conclusions about the process of
220 On the interpretation of these titles as scribal ranks see Güterbock in Glyptik: 61, 76 and A. M. Dinçol
1993: 129 and n. 8; see also under II.3.
221 For the events of the 13 th tablet see Haas 1994: 872–875.
222 Its fragments are: 710/b+787/b+789/b+793/b+2712/c+AnAr 9154+MAH 16870.
223 Though such a thing could perhaps be performed given that one can compare Talmi-Tešub's texts with
74

writing and other mistakes made by the Talmi-Tešub from looking at a section of the text cut from a
photograph supplied in the Mainz, Portal (Fig. 3.9).
The writing process could be inferred from looking at features of the tablet such as writing
habits and division lines. The advantage of clay is that the various “layers” of the scribal work are
evident: namely, each action performed by the scribe is visible in the order it was made on the wet
surface. For example, in KBo 15.37 one might notice that the writing supersedes the paragraph
dividers. On many occasions the cuneiform wedges cut through them. This means that someone,
perhaps Talmi-Tešub, or either his teacher or supervisor, first segmented the tablet as needed and
only afterwards did the process of etching the cuneiform signs began. 224 One could compare
Singer's (1996a: 141) study on manuscript B of Muwattalli's prayer to the Storm-god of lightning
(CTH 381), in which he suggested that the paragraph dividers, as well as numerous corrections,
additions and erasures in the text may have been inserted by the person who dictated it.
More features adhering to Talmi-Tešub's lack of experience are the many erasures and
corrections strewn throughout the text. Some are visible in the photograph supplied above (Fig.
3.9): two erasures in II 19, 21 (arrow) and a correction in III 18 (circle). Based on the copy of the
texts another erasure is found on obv. II 6, corrections are found, for instance, on rev. IV 10, 13, 14,
21, 47, 48, 55, and a scribal mistake appears on rev V 31, -iš- instead of -uš-. Such features do not
seem to occur in KBo 35.260, the 12 th tablet of the four columned version of the (h)išuwa written
by Talmi-Tešub, most likely at a later stage, as we shall observe next.
12 th (h)išuwa tablet (four-columned version): KBo 35.260 is a fragment which contains
most of column IV of the four-columned version 12 th festival tablet. The fragmentary colophon on
the board left edge is restored by me in the following manner:
KBo 35.260 l.e. (CTH 628.12.T.K, Bk. M)
1 ŠU m Tal-m[i- d IM-ub DUB.SAR(?) DUMU m UR.MAH-LÚ GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ]
2 DUMU.DUMU-ŠU ŠA [ m Mi-it-ta-an-na-mu-u-wa]
3 PA-I ˹ m U˺[R.MAH-LÚ GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ IŠ-ṬUR 225 ]
other manuscripts of the (h)išuwa, identifying his hand in other tablets lacking a colophon; on (h)išuwa
texts with a broken colophon see also under III.1.b...Hulanabi.
224 Another explaintion to the phenomenon just mentioned, might be the need to write on six columns. This
surely demanded from the scribe to write smaller, in order to squeeze more signs into the line,
sometimes going over the paragraph dividers.
225 Though the IŠṬUR appears in a separate line in the colophon of KBo 15.37, I tend to believe that there
75

Considering the colophon of KBo 15.37, if Talmi-Tešub was still a GÁB.ZU.ZU when he
wrote KBo 35.260, it should have been noted immediately following the genealogy; either at the
end of l. 2 or the beginning of l. 3. Since the beginning of l. 3 is occupied with PAI, this leaves
room only at the end of l. 2. But there is simply not enough space to insert both the name of
Mittannamuwa and the title GÁB.ZU.ZU with the name of a teacher in the break of this line. 226 So,
KBo 35.260 must be a text written by Talmi-Tešub sometime later in his career when he was
already a formally trained scribe.
Other features of KBo 35.260, inferred from a section of the tablet cut from a photograph in
the Mainz, Portal (Fig. 3.10), might support this hypothesis. In contrast to KBo 15.37, it seems that
the paragraph dividers of KBo 35.260 were made after the initial writing process, since the dividing
lines cut through the cuneiform signs. It indicates perhaps that Talmi-Tešub first wrote the text and
only then inserted the dividing lines.
Fig. 3.10: KBo 35.260 rev. IV 5'-7' (exerpt of photo no. B1042a, Mainz, Portal)
The difference between KBo 15.37 and KBo 35.260 might indicate on how a student writes
a tablet as opposed to how a trained scribe does his work: in school Talmi-Tešub first prepared the
entire outline of KBo 15.37, or it was prepared for him, 227 and only then started to write. When he
was already capable to write a text by himself, he entered the outline of the tablet after the writing
process as is the case in KBo 35.260.
Scribal seals: two seal impressions of a MAGNUS.TONITRUS, the HL equivalent of
cuneiform GAL- d U, from Bk. D were attributed to Talmi-Tešub the scribe, son of Walwaziti, by
van den Hout (1995: 158). He was followed in this manner by Herbordt (2002: 56; 2005: 83) who
later identified a group of Nişantepe seal impression of MAGNUS.TONITRUS with the same
scribe. Hawkins (2005a: 284), on the other hand, has reservations regarding the reading of
MAGNUS.TONITRUS as Talmi-Tešub stating that: “But there exists no digraphic evidence for
reading Hier. MAGNUS as Hur. Talmi, which is normally rendered by Hier. TALA-mi”.
was no reason for Talmi-Tešub to do the same here since the length of the lines on the left edge of KBo
35.260 is longer.
226 There is only room for about 8 to 10 signs.
227 By MAH.DINGIR MEŠ or Walwaziti (see above).
76

Indeed, Talmi-Tešub the scribe does not write his name in cuneiform as GAL- d U (see above
n. 216), and therefore should not spell his HL name MAGNUS.TONITRUS. But it seems
preferable to follow the view of van den Hout and Herbordt, since both depend in their
identification on the titles on the seals, all variations of SCRIBA, instead of identifying another
homonym named GAL- d U, who was also a scribe.
Seven different seals were used by MAGNUS.TONITRUS along his career (Fig. 3.11; Tab.
3.1). They indicate two lines of profession: a distinct main scribal career and another title, perhaps
denoting a secondary profession, L. 414-DOMINUS+mi. This title, based on the identification of
the sign L. 414 as hi/e, was read by B. Dinçol (2001: 101) as EN NA 4he(kur) "lord of the eternal
peak". 228 Unfortunately, this title does not find corroboration in the cuneiform titles of Talmi-Tešub,
who is termed either student or scribe in his colophons studied above. A further promotion in the
228 The "eternal peak" was a kind of mausoleum which also held estates, see Imparati 1977; van den Hout
2002b; see also under II.3.
77

scribal profession is indicated by a seal bearing the title SCRIBA III, most likely denoting
occupational rank. 229
Seal
o.
HL Titles Seals and Seal
Impressions
Remarks
1 SCRIBA-la III Nis 630 Signet ring impression; a spear carrying deity opposite a
2 BONUS2 SCRIBA, L. 414-
DOMINUS+mi
3 BONUS2 SCRIBA Nis 627
4 BONUS2 SCRIBA SBo II 55
tutelary deity of the King (DEUS CERVUS 3 REX),
holding a bird and shouldering a crooked staf (adoration
scene); appears with two other scribes on the bulla Bo
91/1201: Armapiya SCRIBA (Nis 60) and *521-L. 461-
L. 398 SCRIBA III (Nis 700)
Nis 628 Signet ring impression
5 SCRIBA-la Nis 626 Signet ring impression; Bogenträger opposite a winged
6 SCRIBA-la Nis 629, SBo
II 109
Ištar-Šaušga followed by her servants Ninatta and
Kulitta (adoration scene); appears on the bulla Çorum/7
with four other SCRIBA: Lukkamuwa (Nis 204), Puni
(Nis 343), Kuruntiya (Nis 191) and Wa/i-[…] (Nis 528)
Bogenträger scene; appears on the bulla Bo 91/1911
with two SCRIBA: Tarkasnatakalana(?) and Hattili,
and the BONUS2 CRUX Luwa
7 - Nis 625 Signet ring impression; sword wearing deity opposite a
winged Ištar-Šaušga followed by her servants Ninatta
and Kulitta (adoration scene).
Tab. 3.1: Seals of MAGNUS.TONITRUS, a.k.a Talmi-Tešub the scribe
Several features of Talmi-Tešub's seals are surveyed below: seal form, artisitic features and
the appearance of other scribes together with him on the same bullae.
It is interesting that the majority of seals used by Talmi-Tešub are signets, while the
common Anatolian seal form is the stamp. Signets are primarly found in North-Syrian sites, such as
Ugarit and Emar (Herbordt 2005: 43f.; 2006: 100f.). Perhaps Talmi-Tešub spent some time in
North-Syria together with his father Walwaziti, who is documented in judicial texts from that area
(see p. 58f.).
229 See under II.3.
78

Another feature in Talmi-Tešub's seals is the so-called image of the Bogenträger clad in
short skirt wearing a horned cap. The Bogenträger figure is common in Late Empire Period art both
on seals and rock-carved reliefs. Interpretations for its meaning range from a depiction of the
tutelary deity of the seal owner to a depiction of a vassal king or prince as on the known carved rock
reliefs (Beyer 2001: 347–351; Herbordt 2005: 57f.). In the Nişantepe corpus it is very common on
scribal seals but not exclusively so (Herbordt 2005: 58).
Variations of the classic Bogenträger appear on the seals of Talmi-Tešub. On stamp seal no.
6 this figure appears fully armed, shouldering a bow on his right side, holding a spear in his left
outstretched hand, and wearing a sword at his waist. On three signets, nos. 1, 5 and 7, the same
figure appears – not in the common Bogenträger form, only wearing one of his weapons in each of
the scenes (Fig. 3.11) – in adoration scenes opposite another deity. Twice (nos. 5 and 7) this deity is
a winged Ištar-Šaušga followed by her servants Ninatta and Kulitta, similar to her appearance on the
rock reliefs in Yazılıkaya. Once (no. 1) the deity holds the name DEUS CERVUS 3 REX, read by
Herbordt (2005: 63–65) as the "Tutelary deity of the King" associated with Tudhaliya IV. This
latter deity sometime appears on other Nişantepe seals perched on a stag as attribute.
A dating of signet no. 1 to the reign of Tudhaliya IV is indeed possible, since also the title of
Talmi-Tešub on this seal is SCRIBA III, which must have been used at the later phase of his career.
The same signet was used to stamp the bulla Bo 91/1201 together with the scribes Armapiya (Nis
60) and *521-L. 461-L. 398 SCRIBA III (Nis 700), who should, therefore, both also be dated the
reign of Tudhaliya IV. In the earlier phase of Talmi-Tešub's career we find four scribes appearing
with him on the bulla Çorum/7: Lukkamuwa (Nis 204), Puni (Nis 343), Kuruntiya (Nis 191) and
Wa/i-[…] (Nis 528), and two scribes on the bulla Bo 91/1911: Tarkasnatakalana and Hattili,
together with the BONUS2 CRUX 230 Luwa.
Only one of all the above mentioned scribes signed a colophon. Armapiya, who was dated
above to the reign of Tudhaliya IV based on the title and iconography of Talmi-Tešub's signet no. 1,
copied KUB 19.44 (CTH 63.D), one of the exemplars of the text now termed by Miller (2007) as
"Mursili II's Dictate to Tuppi-Teššub's Syrian Antagonists". The main exemplar of this text, KBo
3.3++ was written by a scribe called Tatigganna, who also copied two other texts, KBo 32.139
(CTH 670, T.VII) and KUB 10.21 (CTH 669.2.A, Bk. K) under the supervision of Anuwanza, the
230 CRUX2 (L. 399), which looks like a St. Andrew's cross, is attested for the first time as a title on seals in
Nişantepe. According to Herbordt (2005: 101f.) it is the equivalent of LÚ GIŠ ŠUKUR "spear man", who
guards the palace (Beal 1992: 224–231). Hawkins (2005a: 302) on the other hand suggests the oblique
title "hundred".
79

well known scribe, LÚ SAG and lord of Nerik active under Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV. 231 This
dates Tatigganna to the same period, roughly the end of Hattušili or more likely the first half of
Tudhaliya IV's reign, when Anuwanza was at his prime as scribal supervisor. 232
Consequently, the HL evidence of Talmi-Tešub tells us little about his earlier career, during
which he seems to have cooperated with several scribes, unfortunately, none of whom attested in
cuneiform texts. On the other hand, much more is known on his later career phase, about which not
much can be inferred from cuneiform texts. Talmi-Tešub's seal impressions indicate that he was
working during this phase, in the first half of Tudhliya IV's reign, together with Armapiya, most
likely as the latter's supervisor, since he outranked Armapiya. Another scribe, Tatigganna, was
Armapiya's, and thus also Talmi-Tešub's, close contemporary, as he worked on the same text that
Armapiya copied and did this roughly at the same time, according to the mention of Anuwanza as
his supervisor. This Tatigganna does not seem to have any direct work relation with Talmi-Tešub.
KURUNTAILI: the third scribe who worked on the (h)išuwa festival under Walwaziti is
LAMMA-DINGIR LIM (Neu & Rüster 1975: 7; Salvini 1980: 164–166; Mascheroni 1982: 167), now
likely read Kuruntaili. 233 He was not one of Walwaziti's sons, so it seems Walwaziti did not limit
the choice of employees on the festival to his inner family circle. Kuruntaili wrote the joined tablet
KBo 15.52+++, 234 manuscript A of the 10 th "standard" version festival tablet, most of which was
recovered from Bk. A (Trémouille 1998: 265, 268–270):
KBo 15.52+++ VI (CTH 628.10.T.A, Bk. A)
46' PA-I m UR.MA[H-LÚ GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ]
47'
m LAMMA-DINGIR LIM IŠ[-ṬUR]
The various fragments of this tablet contain several corrections and erasures apparent from
the copies. 235 This evidence of dictation or perhaps proofreading also finds an analogy in the
festival manuscripts written by Hulanabi and Talmi-Tešub.
231 See van den Hout 1995: 238–242; Starke 1996: 160f.; Miller 2004: 38f.; Torri 2007: 777.
232 Note that in the case of KBo 3.3++ and KUB 10.21 Klinger (1996: 38f.) shows that the dating of the
texts on prosopographical grounds to Tudh. IV is more reliable than the dating on grounds of ductus,
which is not typical IIIc.
233 On the reading of d LAMMA as Kurunta and its other cognates see most recently Hawkins 2005a: 290.
234 See under KBo 15.52 + 34.183 + 15.64 + 15.68 + 40.62 + 30.71 + 41.67 + 35.256 + 33.196 + 15.55 +
16.95 + KUB 34.116 + VBoT 116 in the Košak, Konkordanz and dupls. listed there.
235 See for example the corrections in KBo 40.62 III 19', KBo 39.74 II 24', KBo 15.64 obv. 19' and KBo
34.116 obv. I 4'.
80

Although no other festival texts written by Kuruntaili were recovered, one can deduce
contents wise, that he may have worked also on the 6 th tablet of the (h)išuwa. Mainly because a
large part of the 10 th tablet, which Kuruntaili copied, describes offerings made to various rivers and
mountains, which are paralleled by river offering lists described in the 6 th tablet. 236 The 6 th tablet
has one existing colophon, KUB 20.74 (628.6.T.B; Groddek 2004b: 125–127), 237 in which the name
of the scribe is unfortunately completely broken off.
Regarding the term of Kuruntaili, it should be contemporary with the early phase of
Hulanabi and Talmi-Tešub, in which both copied tablets of the "standard" version of the (h)išuwa,
namely, sometime during the reign of Hattušili III, perhaps in its second half.
Not much else is known on Kuruntaili, but he may have had a son, who is mentioned in a
legal protocol from the reign of Hattušili III. The text, KBo 8.30 (CTH 297, Bk. D), is dated by
Klengel (1999: 250; cf. van den Hout 1995: 134) to Hattušili III based on the reference to Bentešina
of Amurru and the land of Išuwa. It reads in line 7: x-i]a ? -annin DUMU m LAMMA-DINGIR LIM
"…y]anni son of Kuruntaili". After surveying the Hittite personal names in the retrograde glossary
of Jie (1994) and various onomasticons, I could find only two possible male names which end with
-yanni: Pulliyanni (H 1046) and Puriyanni (H 1057; Onomastique on line), an author of a ritual.
SON OF ALIHEŠNI: the colophon of KBo 39.43 (CTH 628), 238 a tablet found in a fill at Bk. A,
indicates further involvement of members of Walwaziti's extended scribal family with the writing of
(h)išuwa tablets of the four-columned version, although it cannot be ascertained which tablet. The
colophon is thereby given in the transliteration of Groddek (2004a: 56) with my restorations, which
follow the common form of geneaological data in (h)išuwa colophons (see above p. 66f.):
KBo 39.43 rev. IV
x+1 [ŠU m PN DUMU] ˹ m A-li-ih-hi-iš˺-n[i
2' [DUMU.DUM]U-ŠU ŠA m Mi-it-ta-an-˹na˺-[mu-wa
“ x+1 [Hand of PN, son of] Alihešni, 2' [grands]on of Mittanna[muwa]”
This colophon was interpreted erroneously twice before. First by Otten and Rüster in KBo
39 (Inhaltübersicht P. IV) who identified Alihešni as the scribe of the text, whereas it is obvious
from the preserved genealogy that the writer is his son, also termed grandson of Mittannamuwa.
236 The contents of these lists were studied by Otten 1969; Groddek 1997.
237 For the dupl. IBoT 4.88 see under text no. in the Košak, Konkordanz.
238 It has a partial dupl. Bo 6004, see p. IV in the Inhaltübersicht of KBo 39.
81

Secondly, Haas and Wegner (1996: 573) read Mittannamuwa's name for some reason as
Mittannuwa.
If my restoration of the colophon of KBo 39.43 is correct then the surviving genealogical
data immediately raises two notions. First, the drafter of this four-columned tablet of the festival is
not one of the three known scribes who copied the (h)išuwa under Walwaziti. Furthermore, it can
not even be ascertained that Walwaziti supervised the writing of this tablet of the four-columned
version of the (h)išuwa, since the colophon seems to end after l. 2'. Nevertheless, the scribe of the
text is designated son of Alihešni and grandson of Mittannamuwa. Therefore, he must be a nephew
of Walwaziti. No other known colophon lists the genealogy of his father Alihešni. So, in order to
identify the unknown scribe, we must look elsewhere for evidence on Alihešni and his family.
Two different persons by the name Alihešni are known from Empire Period sources. One is
the afformentioned son of Mittannamuwa also titled LÚ halipi in KBo 4.12 rev. 6' (III.1.a). 239 The
other is Alihešni Prince of Karkemiš, son of Ini-Tešub, and brother of Upparmuwa, Miṣramuwa and
Tili-Šarruma, known mostly from Ugarit (Imparati 1987: 195–197; Singer 1997: 421; Mora 2004b:
433; Roche 2003: 126). 240
Alihešni son of Mittannamuwa was identified by Imparati (1974: 115) as the husband of
Tarhuntamanawa ( d U-manawa) in KUB 26.43, Tudhaliya IV's land concession to her father
Šahurunuwa. Van den Hout (1995: 177) further strengthend this hypothesis, referring to the court
proceeding KBo 16.58 II 2-6 (CTH 297.18), in which Walwaziti reports he is the LÚ HADAU
"relative in marriage" 241 of a certain chief scribe on wood, likely the same Šahurunuwa. This
marriage is certainly that of Alihešni with Tarhuntamanawa. The same Alihešni is also identified by
Siegelová (1986: 180f.) in the court case against Kuniapiya KUB 31.76(+) VI 16-20 (CTH 294.1,
Bk. E) as the beneficiary of gold objects, and in the inventory KBo 18.161 rev. 11 (CTH 242.13,
Bk. D) operating together with a man called Šanda ( d AMAR.UTU). She further equated this Šanda
with his namesake, a scribe, father of the scribe Zuzzu, 242 who copied the ritual for the tutelary deity
of the hunting bag under the inspection of Anuwanza (KUB 36.83 rev. 12', CTH 433.6.A).
239 On this problematic title, mostly awarded to scribes and their relatives see Beckman 1983: 105 and here
under II.3.
240 I wish to thank A. Fink for referring me to the article by Roche.
241 See CAD H: 148.
242 For the homonyms of Zuzzu the scribe see Miller 2004: 39 n. 68.
82

In addition, Zuzzu copied two other texts under Anuwanza which help establish his general
term of office (Neu & Rüster 1975: 8f.; Mascheroni 1984: 164f.). These are manuscript B of the
Kizzuwatnean Maštigga ritual (CTH 404.3.B, Bk. E), dated to the second half of Hattušili III's reign
by Miller (2004: 39), and a manuscript of the month festival KUB 10.89 (CTH 591.III.A), copied
either under Hattušili III or Tudhaliya IV. 243 Thus, Šanda's term dates roughly to the reigns of Urhi-
Tešub and Hattušili III, and the term of Zuzzu, his son, to the end of Hattušili III and most of
Tudhaliya IV.
As a matter of fact, the generations of this scribal family are synchronised with those of the
family of Alihešni. Since Šanda cooperated with Alihešni, his son Zuzzu must be the contemporary
of Alihešni's known descendants. According to the land grant of Šahurunuwa, Tarhuntamanawa and
Alihešni had two sons: Tulpi-Tešub and Kuwalanaziti, both not bearing any title in the text. One of
them must be the abovementioned scribe of the (h)išuwa four-columned version fragment KBo
39.43, but who?
Houwink ten Cate (1973a: 256) identified an Early Empire Period prince Tulpi-Tešub in
several MH texts. 244 Tulpi-Tešub is otherwise unknown from Late Empire Period sources, and
therefore, it is less likely he was the scribe of KBo 39.43. His brother Kuwalanaziti, on the other
hand, bears a name common in Empire Period cuneiform texts and HL seals. 245 During the Early
Empire Period it is depicted in the DŠ fragment no. 28, 246 how the king sent out Urawanni and
Kuwalanaziti the GAL NA.GAD to attack another district (Güterbock 1956: 91). Given the Hittite
custom of paponymy, Imparati (1974: 48) suggested that this earlier Kuwalanaziti was the great-
grandfather of Alihešni's son. Further support of her hypothesis is Šahurunuwa's title GAL
NA.GAD, perhaps handed down from his father?
In the Late Empire Period, during the reign of Tudhaliya IV, we find a certain Kuwalanaziti
who handles wooden writing boards mentioned in the famous Milawata letter (KUB 19.55+ ll' 38-
243 Neu & Rüster 1975: 9 state that "Allein bei URU ist zu beobachten, daß Zuzzu in KUB X 89 die relativ
ältere..."; in the Košak, Konkordanz the script of the text is described as "sjh.".
244 Ritual for the Moon-goddess NIN.GAL (KUB 45.57, CTH 494.A); SU oracle (KBo 16.97, CTH 571,
Bk. A); tablet catalogue (KUB 34.58, CTH 275, Bk. A); instructions for dynastic succession (KUB
36.119, CTH 271, Bk. A).
245 The main lexem of the name is kuwalana- (once thought to be kuwatna-), Luw. “army”. Several graphic
forms of this name are found in Hittite sources: phonetic Ku(wa)lanaziti, logographic KARAŠ.ZA/LÚ
and HL EXERCITUS.VIR.zi/a (Hawkins 2005a: 292).
246 Dupl. KBo 14.11.
83

39, CTH 182). 247 Since the exact context is fragmentary we can not ascertain whether Kuwalanaziti
was the messenger carrying the wooden writing boards as Hoffner (1982: 132; cf. Beckman 1999:
145) suggests. 248 Van den Hout (1995: 91) restores this passage in a manner which indicates that the
messenger was a certain Kurunta. In any case, the involvement of this Kuwalanaziti with wooden
writing boards would suit nicely if we were to identify him as the abovementioned scribe of KBo
39.43, grandson of Šahurunuwa the chief scribe on wood.
The same scribe appears among three seal impressions which bear the name EXERCITUS.
VIR.zi/a, read Ku(wa)lanaziti, 249 and the title SCRIBA. Otherwise, the name appears to be quite
common on seal impressions (Fig. 3.12), attested using as many as seven different seals (Tab. 3.2).
Seal
o.
HL Titles Seals and Seal
Impressions
1 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
Nis 195
2 REX.FILIUS, L. 490 SBo II 21
84
Remarks
3 REX.FIL[IUS], PITHOS? Glyptik 265 Two name seal? Perhaps has also the name
[x]sati-Šarruma on the right hand side
4 REX.FILIUS SBo II 19, Tars. 54 SBo II 19 appears on the same bulla with a seal
impression bearing a deity in the centre flanked
by two fragmentary names: Armapiha[…] and
Tutalip[i…]
5 REX.FILIUS BLMJ C 22 Signet ring impression
6 SCRIBA Nis 196-198 On three occasions Halparuntiya the scribe (Nis
110) sealed the same bulla: Bo 91/100, 91/201
and 91/894
7 ?.VIR2 AO 11753 Biconvex seal
Tab. 3.2: Seals of Kuwalanaziti
247 It was shown by Hoffner (1982: 134) that the letter is to be dated after Mur. II's reign; for the dating
specifically to Tudh. IV see van den Hout 1995: 82 and most recently Hawkins 2005a: 261. A
translation of the entire text is found in Beckman 1999: 144–146.
248 In fact, if Kuwalanaziti was acting as a messenger to the courts of nearby lands, it would fit nicely with
the theory of van den Hout (1995: 91 n. 112) that a messenger to Egypt named Kulaziti appearing in
corresspendce with Rameses II (KUB 3.67 obv. 9'; KUB 3.34 rev. 1, 4; KBo 28.27 1') is the same man.
249 The reading long thought to be *kuwatna-ziti (Bossert 1954b: 140), was finally established by Poetto
(1982) based on the sealed Emar tablet BLMJ C 22.

Five of his seals belong to a prince who also carried additional titular: he was a
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS "chief palace attendant", 250 according to a seal impression from
Nişantepe (seal no. 1), the bearer of the obscure title L. 490, according to a seal imprssion found in
250 On the interpretation of the HL title MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS see Hawkins 2005a: 304, and also
under IV.2.a.Arnilizi.
85

Bk. D (seal no. 2), and some kind of storeroom official according to a third seal impression from
Hattuša (seal no. 3). Singer (2000: 81) identifies this prince from Hattuša with the abovementioned
grandson of Šahurunuwa and the prince Kulanaziti, who witnessed and sealed a legal matter in
Emar (seal no 5). The same Kulanaziti also appears in another purchase contract from Emar, Emar
VI 211, which is dated by d'Alfonso (2000: 277f.) to the later part of Ini-Tešub's reign.
Accordingly, d'Alfonso (2005: 69f.) suggests that Ku(wa)lanaziti's term of office is to be dated to
between 1250 to 1230 BCE, i.e. the later part of Hattušili III and the first half of Tudhliya IV.
Consequently, the seals indicate that Ku(wa)lanaziti, son of Alihešni and grandson of
Šahurunuwa, who was probably the scribe of KBo 39.43, cooperated on several occasions with
another scribe, otherwise unkown, called Halparuntiya. Furthermore, Ku(wa)lanaziti's seals tell us
he was a prince, chief palace attendant, and the bearer of two other obscure HL titles: L. 490 and
PITHOS.X. 251 His seals actually find at least three points in common with those of Šahurunuwa,
supposedly his grandfather.
For one thing, Ku(wa)lanaziti appears among the seal impressions from Tarsus (seal no. 4),
where a seal impression of Šahurunuwa was also found (Tars. 40). Further support on the family's
connection with Kizzuwatna comes from the Šahurunuwa decree of Tudhaliya IV, which describs
how the king granted Šahurunuwa and his family lands in Cilicia (Imparati 1974: 28f.; Mora
2000:70).
Secondly, Ku(wa)lanaziti likely inherited his princely status from Šahurunuwa, who also
held the title of prince on his seals. As it will be shown later below, also Ku(wa)lanaziti's mother
Tarhuntamanawa bore the title of princess. Interestingly enough, his father Alihešni, was not of the
royal line, nor any other direct descendant of Mittannamuwa.
Lastly, L. 490 is a very rare title on seals. In fact, it happens to appear only in two other seal
impressions produced from the same seal of Šahurunuwa (Bog. III 15, Tars. 40), and a seal
impression of a certain Asuta (Bo 83/597; B. Dinçol 2001: 102). Therefore, it could be suggested
that L. 490 was used mainly within the family of Ku(wa)lanaziti, and was passed on by
Šahurunuwa to Ku(wa)lanaziti. The possible meanings of this title will be briefly discussed below
when the family of Šahurunuwa is dealt with in III.3.
251 Contra to this assumption Hawkins (2005a: 261) prefers to see the scribe as a different person (or
persons) altogether.
86

Summary: the chronology of the (h)išuwa festival scribes and the dating of its versions
It was one of my initial aims that, on the grounds of a prosopographic study of the (h)išuwa scribes,
I could update and revise Salvini's (1980: 164–166) results on their chronology and division of their
work. A diagram appearing in the following page suggests a more firm chronology of these scribes
based on their titles and synchronisms with other officials and which (h)išuwa tablets each copied
(Fig. 3.13). Next, I will try to propose a date for the versions of the (h)išuwa festival on the basis of
this prosopographic study.
The dating of the (h)išuwa festival versions which Walwaziti edited and supervised is
generally considered to be during the reign of Hattušili III. 252 This is based on the notion that
Puduhepa reestablished the festival not only in honor of the Storm-God of Manuz(z)i but also in
honor of her husband (Haas 1994: 849). According to Wegner and Salvini (1991: 10f.) the Sitz im
Leben of this notion lies in the great drinking ceremony held at the last 9 th day in honor of the king.
During this ceremony, recounted in the 13 th tablet, “The land sits before the king” meaning that all
the high officials of the state gather to pay homage to the royal family. 253 Contra this specific dating
van den Hout (1995: 176) has already expressed the opinion that: “Wer zu dieser Zeit regierender
König war, ist unbekannt”, leaving it also open for a dating of the text to Tudhaliya IV.
It now stands to reason that the dating scheme of the various manuscripts of this festival is
somewhat more complicated then was once believed. In part, the analysis made above on the
scribes of the festival exemplars indicates that the “standard” festival composition, i.e. the six-
columned exemplars, is to be dated to sometime during the beginning of the second half of Hattušili
III. At least one of Walwaziti's sons, Talmi-Tešub, was still a young student when he worked on the
13 th “standard” tablet (KBo 15.37). Moreover, the fact that so many members of Mittannamuwa's
descendants were involved in the work on the various versions of the festival could be related to the
special bond this family had with Hattušili III, upon which this king elaborated in his deposition
dedicated to Mittannamuwa and his family (KBo 4.12, see III.1.a). Such close ties of this family
with his son Tudhaliya IV are not known.
252 See Wegner & Salvini 1991: 6.
253 For a summary of the events in this great gathering see Haas 1994: 872–875.
87

Fig. 3.13: Chronology of the (h)išuwa scribes and related scribal families
88

For the moment it seems that the four-columned version of the (h)išuwa was composed only
later. It post dates the “standard” version because one can place the known scribes who copied it,
Talmi-Tešub (KBo 35.260) in his later career phase and likely Alihešni's son Ku(wa)lanaziti (KBo
39.43), in the final years of Hattušili III or the first half of Tudhaliya IV. This perhaps indicates that
the scribes of the four-columned version based their work on the “standard” version, but this,
however, remains to be proven. 254
Other Scribes in the Bureau of Walwaziti
As one may recall at least three other scribes copied texts under the inspection of Walwaziti: Hiliya,
Pariziti and Pihaziti. Following is a brief prosopographical review of the name bearers.
Unfortunately, I lack a chronological anchor to date the term of the first two scribes, which I
assume, as a working hypothesis, to be sometime during the reign of Hattušili III, when Walwaziti
is known to have been most active.
HILIYA: this scribe copied an omen regarding diverse behaviours of the moon. 255 The
colophon reads as follows:
KUB 8.9+ l.e. (CTH 533.1)
1 PA-I m UR.MAH-LÚ GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ
2
m Hi-li-ia-aš IŠ-ṬUR
The text was treated by Riemschneider (2004: 76f., 155). The work of Hiliya on this moon
sign must be connected to a general interest of Walwaziti in omens of natural catastrophes, such as
the one copied under his inspection by a scribe whose name is lost save an […]iš in KUB 37.164
254 Since no colophons of the two-columned version of the (h)išuwa survived we can not date its
composition based on prosopography. One might assume, in the manner which follows the redaction of
the “standard” version into a four-columned version, that the two-columned version was even later.
However, in order to prove this one must compare the contents of the various versions, identifying
omission or additions, which is outside the scope of this specific study.
255 The Astrological omens passed into Anatolia via Syria or through direct connection with later
Babylonian scribes. In Babylonia the original series did not survive in copies from the old Babylonian
period but from later times in the very large known astrological omen series Enūma Anu Enlil. The
connections between the 2 nd millennium BCE copies of Hattuša and the later copies of Enūma Anu Enlil
in the Aššurbanipal library are clear. The scribe of the Assyrian version, Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, cited his
sources as tablets from Babylon and Borsippa which were brought to Assyria from Babylonian temples.
Enūma Anu Enlil is very identical in nature and wording to the first century collection iqqur īpuš. The
monthly omens makeup the oldest parts of Enūma Anu Enlil (Riemschneider 2004: XXX–XLI).
89

(CTH 541). This fragment is a copy of an Akkadian omen likely relating earthquakes (Ünal 1977:
469f.). Riemschneider (2004: 94–96, 132f.) suggests that another Akkadian copy of an earthquake
omen found in Hattuša, KUB 37.163, has a Hittite translation in the iqqur īpuš omen KUB 8.28, 256
which, incidently, also recorded moon omens according to its surviving colophon. One can not
imagine the name of the second scribe mentioned in KUB 37.164, but he is likely not Hiliya, thus, it
can be tentatively suggested that both he and Hiliya worked on omen literature under Walwaziti.
as follows:
PARIZITI: two known texts were copied by this scribe under Walwaziti, their colophons read
KBo 23.93 + 30.102 IV (CTH 495.II, Bk. A)
20'' PA-I m UR[.MAH-LÚ GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ]
21''
m Pa-ri-LÚ [IŠ-ṬUR]
KBo 34.245 + 40.276 l.e. (CTH 763, Bk. A)
1 PA-I m UR.MAH-LÚ GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ
2
m Pa-ri-LÚ I[Š-ṬUR]
The first colophon belongs to a manuscript depicting a substitution dupšahi- ritual, which is
part of five rituals with aparent Hurrian character conducted for the royal couple in the city of
Šamuha, perhaps originally to Tudhaliya II/III (Haas 2003: 39f.). 257 A correction in the text, either
made by Pariziti or after proofreading by Walwaziti, is noticeable in the hand copy of KBo 30.102
IV 8'.
The second colophon belongs to a ritual filled with Luwianisms (van den Hout 1995: 174 n.
314). So, it could arguably be suggested that Pariziti had some knowledge in Hurrian and Luwian
termini, unless he was only dictating what was said by Walwaziti. Perhaps such knowledge was the
reason why Pariziti copied both this and the former ritual, which belong to the Hurrian-Luwian
milieu.
256 He deduced that the Hitt. term for an earthquake is d ingaš ninikzi based on the notion that it is a figura
etymologica of Akk. rību irūb (Riemschneider 2004: XLIV, 246); cf. already Haas (1994: 295 n. 10)
apud Otten " (D) Ninga – „Erdbeben‟". Contra this the common grasp of d inga in the CHD L-N: 88 is of
a “drenching, cloudburst” and following this Tischler in his HEG 7: 333 also translates "Regen(gott)".
257 A partial translit. of the text appears in Groddek 2002a: 144. Other treatments of this ritual, especially
with regard to its mention of the use of NA 4kirenni-, girenni- "carneol" are Polvani 1988: 29–36 and
Haas 2003: 205.
90

PIHAZITI: this scribe copied under Walwaziti the old Anatolian Iluyanka myth, which is said
to be the word of Kella the LÚ GUDÚ priest of the Storm-god of Nerik, suggesting it has a long
standing oral tradition (Haas 2006: 97). 258 Unless Kella is a hypochoristicon, 259 one may find
support to the notion of a long standing oral tradition in the fact that the name Kella does not appear
anywhere else in Hittite documentation, but only in the Cappadocian tablets. 260 The colophon reads
as follows:
KBo 3.7 IV (CTH 321.A)
29' DUB.1.KAM QA-T[I]
30' ŠA m Ki-el-la LÚ GU[DÚ u]d-[d]a-na-aš
31'
m Pí-ha-LÚ [ LÚ DUB.SAR]
32' PA-I m UR.MAH GAL DU[B.SAR.ME]Š
33' IŠ-ṬUR
Beckman (1982), who edited the text, indicated that Walwaziti's name is written with the
hypochoristicon UR.MAH. This writing of his name was also later attested in an Emar verdict by
d'Alfonso (2000: 284). 261 The myth is comprised of two different tales of the struggle between the
Storm-god and the serpent. Its sources are in the OH literary Hattian-Hittite tradition, and it played
an important part in the Hittite new-year puruli festival which ended with a reference to the sacred
kingship (Haas 2006: 97). Haas (2006: 97) dates the copying of the text to the reign of Hattušili III.
Two administrative texts from Boǧazköy also mention a Pihaziti, one is the person list HT
32 (CTH 214.10) and the other is the receipt FHL 31 (CTH 247.5). The second text is more helpful
for our prosopography since it lists other officials next to Pihaziti, among them also Walwaziti,
positively indicating that this Pihaziti is the same as the abovementioned scribe. Apart for this the
receipt has other interesting qualities.
The odd small tablet certifies goods, primarily large quantities of wheat (ŠE) and bitter peas
(GÚ.ŠEŠ), rationed to state officials, perhaps by the men of the city Tapputa. Practically the same
seven line list is written on both sides of the tablet, but clearly in different hands and in a different
layout according to the excellent photographs of Durand and Laroche (FHL: 107). The scribe of one
side copied the list inside a clearly defined square, whereas the scribe of the other side used the
258 These priests play an important role in the myth and the ritual connected with it, see Beckman 1982: 23;
on the LÚ GUDÚ priests in general see Tagar-Cohen 2006: 229–278.
259 Note the name Kiliya (NH 576) of a priest of Zinzara found in Ugarit (RS 18.02).
260 H 574 (kila).
261 ASJ 10/B (= Tsukimoto 1988: 157–160).
91

entire surface of the tablet, writing in a larger script, squeezing his final line on the bottom side.
Another example of the difference between the two hands is the use of a different MAH sign in l. 4
on each side. All these traits lead me to belive that FHL 31 is a scribal exercise of some sort.
Nevertheless, it seems that the names in the list are genuine and they are either persons the
scribe who copied the list may have known, or otherwise simply names copied from an existing
ration list. The other officials named are Kaštanili, Šunaili and Uttikiapi. The first two can further
be identified as contemporaries of Walwaziti and Pihaziti.
Kaštanili appears as a tax payer from a certain city, whose name is lost, in the MADATTU
tribute list KUB 42.29+ (CTH 244.2; Siegelová 1986: 141–158). The same text also mentions
Walwaziti's brother Nani(n)zi (ŠEŠ-zi), what places it to approximately in the same period of FHL
31. There are numerous references to a Šunaili in the texts of Hattuša, 262 but I would identify
Šunaili son of Hayamuli, KARTAPPU of his majesty (Malbran-Labat 2004: 75), with Šunaili of
FHL 31 based on his high title.
In HL seal impressions and seals we find many seal holders bearing the name Pihaziti (pi-
ha-VIR.zi/a, Tab. 3.3, Fig. 3.14). At least one is a scribe, owner of a biconvex seal from Norşuntepe
(seal no. 2), perhaps to be identified with the abovementioned scribe under Walwaziti. Other seal
impressions of Pihaziti belong to likely three, or even four, different persons from Hattuša and at
least one seal holder from Ugarit also known from other texts as an official of Carchemish
(d'Alfonso 2005: 76; Hawkins 2005a: 268). In Hattuša we have a bearer of the title hilami (no. 1), 263
an URCEUS (no. 3), 264 and two different Pihaziti seals without any title, either of the same person,
or used by homonyms (nos. 5-6). The Pihaziti from Ugarit sealed with his cylinder seal the tablet
RS 17.248 (no. 4).
262 See the references in H and H suppl. 1177.
263 In cun. one finds a correspondant in the title LÚ hilammi-, which is a sort of temple official (Herbordt
2005: 103; Hawkins 2005a: 304). From comparing the phonetical spelling of this title in HL: hi-la-mi
(L. 413–L. 175–L. 391) with the HL logographic title: L. 414-DOMINUS+mi (L. 414–L. 390+L. 391),
it comes to mind that a connection may exist between the two. Mainly since L. 414 is very similar to, if
not another form of writing, the sign hi (L. 413).
264 The HL equivalent of cuneiform LÚ SILÀ.ŠU.DU8.A (Hawkins 2005a: 310 with bib.)
92

Seal
o.
HL Titles Seals and Seal
Impressions
1 Hilami Nis 316
93
Remarks
2 BONUS2 SCRIBA Norşuntepe 2 Biconvex seal
3 BONUS2 URCEUS,
BONUS2 VIR2
Nis 314, 315
4 - RS 17.248 Cylinder seal impression
5 - Nis 312
6 - Nis 313
Tab. 3.3: Seals of Pihaziti

RS 17.248 (= PRU IV: 236), dated to Ibiranu, is a legal case ratified by Pihaziti
remunerating Maššanaura for damages caused by Yarimma of the city Maˁraba and Ulṣina of the
city of Ugarit (d'Alfonso 2005: 153f.). The same Pihaziti, identified as the " LÚ ur[…] of the king of
Carchemish", also sent the letter RS 25.461 to the king of Ugarit regarding ṣaripu workers
(Lackenbacher 1989: 317-8). This official of Carchemish active in Ugarit is dated to the second half
of Tudhaliya IV's reign (Singer 1999a: 653f. n. 142; Malbran-Labat 2004: 86f.; Mora 2004b: 441;
d'Alfonso 2005: 76). Perhaps the same Pihaziti is identified in another text from Ugarit, RS 17.319
(= PRU IV: 182–184), as the son of Hašamili and merchant from the town of Ura.
At last we come to one final piece of evidence, a stone block (Fig. 3.15) found in 1979 at a
house near temple IV in the upper city of Hattuša, signed in HL by a pi-ha-zi/a BONUS2 SCRIBA
(Müller-Karpe 1980: 304f.; Dinçol & Dinçol 2002: 209). This prompted Müller-Karpe apud
Masson to identify the name as a hypochoristicon of the scribe named Pihaziti, mentioned here
above. This could be the case, but as already mentioned by Dinçol & Dinçol (2002: 209) the writing
of the name can also stand for Piha(n)za. 265 Perhaps this last suggestion is more plausible, since one
does not find signatures of Walwaziti, or any other scribe connected with him, on the inscribed
stone blocks found in Hattuša. 266 This also prompts me to belive that the function of the scribes who
signed the stone blocks was quite different than that of the scribes working in the office of
Walwaziti.
Fig. 3.15: HL stone inscription of Pi-ha-zi/a BONUS2 SCRIBA (Müller-Karpe 1980: Abb. 23)
265 For -zi/a at the end of a name as representing either -(i)zzi or -(a)nza see Hawkins 2005a: 249.
266 See all the names cited in Dinçol & Dinçol 2002.
94

Conclusions: the Dating, Function and Location of Walwaziti's Scribal Bureau
It is high time to conclude the results of our investigation into Walwaziti's scribal bureau. First,
regarding its life span, it is already established that Walwaziti became the chief scribe already at the
beginning of Hattušili III, if not a short time before the ascension of this king. However, his major
project, which was the redaction of the (h)išuwa, seems to have begun during the middle of
Hattušili III, when his son, Hulanabi evidently began copying the first tablets of the so called
"standard" version of the festival. We cannot place with certainty any of the other scribes who
copied texts under Walwaziti before that time. It is not my wish, however, to assume a void during
a period of ca. 12 years from which not one piece of evidence remained. So, I wish to suggest here
that all the scribes who are known to have copied texts under Walwaziti beside the (h)išuwa scribes,
i.e. Hiliya, Pariziti, Pihaziti and […]iš, actually worked in his office during the first half of Hattušili
III. Therefore, the (h)išuwa scribes worked mainly from the middle of Hattušili III till the end of
Walwaziti's term of office, sometime in the second quarter of Tudhaliya IV's reign. The time span
of the bureau is summarized in the following diagram which includes only the scribes working
under Walwaziti, the division of their work and their family members:
Fig. 3.16: The bureau of Walwaziti during the reigns of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV
As for the function of the office, one can raise the following points: Walwaziti's major
scribal work was the redaction of the Hurrian-Hittite (h)išuwa festival. He also supervised the
copying of various other types of texts: a celestial moon omen written in Hittite (KUB 8.9+, CTH
533.1), an earthquake omen written in Akkadian (KUB 37.164, CTH 541), a copy of the local
Iluyanka mythological composition (KBo 3.7, CTH 321.A), two rituals: a dupšahi- ritual (KBo
95

23.93, CTH 495.II) and a ritual with Luwianisms (KBo 34.245+, CTH 763), and lastly an undefined
text out of which only the colophon remained (Durham 2462 no. 73 267 ; Postgate 1972: 175).
For obvious reasons, in terms of the archive most of these texts constitute as group A
defined by van den Hout (2002: 864): “Texts with duplicates”. 268 The only exception is the
Akkadian earthquake omen termed with the second group of omen material, the non-celestial
omens. These omens for the large part have been kept in single copies, sometimes for several
centuries, possibly for academic purposes (van den Hout 2003a: 89). The fact that KUB 37.164 was
copied by a scribe in the presence of Walwaziti indicates that it is a school exercise of some sort.
The only other Akkadian earthquake omen fragment known from Hattuša, KUB 37.163, has now an
identified Hittite translation.
The translation is KUB 8.28, recognized as such by Riemschneider (2004: 94–96, 132f.,
246) based on the identification of the compound d ingaš ninikzi as meaning “earthquake” (see
under III.1.b…Hiliya). According to the colophon of the text, apart from the earthquake omens, it
also contained a depiction of lunar signs which were possibly on its lost reverse (Dardano 2006:
158). In this aspect it is interesting that Walwaziti also supervised the writing of a lunar omen
written in Hittite (KUB 8.9+).
I found two more parallel fragments of KUB 8.28 in the Košak, Konkordanz: KBo 47.62 and
the fragment HFAC 84. Notwithstanding the lack of complete colophons in all of these non-
celestial omen fragments, the fact that this sort of omens were copied and also translated into Hittite
shows a sparked interest in them by the scribes. Based on the surviving name of Walwaziti in the
colophon of the Akkadian earthquake omen fragment KUB 37.164, we can perhaps date this
renewed interest regarding the consequences of earthquakes to sometime during his tenure, possibly
the first half of Hattušili III's reign. 269
So, returning to what was said on the type of documents copied in the bureau of Walwaziti,
267 This small fragment, stored in the Gulbenkan Mueseum, defies a reasonable translation:
x+1
m ]UR.MAH-LÚ GA[L] DUB[.SAR.MEŠ]
2' ]ar-pa ? -ši ? -an li-iš[
3' ] IŠ-ṬUR
268 See also under II.1.
269 Ünal (1977: 471) has interpreted two passages in KBo 6.29 (CTH 85.1.A), a text parallel to Hatt. III's
Autobiography, as accounts for an earthquake. The first is II 12-13 where Ištar “shook heaven and
earth” (HED 4: 135). The second is II 32-33 when Hatt. comes to siege the town of Šamuha in search of
Ur.-T. and its walls are toppled down. If his interpretation is correct then maybe this event is what
instigated the interest of Walwaziti, Hatt.'s chief scribe, to copy and study earthquake omen signs.
96

all of them represent vast scholarly knowledge required from him as the supervisor of the
composition. Each of the scribes who copied these documents may have had their special field of
expertise (see Fig. 3.16). But the supervisor of the writing process needed to have at least the basic
understanding of Akkadian omen literature (celestial), 270 folk literature (Iluyanka), Hurrian (the first
tablets of the (h)išuwa festival) and Luwian (the ritual KBo 34.245+), in order to be able to check
the work of his scribes. That is in the case he only proofread their copies vis-à-vis an original. In the
case he dictated the text or even needed to edit it, his knowledge of the local and foreign corpus
needed to be much greater.
In conclusion, I would surmise that the main function of the office which Walwaziti headed
was threefold: 1. the copying of texts requested by the royal family for specific purposes; 2. the
copying of texts for archival and educational purposes; 3. a scribal school (see also the remarks
made under III.1.b…Talmi-Tešub, and here below).
As for the location of Walwaziti's scribal office, it would seem that the find spots of most of
the texts which were copied under his supervision is Bk. A. The majority of texts containing the
colophons of the (h)išuwa discussed above, according to the Košak, Konkordanz, were found in the
rooms inside building A on Büyükkale: Hulanabi's copies of the 5 th tablet, KUB 32.128, KBo
33.175+ABoT 2 also including most of KBo 7.45+++, which he may have copied; Talmi-Tešub's
copy of the 13 th tablet, KBo 15.37 and several of its duplicates, KUB 32.77, KBo 38.15, KBo
40.172 and KBo 43.78; and Kuruntaili's copy of the 10 th tablet, namely KBo 15.52+++.
Three more (h)išuwa texts with only fragmentary colophons which mention Walwaziti, KBo
33.177, KBo 33.179 and KBo 33.180 were also recovered at Bk. A, as was KBo 39.43, which
contains a colophon of the four-columned version of the festival signed by a certain son of Alihešni,
likely Kuwalanaziti. A further inquiry in the Konkordanz revealed that most of the (h)išuwa festival
fragments, 72 out of 154 fragments whose find spots are known, were found in and around Bk.
A. 271
270 Walwaziti may have even applied this knowledge (omen praxis) in a certain occasion on behalf of
queen Puduhepa (van den Hout 1995: 176; cf. also here above). It could have been handed down to him
by his father, Mittannamuwa, who may have consulted an oracle in order to cure sick Hatt. III when he
was still a prince (see under III.1.b.Mittannamuwa).
271 A total of 261 fragments are listed under CTH 628 in the Košak, Konkordanz (03.2008). Apart from
those found in Bk. A their find spots can be distributed thus: 20 from Bk. D; 10 From Bk. C; 8 From
T.1; 6 from Bk. H; 6 from Bk. E; 5 from Bk. F; 4 from Bk. M; 3 from the HaH; 3 from Bk. K; 2 from
Bk. N; 2 from Bk. G; 1 from Bk. B; 1 from the Upper City; 1 from the Lower City; 7 fragments are
stray finds within Bk.; The find-spot of 107 fragments remains unknown.
97

From what we know by now on the textual material stored in Bk. A, it has been established
both as archive and library where important documents were mostly accumulated. A large
percentage of the texts found in this location are old copies of texts or important texts transferred to
it from other buildings for safe keeping (Košak 1995: 178f.; Alaura 2001: 26; van den Hout 2006b:
96). 272 As maintained by van den Hout (2006b: 94) many festivals and rituals were stored in Bk. A.
The high number of colophons belonging to the (h)išuwa festival found there suggests that the other
fragments of the festival were not only stored at that location, but also copied there under
Walwaziti's watchful eye.
Interestingly enough the scribes who wrote the stock taking lists of the tablets stored in Bk.
A did not incorporate the (h)išuwa festival in them, and in fact the festival does not appear in any
known shelf list (Dardano 2006: 3–7). If indeed the shelf lists from Bk. A were stock takings from
the time of Tudhaliya IV, as some would believe, 273 and the copying of the (h)išuwa festival was
done during the reign of Hattušili III (see above), then the absence of even a single entry of the
(h)išuwa tablets from these shelf lists shows that at least this festival was not moved to storage in
building A, possibly supporting one of two scenarios.
The more probable one is that the festival texts were written under Walwaziti's supervision
in one of the upper rooms in Bk. A, maybe even in the long halls (rooms 7-10) where perhaps a
scribal school resided (Neve 1982: 107), likely Walwaziti's scribal school. 274 It may even be no
coincidence that many of the older sources which he needed to compile the festival, namely the
Hurrian and Luwian texts from Kizzuwatna, stemmed from this building. 275 The less probable
scenario would be that the (h)išuwa tablets were written somewhere else and at some later stage
transferred to Bk. A.
Moving on to other texts copied under Walwaziti, we know of at least three which stem
from Bk. A according to the Košak, Konkordanz: the earthquake omen (KUB 37.164) and the two
rituals (KBo 23.93, KBo 34.245+). One cannot tell the origin of the other two: Manuscript A of the
272 Cf. also above under II.1.
273 Košak 1995: 179; Dardano 2006: 12. Note, however, that archaeologically speaking building A itself is
no longer believed to date from the reign of Tudh. IV but earlier (Seeher 2006: 138–140). In fact if the
(h)išuwa festival was written under Walwaziti in this building than it supports this earlier dating of the
archive.
274 For a colophon of Talmi-Tešub where he is titled “trainee” see under III.1.b…Talmi-Tešub.
275 See Košak 1995: 176f. and n. 23 where he states that the texts from Kizzuwatna are highly represented
in Bk. A.
98

Illuyanka myth (KBo 3.7) and the lunar omen (KUB 8.9+). Nonetheless, some clues can be gleaned
on their find spots from other data.
From among the various fragments of the Illuyanka myth, of which find spots are known,
none seem to stem from building A at all. Three come from the House on the Slope 276 and two were
found in T.1. 277 So I would presume that the copy made under Walwaziti had a specific purpose,
perhaps an academic one. As for the find spot of the lunar omen KUB 8.9+, it may be traced to Bk.
A. Let us take a look into a shelf list found in that building.
KUB 30.55, 278 one of the LH tablet catalogs found in building A, lists many types of omen
series texts, some of which can be traced to building A itself. 279 The shelf list contains among its
records two interesting tablets as follows: 5' 1 ṬUPPU mān d ŠÎ GISKIM-ahz[i / 6' 1 ṬUPPU
d ŠUR-ga-aš nininku[waš “1 tablet: when the moon giv[es] a sign / 1 tablet: of the earthquak[e”. 280
In reality, Bk. A housed three fragments of moon sign tablets according to Dardano (2006: 158), 281
and two Akkadian fragments of earthquake omens, KUB 37.163 and 37.164, according to the
Košak, Konkordanz. Although we have no information on who wrote or supervised the lunar omens
found there, we do know that Walwaziti supervised the writing of at least one of the earthquake
omen fragment, KUB 37.164. He could have used as a basis for KUB 37.164 the full tablet of an
earthquake omen stored in this building according to the catalog mentioned above. 282
In analogy to the abovementioned process the full lunar omen tablet stored in Bk. A,
according to the same catalog, may have been used as an exemplar for Hiliya who copied KUB
8.9+ under Walwaziti. The added fact that the shelf list KUB 30.55 records the two omen tablets
one after the other, first the lunar sign tablet then the earthquake omen tablet, reveals something
about their close nature in the eyes of the scribes' catalouging of the archive in Bk. A. 283
276 KBo 12.84(+)13.84 (=G) and KBo 12.83 (=F).
277 KBo 34.33+ (=D) and KBo 22.99 (=H).
278 See ed. in Dardano 2006: 156–160 with bib.
279 See the commentary of Dardano (2006: 157 – 160), where she shows how many omen texts mentioned
in this shelf list have accordingly the same type of omen texts found in Bk. A.
280 According to the translation of d inga ninikzi to the “earth quaked” by Riemschneider 2004: 246 and
not following the translation of the CHD L-N: 445 as “One tablet: [of] the outbreak of a cloudburst”.
281 KUB 34.8, 34.9 and 34.10.
282 Perhaps KUB 37.163?
283 Without a doubt following the Babylonian scribes who included the earthquake omens in the known
astrological series Enūma Anu Enlil as part of the signs of Atmospheric occurrences (Riemschneider
2004: XXXI).
99

Taking into consideration that most of the texts written under Walwaziti's direction stem
from Bk. A, leads me to believe that it was the main center of Walwaziti's scribal activities.
Furthermore, I only scraped here the surface but it would seem that most of the material which he
and his scribes used as reference resided in Bk. A. For instance, part of the celestial omen literature
used in writing the earthquake omen text KUB 37.164 and the lunar sign KUB 8.9+, and many of
the Kizzuwatnean texts used in editing the “standard” version of the (h)išuwa. I would even
cautiously suggest that at least in several rooms of this building his bureau and school resided. If he
indeed was active in another part of the city it is not evident from the find spots of the tablets which
were copied under his supervision and from the source material for his compositions.
Admittedly, Walwaziti led a long career which saw the lives of two kings, Hattušili III and
Tudhaliya IV. He was an important state secratery in the Hittite capital, whose duties included not
only scribal functions but also main economic and judicial roles.
NANI(N)ZI (ŠEŠ-ZI) AND AFFILIATED SCRIBES
In this section we shall focus on the scribal work of Nani(n)zi, the last of the sons of Mittannamuwa
mentioned in the deposition of Hattušili III (KBo 4.12), whose career can be retraced. 284 Since he
was not a chief scribe, Nani(n)zi is not a central part in this chapter. Nevertheless, some aspects of
his scribal work are important for the reconstruction of the bigger picture of the scribal work of the
Mittannamuwa family. I will first give a brief prosopographic overview of Nani(n)zi and then dwell
on some colophons which he signed.
The major prosopographic study on Nani(n)zi's life, also known as ŠEŠ-zi the scribe and
UGULA MUBARRÎ who witnessed the Bronze Tablet of Tudhaliya IV, was made by van den Hout
(1995: 180–186). 285 He has likely identified the same Nani(n)zi, titled GAL (LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ,
recording or witnessing the declaration of a Pallariya in the deposition RS 17.109, 286 next to Tehi-
Tešub. This Tehi-Tešub is the son of the Gilgameš scribe Ipizzi (KBo 10.47c+, CTH 341.III.E, Bk.
K), and also has a good synchronism to the first half of Hattušili III's reign (Singer 1999a: 650). 287
284 As already said under III.1.a nothing is known about Mittannamuwa's remaining son called Adduwa.
285 Cf. also Doǧan-Alparslan 2007: 250.
286 For an ed. of the text see Salvini 1995.
287 He is the same official who impressed his seal on RS 17.137 (=Ugar. III: 39, 135–137) next to Tili-
Tešub, a well known diplomat sent to Egypt during the period postdating the signing of the silver treaty
in 1258 B.C.
100

RS 17.109 was further ratified with what Singer (1999b: 651) identified as the seal of na-ni ! -zi/a the
L. 23.DOMINUS (Fig. 3.17). Following Hawkins (2005a: 300) the name on the seal impression
should now most likely read Ana(n)zi/a, as also supported by seals of the same person found in
Nişantepe (Fig. 3.17). It would seem that Nani(n)zi used the seal of Ana(n)zi/a, who according to
Hawkins (2005a: 300) can be his predecessor. 288
As for the titles GAL (LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ and L.23.DOMINUS, they seem to be equivalents
of each other. 289 Van den Hout (1995: 185) already suggested that the GAL (LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ is a
kind of legal official (Richter). Singer (1999b: 651) further dubbed the title as “lord of declarations /
litigations”. L. 23 is now recognized by Hawkins (2005a: 300) as the Empire form of Late Period L.
24, “disagreement, lawsuit”, and is transcribed LIS. Not surprisingly, all three known lords of
declarations: Nani(n)zi, Mahhuzzi and Ana(n)zi/a, also possessed a scribal education concurrent
with their judicial roles as writers of court declarations. 290
Van den Hout (1995: 180–186) has also identified the same Nani(n)zi, scribe and legal
official, in other sources: several court depositions from the time of Hattušili III, 291 one of them also
mentioning his unnamed daughter, 292 a prayer fragment probably relating to Kilušhepa, daughter of
Puduhepa and queen of Išuwa, 293 and perhaps as an already dead person in the oracle inquiry KUB
22.40+ III 27' (CTH 577). Either the same son of Mittannamuwa, or a homonym, is Nani(n)zi the
288 But definitely not his father as Hawkins (2005a: 300) also suggests, presumably forgetting that this
Nani(n)zi is without a doubt the son of Mittannamuwa.
289 See also a more thorough debate on this matter under IV.2.a.Mahhuzzi.
290 Cf. already the remarks on Nani(n)zi made by Singer 1999b: 651.
291 KUB 31.68 42' (CTH 297.8); KUB 13.35++ III 20 (CTH 293).
292 KUB 40.80 11 (CTH 297.11).
293 KUB 54.1+ I 27 (CTH 389, T.1).
101

tax payer associated with Mizamizana in KUB 42.28+ obv. 8 (CTH 244.2), a tribute inventory
(Siegelová 1986: 141–158).
Next we turn to the scribal work of Nani(n)zi, who possibly signed two documents. One of
these signatures may be found on the fragment KUB 54.4 6' (CTH 691) which likely records the
witaššiyaš festival "festival of the year" as it mentions the Luwian deity Huwaššana. 294 The text
contains the formula ŠU + PN and thus could be a colophon (van den Hout 1995: 181 n. 330). Not
many exemplars of this festival are preserved, two fragments come from Bk. A and one larger
restored manuscript originated likely in T.1. 295
The second more securely read colophon is KUB 20.59 l.e. (CTH 616.2.A) which has the
following signature: m a-ni-in-zi-eš DUMU m x[… IŠ-ṬUR]. The traces of the sign before the lacuna
could not have been positively established by either Mascheroni (1984: 161f.) or van den Hout
(1995: 181). Neverthelss, it seems reasonable to concur with their suggestion to restore the broken
name as M[ittannamuwa], thus identifying the scribe of the text with the abovementioned Nani(n)zi.
The tablet Nani(n)zi copied, which is divided into six columns, is the first of two tablets that
describe the rituals performed during the 29 th day of the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR spring festival (CTH
616; Popko & Taracha 1988: 87; Haas 1994: 814). According to the outline tablet of the festival on
the morning of the 29 th day the king and queen go into the temple of Ea. 296 Nani(n)zi's copy (KUB
20.59) is edited and discussed by Popko and Taracha (1988: 87–95) who date it to the 13 th century.
Groddek (2004b: 102) and Košak (Konkordanz) point out that its ductus could even be late 13 th
century. KUB 20.59 has also an older copy, KBo 9.140 (CTH 616.2.D, Bk. G), 297 which is a
somewhat different four columned tablet, 298 dated by Popko and Taracha (1988: 87f.) to the 14 th
century, thus belonging to the MH version of the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR festival. 299
294 For the group of texts, possibly of Luw. origin which concern this deity see Taggar-Cohen 2006: 301–
307.
295 See the Košak, Konkordanz under CTH 691: KUB 32.105, KBo 29.68 (Bk. A) and KBo 45.168+++
(T.1).
296 KBo 10.20 III 41 (Popko & Taracha 1988: 83; Haas 1994: 813).
297 Ed. and list of dupls. are found in Popko & Taracha 1988: 95–99.
298 For example the list of deities is shorter here than in the LH copy (Archi 2006: 156).
299 The first manuscript of the outline tablet of the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR festival of spring (CTH 604.B),
celebrated for the Sun-goddess of Arinna and for the deities of the land of Hatti, was composed, at the
earliest, during the reign of Šupp. I, while the other manuscripts (604.A to F) can be dated as late as the
reign of Tudh. IV (Houwink ten Cate 1983: 108–110; Haas 1994: 772f.; Archi 2006: 155). In the MH
version (604.B) the festivities and rituals continued for 34 days, while in the later NH versions they
102

As for the find spot of KUB 20.59 nothing is known. If one looks at the general find spots of
the tablets recording the 29 th day of the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR , namely CTH 616, he may find some
general ideas about the division of its older and later copies in the archives of Hattuša during the
later 13 th century. While the older MH copies originate only from Büyükkale, in which also LH
copies were found, the House on the Slope contains only LH copies. 300 Although this division says
practically nothing about the ultimate find spot of KUB 20.59, it hints towards one of these two
venues.
The find spot and contents of one specific fragment stood out among the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR
tablets booked under CTH 616. The text, KBo 42.28, comes from the debris/fill of a wall on
Büyükkaya according to its entry in the Košak, Konkordanz. We shall dwell again on the
importance of this matter somewhat later, after discussing more on the contents of the text.
KBo 42.28 records a very interesting colophon found on its reverse, which, to the best of my
knowledge, was never edited before. The ductus of the fragment is LH and based on similar
phrasing found in a manuscript of the second tablet of CTH 616, KUB 58.43 (CTH 616.II.1.A), 301 it
was recognized as such by Groddek (2002c: 588). The colophon of KUB 58.43 contains the catch
line which did not survive in the colophon of KBo 42.28. Here are the two colophons in
transliteration and translation back to back:
KUB 58.43 VI (Popko & Taracha 1988: 105, 109)
6 DUB II.KAM ma-a-an LUGAL-uš
7
URU Ha-at-tu-ši I-A É d É.A
8 ha-me-eš-hi EZEN4 AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR
9 MU-ti me-e-ia-ni pa-iz-zi
10 QA-TI pár-ku-i tup-pi
" 6 Second tablet: “When the king 7 enters the temple of Ea in Hattuša 8 in the
spring 9 annually for the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR festival” 10 Finished. Clear copy
(lit.: pure tablet)"
were extended into 38 days (Haas 1994: 775); for a short survey of the ductus of the various
manuscripts of the festival's outline tablets see Haas 1994: 774 with previous bib. A complete catalog of
all the tablets of the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR festival, their find-spots and scripts is found under CTH 604-625
in the Košak, Konkordanz.
300 For the find-spots see CTH 616 in the Košak, Konkordanz (27/08/2007).
301 Ed. and a list of dupls. of KUB 58.42 may be found in Popko & Taracha 1988: 99–110; a recent translit.
in Trabazo & Groddek 2005: 113–116 with bib.
103

KBo 42.28 rev.
x+1 [...]x-˹x˺[...]
2' [pa˺-iz-zi QA-˹TI˺ [... ]
(blank line)
3' [Š]U m Ha-pa-ti-UR.MAH erasure 302
4' [DU]MU m Tu-u-wa-at-ta-LÚ LÚ A.ZU LÚ S[AG]
5' PA-I m A-nu-wa-an-za LÚ SAG I[Š-ṬUR] 303
6' ki-i-ma ṬUP-PA HI.A A-A PA-[I PN DUMU]
7'
m Mi-it-tan-na-mu-u-wa GAL [DUB.SAR.MEŠ]
8' a-an-ni-iš-ki-ia-u-an ? d[a-iš 304 ]
9' […]x x[…]
" x+1 [Second tablet: “When the king] enters [the temple of Ea in Hattuša in the
spring annually for the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR festival] 2' Finished […]. 3' [Ha]nd of
Hapati-walwi, 4' son of Tuwattaziti, the physician and LÚ S[AG]. 5 'He w[rote] in
the presence of Anuwanza the LÚ SAG. 6'-8' But [he began(?)] to copy (lit.: work)
these tablets in the presence of [PN son of] 7' Mittannamuwa the chief [scribe],
9' […]"
The colophon of KUB 58.43 terms the tablet as a "clear copy", literally parkui tuppi "pure
tablet". This scribal terminus technicus, extensively treated before, 305 defines the tablet either as one
free of errors, corrected (CHD P: 166a) or a final literally genuine copy (Singer 1983a: 4). 306 If KBo
42.28 was also such a copy cannot be established, since the text breaks after QATI and resumes
again with the scribal genealogy. However, this colophon names both the scribe and its supervisor,
adding also an interesting comment on previous handling of the text.
302 NI or LÚ are inscribed over the erasure.
303 Otherwise van den Hout (1995: 239 n. 460, Bo 93/45 5') renders here LÚ SAG.U[Š. Although Anuwanza
does appear as a LÚ SAG.UŠ in one colophon where he is the supervisor (KUB 15.31 IV 43'), this can
not be taken as an existing title without clearer attestations.
304 Needs further collation, suggested here to be a supine construct of the verb anneške-, the iterative of
an(n)iya- “work, carry out, perform”, with dai- in the 3 rd person, sg., pret. form. The duplication of the
first a vowel in anneške- is unusual, only one other such writing is found in KBo 2.11 rev. 17, pret. sg. 1
a-an-ni-iš-ki-nu-un ! (HW 2 : 88), and in the Luw. writing of the verb anni-/an(i)ya (CLL: 17).
305 Previous bib. found in Karasu 2001: 254 n. 21.
306 See also under II.2.
104

First, the scribe, Hapatiwalwi, designates his patronym Tuwattaziti, 307 followed by the titles
physician ( LÚ A.ZU) and LÚ SAG. 308 Then the name of his supervisor, Anuwanza, is stated. This man
is a noted scribal authority who supervised the drafting of numerous religious compositions during
the late reign of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV's reign (Laroche 1949: 11f.; van den Hout 1995:
241f.; Miller 2004: 38f.; Torri 2007a: 777).
As a matter of fact, Hapatiwalwi (Hapati-UR.MAH/PÌRIG) is also known as the scribe of
two other texts. One is KUB 20.8 (CTH 610), another corrected or final copy of an
AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR tablet, which he also copied under Anuwanza, recording the 12 th -13 th days of the
festival. 309 It could be imagined that it was copied quite contemporary to KBo 42.28. 310 The second
text is a copy of the autumn and spring festivals for Išhara, KBo 21.42 (CTH 641.2), 311 written
under a different scribe called Šipaziti. 312 Therefore, this text likely post dates Hapatiwalwi's work
on the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR tablets, but only by a very short period, since Šipaziti and Anuwanza were
close contemporaries of each other, both supervising also the work of Karunu(wa). 313
The latter mentioned Išhara festival was edited by Güterbock (1979: 138–142) who seems to
have followed the interpretation of Burde (1974: 10f.), 314 as all later commentators, 315 in reading the
titles in the colophon (VI 5') as LÚ A.ZU.SAG "chief physician", and attributing them to
Hapatiwalwi's father Tuwattaziti. Burde showed that this reading stood in apposition to
307 The name is attested in only one other text where it is spelled phonetically, KUB 18.63 IV 6 (CTH 574,
T.1), a MUŠEN HURRI oracle. Outside Hattuša the name is attested in Emar, for which see Pruzsinky
2003: 262 and n. 71.
308 On the scribal training of physicians see above under II.3 and III.1.b.Mittannamuwa.
309 The colophon is edited in Karasu 2001: 251.
310 It would be interesting to make a separate study of the scribes of this festival, as it has various types of
colophons. Some of them state the tablet was written "according to the wooden writing board" (AA
GIŠ.HUR-kan handān) by the known pair of scribe on wood Pihawalwi and scribe Palluwaraziti, who
also copied some KI.LAM festival texts (Mascheroni 1983; Singer 1983: 41f.; Torri 2007a: 778f.).
311 Note here the different spelling of Hapati-UR.MAH as Hapati-PÌRIG.
312 This scribe witnessed the Šahurunuwa land grant and supervised the writing of several other scribes. He
further renewed (after the archival copies were worn out?) at least two rituals of similar character
(Güterbock 1979: 141; van den Hout 1995: 237); see also more on his work under III.2.
313 See van den Hout 1995: 237 (under Šipaziti), 240 (under Anuwanza).
314 Although for some reason his edition nowhere refers to her study.
315 Beckman 1987-90: 630; Haas 2003: 7f.; Trémouille 2004b: 208 n. 15.
105

(LÚ) A.ZU.TUR "junior physician", 316 appearing as the title of the scribe Lurma(ziti) 317 in the
colophon of KBo 11.1, Muwattalli II's prayer to the Storm-god (CTH 382). 318 However, the
colophon of KBo 42.28 clearly shows that Tuwattaziti's titles in the colophon of KBo 21.42 are to
be read LÚ A.ZU (LÚ) SAG, and thus I suggest relinquish the older reading of a hapax title "chief
physciain" in the form LÚ A.ZU.SAG. 319 This also concurs with the same suggestions made by
Starke (1996: 161 n. 89) on the grounds that SAG is not the apposition of TUR, and it can also
appear written without the determinative LÚ.
Next, the second part of the colophon in KBo 42.28 regards who inspected the copying of
the tablet prior to Anuwanza. Since the verb describing what was done is almost entirely lost in a
break, there is room for speculation. If my interpretation of this passage is correct, 320 then the
tablets were first copied in front of one of the sons of Mittannamuwa, the known chief scribe. 321 It
is, however, debatable to which of his sons we can attribute this work.
316 For a different interpretation of the title as “junior incantation priest”, namely that LÚ A.ZU is
interchangeable here with LÚ AZU (Akk. bārû or āšipu), as in other cases where their meaning seems to
have been confused based on similar context and overlapping duties see Houwink ten Cate & Josephson
1967: 127; Otten & Rüster 1993: 540 n. 14; Singer 2002b: 85. The ideogram LÚ A.ZU in Hitt. (literally:
“knowledgeable of water”, Burde 1974: 2 n. 3) is derived from Akk. asû, “medical practitioner” and its
Hitt. writing is still unknown (Haas 2003: 7 with extensive bib.); on the title LÚ AZU see most recently
Haas 2003: 11f.
317 The LÚ sign likely refers to the name of the scribe rather than to his title A.ZU (Singer 1996b: 162 n.
353). Perhaps this Lurmaziti is the son of the scribe Aki-Tešub who signed the HL inscription ALEPPO
1 (Mascheroni 1984: 153 n. 14; van den Hout 1995: 243); though, note that Singer (1996b: 162) does
not seem to think so.
318 The colophon specifies that the prayer was dictated to Lurma(ziti) by the king; for eds. of the text see
Houwink ten Cate & Josephson 1967; Lebrun 1980: 256–293, a translation can also be found in Singer
2002b: 81–85.
319 We do know of an UGULA LÚ A.ZU "overseer of physicians" and a GAL LÚ.MEŠ A.ZU "chief physician"
(Beckman 1987-90: 630f.). Evidently LÚ A.ZU.TUR is also a hapax, but it cannot be entirely devoid of
truth as it may be found in a much later NB colophon from Huzirīna (Hunger 1968: 117).
320 For a different interpretation of this colophon see van den Hout 1995: 240, suggesting that Anuwanza
and Mittannamuwa were contemporary.
321 Otherwise one might ponder whether it was not Mittannamuwa himself who inspected the writing
process. However, he is not attested as a supervisor and thus this would be the only evidence of such a
case and so less acceptable.
106

There is enough room to insert in the break after AA PA[I (l. 6') at least three signs,
compared to the space at the end of the following line (7'), where the title of Mittannamuwa must be
reconstructed as GAL [DUB.SAR.MEŠ]. Therefore, the break of l. 6' should contain a male
determinative and a name with either two, or, less likely, three signs. Among the sons of
Mittannamuwa studied above, 322 only two names can fit this space, both written logographically:
Walwaziti (UR.MAH-LÚ) or Nani(n)zi (ŠEŠ-zi). Walwaziti is the better attested supervisor (see
above), but I believe the latter possibily is correct, for two reasons: (1) Walwaziti's name is usually
followed by his title chief scribe; (2) We know from the colophon of KUB 20.59 that Nani(n)zi
already copied a tablet of CTH 616. That colophon can further be compared to the one of KBo
42.28 since it also mentions Mittannamuwa as his father, though in broken context.
Given this tentative reconstruction of the writing process of KBo 42.28, let us return to the
issue of its unusual find spot, i.e. the fill of Büyükkaya. It has already been noted by Seeher (1998:
230f.), apud tablet joins made by Otten, that most text fragments found in the area of Büyükkaya
arrived there with earth fill transported from the Lower City. If, as shown here above, the likely find
spot of the LH copies of CTH 616 is the House on the Slope, then the colophon of KBo 42.28 may
be evidence for the process during which the authority over the copying of CTH 616 transferred
from Nani(n)zi, operating in some venue, to Anuwanza in the House on the Slope. Evidently, this
simplified reconstruction should be much more complicated, mainly since the work of Anuwanza as
supervisor does not seem to stem from the House on the Slope at all (Torri 2007a: 777 n. 33). In the
following chapter I suggest that at least some of the scribes Anuwanza supervised worked in a part
of the building opposite Temple 1 called in Hittite texts the É GIŠ.KIN.TI (IV.2.a.Šauškaruntiya).
Therefore, another possible solution to the problem might be that the copies of CTH 616 found in
the House on the Slope were stored there during the reign of Šuppiluliuma II, when this building
was still very active. 323
Ultimately, the above studied colophons give a very unique testimony to the chronological
process which the tablets of the 29 th day of the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR went through, as the career of
Nani(n)zi (Fig. 3.18). It began during the reign of Hattušili III in the bureau where Nani(n)zi, son of
Mittannamuwa, supposedly copied texts of CTH 616, later also supervising the writing process
itself. During the end of Hattušili III, or more likely the beginning of Tudhaliya IV's reign, the
inspection authority over the copying process transferred to Anuwanza who supervised
Hapatiwalwi, the son of the physician and LÚ SAG Tuwattaziti. Hapatiwalwi documented the name
322 Purandamuwa, Walwaziti, Alihešni, Nani(n)zi and Adduwa.
323 Regarding the dating of this building see the remarks made by Torri 2007a: 780f.
107

of his previous supervisor, likely Nani(n)zi. Finally, at some later stage, perhaps during the reign of
Šuppiluliuma II, the work on CTH 616 was relocated again to the House on the Slope, where
several LH copies of this composition were found during excavation. 324 KUB 20.59 V 2-6 actually
tells us that at some point during this day of the festival the scribe himself reads from a tablet to
which deities they sacrifice a sheep (Haas 2007a: 344). So, it is reasonable to assume that the
final/corrected copies of CTH 616 came into use during the celebration.
Fig. 3.18: The career of Nani(n)zi and affiliated scribes parallel with the development in the work on CTH 616
324 According to the Košak, Konkordanz there are also several copies of CTH 616 written in LNS, but these
lack a specific find spot.
108

c. Summary of Key Arguments
The following points recap the key arguments in the above prosopographies of the Mittannamuwa
family members, which take up the majority of the present chapter. This summary intends to
organize the main results of the study, strengthening previous opinions as well as stressing my own
suggestions:
1. Previous studies mentioned the role of the chief scribe in conducting important oracle inquiries
for the health and well being of the king. 325 For example, the case of Walwaziti checking the
success of a royal campaign with patta- stones in a dream of the queen. Here I have stressed this
point, also suggesting that Mittannamuwa consulted an oracle in order to find a cure for the
illness of young Hattušili III (KBo 4.12 obv. 5-8).
2. Kuruntapiya ( d LAMMA-SUM), contemporary scribe to Mittannamuwa, was member of a family
of local scribes in Hattuša whose generations span a very long time period: from the days of
Arnuwanda I till the end of Tudhaliya IV's reign. The origin and chronology of this family was
suggested following Corti (2007: 116), who shows that most of the names born by its members
have earlier MH parallels.
3. Some scholars have argued that a rival family of Mittannamuwa, headed by a man named Ziti
(LÚ) who sometimes writes his name by mistake as SAG, took over the position of chief scribe
during Urhi-Tešub's reign with the king's support (Hagenbuchner 1989: 84; van den Hout 1995:
147–149; Marizza 2007a: 278). While this scenario is probably correct, it needs to be slightly
emended, separating Ziti from SAG, as will be further considered in the following section (III.2).
4. As for Mittannamuwa's successor and first born son, Purandamuwa, several suggestions
regarding his fate, name, and main place of operation were suggested: He was probably not alive
during the issuing of KBo 4.12, i.e. during the reign of Hattušili III, because his name is omitted
from the list of Mittannamuwa's sons in the reverse (ll. 6-7); The name Purandamuwa is a
geographical compound with URU Puranda, the Arzawan refuge-city subdued by Muršili II as
described in his Annals, rather than with Puranti (Hitt. Mala-), the Hurrian appellative of the
Euphrates, as previously assumed (Salvini 1980: 166; Mascheroni 1984: 162); It is reasonable to
presume, as does Marizza (2007a: 278 n. 64), that Purandamuwa moved together with
Muwattalli II to Tarhuntašša acting as the chief scribe from the new capital.
5. I have stressed the point that several craftsmen were also scribes. For example, Palla, scribe,
LÚ SAG and lord of Hurma under Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV was identified by van den Hout
(1995: 223) with his namesake, a goldsmith. Also Pupuli, the metal worker who collaborated
325 See Doğan-Alparslan 2007: 249 with bib.
109

with Walwaziti, was suggested by Siegelová (1986: 121) to be a scribe, as indicated from the
title BONUS2 SCRIBA he bears on a seal impression found in the north storerooms of T.1 (Bog.
V 12). Corroborating the latter proposal is a possible HL signature of Pupuli (pu-pu-li ? /sa ? )
which I suggest to read on the fragment VBoT 87 IV (CTH 503), colophon of an inventory of a
certain Arnuwand[a] which lists items of the "seal-house" (É NA 4KIŠIB).
6. Apart from appearing on seal impressions as LEO/LEO2-VIR.zi/a (equivalent of cun. UR.MAH-
LÚ), I suggest that Walwaziti signed his name as LEO and LEO2 on two tablets: an unidentified
fragment SBo II 239 and KUB 28.4 (CTH 727), a fragmentary Hattic-Hittite bilingual of an old
Anatolian myth on the Moon-god who fell from heaven, respectively. Such a hypochoristic
signature of Walwaziti is also known from cuneiform evidence, a copy of Iluyanka which he
supervised (KBo 3.7, CTH 321.A).
7. The scribes of the bureau and school of Walwaziti, possibly located in Bk. A, and their work
were extensively studied; for a summary of the results see pp. 95–100.
8. Lastly, two colophons give a very unique testimony to the chronological process of the copying
of the LH tablets of the 29 th day of the AN.TAH.ŠUM SAR festival. From the reign of Hattušili III
in the bureau where Nani(n)zi, son of Mittannamuwa, supposedly copied them, later also
supervising the writing process itself, through Tudhaliya IV's reign, when the inspection
authority transferred to Anuwanza supposedly somewhere in the Lower City, 326 to the reign of
Šuppiluliuma II, when the work on the tablets was relocated again to the House on the Slope,
where several LH copies of this composition were found during excavation.
326 Perhaps the É GIŠ.KIN.TI?
110

2. Families of Ziti (LÚ) and SAG
Previous Literature: Laroche 1949: 11f.; Neu & Rüster 1975: 11; Salvini 1980: 165f.; Beckman 1983b: 103–
106; 1992: 176; Mascheroni 1984: 153–157, 166; Hagenbuchner 1989: 83f.; Starke
1992: 808f.; van den Hout 1995: 148f.; Frantz-Szabó 2001; Miller 2004: 38; Corti 2007:
115f.; Marizza 2007a: 278; Torri 2007a: 778f.
This section will deal with other chief scribes not linked to the Mittannamuwa patronym. At least
two such families were identified, their patronyms written logographically. These are the lineages
of the chief scribes LÚ (henceforth Ziti (A)) and SAG. Fortunately, several scholars already made
the first approach in the study of these families (see Previous Literature), whose scribal work and
chronology we intend to probe. But first, let us establish, when during the 13 th century the
Mittannamuwa family did not occupy the position of chief scribe.
The Mittannamuwa scribal family was indeed a central part of the Hittite state
administration for decades. Twice during the 13 th century, however, it seems to have lost its
position. The first instance is described in the deposition of Hattušili III in favour of
Mittannamuwa. 327 According to the order of events described in the deposition, when
Mittannamuwa became ill and the capital was reinstated in Hattuša by Urhi-Tešub, Purandamuwa,
the first born son of Mittannamuwa and the chief scribe under most of Muwattalli II's reign,
disappears from the scene. Under Urhi-Tešub, perhaps with his support, other men seize the
position of chief scribe from the Mittannamuwa family. While their names are in fact not mentioned
in the deposition itself (ll' 20-23), it seems quite clear that Urhi-Tešub would not have wanted a
member of the Mittannamuwa family, evidently allies of his political rival Hattušili III, in such a
high administrative position.
The second instance, when the Mittannamuwa family seemed to have lost its hold of the
position of chief scribe for good, was after the death of Walwaziti. Although he has produced two
living heirs, Hulanabi and Talmi-Tešub, neither of them followed in his foot steps to become chief
scribe. 328 It seems as though Tudhaliya IV had in mind to promote some new scribal family. Next,
we shall dwell on what is known of the scribal families who held the chief scribe position during
the periods when the Mittannamuwa family fell from grace.
327 KBo 4.12, see above III.1.a.
328 See above under III.1.b.Walwaziti.
111

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, two men of other families also held the title GAL
DUB.SAR(.MEŠ), their names are Ziti (A) and SAG. Similarly to the other chief scribes they have
not copied any text by themselves, and we actually know of them from the colophons of tablets
written by their descendants, Hanikkuili (B) and NU.GIŠ.SAR (B). 329 The following
prosopographical reconstruction closely follows the works of Beckman (1983b: 103–106; 1992:
176) and van den Hout (1995: 148f.). However, some of the aspects of these studies need revision,
such as the chronology of the scribes, and by and large the identification of the chief scribe SAG as
separate from Ziti (A).
The genealogy of Hanikkuili (B) was retraced by Beckman (1983b: 103–106) to a likely
Mesopotamian scribe of the 15 th century named Anu-šar-ilāni, who was father of the GAL
NA.GAD Hanikkuili (A). Hanikkuili (A) himself was the scribe of the prism recording the epic of
Narām-Sîn and of two land grants of Hantili II (Rüster 1993: 69f.; Miller 2004: 37 n. 63). 330 A Late
Empire Period scribe, Hanikkuili (B), likely given the name of his ancestor, copied at least four
texts: a LH parallel text of the first law code series (KBo 6.4, CTH 291.III), 331 a sammeltafel with
two rituals of tutelary deities ascribed to Anniwiyani (VBoT 24, CTH 393.A), 332 a LH copy of the
first tablet of a MH enthronement ritual for Tešub and Hebat which describes the rise to the throne
of Tudhaliya III (KBo 10.34, CTH 700.1), 333 and a ritual for domestic quarrel ascribed to Maštigga
of Kummani/Kizzuwatna (KBo 12.105+, CTH 404.1.II.B). 334 At a glance, all these texts seem to be
newly created or edited LH copies of older MH manuscripts, thus indicating something about the
329 The sigila (B) is used to separate the name bearers from their earlier homonyms termed as (A).
330 For another possible colophon of the MH Hanikkuili (B) see KBo 31.48 obv. (CTH 825, T.1). In the
Inhaltsübersicht of this KBo volume Otten and Rüster remark that the fragment contains some old
signs. Later it was dated by Rüster (1993: 60f. and n. 21) to MH along with the phonetic spelling of
Hanikkuili's name in the text. Note that the Košak, Konkordanz leaves the script of the text undated.
331 Hoffner 1997 (sigila PT); 2000
332 Most recently edited by Bawanypeck 2005: 51–70 and in the Mainz, Portal (http://www.hethiter.uni-
mainz.de/wrap/cth_393/, entered on the 05/07/2007).
333 The text seems to have been copied in the presence of someone whose name is broken: KBo 10.34 IV
16' ŠU m Ha-ni-ku-DINGIR LIM DUMU m NU.GIŠ.SAR 17' PA[I m PN]. It remains to be seen if this obscure
supervisor could very well be Anuwanza, since another LH copy of the same MH ritual, KBo 34.195
rev. (CTH 700), was written in front of a certain LÚ SAG, a title usually designating this supervisor.
Furthermore, Ziti (B), likely Hanikkuili's brother, copied several texts under Anuwanza (see p. 115).
334 Ed. in Miller 2004: 61–124.
112

duties of Hanikkuili. 335 Topics dealt with in at least three of the texts, such as domestic quarrel
(Maštigga), sexual potency (Anniwiyani), and naturally the law code, suggest the interest of the
scribe or his superiors in copying texts dealing with social issues.
As for the dating of Hanikkuili (B), it was Laroche (1949: 11f.) who initially placed him in
the reign of Arnuwanda III. Later scholarship seemed to follow in his footsteps suggesting a date
very late in the reign of Tudhaliya IV or that of Arnuwanda III (Rüster & Neu 1975: 11; Salvini
1980: 166; Beckman 1983b: 106; Mascheroni 1984: 154f.). Miller (2004: 37f.), on the other hand,
has shown that this does not concur with the dating of the manuscripts Hanikkuili (B) copied on
paleographical grounds. Acording to this, he dated Hanikkuili (B)'s term to the late reign of
Hattušili III and the reign of Tudhaliya IV. Other prosopographical elements seem also to support
Miller's view.
Hannikuili (B)'s father was a scribe called NU.GIŠ.SAR (A), 336 who appears in the extended
genealogy recorded in the colophons of KBo 6.4, VBoT 24, and likely also of KBo 12.105+, 337 as
the son of Ziti (A) the chief scribe. At least three other persons named NU.GIŠ.SAR should be
separated from this scribe based on their different dating, affiliation or titles. The earliest known
NU.GIŠ.SAR is an augur and scribe of the 14 th century, 338 probably under Tudhaliya III (Marizza
2007c: 160). 339 The second NU.GIŠ.SAR is a military official connected with the chariotry in the
time of Urhi-Tešub as documented in the prayer KUB 31.66+, 340 attributed by Houwink ten Cate
(1994: 240–243) to that king. 341 The third, refered to here as NU.GIŠ.SAR (B), is the scribe of
335 For example, Anniwiyani's text is a sammeltafel, a collection of texts, and KBo 6.4 is known as a
parallel text of the LH copies of the first law series, not a one-for-one copy (Hoffner 1997: 229).
336 Some scholars prefer the logographic writing NU. GIŠ KIRI6; see for example Beckman 1992: 176;
Frantz-Szabó 2001; Miller 2004: 38; Bawanypeck 2005: 206. I, however, belive that since the name
may be spelled also as GIŠ.SAR.NU and GIŠ.NU.SAR (see HZL nos. 11, 178 and below), there is no
reason to think that the GIŠ defined the KIRI6 thus referring to the logogram for "garden" as the basic
root of the name (HZL no. 353).
337 Such a restoration is indicated by Miller 2004: 107 n. 277.
338 Appearing in the famous augur letter KBo 15.28 (CTH 195, Bk. D), and as the supervisor(?) of Hubiti
in KUB 32.19+; both texts incorrectly dated to the Late Empire Period by Imparati 1985: 257 and
Mascheroni 1984: 157, respectively. For the correct dating of these texts to the MH period see de
Martino 2005: 295; Marizza 2007c: 160 and n. 59, both with bib.
339 Contra this dating see Frantz-Szabó 2001 who suggests Tudh. I.
340 For the ed. of the prayer see Houwink ten Cate 1974: 129–134.
341 Note that van den Hout (1995: 148) rather ascribes this reference to NU.GIŠ.SAR (A) son of Ziti.
113

KUB 44.61, the son of a chief scribe named SAG and a student of Hulanabi, otherwise known as
the son of Walwaziti the chief scribe. 342 We shall further dwell on the identity of this SAG
somewhat later on, but first there is place to address two other issues with regard to NU.GIŠ.SAR
(A): his work and the identity of his other sons, brothers of Hanikkuili (B).
Relating to the first issue, GIŠ.NU.SAR identified in the colophon of KBo 48.133 (CTH
670) was equated by Otten, Rüster and Wilhelm with NU.GIŠ.SAR (A) in the Inhaltsübersicht (p.
VIf.):
Rev. IV
2' [ŠU m ]Pikku
3' [ LÚ GÁB.]ZU.ZU
4' [ŠA m ]GIŠ.NU.SAR
5' [PAI m ]Anuwanza
6' [ LÚ SAG]-uš 343
7' [ IŠṬUR ? ]
The scribe of the text, a certain student named Pikku, was also identified by the authors with his
namesake Pikku (B), brother of Pihhuniya, son of Tatta and grandson of Pikku (A), since he copied
KBo 48.133 under Anuwanza the LÚ SAG, as he did in his later career as DUB.SAR. 344 Although
the authors indicate that the relationship between GIŠ.NU.SAR/NU.GIŠ.SAR (A) and Pikku (B) is
unclear, I have restored the colophon as though GIŠ.NU.SAR/NU.GIŠ.SAR (A) was Pikku (B)'s
teacher, what also complies with the chronological setting of NU.GIŠ.SAR (A) as the father of
another scribe who worked under Anuwanza named Ziti (B).
This Ziti (B), not to be confused with his grandfather the chief scribe Ziti (A), 345 has copied
at least four known documents during his first career stage as DUB.SAR. 346 Two were inscribed
under the supervision of Anuwanza: the Kizzuwatnean ritual for the expansion of the cult of the
342 See also above under III.1.b…Hulanabi.
343 On the question whether UŠ is part of the logogram or a phonetic compliment see van den Hout 1995:
241 and Starke 1996: 161f.; I personally believe it to be a phonetic compliment, mainly because it
appears only twice, likely in this colophon, and in KUB 15.31 IV 43' (see also n. 209 above).
344 On the texts of his later career (KUB 29.11+; KUB 10.18; KUB 29.1; KUB 7.53+) and his family see
Rüster & Neu 1975: 9f., and van den Hout 1995: 240f.
345 As does Laroche 1949: 11f.
346 The texts Ziti (B) inscribed are listed in Beckman 1992: 176 and Miller 2004: 38 n. 66.
114

Goddess of the Night (KUB 29.4+, CTH 481.A), 347 dating back to the reign of Tudhaliya II/III and
ascribed originally to the Babylonian scribe NÍG.BA- d U and the priest Ulippi (Archi 2001: 22), and
the 8 th tablet of the extensive dupaduparša Luwian ritual (KUB 35.41, CTH 759.3), 348 dating back
to the days of Arnuwanda I and ascribed originally to the old woman ( MUNUS ŠU.GI) Šilalluhi and
the hierodule Kuwattalla. Another LH copy of the 3 rd tablet of the latter ritual was inscribed under
Anuwanza by a certain Duwa, 349 who therefore should be contemporary with Ziti (B).
A third text, KBo 14.86+++ (CTH 330.1.A), 350 which is a second tablet of the mugawar 351
ritual describing the invocations to the Storm-god of Kuliwišna, was copied by Ziti (B) after the
original worn-out/damaged(?) manuscript was renewed by the known scribe Šipaziti. This latter
scribe also witnessed the Šahurunuwa land grant, worked as a supervisor, and was responsible for
the restoration of KBo 45.168+++, a damaged Huwššanna ritual tablet also copied by Ziti (B),
comparable to the mugawar ritual (Güterbock 1979: 141; van den Hout 1995: 237). Šipaziti must
have been a close contemporary of Anuwanza, perhaps even in the same office, since at least two
scribes he supervised worked also under Anuwanza: Hapatiwalwi and Karunu(wa). 352 With regard
to the origins of the mugawar ritual they are likely MH, as the oldest exemplars are from the second
half of the 15 th century at least (Glocker 1997: 13–15).
347 For a recent ed. see Miller 2004: 273–310 and a translation in Collins 1997.
348 The "Ritual of the Beating" (for the linguistic development of the name from the root dup- 'to beat' see
Warkins 1995:335) is a Luw. ritual aimed against evil doing and for purification performed by a
MUNUS ŠU.GI, "old woman". It was edited and thoroughly studied by Starke (1985: 104–134) and later
somewhat differently transliterated by Melchert (2001: 31–51). The ritual is a mixed composition of
Hitt. and Luw. passages, which spanned at least nine tablets according to the colophon of KUB 35.40+,
but is only partially preserved on around 18 text fragments. Of these Starke (1985: 104f.) listed five
exemplars of ritual tablets numbered by colophons, to which Roszkowska (2007: 176f.) now adds
another in MS. All other texts lack colophons or cannot be orderly placed in the sequence of the ritual.
The origins of the ritual are considered by Starke (1985: 79–81, 109–111; Watkins 1995: 335) to date
back to the 15 th cent., since Kuwattala the hierodule was granted land by the royal couple Arnu. I and
Asmunikal in KBo 5.7, and MH paleographical traits such as plene writing are abundant in the text.
349 KUB 9.6+ (CTH 759.2). Duwa (tu-wa/i-a) is also attested on two HL seal impressions from Nişantepe
with the title SCRIBA (Nis 471 and 486, see Herbordt 2005: 197; Hawkins 2005a: 276).
350 See the ed. of Glocker 1997: 26–39.
351 On mugai- see HED 6: 180–182.
352 For the work of Hapatiwalwi see above under III.1.b.Nani(n)zi; on the work of Karunuwa see van den
Hout 1995: 237 (under Šipaziti), 240 (under Anuwanza).
115

The fourth, and last text copied by Ziti (B) during his DUB.SAR career phase, is the
abovementioned KBo 45.168+++ (CTH 691.1), which is a fragmentary tablet of the witaššiyaš
festival relating the cult of the Luwian deity Huwaššana. Interestingly enough, the cult of this
goddess, also known as the queen of Hupišna (her main cult venue), was also venerated at
Kuliwišna (Hutter 2003: 243, 246); the main cult city of the aforementioned mugawar ritual copied
also by Ziti (B).
So, the texts inscribed by Ziti (B) during this stage of his career are connected with the
mixed Luwian-Hurrian cult of Kizzuwatna, perhaps more with the Luwian sources, and are mostly
if not exclusively of MH origin. It would seem that Ziti (B), or the scribe ordering him (perhaps
Anuwanza?), had a main interest in reproducing copies of texts connected with this cult, which date
back to the influx of Luwian-Hurrian religious texts into Hattuša during the 15 th and 14 th
centuries. 353 As for the dating of this phase in Ziti (B)'s career, his work under Anuwanza and
synchronism with Šipaziti suggest the very end of Hattušili III's reign and the beginning of
Tudhaliya IV's. This would concur with Miller's view of the dating of his brother Hanikkuili (B) to
this period (see above).
In the later phase of his career, sometime during the second half of Tudhaliya IV's reign, Ziti
(B) was the supervisor of at least four scribes. Two of them were also students or assistants of Ziti
(B): Ašhapala, 354 scribe of the known song of Kumarbi or "Kingship in Heaven" 355 composition
(KUB 33.120+++, CTH 344.A), and GUR-Šarruma, 356 scribe of KUB 10.96 (CTH 825), which is
only a tablet colophon. Whereas Ašhapala is termed with the usual GÁB.ZU.ZU "trainee", 357 GUR-
Šarruma is titled with the rare Sumerogrphic writing ŠAGAN.LÁ (= U.GAN), 358 which I have not
found anywhere else in Hattuša. This title, loaned from Sumerian into Akkadian, usually appears in
Mesopotamian colophons designating an apprentice scribe or scholar, not only in scribal
professions (Hunger 1968: 9f.; CAD Š/1: 291b–294). Its meaning is not neceserily "student" but
likely "assistant", since in one NA colophon from Sultantepe the title appears beside the designation
mār mummi "student" (Hunger 1968: 111 no. 354).
353 On this see in general Starke 1985; Popko 1995: 86–95; Hutter 2003.
354 For Ašhapala see Mascheroni 1984: 153f. and here under III.1.b…family of Kuruntapiya.
355 For the name of the song and the colophon see Corti 2007.
356 On GUR-Šarruma see most recently Singer 2007: 717f.
357 See also under II.3.
358 HZL no. 270
116

Ziti (B) further supervised GUR-Šarruma in two other texts, 359 in which this scribe has the
title DUB.SAR: KUB 51.12 (CTH 670), a festival fragment concerning something given to the men
of the É he[šta] from the palace and the ABU BĪTI, 360 and likely also KUB 12.15 (CTH 720), a
fragment of an Ištar festival, in which the name of Ziti (B) was restored by Mascheroni (1984: 166).
As mentioned, we know of two other scribes whose work Ziti (B) supervised: scribe of KUB 55.59
(CTH 706), 361 a fragment of a festival for Tešub and Hebat, whose name is ZA.HUM-ZA, perhaps
to be read Halwaziti according to a suggestion made by Košak (1986: 133; cf. HZL no. 366), 362 and
another scribe whose name is lost in a break who inscribed KBo 39.41 (CTH 470).
The term of office of all four scribes, Ašhapala, GUR-Šarruma, ZA.HUM-ZA and the scribe
of KBo 39.41, should be dated to the second half of Tudhaliya IV's reign at least, according to the
redating of Ziti (B)'s term of office. 363 This dating scheme gives a more accurate picture of the
chronology of the scribes working under Ziti (B), than, for example, the general dating to Tudhaliya
IV's reign of Ašhapala and GUR-Šarruma given by Mascheroni (1984: 154, 166).
As for the genealogies of these four scribes, we have quite extensive lists in their colophons
identifying their ancestors. Ašhapala is known as the son of Tarhuntaššu, grandson of Kuruntapiya
and descendant of Waršiya, all scribes known from other sources. 364 Following Corti (2007: 116)
this lineage was identified as a local family of Anatolian scribes in Hattuša. Another extended
genealogy is that of GUR-Šarruma, found in KUB 10.96, in which he is designated as the son of
359 Note that recently Torri (2007a: 773) suggested, among other known Šarruma names, that the
GÁB.ZU.ZU […]-Šarruma, who inscribed KUB 57.110, could also be restored as GUR-Šarruma,
reviving a suggestion of Archi in the Inhaltübersicht of KUB 57. However, as already shown by van
den Hout (1990: 430f.) in his review of Archi this suggestion is less likely since Halwaziti, the teacher
of […]-Šarruma in the text, is not to be equated with Halpaziti the father of GUR-Šarruma; see also
discussion under IV.2.a…the family of Halwaziti. Another […]-Šarruma, who sent the scribal note KBo
18.6 to an unknown official and the scribe Palla, is suggested to be either Penti-Šarruma or GUR-
Šarruma by Hagnebuchner (1989: 14, 190).
360 See translit. in Groddek 2004d: 19f.
361 Cf. also KBo 40.106 (CTH 825); translit. in Groddek 2002b: 109f.
362 Certainly not to be confused with Halwaziti from the city Ukkia, son of Lupakki, scribe of the Bronze
Tablet (IV.2.a…the family of Halwaziti).
363 Namely, that the beginning of Ziti (B)'s career should now be dated to the end of Hatt. III at least (see
above).
364 See under III.1.b…family of Kuruntapiya.
117

Halpaziti and grandson of Zuwanni. 365 According to the dating scheme of Ziti (B)'s family and the
family of Ašhapala, it can be estimated that Halpaziti was active during Hattušili's reign, and
Zuwanni at least a generation before, during the reigns of Muwattalli II and Urhi-Tešub.
Therefore, it could be that the same Zuwanni appears in KBo 18.76, 366 a letter dated to the
first half of the 13 th century based on its ductus. 367 This name is otherwise attested in at least one
other undated cuneiform letter, 368 and on two Late Empire Period HL documents, which likely refer
to a later person(s): a seal impression from Nişantepe with the title AURIGA2 (Nis 544) and the
AKPINAR 2 (SIPYLOS) inscription bearing the title EUNUCHUS2. 369 Halpaziti is a very common
anthroponym, 370 out of which one is probably to be equated with the father of GUR-Šarruma, since
365 As already shown by Mascheroni (1984: 166) this GUR-Šarruma is to be separated from another scribe
by that name who copied KUB 37.210 (CTH 560.I), signing the text as the son of a certain EN-
UR.SAG.
366 The letter was sent from some governor/city lord who resided in the area between Carchemish and
Aleppo to a higher ranking person, perhaps the priest of Aleppo or the viceroy of Carchemish. The
sender must have been of a rank under that of the receiver since he calls him my lord (BĒLIYA, obv. 8;
Hagenbuchner 1989: 153f.). The letter speaks of an enemy in this area. Zuwanni writes that he is in the
land of Aleppo.
367 Cf. Hagenbuchner 1989: 154; van den Hout 1995: 217f. (IIc doctus).
368 KBo 18.110 (CTH 190), for which see Hagenbuchner 1989: 476.
369 See Hawkins 2005a: 280, 298 for references and discussion.
370 On the name bearers see Imparati 1985: 266–269; Mora 1988; van den Hout 1995: 186–193; 1998: 55–
59; Marizza 2007c: 158–161.
118

he has two Empire Period HL seal impressions with the title SCRIBA, 371 and one from a later phase
in his career with the title SCRIBA II 372 (Fig. 3.19).
Much less can be said about the family members of ZA.HUM-ZA and the scribe of KBo
39.41. ZA.HUM-ZA was the son of Iuni and grandson of Tehup-ŠEŠ, otherwise not attested as
scribes or on HL documents. Note that the name Iuni occurs also as a feminine name, namely, the
wife of the Mittanian king Tušratta (Popko 1988: 90), and the name Tehup-ŠEŠ, finds a curious
parallel in the name Tehupšena listed among the personal names in IBoT 4.2 III 5' (Ünal 1987:
486). The scribe of Kbo 39.41 is connected somehow to a certain Nenuwa, either as his grandson or
his student, if this Nenuwa is really a name since it has no determinative.
Having reviewed the extensive work and scribal relations of the two sons of NU.GIŠ.SAR
(A): Hanikkuili (B) and Ziti (B), let us turn our attention to his third son. In the colophon of KUB
13.9+ (CTH 258.1), Alihhini the scribe of the text listed his extended genealogy thus: son of
Šaušgaziti ( d ŠUR-LÚ) and grandson of GIŠ.SAR.NU. Since the latter name is likely another
metathesized writing of NU.GIŠ.SAR (A)'s name, 373 Beckman (1992: 176), following Laroche
(1949: 12), suggested that they are one and the same scribe. Consequently, Alihhini is also the
great-grandson of Ziti (A) the chief scribe and his last known descendant. This would date his term
at least to the reign of Arnuwanda III, if not to that of Šuppiluliuma II. Alihhini further mentions in
the colophon his teacher Zuwa the EN GIŠ.KIN.TI. This Zuwa is the son of Uza (KBo 23.97),
brother of Šakkapi and worker of Angulli (KBo 20.107); a scribal family treated in the following
chapter.
To conclude the results of the prosopography thus far, it would be quite safe to position Ziti
(A) as the chief scribe who seized the position from the Mittannamuwa family during the reign of
Urhi-Tešub. But what about the chief scribe SAG, who appears in only one colophon (KUB 44.61)
as the father of NU.GIŠ.SAR (B). If my dating is correct then he should be placed after Walwaziti.
Can this be proven?
371 SBo II 56, Nis 112; HL spelling TONITRUS.HALPA-VIR.z[i/a].
372 SBo II 57.
373 This phenomenon further suggests that the order of the signs in the name NU.GIŠ.SAR is irrelevant, and
that the sumerogram as a whole might stand for some other idea which we cannot at the moment
comprehend.
119

Laroche (1949: 11f.), not yet aware of SAG at that time, placed Ziti (A) during Tudhaliya's
reign as the last known chief scribe. Later, Pecchioli Daddi (1982: 526) already listed the two chief
scribes, Ziti (A) and SAG, separately, but without any dating scheme. First to actually address the
problem was Hagenbuchner (1989: 83f.) offering that: (1) SAG was a scribal mistake of the
inexperienced student NU.GIŠ.SAR for the actual name of his father Ziti (A), or more likely (2)
SAG was the father of an earlier NU.GIŠ.SAR and Ziti (A) of a later one. She then equated SAG
with the unidentified chief scribe who took the place of Purandamuwa during Urhi-Tešub's reign.
So, according to her scheme SAG came before Walwaziti and Ziti (A) after. Van den Hout (1995:
148), not mentioning Hagenbuchner's suggestion, also opted that SAG is a scribal mistake or an
alternative writing for the name Ziti (A), and this notion is taken up again in the recent study of
Torri (2007a: 779 n. 47).
Why would NU.GIŠ.SAR (B) make such a mistake in writing his father's name? Taking of
course into consideration that it is written with one sign only – LÚ, a fairly plain sign which is
otherwise not attested mixed up with SAG in Hittite texts (Rüster 1988: 295, 299–303). So, in my
opinion, it is better to prefer a simpler solution, which basically follows one of Hagenbuchner's
(1989: 84) earlier suggestions. Namely, that one should separate SAG from Ziti (A), but in
accordance to my revised dating scheme of Ziti (A), it seems that SAG came after Walwaziti and
not before. Supporting this latter hypothesis is an already known fragmentary colophon.
HFAC 53 (CTH 825) is a colophon fragment of a garden festival. Only the end portion of
about 7 lines survived, containing the components of several known scribal names. Beckman and
Hoffner (1985: 4) restored three names: Pihawalwi, Palluwaraziti and NU.GIŠ.SAR. The first two
have worked together on several descriptions of festivals copied according to original wooden
tablets (Mascheroni 1983; Singer 1983a: 41f.; Torri 2007a: 778f.), of which the most known is the
KI.LAM festival (Singer 1983a: 33–36). HFAC 53 is not an exception in this matter, for it is also a
festival text (EZEN4). The last scribal name in the end of line 6' is of interest here since it is
NU.GIŠ.SAR, either son of Ziti (A) or of SAG.
The photograph of HFAC 53 supplied in the on-line Portal Mainz (Fig. 3.20) clearly shows
that in what remained of line 7' there is an almost complete top section of one of the later variants of
the cuneiform sign SAG (two vertical and three horizontal wedges; HZL: 183):
120

Fig. 3.20: HFAC 53 obv. ? 2'-7' (A12234, Mainz, Portal)
From a glance at the copy of Beckman and Hoffner (1985: 36) it would seem that they
recognized the SAG correctly. But for some reason no evidence of this is in the notes on the text
found in part VII of their “catalogue of fragments”, neither as a name nor as title. Torri (2007a: 779
n. 47), in her remarks on this text, seems to recognize it, but as already noted above suggests that it
is a mistake for LÚ. In any case, the photograph of HFAC 53 is quite revealing. The colophon
might now be restored in the following manner:
HFAC 53 obv. ? (CTH 825)
x+1 [ -a]š EZEN4 GIŠ KIRI6
2' [ ]x-eš-hi
3' [A-A GIŠ.HUR-kán ha-an-]da-a-an
4' [KASKAL m pí-ha-UR].MAH
5' [ LÚ DUB.SAR.GIŠ m pal-lu-wa-ra]-LÚ
6' [ LÚ DUB.SAR m NU].GIŠ.SAR
7' [ LÚ DUB.SAR DUMU m S]AG
8' [GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ 374 ]
The sign SAG is unlikely to stand here for the title LÚ SAG, 375 which is not evident in any
other colophon with the formula: KASKAL Pihawalwi LÚ DUB.SAR.GIŠ Palluwaraziti
374 This title is only a tentative restoration based on what is known on SAG from the colophon of KUB
44.61.
375 Recent evidence noted by Miller (2004: 318f.) indicates that one should transcribe the LÚ as
determinative. Contra this transcription see the arguments of Hawkins (2002: 217f., 222) for reading it
as LÚ SAG supported also by Pecchioli Daddi (2006: 119 n. 23).
121

LÚ DUB.SAR. 376 Therefore, it could only stand for the personal name SAG. So, it is plausible to
identify the present NU.GIŠ.SAR as NU.GIŠ.SAR (B), son of this SAG, and to further restore
SAG's title chief scribe, parallel to the colophon of KUB 44.61.
The newly restored colophon of HFAC 53 shows that SAG existed, that he is not to be
confused with Ziti (A) and that both had sons whose name was NU.GIŠ.SAR. Moreover, there are
presently two stages discernible in the career of NU.GIŠ.SAR (B): (1) KUB 44.61, when he was a
pupil of Hulanabi, signifies the earlier stage and (2) HFAC 53, where his title should be restored
DUB.SAR as his counterparts in the colophon, signifies the later stage.
As for the dating of NU.GIŠ.SAR (B)'s term of office, it seems to be parallel with some
scribes whose activities could be dated to the reign of Tudhaliya IV at least. Hulanabi mainly
copied (h)išuwa texts under Walwaziti during the reign of Hattušili III, and therefore his term as
teacher of NU.GIŠ.SAR (B) could be at least sometime during the first half of Tudhaliya IV's reign
(see III.1.b…Hulanabi). Further support of this dating scheme comes from Mascheroni's (1983:
102–104) dating to Tudhaliya IV of Pihawalwi and Palluwaraziti, 377 NU.GIŠ.SAR's partners in
HFAC 53.
In conclusion, SAG should be placed in the sequence of chief scribes only after Walwaziti.
Walwaziti must have ended his term of office as chief scribe only sometime after the issuing of the
Šahurunuwa land concession, in which he still appears bearing this title. Namely, SAG was chief
scribe starting from sometime after the first quarter of Tudhaliya IV's reign. This leaves Ziti (A) as
the only known chief scribe dated to Urhi-Tešub's reign, and thus, more agreeable with the fact that
376 The scribal names may alternate their position in the formula, see Mascheroni 1983: 97–98 and also in
all such known colophons which I could find: AN.TAH.ŠUM. KBo 45.34 rev. (CTH 625, HaH), KBo
46.102 IV (CTH 615.13, Bk. E), KUB 2.8 VI (CTH 617.1); KI.LAM. KUB 55.13 (CTH 627), Izmir
1274 (CTH 627.1.l.2), KBo 30.15 (CTH 627.1.l.1, Bk. E); other festivals. KBo 45.11 rev. (CTH 597,
HaH), KUB 20.29+ IV (CTH 750.2), KBo 23.62 rev. (CTH 670), KUB 60.28 (CTH 670), KBo 35.144
IV (CTH 705, Bk. E); with other scribes. KUB 44.24 VI (CTH 685, with Hulla), Bo 6780 Rev. (CTH
825, with Ulmi-Šarruma).
377 Torri (2007a: 778f.), based on the colophon of HFAC 53, concluded that the work period of Pihawalwai
and Palluwaraziti started already during Hatt. III's reign. She, however, recognizes a single
NU.GIŠ.SAR son of Ziti (A)/SAG who was the student of Hulanabi. It does not explain, however, how
this Ziti (A)/SAG could have been the chief scribe when it is evident that Walwaziti already fills this
position under Hatt. III.
122

we have a single chief scribe during each term. 378 This whole intricate scenario is summarized,
along with the scribes discussed above, in the following page (Fig. 3.21).
378 The witness lists of the three major Empire Period political documents, i.e. the Ulmi-Tešub treaty,
Bronze Tablet and Šahurunuwa land concession, actually prove this view. Each of them, at least for
their period of time, contains only one official titled GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ (i.e. Walwaziti).
Furthermore, KBo 4.12 issued by Hattušili tells of the GAL DUB.SAR.MEŠ who preceded Walwaziti.
According to this text there was only one at each period of time in the following order: Mittannamuwa
(Mur. II and Muw. II) → Purandamuwa (Muw. II in Tarhuntašša) → unnamed men (Ur.-T.) →
Walwaziti (Hatt. III). Note that MAGNUS.SCRIBA can not be identified with a certain GAL
DUB.SAR.MEŠ, apart for Walwaziti and Taki-Šarruma, so these chief scribes are not incorporated in
this discussion but only in the following chapter.
123

124
Fig. 3.21: The scribal families of the chief scribes Ziti (A) and SAG, their work relations and synchronisms

3. Family of Šahurunuwa the Chief Scribe on Wood
Previous Literature: Imparati 1974: 11–15; Mascheroni 1984: 162; Mauer 1986; Klengel 1992: 123f. ; van
den Hout 1995: 151–154; Heinhold-Krahmer 2002; Herbordt 2005: 82; Marizza 2007a:
302–306.
After inspecting the families of the three chief scribes (GAL DUB.SAR), we turn now to the only
GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ "chief scribe on wood (tablets)" whose family is known: Šahurunuwa. He is
certainly not the only chief scribe on wood documented in cuneiform. At least one later chief scribe
on wood is a certain […]-Šarruma, the protagonist of KUB 26.32 (CTH 124) who swore an oath of
allegiance to Šuppiluliuma II. Likely, he is to be identified as [Penti]-Šarruma, a known prince,
owner of MAGNUS.SCRIBA and MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS seal impressions found in Hattuša,
and LÚ tuppinura huburtinura in two companion letters from Ugarit (Singer 2006b: 243f.). Penti-
Šarruma is dealt with in the next chapter on the MAGNUS.SCRIBA because he is more clearly
attestated on HL seal impressions.
Turning to a survey of the anthroponym Šahurunuwa, one may notice it is actually quite
common in cuneiform and HL sources from the MH kingdom and Empire Period (van den Hout
1995: 151–154; Heinhold-Krahmer 2002: 365f.): 1. a MH official from the Maşat correspondence
and a Hurrian text from Hattuša, 379 2. son of Šarri-Kušuh/Piyaššili, grandson of Šuppiluliuma I,
who was nominated king of Karkemiš on the 9 th year of Muršili II, and 3. the chief scribe on wood
under Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV, who also held several high military posts. Obviously, the titles
and duties of the latter person and his family members will be explored next.
The main source which reveals the titular of Šahurunuwa, the names of his descendants and
son-in-law is CTH 225, the land concession granting estates to his descendants, mostly in the area
of Cilicia and in part Lycaonia, issued by Tudhaliya IV and his mother Puduhepa (Imparati 1974;
Archi 1984: 206). 380 According to this text, Šahurunuwa had two sons, Tattamaru and
Duwattannani, and one daughter, Tarhuntamanawa ( d U-manawa), who was married to Alihešni,
identified by Imparati (1974: 115) with the abovementioned son of Mittannamuwa the chief scribe.
Van den Hout (1995: 177) further showed that the relation between these two scribal families is
indicated in the court proceeding KBo 16.58 II 2-6 (CTH 297.18), in which Walwaziti reports he is
the relative in marriage of a certain chief scribe on wood, likely Šahurunuwa. Tarhuntamanawa and
379 Mşt 75/91 (HKM 67), Mşt 75/108 (HKM 88) and KBo 33.5.
380 The date of CTH 225 has already been addressed under I.5: likely sometime during the second quarter
of Tudh. IV's reign, perhaps after the signing of the Bronze Tablet.
125

Alihešni had in turn two sons, also mentioned in CTH 225: Tulpi-Tešub and Ku(wa)lanaziti, who
were dealt with above. 381
During the drawing of CTH 225 Šahurunuwa was already an old man, close to the end of his
days, after faithfully serving at least two kings, Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV. According to the text
Šahurunuwa held three titles: the civilian/administrative post of chief scribe on wood (GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ), and at least two military commands, perhaps simultaneously, the commander of
UKU.UŠ 382 troops (GAL LÚ UKU.UŠ) and commander of the shepherds (GAL NA.GAD) (Imparati
1974: 11). Beal (1992: 382) further suspects that both his positions were of the right flanks, since
two witnesses to the land concession, LUGAL- d LAMMA and Mizramuwa, are titled commander of
left flank UKU.UŠ troops and commander of left flank shepherds, respectively. At any rate, from
looking at divintory texts which mention Šahurunuwa, it might be suggested that he indeed held his
military commands concurrently to his civilian post already in the reign of Hattušili III; since he
appears in a campaign, seemingly associated with this king, mentioned in the SU oracle KUB
49.103 (CTH 570), 383 and in another military context in a vow fragment associated with queen
Puduhepa (KUB 48.119; CTH 584). 384 Otherwise, as a witness to the two important state treaties of
the Empire Period, the Ulmi-Tešub treaty (Hatt. III) and the Bronze Tablet (Tudh. IV), Šahurunuwa
appears only with the title chief scribe on wood. It is clear from Šahurunuwa's titular that the duties
of the chief scribe on wood, as those of the scribe on wood (DUB.SAR.GIŠ), were connected with
the military (Symington 1991: 118f.; Beal 1992: 382–385; Negri Scafa 1995: 290).
In similar fashion Šahurunuwa (sà+huru-nu-wa/i) used three titles on his HL seals,
sometimes depicted on the same seal together. He seems to have had at least four, or even five,
different seals during his career (Tab. 3.4; Fig. 3.22). On all of them he appears with the title prince
(REX.FILIUS), revealing his connection with the royal line, perhaps through blood or through
marriage. 385 Two very similar seal impressions of Šahurunuwa, one from Hattuša (Bog. III 15) and
one from Tarsus (Tars. 40), perhaps of the same seal (if we follow the recently amended reading of
Hawkins 2005a: 269), 386 carry the additional titular: MAGNUS.SCRIBA and the obscure HL title
L. 490. 387
381 See III.1.b…son of Alihešni.
382 For the translation "Schwerbewaffenten" see HZL no. 96 and Heinhold-Krahmer 2002: 366.
383 See Marizza 2007c: 164–167 with previous bib.
384 See van den Hout 1995: 152.
385 On the issue of Hittite princehood see Singer 1997: 418f.
386 See also the remarks in tab. 3.4.
387 The title on the Tarsus impression is most likely not EUNUCHUS2 (L. 254) as originally drawn by Gelb
126

Seal
o.
HL Titles Seals and Seal
Impressions
1 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA, L. 490
Tars. 40, Bog. III
15
2 REX.FILIUS Nis 346
3 REX.FILIUS Nis 347
4 REX.FILIUS SBo II 9
127
Remarks
Hawkins (2005a: 269) has amended the previous
readings of these two sealings, suggesting that
they bear similar titles; unfortuantly no photos
seem to be availabel, only the older somewhat
incorrect drawings presented below.
5 - SBo II 78 Name spelled with initial CAPRA2 rather then
with usual CAPRA.
Tab. 3.4: Seals of Šahurunuwa
MAGNUS.SCRIBA must stand here as the equivalent of Šahurunuwa's cuneiform title GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ, designating his administrative function. The other title, L. 490, is somewhat more
problematic to understand. Hawkins (2001: 169 n. 17) noted on its resemblance to PRINCEPS
(*525), the HL sign for tuhkanti. B. Dinçol (2001: 99) rather takes L. 490 to be “Grosser der
LÚ SAG” meaning that it stands for EUNUCHUS2+MAGNUS, however, since both titles are
considered separate entities in cuneiform I would not rush to relate them in such fashion. Otherwise,
Singer (2003: 347 n. 40) pointed out that L. 490 could stand for one of Šahurunuwa's two military
titles, either GAL NA.GAD or GAL LÚ UKU.UŠ. The former already has the identified equivalent
MAGNUS.PASTOR (L. 363 – L. 438), whereas the latter might stand as a good candidate.
Interesting in this context is that L. 490 is otherwise found only on the seals of Šahurunuwa's
grandson, Ku(wa)lanaziti (EXERCITUS-VIR.zi/a; SBo II 21), and a certain Asuta (Bo 83/597; B.
Dinçol 2001: 102). Perhaps L. 490 was a HL title used mainly on the seals of Šahurunuwa's family?
It seems that Tattamaru, Šahurunuwa's son, inherited from his father the title of GAL UKU.UŠ (of
the left flank however) with which he appears in the witness list of the Bronze Tablet. Therefore,
why not assume that also the son of Tarhuntamanwa and grandson of Šahurunuwa, namely
Ku(wa)lanaziti, later earned this title through his lineage. The only crux still remains proving the
connection between L. 490 and UKU.UŠ, which is at the present time unattainable. 388
in Goldman et al. 1956: Taf. 406, no. 40, see the remark of Hawkins 2001: 169 n. 17.
388 The resemblance of L. 490 to the sign EUNUCHUS2, as pointed out by B. Dinçol (2001: 99), may not
be a coincidence. From looking at the cuneiform sign for UKU in the HZL (no. 96): , one could not

It can be further shown that the title of prince appearing on the seals of Šahurunuwa was
inherited by his various descendants. Tattamaru was already a prince (DUMU.LUGAL) when he
witnessed the Ulmi-Tešub treaty in the reign of Hattušili III, probably at quite a young age (van den
Hout 1995: 117f.); 389 this also places the beginning of his career in the second half of Hattušili III.
Perhaps his higher status was what later instigiated a marriage with a niece of queen Puduhepa.
Tattamaru's anonymous wife is mentioned in KUB 23.85 (CTH 180), a letter sent to him by the
queen herself (Imparati 1974: 44f.). Otherwise, it is uncertain if Tattamaru was also a scribe
following his father. 390 As nothing is further known regarding his brother Duwattannani, we turn to
miss the striking resemblance it shares with the sign SAG (HZL no. 192): . The scribes might have
searched for a HL sign which is close to UKU in form and therefore took up EUNUCHUS2 which is
also LÚ SAG.
389 For a thorough prosopography of this anthroponym see Mauer 1986 and van den Hout 1995: 116–124.
390 In favour of this is Mauer 1986: 193 (cf. also Beal 1992: 386 n. 1464), contra see van den Hout 1995:
117–124.
128

his sister, Tarhuntamanawa, 391 who also inherited the title of princess (REX.FILIA) which she bears
in the HL inscription ALAÇA HÖYÜK 4 (Poetto 1995; Fig. 3.23). The same woman is probably
also the owner of a seal impression from Nişantepe (Nis 414; Fig. 3.23) with the title FEMINA, as
agreed by both Hawkins (2005a: 273) and Herbordt (2005: 188), although, note that their
restoration of a final wa/i on this seal impression is somewhat forced. Tarhuntamanawa's title
certainly passed down the line to her son Ku(wa)lanaziti, who also has princely seals (see above).
The princely status of this family stands in stark contrast to that of the families of the chief scribes,
of whom practically none are princes.
In conclusion, it is evident from the sources at hand that the Šahurunuwa family signifies
something different altogether from the families of the chief scribes (GAL DUB.SAR). We find no
professional connection with other scribes (apart from a marriage), nor does Šahurunuwa exercise
any of the administrative activities common to the chief scribes. On the other hand, we find other
activities more accentuated, such as military endeavours. The chief scribe on wood combined
during his career several posts, and lines of proffesion, whereas the chief scribes seem in this aspect
to concentrate on their administrative duties. At least in the case of Šahurunuwa, his family is
391 Note that in CTH 225 her name appears from time to time with a masculine determinative. Imparati
(1974: 47f.) explains this as confusion on the part of the scribe with the determinative of the first
component of her name, d U, the Strom-god, who is a typical male deity. A different man named md U-
mana is cited in two inventory fragments (KBo 31.50 Rev. 6'; Bo 6911 Rev.? 7') according to Siegelová
(1986: 274f., 291f.); in one text he is bearing the title EN[ ... ].
129

separated from other scribal families of the chief scribes by their obvious connection to the royal
line, either by blood or through marriage (Fig. 3.24).
130

Fig. 3.24: The family of the chief scribe on wood Šahurunuwa and the marriage with the Mittannamuwa family
131

4. Conclusions
The aim of this chapter was to study the chief scribes who appear in cuneiform sources as GAL
DUB.SAR and GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ. Though the main protagonists were identified to begin with as
only a handful, the study of their families, work and personal relations encompasses a wide array.
Since various midway summaries and conclusions are strewn throughout this chapter, I take space
here at the end only to make a chronological summary of the cuneiform evidence on the chief
scribes (Tab. 3.5), which will be completed after reviewing the HL material (under IV.3).
Going back to the beginning of the 13 th century BCE, we find Mittannamuwa, as the loyal
chief scribe of Muršili II. Prior to that period we are in fact quite in the dark from the cuneiform
sources (cf. however IV.2), albeit the Maşat texts which mention a chief scribe and (on wood?)
named Hattušili. 392 Returning to Mittannamuwa, his endevours to save the life of young prince
Hattušili III are inferred from a deposition in his favour later issued by that king. The deposition
describes the life and offspring of Mittannamuwa, it also informs us that after Mittannamuwa
became the administrator of Hattuša in the reign of Muwattalli II, his eldest son, Purandamuwa,
replaced him as chief scribe. The fate of this person is, however, unknown, since he probably did
not come back from Tarhuntašša, where he served Muwattalli II.
In the reign of Urhi-Tešub a family of local scribes headed by a man named Ziti (A), which
is said to be descandent from the Mesopotamian scribe of the 15 th century Anu-šar-ilāni, probably
seizes the post of the chief scribe. Nevertheless, Hattušili III assumes power after a short while and
reinstates the Mittannamuwa dynasty in their old office, this time by another son of Mittannamuwa
called Walwaziti. Walwaziti is very active, and is actually one of the most documented officials of
the Empire Period. Among his endevours one may note the redaction of the (h)išuwa Hurrian-
Hittite festival, and likely the strengthening of building A on Büyükkale as a centre for scribal
teaching and lore, where he supervised the work of several scribes. During the reign of Hattušili III
we find also a chief scribe on wood named Šahurunuwa, who was a prince and holder of two other
important military commands. His duties seems to be somewhat different from those of the chief
scribe, as does his princely status. His daughter, Tarhuntamanawa, married the brother of
Walwaziti, Alihešni, and they had two children, Tulpi-Tešub and Ku(wa)lanaziti; the latter also a
scribe.
In the reign of Tudhaliya IV Walwaziti is still the chief scribe, but seems to be working in
parallel to another very important scribal character, that of Anuwanza, who is the most active
392 Not studied here since he is MH; for this person see Beckman 1995; Houwink ten Cate 1998.
132

scribal supervisor known, overseeing mainly the drafting of religious texts already from the second
half of Hattušili III's reign. Among his workers one may note the descendants of Ziti (A), and some
other scribal families, but he does not supervise any of the scribes under Walwaziti, what perhaps
indicates that they are running different offices, perhaps even competing for supremacy. It may be
tentatively suggested that since Walwaziti was the supervisor of the Büyükkale main office at that
time situated in building A, Anuwanza was working in one of the Lower City centers, such as the
Temple 1 or the House on the Slope. We shall return to this point again in the following chapter.
After Walwaziti, the Mittannamuwa dynasty falters and a certain SAG is placed as chief
scribe. Walwaziti must have ended his term of office sometime after the issuing of the Šahurunuwa
land concession, in which he still appears bearing this title. Namely, SAG was chief scribe starting
from sometime after the first quarter of Tudhaliya IV's reign, but only for a very short while. His
son NU.GIŠ.SAR (B) seems to be a student of Hulanabi, who is one of the sons of Walwaziti.
Logically, the descendants of the Mittannamuwa dynasty continued to be influential scribes even
after Walwaziti's death.
Hittite King Chief Scribe Additional
Titles
Mur. II – Muw. II Mittannamuwa -
Muw. II Purandamuwa (s.
of Mittannamuwa)
Ur.-T. Ziti (A) (LÚ) -
End of Ur.-T. Walwaziti (s. of
Mittannamuwa)
Hatt. III – 1 st quarter
of Tudh. IV
Middle of Tudh. IV SAG -
-
-
133
Chief Scribe on
Wood
Additional Titles
Šahurunuwa GAL LÚ UKU.UŠ,
GAL NA.GAD,
REX.FILIUS,
L. 490
Tab. 3.5: The chief scribes during the Empire Period as inferred from the cuneiform data

IV. The Chief Scribe on Seals (MAGUS.SCRIBA)
and Affiliated Scribes
The aim of this chapter is to attempt a prosopographical study of all the officials mentioned in the
glyptic evidence from the Empire period of Hattusa whose titles include MAGNUS.SCRIBA (L.
363 – L. 326) “chief scribe”. The objective of this study is threefold: (1) To place the
MAGNUS.SCRIBA in chronological order, (2) Determine their administrative role and (3)
Establish synchronisms and/or relations with other scribes/officials. For the purposes of this study
all the anthroponyms appearing in the Boğazköy HL material of the Empire period have been
collected and tabulated according to their position and number of different seals each possessed (see
below). A. Dinçol (1993) has shown that the number of seals possessed was of particular
importance with regard to the various administrative roles played by the scribes. Evidence for
scribes using several seals throughout their career, perhaps sometimes contemporaneously, is
attested as early as the MH period (Herbordt 2006: 105f.). Having possession of several different
seals at the same time is not common among low ranking officials, but only among scribes,
dignitaries, princes and great kings. 393
In this study the MAGNUS.SCRIBA will be treated separately from the GAL DUB.SAR
and GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, mainly because the meaning of the title MAGNUS.SCRIBA seems
broader than first thought. 394 As indicated under II.3, MAGNUS.SCRIBA seems to relate to both
types of chief scribes attested in cuneiform: 'chief scribe' (GAL DUB.SAR) and 'chief scribe on
wood' (GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ). However, as recently noted by Hawkins (2005a: 308f.), the majority
of known MAGNUS.SCRIBA, whose seals were recovered from Nişantepe, do not seem to bear
either of these cuneiform designations. Therefore, an exact translation of MAGNUS.SCRIBA has
been avoided where no connection with one of the cuneiform titles has been established.
393 On the variety of seals held by Hittite kings see Otten 1993: 39, Beckman 1997: 215 and more recently
Bawanypeck 2006. Another common characteristic shared by Hittite scribes and kings is the constant
reference to ancestry (see under I.1).
394 See Laroche 1956c: 28f. and most recently Herbordt 2005: 98 on the evidence from the Nişantepe
archive; cf. also Singer 2006b: 243f.
134

1. Matu: A Single Case of Early Empire Period MAGUS.SCRIBA?
Before analyzing the use of MAGNUS.SCRIBA in the Empire Period it is necessary to explore the
title's initial appearance during the Early Empire Period. The first attested use of the title
MAGNUS.SCRIBA is on several seal impressions of Matu, found in the Upper City of Hattuša and
published by A. Dinçol (1993: 128f. with Pls. 24-25). On all of his seals Matu's title is written
MAGNUS next to SCRIBA and not in the usual superimposing manner: MAGNUS over SCRIBA
(Fig. 4.1), 395 common in Empire Period. Perhaps the small central field of the seal did not permit
the writing of the MAGNUS over the SCRIBA. Alternatively, Matu might have been the first to use
this title and therefore the later, more common, form was not yet established.
Matu used five different seals which were stamped on to container sealings Bo 84/20 and
84/358, and bulla Bo 84/30 (Fig 4.1). It must be noted that the stamping of container sealings may
395 The signs are lined up in such a way that the seal could also read L. 110 – L.88 – L. 363, Matu-ura (on
MAGNUS as a component in PNN see most recently Hawkins 2005: 275f.) which does not have a
cuneiform parallel.
Fig. 4.1: Seal impressions of Matu (Herbordt 2006: 105 Fig. 13 apud Dinçol 1993)
135

have something to do with the economic duties of the MAGNUS.SCRIBA with regard to goods, of
either the temple or palace. A similar function was recorded in the seals of the Empire Period
MAGNUS.SCRIBA discussed below. All of Matu's seals show different styles employed along his
career. These were arranged chronologically by Herbordt (2006: 105f.), demonstrating that at least
one of Matu's seals, a disc seal (Bo 84/30), can be dated to the first half of the 14 th century BCE at
least when compared to disc seals coming from level III of Maşat. 396 This gives us a terminus post
quem for some of his other seal impressions: Bo 84/358a and b which show styles known from
Maşat (Mşt 78/61; Özgüç 1982: 117, pl. 57, 6). Thus, Matu's term of service roughly spanned the
later reign of Tudhaliya II/III, potentially including the beginning of Šuppiluliuma I's reign.
Clearly one can not rely in this matter on glyptics alone and it is necessary to look for this
person in the cuneiform data. This is problematic owing to the fact that Matu was probably a
hypocoristicon, 397 based on other onomastic evidence where the Luwian stem maddu- is always
paired with other elements, for example: f Hilamaddu (H and H suppl. 352a), Maddunani (H
793 and Onomastique) and Madduwatta (H and H suppl. 794). 398 Hilamaddu was a woman,
Maddunani was an Arzawan augur ( LÚ IGI.DÙ/ LÚ MUŠEN.DÙ) and performer of a mūra(nza)- ritual
against epidemics in the army (KUB 7.54; CTH 425.A), 399 and Madduwatta was the known “man
396 Disc seals coming from the level III destruction at Maşat and other stylistic data, like the use of the
cuneiform sign TI and HL Ankh (L. 369), confirm her dating of this type to the period immediately
preceding Šuppiluliuma I (Herbordt 2006: 104).
397 With regard to other base name stems attested in this use see H: 349f., and the latest discussions of
Hawkins (2005a: 293–295) on the Luw. stems piha- and UR.MAH/walwi-; The hypocoristicon
UR.MAH was used by UR.MAH-ziti in the writing of his name as attested by several texts originating
in Hattuša, Ugarit and Emar (van den Hout 1995: 172, 174 1b; d'Alfonso 2000: 284f.; accepted recently
by Mora 2006: 142); on Walwaziti see under III.1.b.Walwaziti.
398 This stem is also attested on seals from the Empire Period used by a Matunata (Nis 235, see Herbordt
2005: 155, Taf. 19) not attested in cuneiform (on the use of maddu- in names see H: 326); CL maddu-
has been shown to be a descendant of IE *médhu- “honey” and is a substantivised adj. meaning “sweet”
(HEG 5, 6: 165f.). It is also found in HL with the determinative VINUM translated by Hawkins and
Marpurgo Davies (1987) as “(sweet) wine”, cf. Starke (1990: 191 n. 624) “(süßes) Getränk”, all lately
accepted by Hawkins (2005a: 265f.). Contra this see Melchert (CLL: 144f.), followed by Bawanypeck
(2005: 249), who prefers only “wine” remarking that an adj. maddu(i)- does not exist, thus not accepting
its suggested translation “sweet” in CL: Refer also to a bread named NINDA madu[; HEG 5, 6: 165f. thus
“honey bread” and contra see CHD L-N: 211, where it is related with URU Maddunašša, a town on the
border of Mira, thus “bread of Maddunašša”; on this city see most recently van den Hout 2003c.
399 This ritual survived in a LNS copy as part of a sammeltafel, documenting two Luw. rituals performed by
136

of Ahhiawa” from KUB 14.1+ who conspired against Arnuwanda I (Klengel 1999: 108, 115f.). It is
unfortunate that none of the above can be equated with the chief scribe Matu based on their known
title or other affiliations.
2. Prosopography of Late Empire Period MAGUS.SCRIBA
The names of Late Empire period MAGNUS.SCRIBA included here come from the three main clay
bullae archives of Hattuša, Nişantepe (Herbordt 1998; 2002; 2005), Building D on Büyükkale (SBo
II) and the north magazines of T.1 (Güterbock 1975a). 400 Outside of these main archives many
scribal seals and impressions were found in various places throughout Boğazköy (Beran 1957;
Glyptik: 61–77), and specifically in the area of the Upper City (A. Dinçol 1993; Neve 2001: 59). 401
Seven complete anthroponyms with the MAGNUS.SCRIBA(-la) title were identified in
Hattuša. 402 Three additional names are fragmentary or completely lost. Two more names,
Tarhuntapiya and TONITRUS.URBS-li, have very uncertain attestations. The 12 officials attested
are tabulated here according to their social status and onomastic elements, and listed on the right is
the approximate number of different seals they used:
LÚ MUŠEN.DÙ, and has several fairly identical manuscripts in NS; see under CTH 425 in Mainz, Portal
and the latest ed. of the text in Bawanypeck (2005: 126–136). She dates the manuscripts to the second
half of the 13 th cent. noting that they were probably composed in Mur. II's time, following the plagues
brought by the army back from the Syrian campaigns during the years of his predecessors Šuppiluliuma
I and Arnu. II (Bawanypeck 2005: 295). If her hypothesis is correct then we could place Maddunani the
augur in the time of Mur. II, which negates him from corresponding with Matu.
400 On the circumstances of the find and the contents of the bullae archives see Herbordt 2005: 19–21 and
Bawanypeck 2006: 114–117; summary of the previous studies is presented under chapter II.1.
401 The sealing material from the upper city is to be published by A. Dinçol & B. Dinçol.
402 Phonetic compliment -la is sometimes added to SCRIBA giving its Luw. reading tuppala (see also II.3).
137

Princes o. of seals 403
Hurrian
Penti-Šarruma 6+
Taki-Šarruma 7+
[...]-Šarruma 1
Hurrian?
Šahurunuwa 5+
Hurrian-Luwian
Šauškaruntiya ↑ 7+
Type Unknown
Arnilizi 6
Mahhuzzi ↑ 7
Fragmentary
Pili / Pi[...]li 2
[...] (Nis 770) 1
on-Royal?
Luwian
Muwaziti ±2
Evidence Uncertain
Tarhuntapiya
TONITRUS.URBS+li (Nerikkaili?)
403 The entries are the total number of different seals each person used. Namely, similar seal impressions
were classified as one seal. A o.+ means the actual number of different seals is probably higher then
that shown. A ±o. means the actual number of different seals may vary than that shown.
138
Legend
Promoted to MAGNUS.SCRIBA ↑

Excluded from this tablet is the famous GAL DUB.SAR Walwaziti, who bears the title of
MAGNUS.SCRIBA on an arrow-head inscription and not on a seal. 404 A large social group attested
is that of the princes (REX.FILIUS). Only Muwaziti was perhaps a non-royal official. Not including
the fragmentary attestations and uncertain evidence, each prince used between five and seven seals,
sometimes more. This might suggest a connection between the number of different seals used and
the MAGNUS.SCRIBA's royal status. Namely, princes could, and perhaps even needed, to use a
large number of different seals (see conclusions under IV.3). As for the persons themselves, apart
from Šahurunuwa and Taki-Šarruma, most of the names listed do not correspond with any chief
scribe or chief scribe on wood known from cuneiform texts (Hawkins 2005a: 308). 405 In relation to
this, it is striking that almost all of the MAGNUS.SCRIBA attested are princes, a title which,
excluding probably Taki-Šarruma, chief scribes do not bear in cuneiform. Chief scribes on wood,
however, are attested as princes according to their seals. 406 Another interesting contrast between HL
MAGNUS.SCRIBA and cuneiform GAL DUB.SAR is apparent in the onomasticon. Whereas most
names of MAGNUS.SCRIBA are Hurrian in origin or contain Hurrian elements, names of attested
GAL DUB.SAR are predominantly Luwian. More will be noted on this in the concluding section of
the chapter. These preliminary results show that the picture drawn from the cuneiform evidence on
the GAL DUB.SAR and GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ presented in the previous chapter is somewhat
limited and needs further revision. The following prosopographical analysis of the
MAGNUS.SCRIBA will attempt to elucidate the situation. First the princes will be treated,
followed by the officials who were either non-royal or the evidence on them was inconclusive.
a. Princes (REX.FILIUS / DUMU.LUGAL)
Two of the highest social classes in Hittite bureaucracy were the “princes”, cuneiform
DUMU.LUGAL, and the “greats/chiefs”, cuneiform LÚ.MEŠ GAL TI (Starke 1996: 143–146). 407 This
is more so apparent in that many princes held the position of chiefs in the civilian administration, 408
temple sector and military (Hagenbuchner-Dresel 2006: 3). It is now widely accepted that the
404 Walwaziti was treated extensively under III.1.b.Walwaziti.
405 The scarce HL evidence on the GAL DUB.SAR and GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ was discussed in the previous
chapter.
406 The only two GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ attested by name are Šahurunuwa and [...]-Šarruma, the latter whom
I believe to be [Penti]-Šarruma (following Singer 2006b, see under IV.2.a.Penti-Šarruma).
407 Also the “Lords” (BELU HI.A ), see most recently Pecchioli Daddi 2006: 121–125 with bib.
408 In the Nişantepe archive for instance the princes make up 21.3% of the civilian officials (Herbordt 2005:
106f.)
139

DUMU.LUGAL were descendants of royal lineage, either of the Great King himself, or of one of
his sons, viceroys or vassal kings married into the royal house (Singer 1977: 184f.; 1997: 418f.;
Herbordt 2005: 106f.; Hagenbuchner-Dresel 2006). The HL equivalent of the logogram
DUMU.LUGAL is REX.FILIUS (L. 17 – L. 45 = L. 46), expressed by some also as REX.INFANS
(Hawkins 2005a: 307). 409
The MAGNUS.SCRIBA were inevitably part of the “chiefs”, but most of them, as shown in
the list above, were also princes. In our case out of the 12 attested MAGNUS.SCRIBA, nine of
them use the title REX.FILIUS on their seals as well. These names are discussed below in
alphabetical order for convenience sake. Evidence of a princely title is uncertain in the case of
Tarhuntapiya and TONITRUS.URBS+li, while Muwaziti was certainly not of royal descent; these
three persons are treated in separate sections.
ARNILIZI
Arnilizi (ara/i-ní-li-zi/a 410 ) used six different seals on several bullae (Fig. 4.2), recovered from three
different areas of Hattuša: Nişantepe (Herbordt 2005: 125f., Taf. 5–6), the area of the T.1 north
storerooms (Glyptik: 74f., Taf. 29), and the Upper City (B. Dinçol 2001: 103f., Taf. IV). Three seals
with the titles REX.FILIUS and MAGNUS.SCRIBA were found impressed on bullae from
Nişantepe (nos. 1-2) and the area of the T.1 north storerooms (no. 3). The other three seals of
Arnilizi bearing the titles REX.FILIUS and (BONUS2) MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS were found
impressed on Tonversclüsse 411 (no. 5) and bullae from Nişantepe (no. 4), and on another bullae
from the area of the T.1 north storerooms and the Upper City (no. 6). The following table presents a
summary of the different seals he used:
409 For more reserved views on the equation of REX.FILIUS with DUMU.LUGAL see Poetto 1992: 435
and van den Hout 1995: 133f.
410 Correct reading of the name here as Arnili(z)zi follows Herbordt (2005: 125). Reading of the signs was
already established in Glyptik (p. 74), where the name was suggested to spell Arnili(n)za (but cf.
Hawkins 2005a: 250). Laroche's reading ar-ná-li-i from the T.1 sealing Bog. III 14 (= Glyptik 239)
noted in his H under no. 144 is now obsolete. Singer (1977: 182 n. 9) later corrected this reading to ar-
ná-li-za/i suggesting also Arnaziti (ar(i)-ná-VIR ! .zi/a). Both, however, are to be dismissed since the
signs he read as ná and VIR are clearly ní and li, respectively.
411 For this sealing type see below.
140

Seal o. HL Titles Seals and Seal Impressions Remarks
1 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA Nis 72
2 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA Nis 74
3 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA Glyptik 239
4 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
5 REX.FILIUS, BONUS2
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
6 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
Nis 73
Nis 71 Stamped on Tonversclüsse
Glyptik 240, Bo 85/89
Tab. 4.1: Seals of Arnilizi
Interpretation of the title MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS is somewhat problematic. It is the
exact HL equivalent of the writing DUMU.É.GAL “palace attendant”. 412 However, seal holders
412 Literally “son of the great house”, for the cuneiform references see Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 91–104; on
141

who bear MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS seem to be prominent princes with elaborate seals, who also
combine it with the title of MAGNUS.SCRIBA from time to time (see below). Therefore, Hawkins
(2005a: 304; cf. Herbordt 2005: 97) suggests that MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS should stand for
GAL DUMU.É.GAL “chief of palace attendants”, 413 assuming that a redundant HL writing
MAGNUS MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS for GAL DUMU.É.GAL was avoided. For the moment
Hawkins's hypothesis seems most reasonable and is, therefore, employed here.
It was Güterbock (Glyptik: 74f.) who initially suggested that the alternating titles on
Arnilizi's two known seals at that time (Glyptik 239–240) were of the same official. He further
added that Arnilizi must have been promoted from one title to the other – namely from palace
attendant to the higher chief scribe. But as we have seen, according to Hawkins,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS should probably stand for “chief of palace attendants”. It was also
Hawkins (2005a: 250) who indicated that Arnilizi's two alternating titles,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS and MAGNUS.SCRIBA, tend to appear together on other seal
impressions of MAGNUS.SCRIBA found in Nişantepe, such as those of Penti-Šarruma and
Šauškaruntiya. Frankly, these are the only two persons who combine MAGNU.DOMUS.FILIUS
with MAGNUS.SCRIBA on seals. In cuneiform the lower equivalents of these HL titles,
DUMU.É.GAL and DUB.SAR, respectively, tend to be combined. Examples of such persons may
be found under II.3, where MH Kukuwa, DUMU.É.GAL and DUB.SAR, 414 and Empire Period EN-
tarwa, DUB.SAR, UGULA É.GAL (hapax!) and LÚ SAG, 415 are mentioned. This evidence further
supports Hawkins's notion that Arnilizi contemporaneously used his different seals for different
purposes. The question that arises is whether it is possible to reveal the purpose of this.
In the case of seal no. 5 this appears possible. It would seem that both Arnilizi and another
MAGNUS.SCRIBA named Šauškarunitya (see below), specifically used at least one of their seals,
combining only REX.FILIUS and MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS, to stamp what Herbordt (2005:
32f.) defines as Tonverschlüsse. 416 These are clay sealings which have on their front side a seal
impression and on their back the imprint left by the material on which they were stamped. Most
commonly this material is either leather or cords with one exception of cloth. 417 Leather and cords
the Hittite palace see Güterbock 1974.
413 Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 529–535; on the position of the GAL DUMU.É.GAL and its bearers see also
Marizza 2007a: 83–112.
414 KBo 16.63 obv. 11 (CTH 295.5; Werner 1967: 50–53).
415 KUB 26.43 rev. 32 // 26.50 rev. 25' (Šahurunuwa land concession).
416 Šauškaruntiya's seal no. 5 (Nis 374) and Arnilizi seal no. 5 (Nis 71), both used in Nişantepe.
417 Sealed by the scribe Atta (Nis 78; Herbordt 2005: 34 n. 273).
142

were used to tie leather bottles or sacks prior to their sealing. 418 In the present case residue of
leather was found in the Tonverschlüsse sealed by Arnilizi and Šauškaruntiya (Herbordt 2005: 125,
180). Therefore, the purpose of at least some of their seals combining REX.FILIUS and
MAGNU.DOMUS.FILIUS would have been to seal containers holding goods.
In order to find out to what the purpose of sealing these goods was, the Tonverschlüsse must
be given a closer look. Most Tonverschlüsse were stamped with what is known as an anonymous
“Labarna” seal, bearing only the HL title LABARA (IUDEX+la) usually referring to the great king
Tudhaliya IV or his successors. 419 From time to time Hieroglyphic signs, usually used as titles, are
added to the Labarna seal, indicating perhaps that they were used as administrative sealings on
containers belonging to the palace and its various offices: some bear the HL term
MAGNUS.DOMUS meaning probably “(of the) palace”, others the SCRIBA sign, perhaps “(of the)
scribes” (Herbord 2005: 35). Only few Tonverschlüsse were stamped with the seals of officials,
almost all of them belonging to princes or scribes of various rank (Herbordt 2005: 34–36).
Chief scribes, as well as other high officials, inspected incoming tribute and were also
known to have been themselves recipients of tribute from time to time (Singer 2003: 345; 2006b:
245; Mora 2006: 143). The role of observing, which also included the sealing, of goods received by
the palace magazines, or by specific officials, is recorded in several Hittite inventory texts. 420
However, chiefs of palace attendants are not referred at all in these records. 421 According to
Marizza's (2007a: 95) recent study the chief of palace attendants was intimately involved in the
organization of many festivals and cult offerings. Also, LÚ.MEŠ É.GAL are frequently entrusted in
cult inventories with the distribution of cultic offerings to the various temples (Hazenbos 2003:
206). So, it would seem that the MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS inspected and sealed goods given to
the cult for the organization of various rituals or festivals.
There are no cuneiform attestations of Arnilizi. This might suggest his term of office to be
dated to the late period of Arnuwanda III or Šuppiluliuma II, from which not many texts have
survived. Alternatively, since he was also a chief of palace attendants, and there were other main
palaces involved in the redistribution of goods known from the economic records, in venues such as
418 See the reconstruction in Herbordt 2005: 38 Abb. 18e.
419 On the interpretation of this royal title see Hawkins 1995: 108–113.
420 Tribute lists are designated either as MADATTU or IGI.DU8.A (Siegelová 1986: 559–564; Mora
2006); for the sealing process recorded in them see Mora 2007: 537–541.
421 Note the officials treated in Siegelová 1986: 288–291.
143

Šulupašši, Kašiya and Gazzimara, 422 he might have been active outside Hattuša. If he was stationed
in the palace of Hattuša he may have fulfilled duties close to those of Šauškaruntiya. Both officials
used MAGNUS.SCRIBA and MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS seals, and both signed their
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS seals on Tonverschlüsse. Marizza (2007a: 108) in his dissertation
raised the hypothesis that Arnili of the Instructions to the Palace Servants (KUB 13.3 III 27; CTH
265.1) could perhaps be identified with Arnilizi. But even he admits that since this LH copy of the
Instructions text is based on a MH original, 423 the names appearing in it could well belong to MH
period officials. 424 In short, evidence has yet to turn up allowing the chronologically placing of a
chief scribe and chief of palace attendants named Arnilizi at Hattuša. Perhaps after considering the
evidence of the similar Šauškaruntiya more could be said on the matter.
MAHHUZZI
Mahhuzzi (ma-hwi-zi/a) used seven different seals, all produced from multiple impressions found at
Nişantepe (Herbordt 2005: 81, 152–153, Taf. 17–18). 425 Mahhuzzi's choice of titles, HL name
spellings 426 and scene designs on these seals all seem well planned (Tab. 4.2; Fig. 4.3).
Seal o. HL Titles Seals and Seal Impressions Remarks
1 SCRIBA-la Nis 217 Signet ring impression;
144
digraphic
2 SCRIBA-la, REX.FILIUS Nis 223 Signet ring impression
3 SCRIBA-la, LIS.DOMINUS Nis 222
422 See Hazenbos 2003: 206.
423 Apud Pecchioli Daddi 2004: 451.
424 I would note for example that Zuliya, appearing next to Arnili in KUB 13.3 III 28-33, is a name attested
solely in MH texts: Instructions of Arnu. I and Ašmunikkal for the LÚ.MEŠ DUGUD (KUB 31.44 I 21;
CTH 260.1), a list of families (KBo 16.65 I 4; CTH 233.4) and a letter from Maşat (HKM 103 rev. 13).
425 VA 10942 is a biconvex seal of Mahhuzzi BONUS2 VIR2 with a second illegible title. This title was
recognized by Singer (1999b: 652, Fig. 2) perhaps as a mutilated L. 23. I believe this seal is to be
excluded from belonging to the prince, scribe and lord of litigations, later MAGNUS.SCRIBA, studied
here, mainly because the sign VIR2 is not among his titular.
426 Hawkins 2005a: 263 noted on the alternating use of the “Ram head” and the full body of the Ram to
write ma (L. 110). This stylistic Ram appears also in reliefs from Alaça (Herbordt 2005: 152 with ref.).

Seal o. HL Titles Seals and Seal Impressions Remarks
4 MAGNUS.SCRIBA-la Nis 218
5 MAGNUS.SCRIBA-la, REX.FILIUS Nis 221 Stamped on Tonversclüsse
6 MAGNUS.SCRIBA-la,
LIS.DOMINUS
7 MAGNUS.SCRIBA-la,
LIS.DOMINUS
Nis 220
Nis 219 Mann im Mantel scene 427
Tab. 4.2: Seals of Mahhuzzi
To begin with, Mahhuzzi used three different SCRIBA-la seals (nos. 1-3), two of which
were signets (nos. 1-2). Signet no. 1 is digraphic, its cuneiform legend reads [ma-hu]-uz-zi. 428 Since
427 A man wearing an elongated robe, sometimes with the front leg bared, or a short robe, either with a
round cap or a horned head piece, is common in Empire period glyptics, both in Hattuša and North-
Syria (Beyer 2001: 347–351; Herbordt 2005: 58–60).
428 For this reading see also Hawkins 2005a: 263.
145

Mahhuzzi is attested as an overseer of a scribe in at least one colophon, 429 as will be shown below,
the digraphic seal was perhaps aimed at expressing the proficiency of Mahhuzzi in cuneiform
writing. 430 The cuneiform legend on signet no. 1 has helped in recognizing the value of *508 or
CURRERE – known from YALBURT to correspond with hwi – with cuneiform hu (Hawkins
2005a: 427). Signets no. 1 and 2 are most likely contemporary but have different purposes, since
no. 2 uses the additional REX.FILIUS title. Seal no. 3 bears a new title: LIS.DOMINUS “lord of
declarations” (L. 23.DOMINUS, see below), which is either a later promotion or an additional title
held contemporaneously with those referred to on signets nos. 1 and 2. Seals nos. 4-7 definitely
indicate a promotion from SCRIBA to MAGNUS.SCRIBA. These seals abandon altogether the
style of the previous signets. A similar phenomenon appears in the promotion of Šauškarunitya
from SCRIBA to MAGNUS.SCRIBA, which is discussed below.
In cuneiform sources, Mahhuzzi is known as the overseer of the scribe Duda (see below),
and chief of MUBARRÛ men, who witnessed both the Ulmi-Tešub treaty of Hattušili III 431 and the
land concession issued by Tudhaliya IV to Šahurunuwa 432 (van den Hout 1995: 225f.). His title,
GAL (LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ, was in the past mistakenly understood as “chief butcher” (Gurney 1993: 24
apud Kümmel). The correct meaning of the Akkadogram MUBARRÛ seems to derive either from
the third weak verb burrû “announce, usher in” (CAD M/2: 158b), or second weak D-stem burru
“legally establish, prove, convict” (Hawkins 2005a: 300). Van den Hout (1995: 185) already
suggested that the GAL (LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ is a kind of legal official (Richter). Singer (1999b: 651)
further dubbed the title as “lord of declarations / litigations”. This translation was based on the
function of a Nani(n)zi GAL (LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ, 433 who recorded the declaration of a Pallariya in
the deposition RS 17.109. 434 This deposition was further ratified with what Singer identified as the
seal of Nani(n)zi L. 23.DOMINUS. Whereas the name on the seal impression should now most
likely read Ana(n)zi/a following Hawkins (2005a: 300), Singer's interpretation of the HL title L.
23.DOMINUS remains correct. L. 23 shows two heads opposing each other in between them one or
429 KUB 13.7 IV (CTH 258.2).
430 Mahhuzzi is one of a selected few who used such seals. More digraphic seals from Nişantepe are for
example those of Pihatarhunta (Nis 305; Herbordt 2005: 168, Taf. 24), Alalimi (Nis 3; Herbordt 2005:
114, Taf. 1), the playful writing of d UTU-mu on the seal Nis 460 of Tiwatamuwa (Hawkins 2005a:
275), and Nis 281 of Nanuwa (Herbordt 2005: 163–164, Taf. 22).
431 KBo 4.10+ rev. 32.
432 KUB 26.43 rev. 33 // 50 rev. 27'.
433 This Nani(n)zi is the same scribe and son of Mittannamuwa treated under III.1.b.Nani(n)zi.
434 For an ed. of the text see Salvini 1995.
146

two circles (Fig. 4.4). This HL sign should be interpreted as a depiction of a dispute between two
men, and is now recognized by Hawkins (2005a: 300) as the Empire form of Late Period L. 24,
“disagreement, lawsuit”, transcribed LIS.
Fig. 4.4: L. 23 also transcribed LIS
In light of the established equation LIS.DOMINUS = UGULA/GAL MUBARRÎ, Mahhuzzi,
owner of the HL seals nos. 1-7, must correspond with Mahhuzzi DUB.SAR and GAL
(LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ from the cuneiform documents (Singer 1999b: 651f.; Hawkins 2005a: 263). It
would seem that all three known lords of declarations: Nani(n)zi, Mahhuzzi and Ana(n)zi/a, also
possessed a scribal education concurrent with their judicial roles as writers of court declarations. 435
When analyzing Mahhuzzi's scribal endeavors, from the glyptic point of view, two distinct
stages in his career can be distinguished. He was first SCRIBA and later MAGNUS.SCRIBA. Both
of Mahhuzzi's SCRIBA signets are impressed alongside other seals on the same bullae. Digraphic
signet no. 1 (Tab. 4.2), for example, is impressed three times on Bo 91/999 together with an
administrative, anonymous “Labarna” seal. As indicated under IV.2.a.Arnilizi (p. 143), this royal
HL title usually refers to the great king Tudhaliya IV or one of his successors. In this case, since we
know Mahhuzzi was a witness of the Šahurunuwa decree, the “Labarna” on Bo 91/999 must be
Tudhaliya IV. This is the only known example of an official's seal and an anonymous “Labarna”
seal appearing together on the same bulla (Herbordt 2005: 152). It may have a unique bearing on
the understanding of Mahhuzzi duties as a scribe, which unfortunately cannot yet be determined.
According to signet no. 2 (Tab. 4.2; SCRIBA-la and REX.FILIUS) Mahhuzzi was already a
prince in the earlier stage of his scribal career, before his MAGNUS.SCRIBA seals were issued.
There is evidence of at least one other contemporary scribe at this point in his career. Bulla Bo
91/500 is impressed with Mahhuzzi's signet no. 2 and with the seal of a SCRIBA II (Nis 580; Fig.
4.5) whose difficult name may be read as L. 417.5-wasa or Suwasa. 436 L. 417.5-wasa or Suwasa
SCRIBA II is previously attested using the same seal in a more complete impression recovered
from Bk. D (SBo II 113; Fig. 4.5). On the seal a Mann im Mantel is depicted wearing a horned cap
and adorned with a long robe which exposes the front leg. 437 This scribe is not attested elsewhere in
435 Cf. already the remarks on Nani(n)zi made by Singer 1999b: 651 and here under III.1.b.Nani(n)zi.
436 Hawkins (2005a: 281) classifies the first sign of the name under L. 417: “miscellaneous triangles with
interior markings”, offering to transcribe it as su based on the Late Period value of L. 417.
437 For bib. see n. 427 above.
147

cuneiform or HL. Since Mahhuzzi is indicated on the bulla as prince, he is the official with the
higher status, but the designation of SCRIBA II, carried by L. 417.5-wasa, might imply that he was
more educated, or had a higher rank in the scribal profession. 438 In any case, the bulla indicates that
L. 417.5-wasa / Suwasa was either a colleague of Mahhuzzi or more likely his teacher.
Turning to the cuneiform evidence, Mahhuzzi's earlier SCRIBA stage has at least one
attestation dating to the reign of Tudhaliya IV, where he bears the title DUB.SAR in the
Šahurunuwa decree. Therefore, at least at the beginning of Tudhaliya IV's reign he was still
DUB.SAR. Mahhuzzi has no exact parallel cuneiform title to his later MAGNUS.SCRIBA.
However, there is evidence he co-supervised, together with Halwaziti, the work of a scribe named
Duda 439 who copied KUB 13.7 (CTH 258.2):
Rev. IV 440
x+1 DUB II KAM m Tu-ut-ha-li-ya L˹UGAL.G˺AL
2' Š́A MA-ME-TI (ers.) QA-TI
3' ki-i ṬUP-PU ar-ha har-ra-an e-eš[-ta]
4' na-at ! A-A PA-I m Ma-ah-hu-zi
5' Ù A-A m Hal-wa-LÚ
6' ú-uk m Du-da-aš
7' EGIR-pa ne-wa-ah-hu-un
438 For more on the bearers of ranked SCRIBA seals see under II.3.
439 The anthroponym Duda is otherwise unrecorded.
440 Translit. follows Karasu 2001: 250.
148

Duda refurbished this second tablet of a MH edict of a certain great king Tudhaliya, likely
the II/III, 441 after the previous copy was destroyed (kī ṬUPPU arha harran ēš[ta]), perhaps for the
use of the current reigning king Tudhaliya IV. It is unusual that both Mahhuzzi and Halwaziti as the
supervisors of the work are without title. On many occasions DUB.SAR is omitted from colophons
when referring to the copyist, for example, when we have only with the signature “hand of PN
wrote”. Professional scribal markers of those inspecting the copyist's work, such as GAL
DUB.SAR, LÚ SAG, and even few instances of DUB.SAR, 442 are rarely omitted. Also in the case a
teacher is mentioned, the copyist is designated PN GÁB.ZU.ZU PN, meaning “so-and-so trainee of
so-and-so”. 443 Nevertheless, since Mahhuzzi is mentioned before Halwaziti in the colophon, he was
probably the senior scribe of the two. It seems appropriate to assume that, considering he acts here
as the supervisor, that he was the MAGNUS.SCRIBA at this stage as his seals tell us. However, it
cannot be established if this means that he was also the acting GAL DUB.SAR.
The duties and chronological reconstruction of the GAL DUB.SAR's considered in the
previous chapter emphasized their function as high ministers, and established that only one person
could bear the title at a given point in time. However, large gaps remain in the chronological
reconstruction, especially following the reign of Hattušili III. Two GAL DUB.SAR's were active
during Tudhaliya IV's reign: Walwaziti at the beginning of his reign and SAG for a short period
afterwards, leaving a gap to be filled after SAG. If Mahhuzzi the MAGNUS.SCRIBA was a GAL
DUB.SAR in Tudhaliya IV's reign, three possible scenarios arise: (1) Mahhuzzi was GAL
DUB.SAR after SAG, filling the gap till the next chief scribe, but his title is only documented in HL
seals; (2) Mahhuzzi was MAGNUS.SCRIBA at the same time SAG was GAL DUB.SAR. In this
case it is possible that (a) The GAL DUB.SAR lost its prestige as a title in the reign of Tudhaliya IV
and was given to more than one functionary simultaneously, 444 or (b) The title MAGNUS.SCRIBA
was not only the equivalent of cuneiform GAL DUB.SAR or GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, but also
designated scribes who reached the highest level of scribal proficiency, namely something
equivalent to “master scribe”. In this case there was only one GAL DUB.SAR but several
MAGNUS.SCRIBA, some of which lived at the same period of time.
441 For the dating of the original text to this king see Otten 1979; cf. also van den Hout 1995: 192 (MH) and
Karasu 2001: 250 (Tudh. II/III).
442 Šipaziti for example, see van den Hout 1995: 237.
443 On the structure and characteristics of the colophons see also under II.2.
444 A similar case was indicated recently by Marizza (2007c: 164–167) regarding a possible loss in prestige
of the office of GAL GEŠTIN in the Bronze Tablet, where two such officers are mentioned: Hattuša-
d LAMMA and HAR-šaniya.
149

These scenarios have implications regarding all the MAGNUS.SCRIBA treated in this
chapter and will be considered in the concluding section. For the moment, the simplest scenario will
be used, i.e. the first, in which case Mahhuzzi was the GAL DUB.SAR who filled the shoes of SAG
sometime during the latter half of Tudhaliya IV's reign.
FAMILY OF HALWAZITI: When looking for a key moment in Halwaziti's career one might
note that he was the known scribe of the Bronze Tablet (IV 43), man of the city Ukkia, son of
Lupakki. This Lupakki has also been discussed by van den Hout (1995: 192). In contrast to what is
assumed here, he prefers to see the city Ukkia as pertaining to the origin of Lupakki and not of
Halwaziti. In the colophons of Hattuša the appellative LÚ URU Ukkiya seems to refer specifically to
the copyist, as it does in at least two other cases: Lilawalwi (KUB 7.20 rev. 6'-7'; CTH 475.a.1.A)
and Pihamuwa (KBo 12.95 rev. 2'; CTH 825). 445 Perhaps all were members of the same scribal
circle or this city had a part in their scribal training (Otten 1988:53; Torri 2007a: 772).
The same Lupakki is probably the EXERCITUS.SCRIBA, “army scribe”, mentioned in the
TAŞÇI A inscription, if it is indeed from the reign of Hattušili III (Kohlmeyer 1983: 77f.; Herbordt
2005: 77). Hawkins (2005a: 292f.) reads the genealogy of a Manazi in the inscription so: ... ma-na-
a-zi/a FILIA lu-pa-ki EXERCITUS.SCRIBA FILIUS(?) VIR-á HASTARIUS MAGNUS.REX
HATTI+li MAGNUS.REX HEROS SERVUS “...Manazi, daughter of Lupaki the Army-Scribe son
of(?) Zida the MEŠEDI-man, servant of Hattušili, Great King, Hero” (Fig. 4.5). He therefore
reaches the conclusion that Lupakki is a descendant of Zida, most likely the GAL MEŠEDI, brother
of Šuppiluliuma I. This makes Manazi and her brother Halwaziti second cousins of Hattušili III and
Muwattalli II. 446
445 Note also Duwazi LÚ URU […] scribe of KUB 31.49 (CTH 233.2).
446 For a recent study of the TAŞÇI A and B inscriptions see Kohlmeyer 1983: 74–80; see also Ehringhaus
2005: 65–70 with good photos of the inscriptions and their riverside environment.
150

Other homonyms bearing the name Lupakki 447 include (in chronological order): (1) UGULA
10 ŠA KARAŠ under Šuppiluliuma I (Houwink ten cate 1973a: 254; Beal 1992: 409f.); (2) Owner
of seal impressions SBo II 54 and Nis 207, both of similar design and bear the title SCRIBA, dated
to Šuppiluliuma I by Herbordt (2005: 46 n. 351, 77 and Abb. 301) based on the connection of SBo
II 54 to an Early Empire impression of Izzummiziti (SBo II 53) on the same clay bulla. Herbordt
also attributes this Lupakki with a bronze seal from a storehouse near temple I (Glyptik no. 214)
bearing the title SCRIBA; (3) Lupakki GAL DUMU MEŠ É.GAL of Muwattalli II (KBo 1.6 obv. 21');
(4) KARTAPPU of Hattušili III, owner of a seal impression from Korucutepe (Güterbock 1973: 142
and n. 24; Beal 1992: 448) and perhaps also included in the “Hešni conspiracy” (KUB 31.68 obv.
39'; Tani 2001: 158 and n. 26). Kohlmeyer (1983: 80) wishes to equate this KARTAPPU with the
TAŞÇI army scribe, father of Halwaziti and Manazi.
Other sporadic attestations of the name Lupakki include a Late Empire seal impression with
the title URCEUS (Nis 208, see Herbordt 2005: 150, Taf. 16) and a seal impression of a cylinder
seal from the Upper City of Boğazköy (Bo 78/35), probably of the late Empire Period. This latter
seal shows a scene close to that portrayed on the FIRAKTIN relief, which is dated to Hattušili III or
immediately afterwards (Kohlmeyer 1983: 69–71, Fig. 25), and mentions a Lupakki without title
(B. Dinçol 1998a: 168f, Abb. 1, Taf I 1).
As for Halwaziti, he was also the teacher of two students ( LÚ GÁB.ZU.ZU): [...-Šarru]ma 448
and Pihami 449 the junior scribe. 450 In both cases the texts copied were festivals, the first regarding
the cult of Underworld deities, the second regarding the cult of Zippalanda. I believe the main
447 For an exhaustive review of all cuneiform attestations see H and H suppl. 708 with more ref. under
no. 6. Lupakki was recently subjected to a prospographical inquiry by Hawkins (2005a: 262) and
Marizza (2007a: 101).
448 Restored by Archi as GUR-Šarruma (Inhaltsübersicht KUB 57) and similiarly by Trémouille
(Onomastique on line: “GUR-Šarruma”). Van den Hout (1995: 192f.) believes a Šarruma name other
then GUR-Šarruma is in order. Recently Torri (2007a: 773 n. 15) suggested also Ulmi-Šarruma, but
since the latter scribe usually works together with Palluwaraziti and Piha-Walwi (Mascheroni 1983:
102; Torri 2007a: 778f.), it seems to me less likely that he would appear with connection to Halwaziti.
No other good suggestion springs to mind. From the copy it seems that a maximum of three signs fit the
gap at the beginning of the name, not counting the determinative.
449 The name Pihami is otherwise unknown, aside from a certain seal holder from Nişantepe bearing the
title URCEUS (Nis 298, see Herbordt 2005: 166, Taf. 23); on the stem piha- see now Hawkins 2005a:
293.
450 KUB 57.110 III 5 (CTH 645) and KBo 45.69 VI 6 (CTH 647) respectively.
151

venue of Halwaziti could have been the House on the Slope, mainly because the text copied by
Pihami comes from that location, 451 and a parallel of the text copied by [...-Šarru]ma was found in
the Lower City, 452 hinting that it too was perhaps originally kept close by. The text copied by
Pihami, which concerns the cult of Zippalanda, displays the mark of two different hands, one on
each side of the tablet. For this reason, Torri (2007a: 773) recently speculated whether one side was
copied by Halwaziti, while the other was by Pihami, or one side copied by Pihami and the other by
a colleague of Pihami who left out his signature. In order to determine whether this is the case a full
review of the texts copied under Halwaziti needs to be carried out, however such an investigation is
beyond the scope of the present study.
Using the above evidence a reconstruction of the duties of Mahhuzzi and Halwaziti in KUB
13.7 seems possible. Mahhuzzi was the supervisor, as can be seen from his MAGNUS.SCRIBA
seals that indicate that he most likely replaced SAG as chief scribe. Halwaziti was the teacher, a
position he is attested to in two festival colophons. Such a cooperation between a supervisor, who
was the chief scribe, and a teacher is also documented in a colophon of a text written by Talmi-
Tešub, son of Walwazit. This colophon presents Walwaziti, the chief scribe , as the inspector of the
work, and a certain MAH.DINGIR MEŠ as the teacher of Talmi-Tešub (see under III.1.b…Talmi-
Tešub). 453
It was suggested under III.1.b.Walwaziti that Walwaziti ran a bureau and school in Bk. A,
where he mainly supervised the writing of the (h)išuwa festival texts, but also many other texts
written by a group of scribes who worked there. In a similar fashion one can reconstruct a bureau or
school operated by prince Mahhuzzi lord of declarations and MAGNUS.SCRIBA. His partner
Halwaziti was acting as student instructor and co-supervisor. In this school, perhaps situated in the
House on the Slope or somewhere close by, 454 several lower echelon scribes were recognized: Duda
a scribe, Pihami a junior scribe and student, and [...-Šarru]ma a student. The everyday work in the
school involved, for example, the renewal of destroyed tablets (by Duda), and the re-copying of
needed festival texts (by Pihami and [...-Šarru]ma). Since the latter work was done by students, it
would seem that copying cult festival texts was an important part in the curriculum of Hittite
scribes. 455
451 KBo 45.69 was found in the House on the Slope see Košak, Konkordanz and Torri 2007a: 773.
452 KBo 27.59 is a dupl. of KUB 57.110, see Košak, Konkordanz.
453 Colophon of KBo 15.37 (CTH 628.II.1).
454 Considering the location of the texts written under the inspection of Halwaziti (see above).
455 See also the recent remarks of Christiansen 2006: 29f. on the tradition of recopying ritual texts as part of
152

Summary. Mahhuzzi was a prince (REX.FILIUS) trained as a scribe, who earned, sometime
during the second half of Hattušili III's reign, the title of GAL (LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ. This title was of
high judicial profile and likely required him to continue his scribal training. At least one other
higher scribe, whose name is either L. 417.5-wasa or Suwasa, was involved with Mahhuzzi at this
stage, perhaps as his teacher. As a high dignitary of the court Mahhuzzi became a part of, or
perhaps received charge over, a scribal office or school in the capital, which I believe to be in the
Lower City, possibly in the House on the Slope. This office also controlled the school of an
instructor named Halwaziti, man of the city Ukkiya, son of Lupakki. It seems correct to identify this
Lupakki with his namesake from the TAŞÇI A HL inscription. If one follows the interpretation of
Hawkins (2005a: 292f.) for this inscription, Lupakki was a descendant of Zida, brother of
Šuppiluliuma I, and loyal servant of Hattušili III. Halwaziti was himself a loyal servant of
Tudhaliya IV being the scribe who produced the important Bronze Tablet. Furthermore, TAŞÇI
informs us that Lupakki was an army scribe and had a daughter named Manazi. Halwaziti in this
case inherited his father's scribal role, but the question concerning his royal blood remains. There is
no tentative evidence suggesting that Halwaziti or Lupakki bore the titles DUMU.LUGAL or
REX.FILIUS. Therefore, whether Lupakki was a direct descendant of Zida is yet to be determined.
During the reign of Tudhaliya IV several scribes and students worked and studied under the
joint supervision of Mahhuzzi and Halwaziti, perhaps in their bureau/school in the House on the
Slope. At a certain point in the second half of Tudhaliya IV's reign, sometime after the signing of
the Šahurunuwa decree, Mahhuzzi is granted the title of MAGNUS.SCRIBA, which he bears on
several HL seals. He most likely also replaced SAG as GAL DUB.SAR at this point too. A less
likely option would place both persons as GAL DUB.SAR's simultaneously. His career, scribal
schools and other affiliations have been reconstructed in the following diagram (Fig. 4.7).
Hittite scribal education.
153

Fig. 4.7: Career of Mahhuzzi and affiliated scribes
154

PENTI-ŠARRUMA
Penti-Šarruma (pi-ti-SARMA) used at least six seals all found impressed on bullae from Nişantepe
(Herbordt 2005: 171f., Taf. 25–26) and from Bk. D, one of which is fragmentary (SBo II: 66, 69).
His seals present a clear progression over time in titles, size and use of fillers (Tab. 4.3; Fig. 4.8).
Seal o. HL Titles Seals and Seal Impressions Remarks
1 MAGNUS.SCRIBA Nis 322, SBo II 68
2 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA Nis 323
3 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.AURIGA Nis 327
4 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
5 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
6 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
- REX.FILIUS, [MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS]
Nis 325
Nis 326
Nis 324
SBo II 17 Fragmentary
Tab. 4.3: Seals of Penti-Šarruma
The seals used by Penti-Šarruma at Bk. D were identified only recently following the
reading of his name in the Nişantepe bullae. 456 Seal no. 1 was used both in Nişantepe and Bk. D.
Another seal was used in Bk. D: SBo II 17 (not numbered). It is, however, quite fragmentary and
displays the title REX.FILIUS and the remnants of another title, perhaps [MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
MAGNUS.DOM]US.FILIUS, likely corresponding to the titular of seals nos. 4-6 used in Nişantepe.
The majority of Penti-Šarruma seal impressions come from the recent Nişantepe corpus. Seal no. 2
adds the title REX.FILIUS to MAGNUS.SCRIBA found on seal no. 1. Seals nos. 4-6 add to these
titles also MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS, the equivalent of GAL DUMU.É.GAL “chief of palace
attendants” (see IV.2.a.Arnilizi). Seal no. 3 is unique because it bears the military title
456 Reading of the first name element pi-ti as a variant of the writing pa-ti, recognized as the Hurr. lexeme
P/Benti- (= fanti(p), “right”) in the HL writing of the name Bentešina (pa-ti-si-na), was ascertained by
Hawkins (2005a: 268) apud Gonnet.
155

MAGNUS.AURIGA equivalent of GAL KARTAPPU “chief of equerries” (Laroche 1956c: 29–32;
Hawkins 2005a: 301). 457 According to Singer (2006b: 244) this seal could belong either to a
homonym or to a different stage in the career of Penti-Šarruma the MAGNUS.SCRIBA.
The titles on the six Penti-Šarruma seals imply two possible scenarios (cf. Hawkins 2005a:
268). On the one hand, the seals might express a chronological development from a chief scribe to a
prince (or vice versa), with a later addition of the title and most likely duties of a chief of palace
attendants and charioteer. On the other hand, a case where Penti-Šarruma held all four titles at the
same time, choosing to omit certain titles from certain seals could also be imagined. The first
scenario, which suggests that Penti-Šarruma was given the title prince, seems problematic, unless
he married into the royal line or was adopted in some way by the king. 458 In support of the second
scenario, that of title omission, there are the somewhat similar cases of Arnilizi and Mahhuzzi (see
above). Both dignitaries seem to have used seals contemporaneously, but bearing different titles,
using each seal depending on their needs.
457 On the GAL KARTAPPU see Pecchioli Daddi 1977; Singer 1983b: 10; Beal 1992: 446–450.
458 The ways of becoming DUMU.LUGAL / REX.FILIUS were discussed under IV.2.a with bib.
156

In the cuneiform texts from Hattuša not one document attesting to Penti-Šarruma has been
discovered (Singer 2006b: 243). 459 However, he is now assumed by Singer (2006b: 244) to be [...]-
Šarruma, the GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ who swore an oath to Šuppiluliuma II in KUB 26.32 (CTH
124). 460 Previously, [...]-Šarruma was associated with Taki-Šarruma (Singer 2003: 345), another
known MAGNUS.SCRIBA and GAL L [ Ú.MEŠ DUB.SAR] treated below. However, Penti-Šarruma
chronologically corresponds to the period of Šuppiluliuma II, since a high dignitary by that name
appears now in two companion letters from Ugarit dated to the days of Ammurapi, last king of
Ugarit (see below). Furthermore, according to Singer (2006b: 244 n. 7), the space in the lacuna
before the element Šarruma in col. I 2 better fits a writing of the logogram ZAG, which corresponds
to Hurrian P/Benti- “right”. In the text Šuppiluliuma II recounts how he adopted [Penti]-Šarruma
from his parents and cared for him like a puppy dog (I 5-8). In the reign of Arnuwanda III,
Šuppiluliuma II's brother, [Penti]-Šarruma is already a Grandee (I 5-15). Next, as his adopting
father becomes king he swears to him an oath of fealty (III 10'-15').
Considering Penti-Šarruma's role as chief scribe on wood one might understand his
MAGNUS.AURIGA seal (no. 3). A similar case would be that of Šahurunuwa, the only other GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ in Hattuša recorded in Empire Period texts. Šahurunuwa was the holder of several
military titles, perhaps at the same time. Among these were the GAL LÚ UKU.UŠ and [GAL
N]A.[G]AD, 461 both high military positions (Imparati 1974: 11). It is not certain at which stage in
his career he held these positions, but it is clear that as a chief scribe on wood he was connected
with the military (Beal 1992: 382–385; Negri Scafa 1995: 290). Therefore, Penti-Šarruma could
have been given, at a certain point, a further military or otherwise diplomatic post, depending on
how one interprets the responsibilities of the MAGNUS.AURIGA / GAL KARTAPPU. 462
In Ugarit Penti-Šarruma was recently identified as the sender of RS 94.2523. The text is one
of two companion letters found in the Urtenu archive, the other being RS 94.2530, both dealing
with several related subjects (Lackenbacher & Malbran-Labat 2005b: 230–240; Singer 2006b).
459 Apart for a reference to a fragmentary name Pint[i...] appearing next to an unidentified Palla in a
historical fragment cited by Singer 2006b: 243 n. 4; cf. van den Hout 1995: 218.
460 An ed. of the text was made by Giorgieri 1995: 278–280; for earlier discussions see the bib. cited in
Singer 2003: 346 n. 35.
461 KUB 26.43 rev. 49 (Imparati 1974: 30).
462 The majority assume that the GAL KARTAPPU was in fact a kind of diplomat or foreign affairs
secretary (Pecchioli Daddi 1977: 173f.; Singer 1983b: 10; Malbran-Labat 2004: 76; Herbordt 2005: 96).
Whereas Beal (1992: 449–450 and n. 1675) instead sees him as a military officer.
157

Both letters were sent by Penti-Šarruma to the last king of Ugarit, Ammurapi, 463 chronologically
parallel to Šuppiluliuma II in Hatti. In the text Penti-Šarruma bears the titles LÚ tuppinura
huburtinura LÚ GAL-ú DUGUD ša KUR ha-at-ti, “chief scribe (and) chief huburti, grandee,
dignitary of Hatti”. The title tuppa(la)nura is the equivalent of GAL DUB.SAR and of
MAGNUS.SCRIBA (Laroche 1956c: 27–29; Singer 2006b: 243f.). 464 As a result Lackenbacher and
Malbran-Labat (2005a) identified the sender of the companion letters with his namesake on the
seals from Hattuša. Still problematic is the title huburtinura, on which opinions differ.
Lackenbacher and Malbran-Labat concluded that, based on the seal impression of Penti-Šarruma
bearing the title MAGNUS.AURIGA (seal no. 3), corespondent of GAL KARTAPPI (see above),
huburtinura should be recognized as its phonetic writing and therefore mean “chief equerry”. 465
Singer (2006b: 244) alternatively suggested to take LÚ tuppinura huburtinura as a compound title
equivalent to the HL titles MAGNUS.SCRIBA and MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS, which Penti-
Šarruma bears in combination on seals nos. 4-6. The latter hypothesis is quite convincing, but lacks
corroborating evidence from other sources.
There are also at least three other references to a tuppa(la)nura in Ugarit whose name is not
explicitly mentioned. But since these texts date to Ammurapi, Lackenbacher and Malbran-Labat
(2005a: 96f.) and Singer (2006b: 243 n. 5, 244), attribute them to Penti-Šarruma and not to Taki-
Šarruma as speculated before (Singer 2003: 345f.). Two of these texts also originated in the Urtenu
archive where the above mentioned companion letters were found. 466 RS 34.136 (= RSO 7, no. 7) is
a letter addressed to an unnamed king of Ugarit, identified as Ammurapi, sent by the viceroy of
Carchemish, then Talmi-Tešub. The latter expounds on his lack of satisfaction from the gifts
Ammurapi sent several high Hittite officials (Singer 1999a: 694f.). Most interesting are the wanting
gifts given to the tuppalanuri. RS 92.2007, dealt with by Arnaud (1996: 58f.), which reveal the
principal role of the tuppat(a)nuri 467 in the text as responsible for tax payments on incoming
merchants to the Syrian principalities (Singer 1999a: 708). The third and last text is RS 19.080 (=
463 For the reign of Ammurapi see Singer 1999a: 706–731 and Freu 2006: 158–164.
464 See also on tuppal(a)nura under II.3.
465 Following an equation between LÚ IŠ and huburtinura formulated long ago by Götze (1952: 5; cf. HED
2: 298f.).
466 On the texts from the Urtenu archive see Lackenbacher & Malbran-Labat 2005b and Singer 2006b:
242f. with bib.
467 Arnaud suggests that the unusual spelling is made of a first element tuppāt, Akk. fem. pl., with a Hitt.
gen. pl. suffix -an. Singer (1999a: 708 n. 350) rather opts that the use of at in RS 92.2007 is a spelling
variant of la, as the case happens in some Hitt. texts where la and at are confused with one another.
158

PRU VI: 2–5) from the southwest archive. It tells the case of Anani-Nikkal, who asks for the help
of a lady named [...]-nuwiya in turning to the tuppanuri who has the power to save her children
from a dreaded fate (Singer 1999a: 708).
Summary. If we identify [Penti]-Šarruma in KUB 26.32 with his namesake in Ugarit and the
owner of HL seals from Hattuša, then the following scenario could be imagined. Penti-Šarruma was
adopted as a boy by Šuppiluliuma II, son of Tudhaliya IV. He was then nominated the GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ either in the short reign of Arnuwanda III or in the reign of Šuppiluliuma II. I
believe that this is also corroborated from the seal impressions of Penti-Šarruma found in Hattuša. It
is not yet entirely clear if he took over the position held previously by Taki-Šarruma, as suggested
by Singer (2006b: 244; see also below), but since Taki-Šarruma was also active at a very late stage
in the 13 th cent. (cf. Singer 2003 and below), it seems more likely that both operated
simultaneously. Namely, Penti-Šarruma was the chief scribe on wood and Taki-Šarruma was the
chief scribe during the reigns of Arnuwanda III and Šuppiluliuma II. 468 As were for example
Walwaziti and Šahurunuwa, who were the chief scribe and chief scribe on wood, respectively, in
the reign of Hattušili III and the beginning of Tudhaliya IV (see under III.4). The differentiation
between Taki-Šarruma and Penti-Šarruma is of course not evident at all from their seal impressions,
as HL does not distinguish between the titles of chief scribe and chief scribe on wood (Singer
2006b: 244f.; cf. also above). Penti-Šarruma was known in Ugarit as an important official, titled LÚ
tuppinura huburtinura “chief scribe and chief huburti-”. High involvement of both Taki-Šarruma
and Penti-Šarruma in Syrian affairs shows that they held considerable jurisdiction over that region
(cf. Singer 2003: 347), perhaps even operating from time to time in the Hittite center of
Carchemish. One might recall in this context the involvement of Walwaziti (spelled UR.MAH) in
Hittite Syria as arbitrator in cases both from Ugarit and Emar (d'Alfonso 2005: 77 and previous
chapter). 469 Evidence found at Emar shows that the title GAL LÚ.MEŠ DUB.SAR was attributed to
several Hittite officials at that location, one of whom was also a prince (Cohen forthcoming). In this
case, it could be further suggested that the main venues of Hittite Syria, such as Ugarit or
Carchemish, were important stages of operation for the chief scribes of Hattuša, while there were
other Hittite chief scribes stationed in some of the smaller Syrian centers, such as Emar. 470 Lastly,
468 Contra Singer (2003: 347) who suggested that Taki-Šarruma held both the office of GAL DUB.SAR
and GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ which is otherwise not attested in the Empire period.
469 RS 17.135+ (= PRU IV: 235) and ASJ 10/B (Tsukimoto 1988: 157 –160).
470 A parallel example might be drawn from the MH period when a chief scribe (perhaps both of scribes
and of wooden tablet scribes) named Hattušili appears in many letters from the provincial center of
Maşat. Though it is clear that his main base of operations was Hattuša (Beckman 1995: 24–26;
159

from Penti-Šarruma's seals we learn that he also held two other posts – MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
and MAGNUS.AURIGA. The latter appears on a separate seal and might be conversely a different
stage in his career. In analogy, Šahurunuwa, the only other known GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, was also
the holder of two important military posts, bearing them either simultaneously or at different points
in his career (see under III.3 and below).
ŠAHURUNUWA
The prosopographic profile of Šahurunuwa along with his seals was thoroughly treated in the
previous chapter. He is the known chief scribe on wood (GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ) from the reign of
Hattušili III and the first half of Tudhaliya IV. Šahurunuwa (sà+huru-nu-wa/i) used at least four
different seals during his career (see III.3, fig. 3.22). On all of them he appears as prince
(REX.FILIUS). In a similar fashion to other MAGNUS.SCRIBA, such as Arnilizi, Šauškaruntiya
and Taki-Šarruma, Šahurunuwa sealed a Tonverschluß (Nis 347), suggesting that he too inspected
economic activities or received tribute (see IV.2.a.Arnilizi). However, in the present case, unlike
other MAGNUS.SCRIBA, Šahurunuwa chose to use a seal carrying only the title REX.FILIUS
lacking any other designation of his present office or function.
Two very similar seal impressions of Šahurunuwa, one from Hattuša (Bog. III 15) and one
from Tarsus (Tars. 40), perhaps of the same seal, 471 carry the additional titular: MAGNUS.SCRIBA
and the obscure HL title L. 490. 472 MAGNUS.SCRIBA must stand here as the equivalent of his
cuneiform title GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, designating his administrative function. But it would seem
that, apart from administrative duties in Hattuša, Šahurunuwa was somehow connected with similar
activities in the area of Kizzuwatna. Though several MAGNUS.SCRIBA, such as Penti-Šarruma,
Taki-Šarruma and Šauškaruntiya, performed various functions outside Hattuša, the Tarsus bulla of
Šahurunuwa is an unicum. The only other MAGNUS.SCRIBA who actually used his seal outside
the Hittite capital is Taki-Šarruma on tablets found in Ugarit (see IV.2.a.Taki-Šarruma), for what
must have been a different purpose altogether then the aforementioned Tarsus bulla. So, how can
one explain an administrative bulla of Šahurunuwa in faraway Tarsus at Cilicia?
Mora (2000: 70) suggests that Šahurunuwa controlled villages and territories in various parts
of Anatolia, some in the area of Cilicia and more specifically Tarsus. Plainly, her notion gains
Houwink ten Cate 1998: 174–178; Marizza 2007a: 286–301)
471 See discussion under III.3.
472 The title on the Tarsus impression is most likely not EUNUCHUS2 (L. 254) as originally drawn by Gelb
(Goldman et al. 1956: Taf. 406, no. 40), see Hawkins 2001: 169 n. 17.
160

support from the famous land grant that Tudhaliya IV and Puduhepa issued to Šahurunuwa, in
which estates were promised to his descendants, some of which were situated in the land of
Kizzuwatna (KUB 26.43+, for example obv. 40; Imparati 1974: 28f.).
The third HL title on the Tarsus bulla, L. 490, might indicate on another part of
Šahurunuwa's duties in the area. It could perhaps be the HL equivalent of one of the other two
cuneiform military titles held by Šahurunuwa, GAL NA.GAD or GAL LÚ UKU.UŠ, as suggested by
Singer (2003: 347 n. 40). However, L. 490 is certainly not the equivalent of GAL NA.GAD, which
has the established HL reading MAGNUS.PASTOR (L. 363 – L. 438). It therefore could only be
the equivalent of GAL LÚ UKU.UŠ, but this lacks any safe corroboration in other sources. The only
other seal impressions with the title L. 490 belong to a certain Asuta (Bo 83/597; B. Dinçol 2001:
102) and to prince Ku(wa)lanaziti (EXERCITUS-VIR.zi/a; SBo II 21), likely grandson of
Šahurunuwa (Singer 2000: 81). As suggested in the previous chapter (III.3), this latter occurrence
indicates that L. 490 passed within the family from Šahurunuwa to Ku(wa)lanaziti, and given that
his uncle Tattamaru was also GAL UKU.UŠ, it might seem possible to equate both titles.
ŠAUŠKARUNTIYA
Prince and MAGNUS.SCRIBA Šauškaruntiya (sà+us-ka-CERVUS3-ti) 473 used at least seven
different seals which are distinguished below (Tab. 4.4). The HL writing of his name was first read
by Meriggi on seal impressions from Bk. D (SBo II: 12 n. 38; seals nos. 3, 6-7). Presently, the
majority of Šauškaruntiya's seals have been found impressed on multiple bullae from Nişantepe
(Herbordt 2005: 180–182, Taf. 29–30). His other attested impressions were found on three bullae
from Bk. D (SBo II: 65f., 69 nos. 8, 30, 67) and on a bulla from the area of the T.1 storerooms
(Glyptik: 75 no. 241). The same Šauškaruntiya is also attested in two HL inscriptions:
BOĞAZKÖY 22, a stone block from Hattuša signed by various scribes (Dinçol & Dinçol 2002:
209f.), and KÖYLÜTOLU YAYLA, an inscription of Tudhaliya IV originally discovered in 1884
by M. Sokolowski (Masson 1980: 109–111).
There are also bullae from Nişantepe bearing the seal of a homonym named Šauškaruntiya
(Nis 381; Fig. 4.9). Hawkins (2005a: 271) tends to separate this person from the prince and
MAGNUS.SCRIBA mentioned above. The style in which the name is written seems different
(CERVUS3 is positioned below the CAPRA), as are the size and format of the seal (small middle
473 Šauška, the first element of the name, is written in the angle created behind the CERVUS3 (stag antler)
and the sign ti (foot). This graphic phenomenon is common in names formed with CERVUS3 and to
some extant also those formed with CERVUS2 (full body stag), see Hawkins 2005a: 290.
161

field, large outer rim). The title as well is not similar to any of those appearing on other seals of
Šauškaruntiya and is URBS.DOMINUS HATTI.URBS, probably the equivalent of EN/BĒL(U)
URU Hatti “lord of Hatti” (Hawkins 2005a: 309f.).
Seal o. HL Titles Seals and Seal Impressions Remarks
1 SCRIBA Nis 379 Signet ring impression
2 SCRIBA Nis 380 Signet ring impression; no
3 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA SBo II 67
4 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
5 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
4 / 5 ? REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
6 REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
7 REX.FILIUS TONITRUS.U[RBS] /
RE[GIO], MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
Nis 373
162
availabel photograph or
Illustration
Nis 374 Stamped on Tonversclüsse
Nis 375 Fragmentary; no availabel
SBo II 8, Nis 378
SBo II 30, Nis 376-377
- REX.[FILIUS], MAGNUS.[...] Bog V 28 (Glyptik 241) Fragmentary
Tab. 4.4: Seals of Šauškaruntiya
Fig. 4.9: Nis 381 (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 30)
photograph or Illustration

Returning to Šauškaruntiya the prince and MAGNUS.SCRIBA, his HL titles show a
development of at least three career branches, perhaps simultaneously (Fig. 4.10; Tab. 4.4). From
time to time certain titles were omitted and others added when there was a need (e.g.
KÖYLÜTOLU below). In the more limited corpus of impressions found in Bk. D we find at least
three different seals, all from Šauškaruntiya's later MAGNUS.SCRIBA stage (nos. 3, 6-7). These
designate him either as prince and MAGNUS.SCRIBA (no. 3), or with more elaborate titular:
prince, MAGNUS.SCRIBA and chief of palace attendants (nos. 6-7). Seal no. 7 even more
specifically adds that he was prince of TONITRUS.U[RBS] / RE[GIO] (on this see more below).
Šauškaruntiya impressions from Nişantepe hold the longest record of his activities and the most
163

extensive. Starting from two SCRIBA signets (nos. 1-2), 474 moving on to REX.FILIUS
combinations on stamps, either with MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS (nos. 4-5), or
MAGNUS.SCRIBA (no. 3), or both (nos. 6-7). One fragmentary seal impression (Bog V 28) of
Šauškaruntiya seems to resemble seal no. 7, but this can not be stated with certainty.
Starting with the earlier stages of his career, similarly to Mahhuzzi, Šauškaruntiya used
signet rings (nos. 1-2) while transferring to stamp seals during his later MAGNUS.SCRIBA career
phase (nos. 3, 6-7). 475 This recurrent change from signet rings to stamp seals in both their scribal
seals might be significant with regard to how scribal status was understood through the
administrative use of seals, mainly because all attested MAGNUS.SCRIBA seals are stamps (see
also under IV.3).
During the same period Šauškaruntiya BONUS2 SCRIBA appears among at least three
scribes who signed their name in HL graffito on the quadratic stone block BOĞAZKÖY 22, found
in the area of T.4 (Dinçol & Dinçol 2002: 209f.; Fig. 4.11). As opposed to bullae or other types of
HL inscriptions, such graffiti is not necessarily a contemporary act. Meaning that the various
scribes could have signed their names on the stone block at different time periods. In order to
establish whether the other scribes were contemporaries, perhaps colleagues, of Šauškaruntiya, one
must explore the prosopographic elements of their names. Unfortunately, only one other name
could be clearly read, that of Armaziti (LUNA-VIR.zi/a), positioned at the top half of the inscribed
face of the stone block. His titles are not completely preserved, 476 but since both Šauškaruntiya and
474 Although the name here is written somewhat differently, using CAPRA2 (full caprine) instead of
CAPRA (caprine head), I believe this is an earlier stage in the career of Šauškaruntiya. Note that
Hawkins (2005a: 271) separates this person as inferior to the prince. There are no good reasons to do
this, in light of the case of Mahhuzzi, who omits his princely status from his SCRIBA signets and
likewise writes the ma in his name alternatively with Ram head or a full body Ram (see above).
475 Contra to this notion see Hawkins (2005a: 271) proposing that the SCRIBA was a different inferior
official.
476 The HL sign positioned to the left of Armaziti's name resembles a wheel with a protuberance at its
bottom. It is read by Dinçol & Dinçol (2002: 209) as Late Period sign L. 290 hara/i, and is interpreted
as part of another name graffito. However, this reading seems problematic, since L. 290 is no where else
attested in the Empire Period, and its close proximity to Armaziti's name leaves only the possibility that
it was at least part of his titles, not another name. The third partially preserved name on the stone block,
positioned on the right side of its inscribed face, seems also to posses a similar HL sign as title. This
'wheel', if it is one, should probably be read as L. 292 which Hawkins (2005a: 426) transcribes as hala,
also attested once as a title of Pazuwa on a sealing from Nişantepe (Nis 296; Herbordt 2005: 166, Taf.
164

the third partial name on the block bear the title SCRIBA, it seems logical to assume that Armaziti
was also a scribe. This is further supported by other sources mentioning Armaziti, in both
cuneiform and HL.
ARMAZITI: Armaziti ( d 30/GE6/SÎ-LÚ) has been extensively treated by Imparati (1987:
197–199; 1988), who identified him as scribe, augur, and supervisor of temple construction from
Hattuša in the days of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV, and a prince attested in Ugarit in the days of
Ibiranu, contemporary of Tudhaliya IV (cf. Singer 1999a: 685f.; Hazenbos 2003: 54f.; Malbran-
Labat 2004: 78; d'Alfonso 2005: 66f.). 477 Mora (2004b: 434) further assumes the prince had strong
connections with the court of Carchemish.
Armaziti the scribe copied three rituals, two of which, KBo 19.128 (CTH 625.2.A, T.1) and
KUB 7.1+ (CTH 390.A), 478 were written under the inspection of Anuwanza, the well known scribe,
LÚ SAG and lord of Nerik active under Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV. 479 Noteworthy is the fact that
both KUB 7.1+ and KUB 4.1 (CTH 422), the third text Armaziti copied, are Sammeltafeln, each
recording more than one text (Otten 1971: 50). It is further interesting that all three texts copied by
Armaziti are Empire period versions of MH originals. KUB 7.1+ is a copy of five MH Luwian
23). A similar sign also appears as the logographic title L. 181 PANIS, perhaps “baker?” (Hawkins
2005a: 305; Herbordt 2005: 105). It is not certain, however, to which of Armaziti's cuneiform titles
either of these suggestions might refer.
477 Contra Imparati van den Hout (1998: 70f.) does not see fit to identify the scribe with the augur.
478 KUB 19.128 was edited by Otten 1971; KUB 7.1+ is edited by Kronasser 1961; Oettinger 2004: 348–
352.
Fig. 4.11: BOĞAZKÖY 22 (Dinçol & Dinçol 2002: Abb. 4)
479 See van den Hout 1995: 238–242; Starke 1996: 160f.; Miller 2004: 38f.; Torri 2007a: 777.
165

ituals and invocations of the women Šušumanniga, Ayatarša and Wattiti. KUB 4.1 records a MH
invocation ritual of Arnuwanda I against enemies at the border, specifically the Kaška, 480 and an
Akkadian-Hittite bilingual liver omen (KAM). 481 KBo 19.128 is a second tablet of a festival-ritual,
perhaps part of the AN.TAH.ŠUM festival, 482 copied according to a wooden tablet. 483 Since the
latter text was found in T.1, it may be suggested that the process of transferring the wooden tablet to
the clay “hard copy” by Armaziti took place at that location. The involvement of Armaziti with
wooden texts does not end here, as he is further connected in a tablet catalogue text to the house of
Šahurunuwa, 484 likely the known chief scribe on wood (Dardano 2006: 121, 123f.). In another tablet
catalogue he is indicated as the author of a ritual (Dardano 2006: 153, 155), 485 a task most likely
connected with his function as augur (Imparati 1988: 90f.). 486
Armaziti further bears the title SCRIBA on at least five different HL seals, with which he
signed several bullae from Bk. D, and one without a find-spot from the Schlumberger collection
(Mora 2004b: 434). 487 The latter bulla was also stamped with the seal of a REX.FILIUS, whose
name was not preserved. 488 Most interesting is a signet ring impression from Nişantepe (Nis 68),
which is in fact a two name seal of Armaziti and Zuwa, from which only the title of the latter
survived as SCRIBA (Hawkins 2005a: 250; Herbordt 2005: 125). The seal indicates an important
synchronism of both these scribes, which will be considered below.
480 This part of the text was edited by von Schuler 1965: 168–174, cf. also recently Trémouille 2004a: 174.
481 For an ed. of this omen see Riemschneider 2004: 43–46.
482 The first part of the colophon reads: “The second tablet finished. Regarding the Great House of the
spring. With it finished the second day. Copied following the wooden text. The tablet of Hattuša.”
(Taggar-Cohen 2006: 416).
483 AA GIŠ.HUR-kan handan, for discussion and bib. under II.2 and III.1.b.Nani(n)zi. Otten (1971: 52)
suggested the language of the text indicates it is based on an older forerunner text. This might be
corroborated by a duplicate fragment of KBo 19.128, recently published as KBo 57.145, listed under the
Košak, Konkordanz as “mh.?”.
484 KUB 30.54 II 7'-8' (CTH 277.3, Bk. C).
485 KBo 31.27++ II 19'-20' (CTH 277.4.B, Bk. A). Note that Imparati's restoration here to LÚ D[UB.SAR
(Imparati 1988: 80 n. 7) is not accepted by van den Hout (1998: 70).
486 On scribes as augurs see the evidence in Imparati 1985.
487 SBo II 44-46; Mora 1987 XIIa 1.6. For other seal impressions and seals of Armaziti see Mora 2004b:
434; Herbordt 2005: 125.
488 Mora 1987 XIIb 1.62 reads Ma ? -x+ra/i ? .
166

To conclude the scribal evidence on Armaziti, it is obvious he copied mainly MH ritual texts
and may have specialized in writing Sammeltafeln. He had knowledge of Luwian, and possibly also
Akkadian and HL. The latter could be indicated from his name graffiti written on BOĞAZKÖY 22,
and also from the fact that he copied a religious text from a wooden tablet. 489 His term of office is
dated in accordance with Anuwanza, his inspector, who was active as supervisor during the final
years of Hattušili III and the first half of Tudhaliya IV's reign. 490 Therefore it is possible to date his
shared appearance with Šauškarutniya on BOĞAZKÖY 22 to sometime during that period.
Returning to Šauškaruntiya, we move on to his later HL titles, on which several observations
can be made. The middle field design of seals nos. 4-5 seems to have only a slight difference.
Whereas seal no. 4 displays a rosette filler, seal no. 5 displays an Ankh sign (Herbordt 2005: 180).
For some unknown reason it was the latter seal (with Ankh) that was chosen to seal, on two separate
occasions, 491 Tonverschlüsse, probably sealing containers of goods. These goods were most likely
used in rituals and festivals, considering the title on the seal is MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS (see
under IV.2.a.Arnilizi). A possible connection between the middle field design and the functionality
of the seal might have existed. Furthermore, seal no. 7 is most interesting as it adds to the title
REX.FILIUS a possible designation of toponym written either TONITRUS.U[RBS] (Nis 377 and
376? 492 ) or RE[GIO] (SBo II 30). Tentatively, Hawkins (2005a: 271) suggests to read the name of
this city (or area) as Tarhuntašša, 493 thus translating this title as “prince of the city (land?) of
Tarhuntassa”. It might just be an honorific title, but Hawkins further cites the appearance of a
Šauškaruntiya with a relatively similar titular: REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS and L.
283.DOMINUS, 494 on the HL inscription KÖYLÜTOLU YAYLA situated on the Hatti-
489 It is not certain these tablets were indeed written in HL (Symington 1991: 115f.).
490 For the dating of Anuwanza's term see most recently Torri 2007a: 777.
491 Bo 91/386 and 91/2398.
492 Note that in Nis 376 the title is completely broken off but since it has the same design of Nis 377 and
SBo II 30, both Herbordt and Hawkins suggest to restore here TONITRUS.URBS as well.
493 Note that in another context, that of the name TONITRUS.URBS-li (Nis 651-659, SBo II 106-108), also
treated here below, Hawkins (2005a: 286) now offers alternatively that the compound
TONITRUS.URBS could also be read as Nerik, thus Nerikkaili.
494 L. 283 was recently shown to be read tuzzi- by A. Dinçol (2001: 92–94), thus the title L.
283.DOMINUS would mean tuzziyaš išha or EN.KARAŠ (Hawkins 2005a: 312); see also further
discussion on these titles below.
167

Tarhuntašša border (Fig. 4.12), 495 meaning Šauškaruntiya could have been a noble representative of
Tarhuntašša at Hattuša.
The inscription KÖYLÜTOLU YAYLA possibly describes a conquest of a town read by
Hawkins (2005a: 431) as Alatarma (TA5-tara/i-ma;§1, §3). 496 Masson (1980: 109; cf. Hawkins
2003: 139; 2006b: 62) relates the conquest and the inscription to Tudhaliya IV based on the use of
the title LABARA (IUDEX+la;§1). 497 A battle in a city named Alatarma is further related with
Tudhaliya IV in KBo 4.14 (CTH 123) – the well known “battle of Nihriya” text – if the text is
indeed to be attributed to this king. 498 This text mainly revolves around the complaints of a certain
495 The most recent reliable edition of the text is found in Masson 1980, but since then new readings have
been introduced and the inscription needs a thorough reexamination; a more recent discussion of the
inscription with all the outcomes of previous attempts at reading summarized is found in Woudhuizen
2004: 15–25. Unfortunately his own reading of the text is full of imagination and interpretation with
little basis.
496 Previously the name of this city was read by Masson (1980: 111; cf. Woudhuizen 2004: 19) as Titarma,
which she identified with Attarima, in the area of the Lukka lands. In light of the Empire reading of TA5
as (a)la and TA4 as lix (Hawkins 1995: 114–117 ; 2005a: 289f.), her hypothesis should now be ruled out.
497 It was Tudh. IV who reinstated this royal titular in his HL inscriptions, after which the title continued to
be in use also by Šuppiluliuma II (Hawkins 1995: 108–113; Woudhuizen 2004: 19f.).
498 For a recent ed. see Mainz, Portal (http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/SVH/intro.php?xst=CTH123)
with bib. There the text is attributed to Šuppiluliuma II, as by some recent commentators (e.g.
Bemporad 2002); for the reasons dating the text to Tudh. IV, with which I concur here, see Singer 1985.
168

Hittite king to an anonymous vassal, 499 who broke his oath to the Great King, disappearing from the
scene, in a critical moment of an Assyrian advance. 500 In II 7-12 the Hittite king is distraught with
how the vassal abandoned him first in Nihriya and later in Alatarma. The latter town according to
Singer (1985: 110 n. 61) is situated east of the Euphrates. Therefore the KÖYLÜTOLU inscription
could be a dedication to the conquest of this faraway city. Alternatively, Hawkins (2005a: 431;
2006: 62f.) suggests now a second city of Alatarma, its d LAMMA and Ala deities are mentioned in
the festival for all the tutelary deities (KUB 2.1 I 45). If this is true, then this city could perhaps be
closer to where the inscription was originally found. Consequently, Hawkins even postulated that
the inscription had something to do with the cult of the Stag-god of Alatarma, and is not at all
related to the battle of Nihriya.
As for the role Šauškaruntiya plays on KÖYLÜTOLU, the style in which his name and
titular take up most of the end of the inscription, not in any specific context, 501 implies that he was
not only its dedicator. The resemblance to a sort of colophon, such as that of the scribe Aki-Tešub
on the ALEPPO 1 HL inscription, 502 together with his seals, telling us of his scribal profession,
suggest Šauškaruntiya also helped design the inscription, if he did not write it down for the
engravers to carve. 503 Furthermore, we learn that Šauškaruntiya held another title. His third title in
KÖYLÜTOLU, L. 283.DOMINUS or tuzziyaš išha = EN KARAŠ “army lord”, 504 is not
documented on his known seals. Therefore, it was most likely inserted because of the active
military role he must have played in the battle of Alatarma, and not because it was part of his
permanent titular. 505 More will be said on his military activities below.
To conclude the evidence thus far, the HL titular of Šauškaruntiya was extensive and
occupied at least three lines of profession, one military and two of administrative nature. He was
first a scribe, later promoted to a chief of palace attendants and MAGNUS.SCRIBA. 506 At this stage
499 Likely the king of Išuwa, see Singer 1985; Klengel 1999: 276; Bryce 2005: 318.
500 The historical chain of events which led up to the battle in Nihriya is portrayed in Bryce 2005: 313–319.
501 Cf. Hawkins 2006: 62, “Line 3 appears to be the last clause of the text...”.
502 On this HL inscription see SBo II: 22f.; Bossert 1954a; Laroche 1956b.
503 Hawkins (2005a: 271; 2006b: 62) also implies that the inscription was the work of Šauškaruntiya.
504 See n. 494.
505 This concurs with the opinion of Beal (1992: 417–422), that the EN.KARAŠ was a ad-hoc generic term
of an officer acting as field commander. Note that Beal shows that the form tuzziyaš išha-/EN-a occurs
mostly in OH texts referring to foreign generals.
506 Note that I separate also one other homonym, a lord of Hatti. Whereas Hawkins (2005a: 271) separates
three: (1) a scribe, (2) a prince, palace attendant and chief scribe, and (3) a lord of Hatti.
169

we also become aware of his status as prince on all of his seals, specifically a prince of
TONITRUS.URBS – a city identified by Hawkins as Tarhuntašša. In a similar way to Arnilizi (see
above), Šauškaruntiya used his chief of palace attendants seals to sign two container sealings
(Tonverschlüsse), implying an important role with regard to the economic milieu of the cult.
Šauškaruntiya was also probably the author of the KÖYLÜTOLU inscription, from which we learn
that he was an army lord in a military expedition of Tudhaliya IV to the city of Alatarma. However,
it is clear that his field position was not a permanent one. As of yet his term of office and specific
duties as MAGNUS.SCRIBA and military commander remain unclear. These might perhaps be
further elucidated in the cuneiform data.
Laroche (H: 293) first recognized the reading of the logograhic name d LIŠ- d LAMMA as
the Hurrian-Luwian hybrid theophoric compound Šaušgaruntiya. 507 The name appears in this
logographic writing, and once also in the writing d IŠTAR- d LAMMA (see VS NF 12.125 below), in a
number of Empire Period texts. 508 In the oracle inquiry IBoT 1.32 (CTH 577) the gods are asked
about the possible identity of the military commander who would lead an expedition to the country
of Azzi. 509 The candidates were laid down in the following order: the Great King (obv. 1),
Šauškaruntiya (obv. 11), the king of Tumanna (obv. 14), 510 king of Tumanna and Šauškaruntiya
together (obv. 17), and finally the king of Išuwa and the king of Carchemish (obv. 29). 511 Beal
(1992: 472) stressed the high rank which Šauškaruntiya must have held, as he was considered to
have led the military expedition next in line to the Hittite king. As for the dating of the oracle
507 Also supplying the correct reading order of the HL name sà+us-ka-CERVUS3-ti (Hawkins 2005a: 271);
for d LIŠ as a writing of d IŠTAR / d Šauška see HZL: 232 no. 286; on the established readings of
d LAMMA as Kurunta or In(n)ara and its various name compounds, also common in HL (CERVUSx),
see Hawkins 2005a: 290f.
508 References are cited in H and H suppl. 1144; van den Hout 1995: 324a (Index B); see also
Onomastique on line ( d IŠTAR- d LAMMA).
509 Situated north-east of the Hatti homeland, in the location of present day northeastern Turkey, see del
Monte & Tischler 1978: 59f.
510 According to Forlanini (1977: 202) Tumanna lay in what is now the province of Kastamonu, on the
Black Sea coast. For the title king of Tumanna see now Marizza (2007a: 105 n. 161), who identifies
only two of its rulers by name: Hutupiyanza, nephew of Šupp. I, appointed governor of countries Pala
and Tumanna by his uncle; later Tumanna was included in the territory governed by Hatt. III as
appointed king of the Upper Land.
511 A translit. and translation of these lines is found in Beal 1992: 318 n. 1217.
170

inquiry, it is certainly written in LS, 512 and was therefore issued in the Late Empire Period. The
reference to a military expedition to Azzi narrows down the dating possibilities to the reign of
Tudhaliya IV (Marizza 2007a: 105). 513 In this period animosity with the Lukka lands, the country of
Azzi and the Kaška is depicted in the instructions for princes, lords and LÚ SAG (KUB 26.12+ II 14'-
15'; CTH 255.1.A). 514 Marizza (2007a: 106) duly noted that one should not rule out a later dating of
the text, to either Arnuwanda III or Šuppiluliuma II. However, in light of the military position held
by certainly the same Šauškaruntiya in the KÖYLÜTOLU inscription of Tudhaliya IV cited above,
it is likely that prince Šauškaruntiya was on more then one occasion a military commander under
Tudhaliya IV.
If Šauškaruntiya indeed held such a prestigious title already at the beginning of Tudhaliya
IV's reign, he would at least be mentioned in one of the king's two famous decrees. But
Šauškaruntiya appears neither in the Bronze Tablet, nor in the land concession to Šahurunuwa.
This, likely places his term of office as “chief” mainly in the second half of Tudhaliya IV's reign.
Alternatively, if Šauškaruntiya was a prince of Tarhuntašša (or another Storm-god city), as
documented on some of his seal impressions (see above), he may have spent part of his adult career
in Tarhuntašša. This would explain his absence from the decrees of Tudhaliya IV. Considering this
relation to Tarhuntašša, Marizza (2007a: 108) further proposed that Šauškaruntiya might have been
either a son of Kurunta or his relative. At least one other text mentioning Šauškarunitya, considered
next, suggests that he was in fact a son of Hattušili III.
Two texts, KUB 50.72 I 2' and VS NF 12.125 4', mention Šauškaruntiya in questionable
contexts. 515 KUB 50.72 (CTH 575.7, T.1?) is a snake oracle in which Šauškarunitya appears in a list
of favorable outcomes (I 1'-4'), some of which pertain to a certain GAL MEŠEDI. He is listed in the
512 “sjh.” in the Košak, Konkordanz.
513 Previous encounters with the kingdom of Azzi-Hayaša included its first subjugation during the reign of
Tudh. II/III by a military force under the shared leadership of the Hittite king and his son Šuppiluliuma I
mentioned in the DŠ fragment 13 (Güterbock 1956: 66, IV 40-4). Later in the reign of Šupp. I this
kingdom was established as a vassal of Hatti, and its ruler married the sister of the Hittite king, as
depicted in the Hukkana treaty (CTH 42; Beckman 1999: 27–34). In the reign of Mur. II Azzi had to be
reconquered, the first attempt was during Mur. II's 7 th year, the second during his 9 th year by the general
Nuwanza. Finally, Azzi was regained during Mur. II's 10 th year (Klengel 1999: 182–185; Bryce 2005:
201–204).
514 See Bryce 2005: 304.
515 Šauškaruntiya son of ÌR-li (Hutarli) from the legal protocol KUB 40.88 is surely a different person; for
the phonetic reading of ÌR see HZL: 98 no. 16; cf. Marizza 2007a: 106 n. 170.
171

text after Nerikkaili (Neiqqa-DINGIR LIM ), but before an anonymous GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ and
a man named Šaggabi. Nerikkaili in this text has been identified by van den Hout (1995: 104) as the
prince and tuh(u)kanti, son of Hattušili III and step brother of Tudhaliya IV. 516 He based this on a
possible synchronism of Nerikkaili with Šauškaruntiya in an instruction text of Tudhaliya IV (KUB
26.18; CTH 275). In ll. 8'-12' of this text Tudhaliya is warning his subjects not to follow other royal
offspring, specifically three sons of Hattušili III: Ner[i]kk[aili], Huzziya and [...]- d LAMMA. 517 The
third name was subsequently restored by van den Hout (1995: 101, 104) to [ d LIŠ]- d LAMMA. Other
commentators have suggested [ m ] d LAMMA, or [ m LUGAL]- d LAMMA (Otten 1988: 8 n. 29; Beal
1992: 382 n. 1445). 518 All three proposals seem likely, but van den Hout's seems the most
reasonable as will be shown below.
As stated by Beal (1992: 382 n. 1445), restoring the name in the lacuna as d LAMMA, would
imply that Kurunta, son of Muwattalli II, was adopted by Hattušili III. On the other hand, LUGAL-
d LAMMA, GAL UKU.UŠ of the left, appears together with Nerikkaili and Huzziya in the witness
list of KBo 4.10+, and again with Nerikkaili in the witness list of the later Šahurunuwa land grant
(Imparati 1974: 144). 519 However, Tudhaliya IV was naming not only his (half-)brothers, but also
the highest officials of the court who were closest to him and therefore posed a threat. Nerikkaili
was the crown prince at a certain point before Tudhaliya IV, and Huzziya was Tudhaliya IV's GAL
MEŠEDI “head of the royal bodyguard”. Kurunta, as much as he was a political threat to Tudhaliya
IV, does not seem to fit the profile of the other two contenders. And LUGAL- d LAMMA seems too
low in the ranks of court dignitaries compared to Nerikkaili and Huzziya. Of the three possible
names restored, Šauškaruntiya ( d LIŠ- d LAMMA) remains the only likely candidate to pose a threat
to Tudhaliya IV. As MAGNUS.SCRIBA and son of Hattušili III, he held one of the higher court
positions, had access to the archives and offices of the capital, and was likely also an officer with
516 Nerikkaili was most likely born before Hatt. III met Puduhepa (Singer 1997: 422). On his career see van
den Hout 1995: 96–105, and later remarks made by Pecchioli Daddi 1997: 175f. and Singer 1997: 422.
For the unlikely possibility that there was also a MAGNUS.SCRIBA by that name see below; the
various persons bearing the anthroponym Nerikkaili are listed in van den Hout 1998-2001: 231f.
517 For a translit. and translation of this passage see van den Hout 1995: 100–103, cf. also the discussion in
Singer 1997: 422.
518 Cf. also other bib. on the matter cited by van den Hout 1995: 101. Note that van den Hout, as Beal
(1992: 382 n. 1445) before him, state that collation suggests the lacuna has room for more then just a
name determinative sign.
519 Note that Hattuša- d LAMMA GAL GEŠTIN, who witnessed both the Ulmi-Tešub treaty and the
Šahurunuwa land grant, was excluded as a further possibility by Marizza 2007a: 107 n. 177.
172

some influence in the military. Perhaps Šauškaruntiya's service at Tarhuntašša was aimed to keep
him away from the court and Tudhaliya IV's throne.
Returning to KUB 50.72, which was attributed to Hattušili III by Heinhold-Krahmer (2001:
194 n. 65), who proposed that the anonymous GAL MEŠEDI was Tudhaliya IV prior to his
ascension to the throne. Van den Hout (1995: 104) suggested that the GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ could be
Šahurunuwa, thus placing KUB 50.72 either in the reign of Hattušili III or the beginning of
Tudhaliya IV. However, the reference to Šaggabi, a scribe in the latter part of Tudhaliya IV's reign
(see below), appears to date this text specifically to Tudhaliya IV. The next and last piece of
cuneiform evidence will shed more light on the scribal position of Šauškaruntiya in the latter half of
Tudhaliya IV's reign.
VS NF 12.125 (CTH 275), the final text citing Šauškaruntiya, is a badly preserved historical
fragment (Groddek et al. 2002: 178). It mainly deals with the suffering or pain inflicted – by
someone described in the 3 rd person pl. – chiefly on the men of Hatti (LÚ MEŠ URU HATTI, 2', 9'-10').
Also mentioned there, in broken context, are Šauškaruntiya ( d IŠTAR- d LAMMA, 4'), Maššanaura
(DINGIR MEŠ -˹GAL˺, 8') and an anonymous ˹GAL˺ DUB.SAR.GIŠ (9'). Since l. 8' is broken near its
end after naming Maššanaura and the next line opens with the title GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, d'Alfonso
(2005: 153 n. 547) assumed that the title refers to Maššanaura. But, it seems that in the copy there is
room for at least three or four more signs in l. 8' after Maššanaura's name. Besides, Maššanaura is
likely the Hittite official known from a bulla found in court V at Ugarit bearing the title
URBS.DOMINUS “city lord”. 520 He was possibly active at Carchemish parallel to Pihaziti, 521 a
high ranking official of the king of Carchemish who served during the later part of Tudhaliya IV's
reign (Singer 1999a: 653f. n. 142; d'Alfonso 2005: 76). 522 Therefore VS NF 12.125 should be dated
to this period, including Šauškaruntiya and the GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, certainly the successor of
Šahurunuwa.
Interestingly enough Šauškaruntiya is mentioned in both KUB 50.72 and VS NF 12.125 next
to an anonymous GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, who must be Šahurunuwa's successor during the second
half of Tudhaliya IV's reign. Bearing in mind the MAGNUS.SCRIBA seals of Šauškaruntiya, two
520 RS 18.070 (= Ugar. III: 62, fig. 87, 156–157; Mora 1987: 287 [XIIa 2.19]). Note that d'Alfonso
erroneously reads here BONUS2 DOMINUS-wa; on URBS.DOMINUS see more recently Hawkins
2005a: 309.
521 RS 17.248 (= PRU IV: 236), dated to Ibiranu, is a legal case ratified by Pihaziti remunerating
Maššanaura for damages caused by Yarimma of the city Maˁraba and Ulṣina of the city of Ugarit
(d'Alfonso 2005: 153f.).
522 Not Pihaziti the scribe who worked in the bureau of Walwaziti (see under III.1.b…Pihaziti).
173

tentative suggestions can be made: (1) As scribe Šauškaruntiya was connected to the anonymous
GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, later even replacing him; (2) The anonymous GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ is actually
Šauškaruntiya himself. Against the second hypothesis speaks the fact that in both texts the GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ and Šauškaruntiya are mentioned separately in different lines. Especially in KUB
50.72, where Šauškaruntiya has “four(?) good years”, while the GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ has “nine
good years” (van den Hout 1995: 104). On the other hand, it should be argued that there are cases in
which a scribe of a certain text seems hesitant to repeat the name of the same official twice in close
context, alternatively using the person's title instead of his name. 523 Therefore, in both texts the
anonymous GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ could also be Šauškaruntiya. Further support for Šauškaruntiya's
position as GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ is received from his military functions. This stands in analogy to
the known militaristic endeavors of Šahurunuwa, the aforementioned chief scribe on wood (see
previous chapter). Now I wish to return to the identity of Šaggabi from KUB 50.72, in order to
support my claim for dating him, and so the text, to the late reign of Tudhaliya IV.
ŠAKKAPI: Šaggabi of KUB 50.72 I 4' is to be identified with the scribe Šakkapi of KBo
5.11(+)50.270(+)KUB 26.23 (CTH 263.A), a LH copy of the MH instructions for the gate
watchmen. In the colophon of the text Šakkapi added his genealogy, naming himself son of a
certain person whose name is probably read Uza, 524 and as the grandson of Mauiri. It is further
specified that the text was written under the guidance of Angulli. 525 Another LH manuscript of this
instruction text (KUB 26.28, CTH 263.B) was written by a certain GIŠ.GI.PÌRIG-i under
A[nuwanza], who was a supervisor at least one generation before Šakkapi, since he supervised
Šakkapi's own overseer Angulli. 526
523 Such a case was noted for example by Pecchioli Daddi (1978/79: 210f. and n. 44) for Walwaziti the
chief scribe in CTH 242.2. In KUB 26.66 III 9 Walwaziti appears next to Pupuli with his full name (and
in the duplicat also title), whereas in the following section III 15 only his title is used to designate him
next to the same Pupuli.
524 For this reading see Tischler 1982: 452. Other possibilities are Nuza and U-ZA, both previously
suggested by Laroche (1949: 11; H suppl.: 55). The latter case would of course also imply a reading
U-ziti for which see H suppl.: 30. One would say that the U sign might stand for the Storm-god with
omitted determinative. But against this stands to reason the appearance of Uza written in the same
spelling in KUB 23.97 rev. 21.
525 Although GUL and IŠTAR are the same sign the name is based on the GN Angulliya and therefore not
to be read as d IŠTAR-li, see H: 268 and Neu & Rüster 1975: 8 n. 19.
526 On the dating of the script of both KBo 5.11 and KUB 26.28 to the Late Empire Period see Košak,
Konkordanz under CTH 263 (“jh.”).
174

Šakkapi's text, apart from containing some use of Hattic, 527 seems to have been inscribed in
a peculiar manner. The lines on the obverse (Fig. 4.13) show an upward inclination which is
continued over the board on the reverse. (Fig. 4.14). This phenomenon even caused the lines of the
colophon to be written in indent. Furthermore, the signs on the reverse are packed more densely
than those on the obverse. These traits might suggest that Angulli and Šakkapi both wrote on the
tablet.
Fig. 4.13: A section of the obv. of Bo 2089 (excerpt of photo No. 1242 from the Mainz, Portal)
Fig. 4.14: A section of the rev. of Bo 2089 (excerpt of photo No. 1243 from the Mainz, Portal)
ANGULLI: Angulli was the son of Palla, the scribe, LÚ SAG and lord of Hurma. 528 Prior to
becoming a supervisor, Angulli himself copied at least three other documents, all rituals. One is a
fragment of a DUMU.LUGAL festival ritual, 529 the other two – a medical Hurrian ritual and a
Kizzuwatnean ritual to the goddess of the night – were performed under the supervision of
Anuwanza. 530 The latter, well known supervisor under Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV, was also
527 As well as Hattic titles among the palace personnel to which the doormen call out loud, see Beal 1988:
284 and Klinger 1996: 201f.
528 See van den Hout 1995: 216–225.
529 The colophon of KUB 56.35 (CTH 647) is quite fragmentary but still visible is the line: kī ṬUPPU
m Angu[lli, see Neu & Rüster 1975: 8 n. 19 and Košak 1988: 147.
530 KUB 30.26 (CTH 783.1) and KUB 32.133 (CTH 482, Bk. A), see Laroche 1949: 11 and Neu & Rüster
1975: 8.
175

mentioned above as the inspector of Armaziti. Therefore, it could be surmised that the term of
Angulli and of Armaziti was quite contemporary. Furthermore, it seems both scribes worked on
ritual/festival texts. As supervisor, Angulli inspected the aforementioned work of Šakkapi on the
instructions for gate watchmen, the work of a scribe called Zuwa on a festival for the Hattian
goddess Tetewatti, 531 and a third scribe whose name survived in a tiny colophon fragment as
[...]ni. 532 It is interesting that at least in the cases of Šakkapi and Zuwa the texts copied are LH
versions of MH originals. 533 The same was observed with regard to the texts copied by the
aforementioned Armaziti (see above p. 165f.). Another common trait found in the texts of Šakkapi
and Zuwa is the use of Hattian termini, either administrative (in the text of Šakkapi) or cult related
(in the text of Zuwa). One could propose that Angulli knew at least some Hattian, and was in charge
of supervising the copying of MH texts into LH versions.
ZUWA: Zuwa is relevant here since in his genealogy, appearing in the colophon of the
festival to Tetewatti, he calls himself son of Uza, 534 and therefore must be a brother of Šakkapi. The
same Zuwa 535 should be the owner of two rather similar signets from Nişantepe (Nis 539-540, fig.
4.15), both bearing the name L. 285-wa/i-á and the title SCRIBA, stamped on several bullae. 536
531 KBo 23.97 (639, Bk. D), ed. by Pecchioli Daddi 1992: 102–106.
532 KBo 57.224 (CTH 825, T.1).
533 In the case of Zuwa, KBo 23.97 is a dupl. of KUB 54.73, the MH original of the Tetewatti festival (see
Mainz, Portal under CTH 639)
534 See translit. in Pecchioli Daddi 1992: 105 with additional restoration: ] m Zuwā DUMU m Uza [PAI]
m Angulli IŠṬUR.
535 Other Empire Period attestations of Zuwa in cuneiform sources refer to some kind of messenger
appearing in correspondences dated to the reign of Hatt. III. He is the addressee of a letter sent by the
Hittite king (KBo 8.21, CTH 185; Hagenbuchner 1989: 36), a messenger sent to Rameses II in Egypt by
Hatt. III (KBo 7.11; Edel 1994: 94f.), and appears in two other fragmentary letters. One is ABoT 64
from Alaça Höyuk where he is reported to be in Ha[kmiš] (Hagenbuchner 1989: 236). In the other,
KUB 3.61 (CTH 208.3; Hagenbuchner 1989: 455f.), the writer complains that Zuwa has disappeared
and needs to be found. The writer also refers to some old mules(?) that Zuwa had (rev. 5). It seems most
reasonable that this Zuwa is also the owner of AURIGA seals found in Nişantepe (see next footnote),
namely he must be a KARTAPPU – a title held by messengers of the crown (Singer 1983b: 31–33).
Three other persons bear this name in legal proceedings: Two Zuwa are listed among officials in KUB
13.35+ 41, 44 (CTH 293, T.1; Werner 1967: 3–20), a lawsuit of Puduhepa during the reign of Hatt. III.
Since they handle equestrian equipment one of them might be the aforementioned KARTAPPU. A third
Zuwa appears in KUB 38.37 (CTH 295.7.A; Werner 1967: 56f.), a proceeding dealing with the
whereabouts of personal cult objects. Since most of the persons giving statements in the text are titled
176

Nis 539
Fig. 4.15: Signets of Zuwa (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 43)
A third signet, again with similar design, attested on a single bulla is even more interesting,
since it bears the name of Zuwa and the name of Armaziti on the same seal. 537 Thus providing us
with a synchronism between them. But what was the relationship between the two scribes? It is
clear that Armaziti was older than Zuwa, since he was probably the contemporary of Angulli,
Zuwa's supervisor (see above). Thus, the relationship between Zuwa and Armaziti could be of
scribe and supervisor or of scribe and teacher. In any case, since the seal is not complete it is hard to
determine the exact title of Armaziti.
LÚ SANGA “priest”, it is reasonable to assume that this Zuwa held such a title. The anthroponym Zuwa
is amply attested in the MH period, for updated references see Marizza 2007a: 339; a prosopographic
inquiry of the MH name bearers is given in Klinger 1995: 105.
536 The reading of the name L. 285-wa/i-á in HL as zuwa was established based on the identification of L.
285 as zu(wa) in the HL inscription FRAKTĐN in the title of Puduhepa: ká-L. 285-na REGIO FILIA
“daughter of Kizzuwatna Land” and other attestations, see Hawkins 2005a: 298 for a full discussion. In
Nişantepe the name Zuwa is quite common and besides the aforementioned scribe, also an AURIGA
(Nis 536), a BONUS2 CRUX2? (Nis 537) and a PITHOS and BONUS2 VIR2 (Nis 538) are attested there
on sealed bullae (Hawkins 2005a: 279f.; Herbordt 2005: 209f.). The AURIGA is also possibly attested
in cuneiform (see previous footnote) and on a biconvex stamp seal housed in Berlin (Mora 1987: 320
[XIIb 1.74]), its title read by Herbordt (2005: 209) as BONUSs ASINUS-x BONUS2 AURIGA(?).
Recently published are seal impressions of a Zuwa BONUS2 VIR2 and L. 402 found on vessel shards
from in and around T.30 of the Upper City in Hattuša (A. Dinçol 2007: 227f., Abbs. 1-6). He may be
the same as Zuwa BONUS2 VIR2 and PITHOS from Nişantepe, since their seal designs are very similar.
This resemblance might also have implications regarding the reading of L. 402, but this is out of the
scope of the present study; for recent suggestions on how to read this HL title see A. Dinçol 2007.
Another Paris seal bearing the name Zuwa has no title (Masson 1975: 215 no. 2, 231, Fig. 2).
537 For the function of two name seals see Güterbock 1980: 62f.; Mora 1988; for a list of two name seals in
Nişantepe see Hawkins 2005a: 250.
177
Nis 540

Fig. 4.16: Two name signet of Zuwa and Armaziti (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 5)
Zuwa was promoted later in his career, as he is designated an EN GIŠ.KIN.TI “master of
craftsmen” in the colophon of a later copy of a MH Edict of Tudhaliya II/III, 538 KUB 13.9+ (CTH
258.1; Westbrook & Woodard 1990). In this text he is a teacher who supervises the work of a
student named Alihhini, son of Šaušgaziti, grandson of NU.GIŠ.SAR and descendant of Ziti (A) the
GAL DUB.SAR. 539 Three other duplicates of this tablet originated in the Lower City, one of them
specifically in the House on the Slope. 540 Is this evidence of a connection between the EN
GIŠ.KIN.TI and the Lower City? I believe it is, and we should begin with the evidence on a house
in this part of Hattuša called the É GIŠ.KIN.TI.
In the Lower City of Hattuša, at the area south-west of Temple 1, also known as the
Südareal, 16 large multi-roomed complexes built around an inner courtyard were unearthed in
squares J/18 and J/19, during the 1967 and 1968 excavations directed by Bittel. 541 The structure,
which spanned the Hittite Empire Period strata 2 and 3, was later identified by Bittel (1976: 131–
134) as the É GIŠ.KIN.TI, Akkadian bīt kiškattî, "house of the craftsmen/labour". Where the
Temple's cult personnel performed various administrative activities and perhaps even lived. Bittel
compared this to the Egyptian workers village near the Rameses-Temple in Deir-el-Madineh.
Leading to the identification was KBo 19.28 (CTH 237), a personnel list of the "sons of the É
GIŠ.KIN.TI" found in 1968 at room 12 of complex XIV. It lists 205 officials divided into
profession groups: 18 priests, 29 katra women, 19 scribes , 33 scribes on wood, 35 incantation
priests and 10 singers of Hurrian (Güterbock 1975b: 131f.; Klinger 2002: 102f.). The remainder is
broken off.
538 On the dating of CTH 258 see Otten 1979.
539 See under III.2.
540 99/p and Bo 77/165 come from the Lower City, 1/u originates in the House on the Slope. See remarks
on their find-spot in Otten 1979: 274 and the Košak, Konkordanz under CTH 258.
541 See report on the excavation in Boǧazköy V.
Nis 68
178

In the mind of Neve (1975), who published the material from the Südareal, this list cannot
indicate the function of the entire structure, which must have been to service the Great Temple and
cult. Most likely the É GIŠ.KIN.TI was part of it, but also other cultic institutions. Whether it
actually occupied the entire Südareal or not, the É GIŠ.KIN.TI housed a large amount of scribes as
indicated by its worker list, and by tablet colophons which name two scribal instructors titled EN
GIŠ.KIN.TI "master of the craftsman": the above mentioned Zuwa and a certain Miramuwa 542
attested in the House on the Slope. This led Güterbock (1975b: 132) to suggest that the profession
groups of the É GIŠ.KIN.TI studied in a scribal school located there. From his point of view the
Hittite meaning of GIŠ.KIN.TI was wider than that of Akkadian kiškattû, who are not usually
connected with literacy, but to crafts which involve the use of a furnace or kiln, such as smiths,
armourers and potters, or as a type of military soldiers (CAD K: 453f.). In support of Güterbock's
identification are two further points: first, the find of 12 Styli – the writing tool of a scribe – in
several rooms in complex XIII at the Südareal, interpreted by Boehmer (1972: 133f., 196f.) as
evidence for a scribal school. Second, the primary find-spot of lexical texts in Hattuša, as already
noted by Theo van den Hout (2005: 288), is the storerooms of T.1. I counted 44 such fragments in
the Košak, Konkordanz, including one Izi=išatu vocabulary found in the Südareal itself. This also
suggests a connection between the archive in the storerooms of T.1 and the possible scribal school
in the nearby Südareal. 543
Therefore, given the title of Zuwa in KUB 13.9+ (“master of craftsmen”), it is likely that this
text was written under his instruction at the É GIŠ.KIN.TI. It could be even further hypothesized
that the aforementioned Angulli, who supervised Zuwa, also worked in the É GIŠ.KIN.TI during
the early part of his scribal career. This is based upon the colophon of KUB 30.26 (CTH 783.1), a
Hurrian medical ritual text written by Angulli. In the colophon, Anuwanza the supervisor is titled
LÚ DUB.SAR ŠA É x[ (Torri 2007a: 777). KBo 22.114 (CTH 783), a different fragment belonging to
the same Hurrian ritual, was found in a good context at the Südareal, 544 close by to where it is
suspected the É GIŠ.KIN.TI was situated. Considering this, it could be surmised that Anuwanza's
542 Identified by Torri (2007a: 774f.) as the instructor of an unknown scribe who copied the treaty between
Šuppiluliuma II and Talmi-Tešub of Carchemish (CTH 122), and also owner of a seal impression from
Nişantepe no. 240 (Herbordt 2005: 264) with the titles SCRIBA and a fragmentary DOMINUS.[…].
D'Alfonso (2007: 219) suggested that this title is somehow connected with EN GIŠ.KIN.TI, but there is
no real evidence to support this; note the titles combined with SCRIBA on seals under II.3.
543 Cf. van den Hout 2006b: 97 and Torri 2007a: 780f.
544 As noted in the Košak, Konkordanz “Grosser Tempel, Südareal, Yoklama II/Süd, über heth. Mauer”.
179

title in KUB 30.26 should be restored to LÚ DUB.SAR ŠA É G[IŠ.KIN.TI]. 545 If this hypothesis is
correct then not only was Zuwa connected with that institution, but also Angulli and Anuwanza, at a
certain point during their career. So, one could recreate a tradition of scribal bureau which later also
occupied a scribal school in the É GIŠ.KIN.TI for at least three generations of scribes, beginning
from Anuwanza through Angulli to Zuwa to Alihinni (Fig. 4.17). Namely, from the second half of
Hattušili III's reign to the reign of Šuppiluliuma II.
Fig. 4.17: Scribes in the “house of craftsmen” from the reign of
Hattušili III to that of Šuppiluliuma II
Summary. In the early days of his career Šauškaruntiya was trained to become a scribe, as
attested by the two scribal signets. During that period he was the contemporary of another known
scribe named Armaziti, with whom he signed, in HL graffiti, the stone block BOĞAZKÖY 22
found in T.4 at Hattuša. Armaziti's correlation with Anuwanza helps to date this stage in
Šauškaruntiya's career to either the end of Hattušili III reign or the beginning of Tudhaliya IV's.
Šauškaruntiya later climbed up in the ranks of the administration, bearing stamp seals with more
elaborate titular, designating himself royal prince, MAGNUS.SCRIBA and chief of palace
attendants. Some of these seals also connect him with the city or region named
TONITRUS.URBS(/REGIO), “Storm-god city(/region)” perhaps to be identified with the city of
Tarhuntašša. 546 Marizza (2007a: 108) has therefore postulated that he may have been in some way
545 Pecchioli Daddi 1982: 165 preferred to restore LÚ DUB.SAR ŠA É.G[AL]. In the lacuna there is plenty of
room for both proposals.
546 Singer suggestes that other venues are equally likely to be storm god cities: Nerik and Hattuša itself
(pers. comm.). A noteworthy parallel title to the present one is that of the prominent official Hešni
attested in RS 17.403 as DUMU.LUGAL KUR URU Ka[rgamiš] “prince of Carchemish” (Singer 1997:
180

elated by blood to Kurunta, cousin of Tudhaliya IV. On the other hand, an instruction text of
Tudhaliya IV probably lists him among the sons of Hattušili III. His administrative duties included
the approval of goods for the milieu of the cult or festivals, since his seal with the titles prince and
chief of palace attendants was found stamped on container sealings (Tonverschlüsse) from the
Nişantepe bullae archive. 547 He also held a position in the military for there was one occasion – the
oracle inquiry IBoT 1.32 – in which he was considered, among other persons, to lead a military
expedition together with the Hittite king against the county of Azzi. On another occasion he was a
military commander who took part in a campaign of Tudhaliya IV to the city of Alatarma, described
in the HL inscription KÖYLÜTOLU YAYLA. Since the inscription seems to be signed by
Šauškaruntiya it was postulated above that he was its author, which coincides with his scribal titles
appearing on seals and on the inscribed block BOĞAZKÖY 22 (but for some reason not on the
KÖYLÜTOLU YAYLA inscription itself). Apart from this, the reconstruction of Šauškarunitya's
scribal duties relies mainly on tentative evidence. In the earlier stage of his scribal career
Šauškaruntiya seems to have been connected with Armaziti, who copied religious texts. This
Armaziti had duties involving the use of wooden tablets, but was probably not a wooden tablet
scribe himself. He copied a text from a wooden tablet, and is also connected in some way to
Šahurunuwa, the chief scribe on wood. Šauškaruntiya is later mentioned in some texts next to an
anonymous GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ. Thus raising the hypothesis that in these texts either
Šauškaruntiya is connected with the GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ or he was himself the GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ, alternatively referred to by name and by title. This is supported not only by the
seals which refer to Šauškarunitya as MAGNUS.SCRIBA, but also by his apparent role as a
military commander. In comparison, the GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ Šahurunuwa held seals bearing the
title MAGNUS.SCRIBA as well as prominent offices in the Hittite military, GAL UKU.UŠ and
GAL NA.GAD (van den Hout 1995: 151–154). The accumulated evidence hints that Šauškaruntiya
was related to wooden tablet scribes, from the early stage of his scribal career, perhaps being one
himself. If this is correct then he might have, in the latter half of Tudhaliya IV's reign, replaced
Šahurunuwa at his post as GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ. Other officials contemporary with Šauškarunitya,
such as Maššanura and Šaggabi in VS NF 12.125 and KUB 50.72, respectively, have been shown to
be active in this time frame.
420).
547 On the position of the GAL DUMU.É.GAL in the handling of cult paraphernalia see under
IV.2.a.Arnilizi.
181

The family and activities of Šaggabi the scribe have been further explored here since they
provide a synchronism for the career of Šauškaruntiya. The results can be summarized as follows:
Šaggabi had a brother named Zuwa, also a scribe. Both scribes were the sons of Uza(?) and
grandsons of Mauiri, none of whom are known from other sources. Šaggabi and Zuwa copied texts
under the scribe Angulli during the latter half of Tudhaliya IV's reign. Angulli himself began his
career as scribe under the supervision of Anuwanza, who supervised at least 15 scribes during the
late reign of Hattušili III and the initial phase of Tudhaliya IV's reign (van den Hout 1995: 240).
Angulli must have possessed some knowledge of Hattian since at least two of the three texts he
inspected (KBo 5.11(+) and KBo 23.97) contained Hattian termini, either administrative
(professional titles) or cult related (a festival to a Hattian deity). Lastly, Anuwanza, Angulli, Zuwa
and a student of Zuwa named Alihhini are suspected to have been part of a tradition of scribes
studying and working in an office and school located in the institution south of T.1 known as the É
GIŠ.KIN.TI. 548 The synchronisms between Šauškaruntiya and these scribes could be restored in the
following manner (Fig. 4.18).
548 Otherwise, one might suppose that there was a contemporary hierarchy of Anuwanza (top) → Angulli
(middle) → Šaggbi, Zuwa and [...]ni (bottom). But this is chronologically less favorable, and besides
since Angulli was already a supervisor himself he had no reason to return to the menial task of copying
documents; see also my lecture given in the VII. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum, 25-
31 Ağustos, 2008 to be published in a forthcoming Festschrift (Gordin forthcoming).
182

Fig. 4.18: Synchronisms between Šauškaruntiya and other scribal families
183

TAKI-ŠARRUMA
Taki-Šarruma (tá-ki-SARMA) the MAGNUS.SCRIBA sealed multiple bullae recovered solely from
the Nişantepe archive in Hattuša (Herbordt 2005: 184–186; cf. Hawkins 2005a: 272). Nevertheless,
he was also active outside this archive, since his seal impressions appear on two tablets from Ugarit,
RS 17.251 and RS 17.403 (Laroche 1956a: 137–139), 549 and a biconvex seal found in the region of
Konya, now housed in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Mora 1987: 293 [XIIa 2.37]).
Another impression on a Nişantepe bulla, Nis 391, belongs to Taki-Šarruma the
URCEUS. 550 Here both Herbordt (2005: 82) and Hawkins (2005a: 272) are followed in identifying
this Taki-Šarruma as a homonym of the prince and chief scribe. His seal displays an entirely
different configuration, showing a Man im Mantel wearing a horned cap of a deity (Fig. 4.19).
Fig. 4.19: Nis 391 (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 31)
As for Taki-Šarruma the MAGNUS.SCRIBA, Herbordt (2005: 82) counted 12 seals of
different designs in his seal impressions from Nişantepe, whereas Mora (2004b: 438) alternatively
suggested that the same impressions were produced from only some four different seals. In my
opinion, a collective look at the different designs of Taki-Šarruma's seal impressions (Fig. 4.20),
including those outside Hattuša, show at least seven different seals (Tab. 4.5). 551
549 RS 17.251 = PRU IV: 236f.; Around eleven lines on RS 17.403 were restored after cleaning of the
tablet, see Malbran-Labat 1995: 37f.
550 URCEUS is interpreted as the HL equivalent of cuneiform LÚ SILÀ.ŠU.DU8.A (Hawkins 2005a: 310
with bib.). As already noted by Hawkins (2002: 228) URCEUS never seems to be combined with
SCRIBA in Nişantepe, and I could not find such a combination anywhere else in Hattuša. Truthfully, no
such combination could be found regarding MAGNUS.SCRIBA either. Excluding SCRIBA, URCEUS
is one of the titles most widely attested on seals of officials since the OH period (Bolatti Guzzo 2004:
230, Fig. 3; Hawkins 2005a: 310); another quite effaced seal of a Taki-Šarruma is perhaps NBC 11017
in the Yale Babylonian collection (Mora 1987: 262 [XI 1.14]; cf. van den Hout 1995: 132 [3c]).
551 Note, however, that since some imprints show variations in size and general layout of the HL titles and
fill motives, the true number could have been higher, perhaps 9.
184

Seal o. HL Titles Seals and Seal impressions Remarks
1 REX.FILIUS Nis 393
1? REX.FILIUS Ashm. 2 Biconvex seal
2 REX.FILIUS RS 17.251 Signet ring impression; Bogenträger
3 MAGNUS.SCRIBA Nis 392
4 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA
4? REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA
5 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA
6 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA
7 REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA
Nis 394
Nis 403
Nis 397, 401, 402, RS 17.403
185
opposite a winged Ištar-Šaušga
(adoration scene)
Nis 395, 396, 398, 399 Large seal configuration; stamped
on Tonversclüsse
Nis 400 Bogenträger scene
Tab. 4.5: Seals of Taki-Šarruma
At least two different seals (nos. 1-2) include only the title REX.FILIUS. Another seal (no.
3) includes only the title MAGNUS.SCRIBA. Lastly, four seals (nos. 4-7) were either a later
development or had a different purpose since they combine both titles. It could be imagined that he
chose to omit certain titles from certain seals, as in the cases of Arnilizi, Mahhuzzi and Penti-
Šarruma (see above), and was not promoted from one title to the other. Considering that some of the
glyptic evidence is fragmentary, it was possible to identify at least six stamp seals of Taki-Šarruma
which were primarily used in Hattuša (nos. 1, 3-7) and one signet ring which was used solely in
Ugarit (no. 2). At least one seal (no. 5) was used in both cities. Taki-Šarruma must have used
different seals for various administrative purposes. For example, since he already frequently used
several stamp seals in Hattuša, he might have chosen to issue a signet ring for his duties in Ugarit

(no. 2). The sealing tradition of the signet ring was more common in North-Syria and is especially
attested on Syro-Hittite tablets from Emar (Beyer 2001: 422).
A connection between the iconography of seal no. 2 used in Ugarit and seal no. 7 used in
Hattuša is particularly striking. Central to the scenes on both seals is the image of the Bogenträger
186

clad in short skirt wearing a horned cap. 552 In seal no. 2 the characteristically Hittite Bogenträger
stands in adoration opposite a winged Ištar-Šaušga holding out in her left hand a triangle, which
stands for BONUS2 “good, wellbeing”; SIG5 or aššu in Hittite texts (Laroche 1956a: 143f.). Such
scenes of adoration, where a Bogenträger worships a deity, sometimes holding a Hieroglyph in his
outstretched hand, are most common on cylinder seal and signet ring impressions of Hittite officials
found in North-Syria (Ugar. III: Fig. 70; Beyer 2001: 27–30, Tab. 6), but also at Nişantepe in
Hattuša (Herbordt 2005: 63–66, Abb. 42–43). Evidently, Nişantepe is also where seal impressions
of Taki-Šarruma are chiefly attested. A further point regarding seal usage should be mentioned
regarding seal no. 6 which is an especially large stamp seal impressed on several Tonverschlüsse.
Hoever, first the cuneiform evidence on Taki-Šarruma will be considered with reference to how it
corresponds with the glyptic data.
Prince and chief scribe Taki-Šarruma was subjected to several prosopographic studies, of
which Singer's (2003) is the most comprehensive. 553 He was active mainly in Hittite Syria, therefore
Singer (2003: 347) concludes that he was: “...some sort of high commissioner in Syria, empowered
to supervise and report to his sovereign about the activities of the Viceroy of Kargamiš”. In Ugarit
he is known as a GAL L [ Ú.MEŠ DUB.SAR] who signed RS 17.403 (seal no. 5), 554 and, together with
Tulpi-Šarruma, a son of a haštanuri in RS 17.251. This latter term is most likely not a name but a
title denoting “royal prince of the first rank”. 555 Taki-Šarruma is also a “governor of the land”
(šākin māti) mentioned in a MA letter from Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad (Dūr-Katlimmu). 556 His main activities
in Syria date to the last quarter of the 13 th century, according to the līmu of this MA letter.
Additional evidence concerning his exploits in Syria come from KBo 18.25 (+) 31.69 (CTH
187), a letter most probably sent from Šuppiluliuma II to either Tukulti-Ninurta I or his successor,
552 Common in Late Empire Period art both on seals and on rock-carved reliefs. Interpretations for its
meaning range from a depiction of the tutelary deity of the seal owner to a depiction of a vassal king or
prince as on the known carved rock reliefs (Beyer 2001: 347–351; Herbordt 2005: 57f.). In the
Nişantepe corpus it is very common on scribal seals but not exclusively so (Herbordt 2005: 58).
553 Cf. Laroche 1956a: 137–139; van den Hout 1995: 132–136; Mora 2004b: 437f.; Herbordt 2005: 82f.;
Singer 2006b: 243f.
554 Restoration of the cuneiform title offered by Singer (2003: 343) based on the HL title of the seal
impression.
555 See Laroche 1956a: 137, 139; Singer 2003: 344. Less probable is the hypothesis of van den Hout (1995:
133–135), that Taki-Šarruma and Tulpi-Šarruma were two sons of Arnu. II, named in this text
haštanuri; see Pecchioli Daddi 1997: 178 and Singer 2003: 344.
556 Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 117–122, text no. 6.
187

that was recently joined and edited by Mora and Giorgieri (2004: 99–106). The editors suggested
that since Carchemish and Taki-Šarruma are mentioned in the letter it must deal with a border
dispute between Hatti and Aššur, very similar to the one portrayed in KBo 18.48 (CTH 186)
arbitrated by Hešni, a prince of Carchemish. 557 Taki-Šarruma's conjoined work with the same Hešni
in RS 17.403, and further connection with Carchemish in the aforementioned KBo 18.25 (+)
recently led Mora (2004b: 437) to propose that he was at some point a functionary at that court. If
he was stationed at Carchemish it would certainly fit well with his title “governor of the land” in the
MA letter from Dūr-Katlimmu (see above). These Hittite functionaries were known in the court of
Carchemish, mainly via texts from Emar (Mora 2004a; d'Alfonso 2005: 72–75) – where one
“governor of the land” was also given the title of top scribe. 558
Lastly, other references from the reign of Ammurapi to an anonymous tuppanura
huburtinura considered before to belong to Taki-Šarruma (Singer 2003: 345f.), should in fact
belong to Penti-Šarruma, who bears these titles in two companion letters recently treated by Singer
(2006: 243f. with bib.; see also under IV.2.a.Penti-Šarruma).
Turning now to the evidence from Hattuša, prince Taki-Šarruma is known mainly as the
DUMU.LUGAL who witnessed the signing of the Bronze Tablet (IV 35) sometime in the first
quarter of Tudhaliya IV's reign. The same prince is the supervisor of economic activities
documented in three inventory texts. 559 In the economic administration the role of inspector is
typical for a chief scribe, 560 therefore van den Hout (1995: 133) has further equated Taki-Šarruma
557 His domicile was proved by a restored line in RS 17.403, titling him (DUMU).LUGAL KUR
URU Ka[rgamiš], see Singer 1997: 420 and Mora 2004b: 434f. Previously, prince Hešni, witness of KBo
4.10+, was assumed to be a son of Hatt. III by van den Hout (1995: 206–211). But doubts regarding
Hešni's relation with this king were already raised by Pecchioli Daddi (1997: 179). Hešni was also
involved in a conspiracy to overthrow Tudh. IV (Tani 2001). Several homonyms of Hešni are a
treasurer ( LÚ ŠÀ.TAM; KUB 13.33 II 13) and a Priest (KUB 38.37 III 5'), which Tani (2001: 155)
suggested were all the same person. But this seems highly unlikely, unless his relation with Carchemish
implicated a priestly function (cf. Imparati 2003: 240f.).
558 This Hittite official from Carchemish named Puhi-šenni was both top scribe (dub.sar.mah) and
“governor of the land” ( LÚ UGULA.KALAM.MA); see Cohen forthcoming.
559 He is titled DUMU.L[UGA]L only in KBo 31.50 III 1', but performs similar tasks in KUB 40.95 II 4'
and Bo 6754 r. col. 10', what led Siegelová (1986: 286) and van den Hout (1995: 133) to attribute these
likewise to the same person.
560 See under III.1.b.Walwaziti the example of Walwaziti, also given by van den Hout (1995: 133).
188

the prince from Hattuša with his namesake documented in Ugarit. 561 [...]-Šarruma the GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ swearing a loyalty oath to Šuppiluliuma II in KUB 26.32 (CTH 124) was previously
supposed to be Taki-Šarruma by Singer (2003: 346). Now he is more likely to be identified with
Penti-Šarruma the above mentioned tuppanura huburtinura (Singer 2006: 244; see also
IV.2.a.Penti-Šarruma).
Two further points are worth mentioning. First, with regard to Taki-Šarruma's economic
activities one should consider if the goods in the type of inventory records mentioning Taki-
Šarruma were either sent from, or better yet, received by the high officials supervising the process
(Mora 2006: 138f., 143). 562 It has been recently suggested by Mora (2007: 546–548) that the bullae
from the archive of Nişantepe were used not only in the usual manner of sealing wooden tablets
recording land deeds. 563 According to her reconstruction, and following Herbordt (2005: 36–39), at
least some of the bullae sealed containers of goods in approval of their acceptance by persons or
families with influence in the Hittite court. The sealings of Taki-Šarruma found in Hattuša strongly
substantiate this hypothesis. Seal no. 6 is of unusually large configuration in comparison with other
known seals of Taki-Šarruma, and was used to stamp four Tonverschlüsse. As considered above
(under IV.2.a.Arnilizi) these clay sealings were mainly used to clamp leather cords or ropes binding
bottles or sacks. 564 Consequently, the four Tonverschlüsse signed by Taki-Šarruma prince and chief
scribe could have been clamped on leather sacks containing goods he received as tribute. Chief
scribes, as well as other high officials, were known to have been the recipients of such presents
from time to time (Singer 2003: 345; 2006b: 245; Mora 2006: 143). Alternatively, Hagenbuchner
(2007: 363) has now raised the possibility that such Tonverschlüsse were also used to clamp the
knot of cords wrapping letter envelopes made of leather or cloth. 565 Since a letter sent by Taki-
Šarruma to the Hittite king is also known (KUB 57.123, CTH 205; Hagenbuchner 1989: 20–22),
one could suggest that the Tonverschlüsse of Taki-Šarruma were used to seal off ropes or leather
561 Singer (2003: 344f.) takes a more cautious approach in attributing all the inventories to the same person,
and also with the identification of the prince from the Bronze Tablet who he thinks was much too
young.
562 On this type of inventory texts (Ausgaben) see Kempinski & Košak 1977 and Siegelová 1986: 257–291.
563 This was long presumed ever since the actual MH sealed land deeds were found next to caches of bullae
which signed the unpreserved wooden tablets; first in Building D on Büyükkale and later also in Temple
8 (Upper City) and in the Nişantepe archive (Marazzi 2007 with bib.).
564 Cf. Herbordt 2005: 38 Abb. 18e.
565 The clay envelopes used in Mesopotamia were not found anywhere in the Hittite home land
(Hagenbuchner 2007: 363).
189

cords wrapping such envelopes. However, there is no apparent way of deciding which is a better
assessment, whether container sealings or envelope sealings, therefore both are possible. In my
opinion, the scales might sway a little more towards a sealing of letter cases since almost all the
officials who signed the Tonversclüsse were SCRIBA of various ranks, as seen from looking at
Herbordt's publication of Nişantepe (Herbordt 2005: 36 Tab. 8).
Second, regarding work relationships and known family members not much can be said. It is
interesting that prince Hešni, with whom Taki-Šarruma cooperated in Syria, is also a supervisor of
economic activities in the inventory KUB 40.96+ r. col. 11' (CTH 242.5). 566 Therefore, Taki-
Šarruma and Hešni, both working also in the court of Carchemish, seem to have been the recipients
of tribute. At least one person working close with Taki-Šarruma, possibly under his supervision,
was certainly a scribe. In the first section of the letter KUB 57.123, sent to the Hittite king by Taki-
Šarruma (see above), it is communicated that something might have been sent to Šamuhaziti, the
scribe who is in a certain city in the area of Kummani/Kizzuwatna. 567 It is implicated from the tone
of the sentence and its position in the beginning of the letter that Šamuhaziti was on a mission for
Taki-Šarruma.
This Šamuhaziti 568 is known also as the drafter of the trilingual vocabulary list (Sum.-Akk.-
Hitt.) KBo 1.42. KBo 1.42 is a Post OB Proto Izi=išātu lexical list organized thematically (MSL 13:
3–4; Güterbock 1971: 132–143). Šapuhaziti (Šapuha-ZA) signed its mostly uninscribed rev. VI. The
first element of the name is understood by most as a variant writing of the city Šamuha (Tischler
1982: 449), therefore the name of the scribe should be understood as Šamuhaziti. Since scribe
Šamuhaziti was a colleague of Taki-Šarruma his tenure should be dated to the second half of
Tudhaliya IV's reign at least; as should the compilation of the lexical list. Miller (2005: 137) also
566 Edited by Košak 1982: 81–84 and Siegelová 1986: 276–281.
567 For a recent account of the text see d'Alfonso 2005: 49.
568 An earlier homonym of Šamuhaziti is a plaintiff in the judicial protocol KBo 16.61 obv. 1, rev. 4', 14
(CTH 295.9; Werner 1967: 60–63). Though most, if not all, these judicial protocols are dated to the Late
Empire Period (Werner 1967: 1f.; Hoffner 2003b: 57), the plene writing of the name (Ša-mu-u-ha-LÚ)
is different from the Empire spelling (ša-mu/pu-ha-ZA/LÚ), the ductus of the text and a person accused
therein, named Marašša, are attributed to the MH period. See the dating of this text in the Košak,
Konkordanz (mh.?) and CHD Š2: 301 (MS). At least three other Marašša are known from Hittite texts,
two of which are MH (H and H suppl. no. 756; Marizza 2007a: 324[MH references only]): (1) An
OH equerry named Marašša is mentioned in the palace chronicles (KBo 3.34 II 22, 24); (2) An uriyanni
of Huzziya II (VAT 7436 rev. 11; KBo 32.187 rev. 4'); (3) A LÚ KUŠ7.GUŠKIN is mentioned in a Maşat
text (HKM 107 obv. 7).
190

dated KBo 1.42 to the latter part of the 13 th century. Likely, the same Šapuhaziti (Šapuha-LÚ) is
mentioned in KUB 50.33 I 6 in relation to an oracle inquiry regarding modifications made to a
tablet of the haduri spring and autumn festival (Lebrun 1994: 44, 59f., 75; Beal 2002: 22f.). Based
on the late form of the sign NAR in the text, Lebrun (1994: 43) dated KUB 50.33 (his “manuscrit
H”) to the late 13 th cent., most likely in the later reign of Tudhaliya IV; which is again consistent
with the synchronism of Šamuhaziti with Taki-Šarruma in KUB 57.123. Lastly, a fragmentary Late
Empire sealing from Nişantepe (Nis 250; Hebordt 2005: 158) reads either [...]muha[...] or Muha[...]
with the title SCRIBA II (Fig. 4.21). Hawkins (2005a: 265) tentatively suggested that it could have
belonged to the scribe [Ša]muha[ziti].
Fig. 4.21: Nis 250 (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 20)
Finally, a wife of Taki-Šarruma can perhaps also be identified. KUB 40.83 is a court
proceeding dealing with the misappropriation of harmful magic (Werner 1967: 64–67). In obv. 2 a
Taki-Šarruma is mentioned together with a woman named Mana-DUGUD, 569 who seems to be the
one blamed in the ordeal. If this Taki-Šarruma is the known prince and chief scribe, it is possible in
my opinion, although lacking any further proof, that Mana-DUGUD was Taki-Šarruma's wife.
Finally, since we lack any colophons referring to his work, any descendants Taki-Šarruma might
have had are otherwise unknown. 570
Summary. Taki-Šarruma began his career as a prince at the court of Hattuša during the first
quarter of Tudhaliya IV's reign, perhaps at a very young age. 571 Sometime later, in all likelihood
after Tudhaliya IV's reign, he was given the position of chief scribe. As chief scribe he supervised
economic activities in the court of Hattuša. He further sent a letter to the king reporting on a certain
mission of the scribe Šamuhaziti to the area of Kizzuwatna. His career is further amply documented
in at least seven different seals, most of which were found impressed on bullae in the Nişantepe
569 Starke (1990: 547 n. 2027) apud Meriggi reads her name as Luw. Manakuwanzi.
570 In all likelihood, [T]aki-Šarruma father of an Alalimi merchant of Ura in RS 17.319 (= PRU IV: 182–
184), is a totally different person (cf. van den Hout 1995: 135).
571 Cf. also Marizza 2007a: 280.
191

archive in Hattuša. During the reign of Šuppiluliuma II he concurrently held the titles of chief
scribe, prince and “governor of the land” in Ugarit, and probably at Carchemish as well. Not all of
Taki-Šarruma's cuneiform titles find their equivalents in his HL titles (Tab. 4.6). His term of office
most likely covered Šuppiluliuma II's reign, as indicated by his appearance in a MA letter from the
end of the 13 th cent., and a synchronism with Šuppiluliuma II in the letter KBo 18.25(+). Therefore,
Taki-Šarruma was also the contemporary of Penti-Šarruma, who was the chief scribe on wood at
that time (see under IV.2.a.Penti-Šarruma). His activities, however, spanned not only the Hittite
capital but also various sites throughout Syria.
Cuneiform Title Text HL Title Seal no. (Tab. 4.5)
DUMU.LUGAL Bronze Tablet; KBo 31.50 REX.FILIUS 1-2, 4-7
GAL L [ Ú.MEŠ DUB.SAR] RS 17.403 MAGNUS.SCRIBA 3-7
Haštanuri RS 17.251 -
šākin māti Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996 no. 6 -
Tab. 4.6: Titles and offices of Taki-Šarruma in cuneiform vs his Hieroglyphic titles
b. Princes with Fragmentary Seals
The last three princes bearing the MAGNUS.SCRIBA title are attested on fragmentary seals. Only
in one instance could the name of the prince and MAGNUS.SCRIBA be possibly read as Pili. He
used two seals imprinted on bullae from Bk. D (SBo II 28 and 29). Both seals have on their outer
rim an alternating triangles and globes theme and bear in the left portion of the middle field the
titles REX.FILIUS and MAGNUS.SCRIBA (Fig. 4.22). Pili's name, situated on the right portion of
the middle field, is badly preserved in both cases. Visible in SBo II 29 is perhaps the sign pi (L. 66),
as the first element of the name, and in SBo II 28 the sign li (L. 278) as the last element of the
name. It is uncertain if another sign was placed in between them. Marizza (2007a: 277) suggested to
read a sign before pi, thus naming the seal owner x ? -pili. However, since it is clear that in SBo II 29
there is no sign preceding the pi, making Marizza'a hypothesis seem less viable.
Sadly, Pili is a rather short name which is not attested anywhere else. Nevertheless, the most
likely parallel seems to be a name of a Kizzuwatnean king from the 15 th cent. known as Pi/alliya.
192

This Pi/alliya, 572 a contemporary of the Hittite king Zidanza II, was the author of a ritual dedicated
to the Storm-god (CTH 475). Therefore, Pili could also be of the same Kizzuwatnean Hurrian-
Luwian milieu as many of the scribes known from Hattuša (Mascheroni 1984). Nevertheless, it is
uncertain when to place his term of office chronologically (see under IV.2.c).
SBo II 28
Fig. 4.22: Seal impressions of pili (SBo II: 66)
The names of the next two princes and MAGNUS.SCRIBA could not be read (Fig. 4.23).
An owner of a very worn seal from Nişantepe (Nis 571; no illustration) might be read as [...]-
Šarruma. Herbordt (2005: 215) reads on the seal the titles REX.FILIUS and MAG[NUS.SCR]IBA.
It is better to suppose this seal belongs to one of the other chief scribes bearing Šarruma names
(Taki-Šarruma or Penti-Šarruma), rather than assuming another, unknown, chief scribe.
Nis 770
Fig. 4.23: On the right seal impression of [...]-Šarruma (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 45), on the left seal impression of a prince
and MAGNUS.SCRIBA whose name was not preserved (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 58)
The name of the last prince and chief scribe, which appears on a fragmentary sealing from
Nişantepe (Nis 770), is broken off almost completely. Apart from the titles REX.FILIUS and
MAGNUS.SCRIBA on the left part of the seal, most of what remained of the middle field is part of
a beautifully detailed Bogenträger scene (Fig. 4.23). It depicts a manly figure with a prominent
nose shouldering an arch to his right and hanging on to the elbow of a larger deity figure with his
572 On this individual see Freu 2001: 15.
193
SBo II 29
Nis 571

left hand. Although most the deity's face and headdress are broken off, this type of large bearded
deity clad in a short skirt and an elongated multi-horned cap, featuring a long locket of hair falling
on his back, and shouldering a mace with his right is usually identified as a Storm-god figure
(Herbordt 2005: 244). Herbordt (2005: 60) has shown that the same deity holding the Storm-god
hieroglyph (TONITRUS) appears elsewhere at Nişantepe on the seals of Ini-Tešub, king of
Carchemish. In fact, this type of Storm-god figure, sometimes lifting his mace in a striking motion,
appears on many of the known seals of the kings of Carchemish and members of its royal line found
at Ugarit and Emar. 573
It is possible that the depiction of the Storm-god figure suggest that the seal owner of Nis
770 had the deity's theophoric element in his name, namely, either Tešub or Tarhunta, a notion
previously raised by Güterbock regarding similar evidence on earlier known seal material from
Hattuša. 574 Herbordt (2005: 60) however recently dismissed this notion. Evidently, many of the seal
holders whose seal bear the Storm-god figure do not attest its theophoric component in their name.
Another possibility would be to link the Storm-god figure on Nis 770 with its common depiction on
seals of individuals from Carchemish. But, apart from Taki-Šarruma and Penti-Šarruma, none of the
other known chief scribes from Hattuša seem to have been active in this area. Furthermore,
iconographical scenes are scarce on the seals of chief scribes from Hattuša. Only three other
examples can be registered, a signet (RS 17.251) and a stamp seal of Taki-Šarruma (Nis 400), and a
stamp seal of Mahuzzi (Nis 219).
c. Muwaziti: a Non-Royal MAGNUS.SCRIBA?
Only one MAGNUS.SCRIBA not bearing any princely titles is known. One seal found impressed
on a bulla from Nişantepe (Nis 273) bears the name spelled mu(wa)-VIR.zi/a, read Muwaziti, and
the title MAGNUS.SCRIBA-la in a clear context. The connection of this Muwaziti with another
appearing on a sealing from Nişantepe bearing the title VIR2 (Nis 272) seems less likely. Mainly
because the orientation of the name and its spelling (mu(wa)-VIR) is different on the latter seal (Fig.
4.24). Consequently, it could be that although Muwaziti MAGNUS.SCRIBA has no REX.FILIUS
on his seal that he chose to omit it, as did other MAGNUS.SCRIBA on their seals (see
IV.2.a.Arnilizi, Mahhuzzi, Penti-Šarruma, Taki-Šarruma), or that the title was broken off.
573 Where he is frequently depicted in the company of other important deities, see Mora 2004b: 428–432,
443–446, Figs. 1-6, 8-9, 15, 19.
574 See the seal Glyptik 176.
194

Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that there was a non-royal MAGNUS.SCRIBA, considering
that this single piece of evidence is ambiguous (see under IV.3).
As for cuneiform evidence, the name Muwaziti is poorly documented in the Empire
period. 575 He possibly has only one namesake from Ugarit attested in RS 17.244 (=PRU IV: 231).
This legal proceeding was acted out in the presence of a Muw[a]ziti, 576 son of Yaraziti, and bêl bīt
abūti together with a certain qartappu of his majesty (Malbran-Labat 2004: 73). As of yet, there is
no evidence to establish a connection between the bêl bīt abūti of Ugarit, and the VIR2 and the
MAGNUS.SCRIBA from Hattuša (Marizza 2007a: 281). Therefore, one cannot establish a dating
scheme for Muwaziti the MAGNUS.SCRIBA. Possible solutions would then be either to place him
at the very end of the Empire Period, or for a short period in between other MAGNUS.SCRIBA, or
as a contemporary of other MAGNUS.SCRIBA.
d. Uncertain Evidence: Tarhuntapiya and TONITRUS.URBS+li
The two remaining MAGNUS.SCRIBA, Tarhuntapiya and TONITRUS.URBS+li, do not bear this
title in any clear context. As will be shown, these persons should be dismissed from the list of
known MAGNUS.SCRIBA.
575 The name has good entries in the MH period, see KBo 18.69 rev. 11' (CTH 209) and the list of persons
and soldiers HKM 100 (CTH 236) from Maşat. This Muwaziti must have been, according to KBo
18.69, the contemporary of Hulla the known GAL LÚ.MEŠ KUŠ7 ZAG-az of Arnu. I in the land grant KBo
5.7 (cf. de Martino 2005: 299).
576 Read by Nougayrol (PRU IV: 231f.) as Mutaziti and by Malbran-Labat (2004: 73) as Mutziti.
195

TARHUNTAPIYA
A much worn seal impression from Nişantepe recently read by Herbordt (2005: 189) and Hawkins
(2005a: 273) is suggested to bear the name Tarhuntapiya and the title MAGNUS.SCRIBA (Nis 419;
Fig. 4.25). As I will show, this highly tentative reading can not be proven from Tarhuntapiya's
known seals and cuneiform attestations.
Fig. 4.25: Seal impression of Tarhuntapiya MAGNUS.SCRIBA? (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 33)
This name appears on multiple seal impressions originating mostly from Bk. D and
Nişantepe. In a recent prosopographical study of Tarhuntapiya, van den Hout (1995: 211–215)
identified all attestations of this name with a single Tarhuntapiya: a prince and scribe, brother of
Tudhaliya IV, also active in oracle texts as augur. 577 In contrast to van den Hout I prefer, following
Hawkins (2005a: 273), to separate the prince from the scribe. 578 The prince (REX.FILIUS),
designated here Tarhuntapiya A, appears as TONITRUS-pi-i(a) on two different seals (Fig. 4.26),
one also bearing the SCRIBA title (Bog III 10).
Fig. 4.26: Seal impressions of Tarhuntapiya A
577 On the equation between the scribe and the augur cf. Imparati 1985: 258. She further suggested that
Tarhuntapiya was first a scribe who only later in his career attained the higher status of prince.
578 I also support here the more skeptical view of Marizza (2007a: 281) regarding Tarhuntapiya's kinship to
Tudh. IV: “Lo studioso ipotizza, inoltre, che Tarhuntapiya possa esser stato un fratello di Tuthaliya IV,
ma non vi sono elementi sicuri per sostenere questa proposta”.
196

The name of the scribe (SCRIBA), designated here Tarhuntapiya B, was spelled either
TONITRUS-pi-i(a) or TONITRUS-tá-pi-i(a) on at least four different seals (Tab. 4.7; Fig. 4.27),
one of which is fragmentary (SBo II 145). These seals are discerned from those of Tarhuntapiya A
by the title VIR2 which they bear (Nis 418 and SBo II 145), 579 and the antithetic writing of the name
appearing on seals nos. 1 and 2.
Seal o. HL Titles Seals and Seal Impressions Remarks
1 SCRIBA, VIR2 Nis 418
2 SCRIBA SBo II 141-143, Nis 420
3 SCRIBA SBo II 144
- SCRIBA, VIR2 SBo II 145 Fragmentary
Tab. 4.7: Seals of Tarhuntapiya B
In Late Empire period cuneiform texts Tarhuntapiya's name is usually spelled
logographically d U-SUM (van den Hout 1995: 212). A prince (DUMU.LUGAL) by this name, most
579 On the apparent difference between “prince” and a non royal official usually designated with “man”
(VIR2) see recently Herbordt 2005: 106 with bib.
Fig. 4.27: Seal impressions of Tarhuntapiya B
197

likely to be identified with the prince and scribe Tarhuntapiya A, witnessed the signing of the Ulmi-
Tešub treaty and inspected incoming/outgoing goods in two inventory texts. 580 According to other
officials mentioned in these texts the term of Tarhuntapiya A must have spanned the second half of
Hattušili III and the beginning of Tudhaliya IV at least. Other Empire period attestations of a
Tarhuntapiya in cuneiform include various appearances in oracle inquiries, 581 one of which belongs
to an augur ( LÚ IGI.MUŠEN), 582 and another to a priest ( LÚ SANGA). 583 Since both Tarhuntapiya A
and B bore the title scribe, which is combined on seals both with “augur” (AVIS3+MAGNUS) 584
and with “priest” (SACERDOS2), 585 it would be tentative at best to identify a certain Tarhuntapiya
with the augur and priest attested in cuneiform. 586 Returning to the question of the identity of
Tarhuntapiya MAGNUS.SCRIBA on Nis 419. Since there is no evidence supporting such a case
and the face of the seal impressions are almost completely obliterated, it seems problematic to insert
into the already dense list of chief scribes another chief scribe not attested anywhere else.
Therefore, it seems preferable here to dismiss Herbordt's reading of the title on Nis 419 as
MAGNUS.SCRIBA(?). 587
TONITRUS.URBS+LI
TONITRUS.URBS+li, designated here as person A, holds four different seals bearing the title
SCRIBA (Fig. 4.28). Three were found impressed on bullae from Bk. D (SBo I 106-108), and one
button seal was found outside the Hittite capital in the territory of Adana (Dinçol & Dinçol 1987:
83–85, no. 3).
580 KBo 16.83+ III 6 (CTH 242.8); KUB 40.95 II 10 (CTH 242.4).
581 KUB 5.24+ IV 26 (CTH 577); KUB 50.35 rev. 2', 5' (CTH 570); KBo 44.216 I 23', 32' (CTH 577)
582 KUB 22.41 rev. 12' (CTH 582).
583 KUB 12.2 IV 8, 14, 18 (CTH 511).
584 Once on the seal of Nanuwa impressed on a bulla from Nişantepe (Nis 286; Herbordt 2005: 164f., Taf.
22).
585 Once on the seal of HEROS (Hastali), also together with REX.FILIUS, impressed on a bulla from
Nişantepe (Nis 610; Herbordt 2005: 221, Taf. 48).
586 Perhaps it would be best here to follow Imparati (1985: 258) in identifying the prince and scribe
(Tarhuntapiya A) as both priest and augur.
587 Could another title be read on this seal? I would cautiously suggest AVIS3+MAGNUS, since we already
know of a Tarhuntapiya augur from cuneiform texts.
198

A recent seal impression uncovered at Nişantepe (Nis 659; Fig. 4.29) bears the same name.
But is there justification from other evidence for Herbordt's (2005: 229) uncertain reading of the
title as MAGNUS.SCRIBA(?).
Fig. 4.29: Seal impression of TONITRUS.URBS+li MAGNUS.SCRIBA? (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 52)
First, the name TONITRUS.URBS+li literally means “Storm-god city” with a phonetic
complement li (see under IV.2.a.Šauškaruntiya). Hawkins (2005a: 286) opted first to read the name
Tarhuntaššali, but since it is nowhere attested he later thought of Nerikkaili. 588 The well known
tuhukanti Nerikkaili, son of Tudhaliya IV, considering this is how the name TONITRUS.URBS+li
should be read, was a known prince. 589 But whether he and the scribe TONITRUS.URBS+li were
588 There are, however, other cities of the Storm-god, as Singer suggested to me, like Hattuša for example
(pers. comm.). Could TONITRUS.URBS+li be another form of writing Hattušili, usually written
HATTI-li? Or perhaps we should simply read Tarhuntaili?
589 See the exhaustive prosopography of the name in van den Hout 1995: 96–105.
199

one and the same person is yet to be established (Hawkins 2005a: 286). As in the case of
Tarhuntapiya, I would suggest that the reading of MAGNUS.SCRIBA on Nis 659 as an unicum
between the other seals of TONITRUS.URBS+li is less likely. An alternative proposition adds Nis
659 to the multiple Nişantepe seal impressions of another homonym named TONITRUS.URBS+li,
designated here as person B, bearing various titles (Tab. 4.8; Fig. 4.30). This homonym bears the
same name but a set of different titles, revolving mainly around URBS.DOMINUS, appearing on at
least seven different seals impressed on multiple bullae from Nişantepe (Herbordt 2005: 228–229).
Therefore, the fragmentary title on Nis 659 could be MAGNUS.PI[THOS], which is attested on
many of the seals held by TONITRUS.URBS+li B.
Seal o. HL Titles Seals and Seal Impressions Remarks
1 URBS.DOMINUS Nis 651
2 URBS.DOMINUS Nis 652 Square signet ring
3 URBS.DOMINUS,
MAGNUS.PITHOS+RA/I, I.I-
DOMINUS
4 URBS.DOMINUS,
MAGNUS.PITHOS+RA/I, I.I-
DOMINUS
Nis 654
Nis 655
200
impression
5 REX.FILIUS, URBS.DOMINUS Nis 653 Square signet ring
6 REX.FILIUS, I.I-DOMINUS,
MAGNUS.PITHOS+RA/I
7 REX.FILIUS, URBS.DOMINUS,
MAGNUS.PITHOS+RA/I
Nis 656
Nis 657-658
Tab. 4.8: Seals of TONITRUS.URBS+li B
impression

Fig. 4.30: Seal impressions of TONITRUS.URBS+li B (Herbordt 2005: Taf. 51-52)
These impressions can be divided into several different seals according to the titles they
feature. Seals nos. 1 and 2 have URBS.DOMINUS. Seals nos. 3 and 4 have URBS.DOMINUS,
MAGNUS.PITHOS+RA/I and I.I-DOMINUS, each with its own design. The last four seals are
all various combinations of the previous titles with REX.FILIUS: Seal no. 5 combines REX.FILIUS
with URBS.DOMINUS; Seal no. 6 combines REX.FILIUS with I.I-DOMINUS and
MAGNUS.PITHOS+RA/I; Seal no. 7 combines REX.FILIUS with URBS.DOMINUS and
MAGNUS.PITHOS+RA/I. It cannot be determined if this means the seal bearer was promoted to
the position of prince or he chose to omit it from his first set of seals. Strengthening my hypothesis
to include among these seals Nis 659 are the horror vacui and style of fillers, which appear to be
characteristic to all seals of TONITRUS.URBS+li B.
201

3. Conclusions
The aim of this chapter was to study the bearers of the HL title MAGNUS.SCRIBA “chief scribe”
in the glytpic evidence from Hattuša. The various bearers were collected, their prosopographical
elements studied, and their duties delineated. This was made in continuation to a similar treatment
made in the previous chapter on the chief scribes appearing in the cuneiform data. The cuneiform
and HL chief scribes were chosen to be treated separately, mainly because the logografic
combination MAGNUS.SCRIBA is the single HL equivalent of the two known cuneiform titles of
chief scribes, either GAL DUB.SAR “chief scribe” or GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ “chief scribe on wood”.
And so it happens, that one cannot identify, from HL seals alone, which type of chief scribe was the
seal holder. To make this matter even more complicated, apart from Šahurunuwa, Taki-Šarruma and
Walwaziti, all the other known GAL DUB.SAR(.GIŠ) do not bear the title MAGNUS.SCRIBA in
HL. To name those treated in the previous chapter: Mittannamuwa, his son Purandamuwa, LÚ (Ziti)
and SAG. Since all these names were in fact GAL DUB.SAR, chief scribes, the simplest solution to
the problem (already considered in the previous chapter), would be to identify most of those using
MAGNUS.SCRIBA seals as GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, chief scribes on wood. As the way of simple
solutions, it is not entirely accurate, but nonetheless seems to be quite close to the conclusion of the
prosopographical study made in the present chapter. This being said, it is now time to complete the
chronological picture of the empire period chief scribes, which began to be formulated in the
concluding section of the previous chapter.
During the Early Empire period the title MAGNUS.SCRIBA was used by Matu. Sadly, the
name is not attested in cuneiform, but the style of his seals allows to establish his term of office in
the later reign of Tudhaliya II/III and well into the reign of his son Šuppiluliuma I. It would seem
that during this period the use of the HL title MAGNUS.SCRIBA had not yet been constituted,
given the peculiar horizontal writing of the title on the seals of Matu. Perhaps even Matu was the
first to put this title into use on his seals. His cuneiform designation is not known, namely, one
could not say if he was GAL DUB.SAR or GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ. Could he have been the successor
of Hattušili the GAL DUB.SAR(.MEŠ) during the reign of Arnuwanda I and the beginning of
Tudhaliya II/III? 590 In a recent prosopographic study of this Hattušili, Marizza (2007a: 300f.)
cautiously suggested that he was both GAL DUB.SAR and GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ. Perhaps in the
Early Empire period there was no distinction between the two offices. Already in this early period
590 For the dating of Hattušili the chief scribe and his activities see Beckman 1995: 25f.; Houwink ten Cate
1998: 174–177.
202

we see the later attested function of the chief scribes in supervising goods in the economic milieu
(see also under V). In the case of Matu his seals were found stamped on a few container sealings.
Moving on to the Empire Period, seven MAGNUS.SCRIBA were studied in the main
section of this chapter. The most significant conclusion made is their specific roles as chief scribes
(see also under V). Probably all of them were princes (REX.FILIUS). The only ambiguous case of
Muwaziti can be dismissed for lack of evidence, considering only one of his seals was found. All
other MAGNUS.SCRIBA used an average of between five to seven seals, some perhaps more, with
alternating titles. Thus, Muwaziti's single attested seal could not be a good representation of all his
titles. The princely title was not recorded among the chief scribes studied in the previous chapter:
Mittannamuwa, his sons Purandamuwa and Walwaziti, Ziti (A) and SAG. Only Šahurunuwa, the
chief scribe on wood, was shown to have been a prince, but only on his seals. The only chief scribe
who seems to bear the title of prince in cuneiform (DUMU.LUGAL) is Taki-Šarruma in the witness
list of the Bronze Tablet. It was therefore proposed in the previous chapter that only chief scribes on
wood were princes, while chief scribes, excluding the exceptional case of Taki-Šarruma, were not
of the royal line. However, as I will now show, the prosopographical reconstruction of the careers
of the MAGNUS.SCRIBA indicates a better solution.
Prince Arnilizi was both chief scribe and chief of palace attendants. He, however, chose not
to combine his titles together, alternatively using only one of them on each of his seals in
combination with REX.FILIUS. It has not been possible to chronologically place his career,
suggesting either it was very late in the reign of Arnuwanda III and Šuppiluliuma II, or that he was
active outside Hattuša, at some other palace. Nevertheless, perhaps we could identify which type of
chief scribe Arnilizi was. His duties seem to resemble those of Penti-Šarruma and Šauškaruntiya,
who combined on their seals the titles of chief scribe and chief of palace attendants. Both are
considered here to be the chief scribes on wood (GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ): Penti-Šarrum is [...]-
Šarruma the GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ from KUB 26.32 who swore an oath to Šuppiluliuma II, and
Šauškaruntiya is perhaps either the anonymous GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ of KUB 50.72 and VS NF
12.125 or his successor holding the position during the latter part of Tudhaliya IV's reign.
Šauškaruntiya is also connected at the earlier part of his career with the scribe Armaziti, which
supplies a synchronism to either the end of Hattušili III's reign or the beginning of Tudhaliya IV's.
Both Penti-Šarruma and Šauškaruntiya also performed military functions, as seems to be required
from the chief scribe on wood. Penti-Šarruma has a MAGNUS.AURIGA seal and Šauškaruntiya
was considered in the oracle inquiry IBoT 1.32 to lead a campaign against Azzi, and appears as a
military commander in the KÖYLÜTOLU YAYLA inscription of Tudhaliya IV. Therefore one
could suggest that Arnilizi was also GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, either succeeding Penti-Šarruma, in the
203

end stages of the Empire Period, or succeeding Šauškaruntiya, during the short reign of Arnuwanda
III. We could establish a chronological sequence of Šahurunuwa – Šauškaruntiya – Penti-Šarruma –
Arnilizi (Tab. 4.9).
As for the chief scribes, it was considered that prince Mahhuzzi, the GAL (LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ
of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV was in the later part of his career a GAL DUB.SAR, replacing
SAG at some point during the second half of Tudhaliya IV's reign. His early scribal training is
somewhat obscure, but he has a synchronism with a higher scribe named L. 417.5-wasa / Suwasa,
who was perhaps his teacher. Mahhuzzi later supervised together with Halwaziti the scribe Duda.
Halwaziti being the known scribe of the Bronze Tablet from the city of Ukkiya. His term of office
should be dated mainly to the reign of Tudhaliya IV. Mahhuzzi, as supervisor, and Halwaziti, as
teacher, ran an office and scribal school, perhaps from the House on the Slope or from some other
location near by in the Lower City. Walwaziti possibly ran his office and school from Bk. A; his
son Hulanabi succeeded him as instructor of NU.GIŠ.SAR, the son of SAG, the chief scribe after
Walwaziti. It therefore seems that Mahhuzzi moved the main school, probably to the House on the
Slope, when he became chief scribe, sometime in the latter half of Tudhaliya IV's reign. I would
imagine this has something to do with the important role this building played in the reign of
Šuppiluliuma II, when this building became an important centre for copying texts, as considered by
several scholars (van den Hout 2006b: 88f.; Torri 2007a: 781f.). The chief scribe after Mahhuzzi
was likely prince Taki-Šarruma, who appears in a late 13 th cent. MA letter, and has a possible
concurrence with Šuppiluliuma II, in a letter this king sent either to Tukulti-Ninurta I or his
successor (KBo 18.25(+)). Both chief scribe Taki-Šarruma, and his contemporary(?) chief scribe on
wood Penti-Šarruma, were very active in Ugarit and Syria. This might have something to do with
Assyrian aggression in this area towards Hatti, during the last stages of the 13 th cent, which
culminated in the notorious battle of Nihriya. 591 Thus, the established chronological sequence of
chief scribes after SAG might be: Mahhuzzi – Taki-Šarruma (Tab. 4.9).
591 On which see for example Singer 1999a: 686–690; Bryce 2005: 313–319.
204

Hittite King GAL DUB.SAR Additional Titles GAL
Mur. II – Muw. II Mittannamuwa -
Muw. II Purandamuwa
(s. of
Mittannamuwa)
Ur.-T. Ziti A (LÚ) -
End of Ur.-T. Walwaziti (s. of
Hattušili III – 1 st
quarter of
Tudhaliya IV
Middle of
Tudhaliya IV
Latter half of
Tudhaliya IV
Arnu. III –
Šuppiluliuma II
Mittannamuwa)
SAG -
Mahhuzzi
Taki-Šarruma
GAL
(LÚ.MEŠ) MUBARRÎ,
-
-
REX.FILIUS,
LIS.DOMINUS
DUMU.LUGAL,
haštanuri, šākin
māti, REX.FILIUS
205
DUB.SAR.GIŠ
Additional Titles
Šahurunuwa GAL LÚ UKU.UŠ, GAL
Šauškaruntiya??
Penti-Šarruma
Arnilizi??
Tab. 4.9: The chief scribes in the 13 th century BCE
NA.GAD, REX.FILIUS,
L. 490
REX.FILIUS
TONITRUS.URBS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
LÚ tuppinura huburtinura,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.AURIGA
REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS

Returning now to answer the dilemma posed on the princely status of the chief scribes
above, the summary table, which incorporates the chronological reconstruction made in the
previous chapter and the present chapter, in fact shows that both chief scribes after SAG were
princes. Thus it would appear the status of the GAL DUB.SAR changed for the better during the
latter half of Tudhaliya IV's reign. This change seems surprising, when in fact during the days of
Walwaziti, in the reign of Hattušili III and more specifically in the initial phase of Tudhaliya IV,
there is another very important and influential supervisor in the figure of Anuwanza the LÚ SAG,
who was not a chief scribe. Evidently, there was no replacement for the title of chief scribe as it
regained power again afterwards.
An important remark must be said on the onomasticon of the chief scribes. Whereas up until
SAG the names of chief scribes were markedly Luwian in origin, the name of Mahhuzzi is yet to be
identified, and Taki-Šarruma bears a Hurrian name, which in fact coincides with the notably
Hurrian (or Hurr.-Luw.) names of the chief scribes on wood. This change could be explained in that
exactly after SAG, the chief scribes become princes. But then again, it could be pure coincidence.
The functions of the identified MAGNUS.SCRIBA as suggested above, confirm the roles of
the GAL DUB.SAR and of the GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, established in the conclusions of the previous
chapter. The GAL DUB.SAR is involved mainly with supervising the drafting of texts,
administrative-economic functions and scribal education. The GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, on the other
hand, is more involved in cult, most likely supervising the recording of religious rituals and
festivals on wooden tablets, and takes part in military campaigns. Another interesting administrative
difference between the two types of chief scribes is apparent from looking at the bullae archives
where seals of MAGNUS.SCRIBA were used (Tab. 4.10).
Particularly striking is the fact that those suggested here to be chief scribes on wood, namely
Arnilizi, Penti-Šarruma and Šauškaruntiya, and the already known Šahurunuwa, signed bullae also
outside the Nişantepe archive, the Storerooms of T.1 and Bk. D. Those suggested to be chief
scribes, Mahhuzzi and Taki-Šarruma, signed bullae only in the Nişantepe archive. If this is in fact a
criteria for identifying the cuneiform equivalent of a certain MAGNUS.SCRIBA, then one could
also suggest that the ambiguous Pili, if his name is indeed read in such a way, was a GAL
DUB.SAR.GIŠ, since he sealed bullae found only in Bk. D. But, I would not rush to such a
conclusion. The combination of titles on the MAGNUS.SCRIBA seals did, however, help
determine more about their sealing habits/use of seals.
During the Late Empire period the seals of MAGNUS.SCRIBA usually combined more than
one title. But on many occasions, it seems that they chose to omit certain titles from certain seals. In
206

some cases it was shown that particular seals were used for specific tasks. The most obvious
example is that of the chief scribes (on wood?) Arnilizi and Šauškaruntiya. Both issued seals with
the title combination prince and “chief of palace attendants” (MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS),
deliberately omitting the title chief scribe, to seal Tonverschlüsse, which are sealings of containers,
such as sacks or bottles. Since the chief of palace attendants usually appears in connection with the
appropriation of various goods in festivals and the cult in general, it was suggested that these seals
were specifically used to seal containers of such goods. In contrast, when chief scribe Taki-Šarruma
sealed several Tonverschlüsse he used a seal combining prince and MAGNUS.SCRIBA. Therefore,
I conclude that the purpose of this seal was different, namely, connected with his role as chief
scribe. Considering that chief scribes handled goods in the economic records, sometimes receiving
tribute, or inspecting outgoing goods, it was proposed that these Tonverschlüsse sealed such goods.
Alternatively, since we also know of a letter sent by Taki-Šarruma, these Tonverschlüsse might
have been used to clamp cords/ropes wrapping letter envelopes made of leather or cloth. 592
Finally, a note should be said about the use of signets. Herbordt (2006:101) has recently
noted that signet ring impressions found in the Nişantepe archive in large quantities belonged
chiefly to scribes (SCRIBA). In comparison to the rather massive use of this seal type in Nişantepe,
its presence is rare in other bullae archives at Boğazköy and in glyptic finds from Anatolia in
general (Herbordt 2005: 43f.). The signet was more common at Hittite centers in North-Syria, such
as Emar and Ugarit, 593 and its use by Hittite functionaries is attested as far south as Canaan. 594 It
was therefore concluded that Empire signets may have originally come into use in Syria before
spreading further into Anatolia in the later Empire Period (Herbordt 2006: 100f.). The late date of
the signets might have implications with regard to the chronological sequence of the Hittite scribes
using them in Nişantepe. But, I have noticed a further element about the usage of such signets by
the chief scribes. The title MAGNUS.SCRIBA is not documented on any signet ring, namely chief
scribes did not employ this type of seal. Moreover, two chief scribes in particular, Mahhuzzi and
Šauškaruntiya, had first SCRIBA signets, and during their MAGNUS.SCRIBA stage stamp seals.
The case of Taki-Šarruma is also interesting, since in Ugarit he used a signet with the title
REX.FILIUS whereas all of his other seals which combine in some manner the title
MAGNUS.SCRIBA are stamps. All this would imply that when promoted to the status of chief
592 This function of the Tonverschlüsse was suggested recently by Hagenbuchner 2007: 363.
593 At both venues the signet was employed primarily by Hittite officials; for Ugarit see Ugar. III: 41f., 56,
78–86; on signets from Emar see for instance Gonnet 1991; Singer 2000; Beyer 2001: 120–145 (nos.
B1-B70).
594 See Glyptik: 76 and Singer 2006c: 738f., Fig. 1b-d.
207

scribe officials deliberately issued their new seals in the Anatolian stamp seal tradition, rather then
in the imported style of the signet ring. The question arises as to why the chief scribes chose not to
use signet rings. Perhaps it was due to its insufficient space, since many of them concurrently held
other titles, or it was the higher prestige of the more ornate and large stamp seal. 595 Other possible
solutions would be either the different purposes of the signets as compared to the stamps, or
otherwise a convention set by the royal court in Hattuša. From a chronological point of view the
late date of the signets help to corroborate what is also supported from the prosopography. Namely,
that at least Mahhuzzi, Šauškaruntiya and Taki-Šarruma, who hold signets in the initial stage of
their career, were MAGNUS.SCRIBA at a very late phase of the Empire Period (Tab. 4.9).
MAGNUS.SCRIBA Titles Bk. D St.T.1 işantepe
Arnilizi REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA + +
Mahhuzzi REX.FILIUS, SCRIBA-la,
LIS.DOMINUS,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA-la
Muwaziti MAGNUS.SCRIBA + 596
Penti-Šarruma REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
[MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS?]
REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
208
+
Bullae Ton.
Upper
City
+ + + +
Šahurunuwa REX.FILIUS + + +
REX.FILIUS, L. 490,
MAGNUS.SCRIBA
595 Both suggested to me by Singer (pers. comm.).
596 Has a single attestation, without REX.FILIUS.
+
+
+

MAGNUS.SCRIBA Titles Bk. D St.T.1 işantepe
Šauškaruntiya SCRIBA +
REX.FILIUS,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
REX.FILIUS TONITRUS.U[RBS]
/ RE[GIO], MAGNUS.SCRIBA,
MAGNUS.DOMUS.FILIUS
209
+ +
REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.[...] +
Taki-Šarruma MAGNUS.SCRIBA +
Bullae Ton.
+ +
REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA + +
Pili / Pi[...]li REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA +
[...]-Šarruma REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA +
[...] (Nis 770) REX.FILIUS, MAGNUS.SCRIBA +
Tab. 4.10: Archives in which sealed bullae with MAGNUS.SCRIBA seals were found
Upper
City

V. General Conclusions
When one embarks on a journey such as taken here one seldoms finds it to be as planned. Many
points were covered but others still need attention, in this section I will look back at the goal of the
study and its immediate results, including topics which still require further research.
The general aim was more or less clear: to map out the scribal families of 13 th century
Hattuša documented in the colophons of its scribes in order to establish their chronology and work
relations. This was carried out through a prosopographical study divided into two main parts:
1. Statistical study of all the scribes and officials with SCRIBA seals segmented according to the
different titles and professions associated with the scribal class.
2. Individual prosopographies of the highest members of the scribal class, the chief scribe (GAL
DUB.SAR) and chief scribe on wood (GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ), both expressed in HL by
MAGNUS.SCRIBA. This group of scribes was specifically chosen because of its centrality in
the scribal world of Hattuša. Through their attested duties, connections with other scribes and
family members, I could better understand the hierarchy and structure of the archives, schools
and offices in the Hittite capital.
Following the statistical study three main groups of officials were distinguished within the
scribal profession of Hattuša:
1. Approximately 100 scribes appearing almost exclusively in the colophons of cuneiform tablets,
making them perhaps the backbone of the professional scribes, whose life was devoted to the
copying, renewing and storing of the texts, as well as to creating new compositions, supervising
and teaching other scribes. It would seem that they had an inner hierarchy attested both in
cuneiform and HL ranks. However, the relation between these two outwardly different ranking
systems is yet to be established and requires further study.
2. Scholarly officials who are persons holding titles and professions which render them in need of
scribal education, either basic reading and writing skills or more complicated knowledge
involving medical treatments, magic, divination etc. These are found mainly on seals holding the
title SCRIBA next to their main occupation. It seems as though status was also an important
factor when it came to scribal education, since the majority of this group of officials are princes
and dignitaries, many of them officers in the army, but some are also palatial, judicial and temple
personnel.
3. About 150 officials who have one or more SCRIBA seals and are not attested as DUB.SAR in
the Hittite cuneiform texts of the 13 th century. Therefore this group must represent either those
210

scribes who are dated to the periods from which very little cuneiform texts were found, such as
the reigns of Arnuwanda III and Šuppiluliuma II, or scribes on wood (DUB.SAR.GIŠ) who are
in fact very scarce in our cuneiform documentation; only two are known by name. There are
some examples of work relations between the colophon scribes and the SCRIBA officials, such
as that between Mahhuzzi and L. 417.5-wasa/Suwasa the SCRIBA II on the bulla Bo 91/500. In
any case, it is clear that further study of the individual officials is needed in order to establish the
exact nature of their title and relationship with the colophon scribes.
A major part of this study was devoted to the prosopographical inquiry of the chief scribes
and their families which produced some important results. First, the chronological sequence of the
chief scribes, both GAL DUB.SAR and GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ, was better established than before
using synchronisms between the various scribal families and new HL data:
Tab. 5.1: Chronological sequence of the chief scribes
As might be noticed, in the first half of the 13 th century the Mittannamuwa scribal line was
in control of the office of GAL DUB.SAR, whereas from the latter half of the 13 th century the
position switched hands between various scribal families. This might hint on the political turmoil in
the capital from the second half of Tudhaliya IV's reign, perhaps connected somehow with the
dynastic struggle with the royal line in Tarhuntašša. There are some question marks remaining with
regard to the sequence of chief scribes on wood, mainly the length of Šauškaruntiya's term of office,
which is also related to the exact position of Arnilizi, about who we know very little.
It should be stated that the scribal profession in Hattuša, as in the rest of the cuneiform
world, was passed from father to son, for many of the descendants of chief scribes pursued this
intellectual course. However, it does not seem as though the fathers were responsible for the entire
training process of their sons, since in some cases it is clearly stated that the teacher was someone
else, outside the immediate family circle. Another point in this matter is that the chief scribes are
211

never attested as teachers, only as supervisors of the copying process. Therefore, it is implied that
every member of the scribal professional hierarchy had his own specific duties. It would be
interesting to give a summary of the duties exercised by the highest members of this hierarchy, i.e.
the chief scribes.
In the case of the GAL DUB.SAR(.MEŠ) or chief scribe, the duties inferred from the textual
evidence are the following: divination, arbitration, economic control, scribal supervision and
control over civilian/administrative sector; the duties of a civilian administrator and state secretary
(cf. Houwink ten Cate 1998: 177).
chief scribe Divination Arbitration
economic
control
212
scribal
supervision
control of civilian
sector
Mittannamuwa + +
Purandamuwa Not enough evidence
Ziti (A) Not enough evidence
Walwaziti + + + +
SAG Not enough evidence
Mahhuzzi + +
Taki-Šarruma + + +
Tab. 5.2: Main duties of the chief scribes
This summary tablet, arranged chronologically, shows that the most recurrent aspect of the
chief scribe's duties is arbitration (Tab. 5.2). In this aspect, it seems very interesting that both
Walwaziti and Taki-Šarruma exercised this authority mainly in the Hittite principalities in North-
Syria, Ugarit and Emar. So, I think that this aspect of the chief scribe should receive more attention.
Otherwise, not all chief scribes made their mark on this important office. It is therefore likely that
the power and influence of the chief scribe came not only from the duties and status of the office,
but also from historical circumstances, political connections and even, I would guess, personality.
In the case of the GAL DUB.SAR.GIŠ or chief scribe on wood, the duties inferred from the
textual evidence are the following: control over military units, diplomatic activities, chief of palace
attendants, religious/cultic control (documentation of festivals and rituals); in some ways this
official is the counterpart of the chief scribe, taking his scribal skills into the field.

chief scribe on wood
control of military
units
Diplomatic
activities
213
chief of palace
attendants
control of cultic
activities
Šahurunuwa + + +
Šauškaruntiya?? + + +
Penti-Šarruma + + + +
Arnilizi(?) + +
Tab. 5.3: Main duties of the chief scribes on wood
The main duties related with the chief scribes on wood are indicated by the military titles
most of them bear beside their scribal titular (Tab. 5.3). We have attestations which describe their
participation in campaigns; perhaps their scribal knowledge also suggested better strategic
capabilities. It would seem that their travels with the army gave them also another duty, which was
carrying out various diplomatic assignments on behalf of the king. Apart from traveling, the chief
scribes on wood also had other palatial duties, which were connected with their role in documenting
cultic activities on wooden writing boards prior to their transfer to more durable clay tablets. In any
case, also this role eventually had a connection with their maneuverability, since many festivals and
rituals did not take place in the Hittite capital but in other important cultic centres, such as Šamuha
or Nerik.
The final point, and perhaps the most rewarding one, is the identification of several areas
and structures in Hattuša as Late Empire Period scribal centres related with certain chief scribes,
teachers and / or other scribes. The tentative results are summarized in the following tablet:
Walwaziti – Bk. A
(Hatt. III – First half of Tudh. IV)
Copying Scribes
Hulanabi (son of W.); Talmi-Tešub
(son of W.); Kuruntaili; Hiliya;
Pariziti; Pihaziti
Scribal School
MAH.DINGIR MEŠ (teacher)
Tamli-Tešub (trainee)
Major texts copied
(h)išuwa festival; Luw. rituals; Akk.
omens literature; local mythology
É GIŠ.KI.TI
(Hatt. III – Šupp. II)
Supervisor
Anuwanza (Hatt. III – Tudh. IV)
Angulli (Tudh. IV)
Copying Scribes
Angulli (Hatt. III – Tudh. IV)
Zuwa (Tudh. IV)
Scribal School (second half of
Tudh. IV – Šupp. II)
Zuwa (teacher)
Alihhini (trainee)
Major texts copied
MH texts into LH copies
(especially texts with Hattian
termini?)
Duda
Mahhuzzi – HaH?
(Second half Tudh. IV)
Copying Scribes
Scribal School
Halwaziti (teacher)
Pihami; […-Šarru]ma (trainees)

Table of Correlations
214

215

Prosopographic Index of the Hattuša Scribes
In the following index the colophon scribes of 13 th century Hattuša are listed in alphabetical order. Kinship terms are abbreviated as follows:
b. – brother; d. – (non-direct) descendant; g. – grandson; gg. – great-grandson; ggf. – great-grandfather; gf. – grandfather; f. – father; s. – son
ame Affiliation(s) Scribal Role(s) Colophon(s) SCRIBA Pp.
Aki-Tešub f. of Lurma(ziti)? teacher? KBo 11.1 rev. 27 ALLEPO 1
106 n. 317, 169
copyist ALEPPO1
Alalimi copyist KUB 9.21a = KBo Nis 6, 8-10
22.214 VI 3
copyist, trainee of Zuwa KUB 13.9+ IV 10
119, 178, 182, 213
Alihhini s. of Šaušgaziti ( d ŠUR-LÚ), g. of
NU.GIŠ.SAR (A), gg. of Ziti (A)
Anatšar s. of Ganušta copyist under Anuwanza KUB 7.25 IV 8
174-180, 182
Angulli s. of Palla supervisor KBo 5.11(++) IV 28;
KBo 23.97 22'; KBo
57.224
copyist KUB 56.35 IV 6'
copyist under Anuwanza KUB 30.26 IV 13'; KUB
32.133 IV 7'
28, 33, 36, 51, 79-83, 104-
107, 110, 114-116, 132f.,
165, 167, 175, 179-182, 206
Anuwanza f. of Tummani supervisor, copyist passim (see van den
Hout 1995: 238f.)
79f.
Armapiya ( d 30-SUM) copyist KUB 19.44 IV 15 Nis 58-59, 60?; SBo II
102; Glyptik 187
SBo II 44-46; Kennedy
1959: 158 no. 32
copyist KUB 4.1 IV 42
Armaziti (GE6-LÚ/ d 30-LÚ/
d
SÎ -LÚ)
164, 165-167
copyist under Anuwanza KBo 19.128 VI 36; KUB
7.1+ IV 15
48-51, 116-119
copyist and trainee under Ziti (B) KUB 33.120+++ IV 20
Ašhapa(la) s. of Tarhuntaššu, g. of Kuruntapiya, d.
of Waršiya
216

Adda f. of Nananza - KBo 23.44 IV 10 Nis 76-79
Attanalli copyist VS NF 12.58+ rev. 9' 20f.
copyist under Muwa KUB 28.7 rev. 4
118
Nis 112; SBo II 56-57
Halpaziti s. of Zuwanni, f. of GUR-Šarruma A - KUB 10.96 2; KUB
12.15 l.e. 1
supervisor KUB 13.7 IV 5'
Halwaziti b. of f Manazi, s. of Lupakki, d. of Zida,
man of Ukkiya
117, 148-153, 204
teacher KBo 45.69 VI 6; KUB
57.110 III 5
copyist Bo 89/299
Hamša copyist KBo 53.5+
copyist KBo 6.4 l.e. 4; KBo
10.34 IV 16; KBo
12.105+ IV 6'; VBoT 24
IV 38
b. of Ziti (B) and Šaušgaziti, s. of
NU.GIŠ.SAR (A), g. of Ziti (A), d. of
Karunu(wa) (A), Hanikkuili (A) and
Anu-šar-ilāni
Hanikkuili (B) (Hanikkuili A is
MH)
112-114, 119
s. of Tuwataziti copyist under Šipaziti KBo 21.42 VI 4
Hapatiwalwi (Hapati-
UR.MAH/PÌRIG)
105, 107, 115
copyist under Anuwanza KUB 20.8 VI 7; KBo
42.28 rev. 3'
Hešni s. of Naniya copyist KUB 25.10 IV 6; KUB
44.24 VI 12'
Hiliya copyist under Walwaziti KUB 8.9 l.e. 2 65, 89f., 95, 99, 213
Hillu copyist KBo 13.106 l.e.
teacher KUB 44.61 l.e. 5
Hulanabi b. of Talmi-Tešub, s. of Walwaziti, g. of
Mittannamuwa
45, 65, 67, 69-72, 80f., 95,
111, 114, 122, 133, 204, 213
copyist under Walwaziti KUB 12.12 l.e. 2; KUB
32.128 VI 2; KBo
33.173++ rev. 13; KBo
33.175+ VI 11'[]; KBo
7.45+++?
Hulla member of a scribal team KUB 44.24 VI 11'
Huzziya scribe on wood KUB 13.35+ IV 28 (not
in colophon)
217

Ipizzi f. of Tehi-Tešub copyist KBo 10.47c 100f.
Iuni s. of Tehup-ŠEŠ, f. of ZA.HUM-ZA - KUB 55.59 l.e. 1 119, 124
105, 115
Karunu(wa) (B) copyist under Šipaziti KBo 20.77 rev. 4
copyist under Anuwanza KBo 30.165 rev. 2'[
copyist? KBo 39.43 rev.[] Nis 196-198
84-89, 126-128, 161
Ku(wa)lanaziti b. of Tupli-Tešub, s. of Alihešni and
f
Tarhuntamanwa, g. of Mittannamuwa
and Šahurunuwa, d. of Ku(wa)lanaziti
GAL NA.GAD
Kuparabi copyist KBo 5.1 IV 43
copyist under Walwaziti KBo 15.52+++ VI 47'
69, 97, 80f., 213
Kuruntaili (LAMMA-
DINGIR LIM )
Tars. 36/19
copyist KBo 13.240 rev.
Kuruntapiya ( d LAMMA-SUM) d. of Waršiya, f. of Tarhuntaššu, gf. of
Ašhapa(la)
33, 47-53, 109, 117
KUB 33.120+ IV 30';
KBo 1.6 rev. 21 (not
colophon)
150
Lilawalwi (Lila-UR.MAH) man of Ukkiya copyist KUB 7.20 rev. 6
Lupakki d. of Zida, f. of f Manazi and Halwaziti - Bo 86/299 IV 43 TAŞÇI A 24, 117 n. 362, 150f., 153
Lurma(ziti) s. of Aki-Tešub? copyist KBo 11.1 rev. 26
78f.
(Early Empire seals:
Nis 210-213; SBo II
204; KORUCUTEPE
no. 7)
Luwa copyist KBo 22.109 9'[; Bo
2002/3
copyist under Anuwanza FHL 16 1'[
Mahhuzzi supervisor KUB 13.7 IV 4' Nis 217-223 24 n. 68, 33, 28 n. 82, 101,
138, 144-154, 164 n. 474,
204f., 206f., 208, 211-213
Mār-Šerua Assyrian scribe KBo 8.17 I 10' (not in
colophon)
218

Miramuwa teacher KBo 12.41 rev. 3' Nis 240 34, 179
- passim
38, 39-47, 53-55, and passim
Mittannamuwa f. of Purandamuwa, Alihešni,
Walwaziti, Nani(n)zi and Adduwa, gf.
of Hulanabi, Talmi-Tešub, Tulpi-Tešub
and Ku(wa)lanaziti
Nis 255; SBo II 153
Muwa (A.A) supervisor KUB 28.7 rev. 5
copyist KUB 19.10+
Muwalanni - KBo 18.97 l.e. 2; 98 obv.
2 (not colophons)
abu-aṣar Assyrian scribe KBo 8.17 I 10' (not in
colophon)
ananza s. of Adda copyist under Anuwanza KBo 23.44 IV 9
(past) supervisor KBo 42.28 rev. 6'[]
ani(n)zi (ŠEŠ-zi) b. of Purandamuwa, Alihešni,
Walwaziti, and Adduwa, f. of an
unnamed daughter, s. of Mittannaamuwa
41, 43, 45, 100-108, 110,
146f.
copyist KUB 20.59 l.e.; KUB
54.4 6'?
Nis 291
33, 59, 109, 117 n. 359, 175
Palla f. of Angulli copyist KBo 30.144 rev. 4'
copyist, trainee of […] KBo 13.27+ rev. 12'
- KUB 32.133 IV 7'
Palluwaraziti member of a scribal team see p. 122 n. 376 Nis 293 120-124
65, 90, 95, 213
Pariziti copyist under Walwaziti KBo 23.93+ IV 21''; KBo
34.245+ l.e. 2
Pihami copyist, trainee of Halwaziti KBo 45.69 rev. 3' 151f., 213
Pihamuwa man of Ukkiya copyist KBo 12.95 rev. 2' 150
120-124
see p. 122 n. 376 SBo II 94-95; Nis 308-
311, 558?
Pihawalwi (Piha-UR.MAH) scribe on wood, member of a
scribal team
65, 91-94, 213
Pihaziti copyist under Walwaziti KBo 3.7 IV 31' Norşuntepe 2;
BOǦAZKÖY 17?
114
copyist under Anuwanza KUB 15.31 IV 41
Pihhuniya b. of Pikku (B), s. of Tatta, g. of Pikku
(A)
219

114
- KUB 15.31 IV 42
Pikku (A) f. of Tatta, gf. of Pihhuniya and Pikku
(B)
copyist KUB 7.53+ IV 8; KUB
10.18 VI 19; KUB 29.1
IV 29
copyist under Anuwanza KUB 29.11+ IV 6'
copyist under Anuwanza, trainee KBo 48.133 IV 2'
Pikku (B) b. of Pihhuniya, s. of Tatta, g. of Pikku
(A)
114
of GIŠ.NU.SAR (=NU.GIŠ.SAR A)
55f.
- KBo 4.12 obv. 18 (not in
colophon)
Purandamuwa b. of Alihešni, Walwaziti, Nani(n)zi and
Adduwa, s. of Mittannamuwa
chief scribe on wood CTH 225 and see III.3 Tars. 40; Bog. III 15
125-131, 160f. and passim
Šahurunuwa d. of Ku(wa)lanaziti, f. of
f
Tarhuntamanawa, Duwattannani and
Tattmaru, gf. of Tulpi-Tešub and
Ku(wa)lanaziti
Šakkapi b. of Zuwa, s. of Uza(?), g. of Mauiri copyist under Angulli KBo 5.11(++) IV 26 174f.
Šapuhaziti (Šamuhaziti) copyist KBo 1.42 VI 2 Nis 250?? 190f.
Šanda ( d AMAR.UTU) f. of Zuzzu - KUB 36.83 IV 12' 82f.
- KUB 13.9+ IV 10'
b. of Ziti (B) and Hanikkuili (B), s. of
NU.GIŠ.SAR (A), g. of Ziti (A), d. of
Karunu(wa) (A), Hanikkuili (A) and
Anu-šar-ilāni, f. of Alihhini
Šaušgaziti ( d ŠUR-LÚ)
119, 178
105, 115f.
Šipaziti supervisor KBo 20.77 rev. 5; KBo
21.42 VI 6; KBo 21.49
IV 11
restored tablet KBo 45.168+++ IV 22;
KBo 14.86+++ IV 14'
Šumimuwa - KBo 18.2 rev. 3' (not
colophon)
Nis 625-630; SBo II
55, 109 45, 65, 69, 72-80, 87, 89, 97,
111, 152, 213
copyist KBo 35.260 l.e. 1
Talmi-Tešub b. of Hulanabi, s. of Walwaziti, g. of
Mittannamuwa
KBo 15.37 VI 12
copyist, trainee of
MAH.DINGIR MEŠ
220

Tarhuntapihanu ( d U-pihanu) scribe on wood KUB 31.73+ 6' (not
colophon)
- KUB 33.120+++ 29';
KBo 18.101 (not
colophon)
f. of Ašhapa(la), s. of of Kuruntapiya, d.
of Waršiya
Tarhuntaššu ( d U-taššu)
49-52, 117, 132
Tarhuntaziti ( d U-LÚ) s. of Pidda copyist under Anuwanza KUB 2.13 VI 35
Taruššia original copyist KBo 23.1+++ l.e. 1
Tattiya copyist KBo 1.28 rev. 13
79f.
Tatiganna copyist KBo 3.3++ IV 14
copyist under Šipaziti KBo 21.49 IV 10
copyist under Anuwanza KUB 10.21 VI 4; KBo
32.139 l.e. 1
Tehup-ŠEŠ (Tehupnani?) f. of Iuni, gf. of ZA.HUM-ZA - KUB 55.59 l.e. 2 119, 124
Tummani s. of Anuwanza copyist under Anuwanza KUB 43.77 IV 3'
Duda copyist under Mahhuzzi and KUB 13.7 IV 6'
146, 148f., 152, 204, 213
Halwaziti
Duwa copyist under Anuwanza KUB 9.6+ IV 27 Nis 471, 486 115
Duwazi man of the city […] copyist KUB 31.49 l.e. 150 n. 445
Ulmi-Šarruma member of a scribal team Bo 6780 3' 122, 151
119, 174, 176, 182
Uza(?) s. of Mauiri, f. Šakkapi and Zuwa - KBo 5.11(++) IV 26;
KBo 23.97 21'
Aegean type bronze
spearhead 56-100 and passim
supervisor passim (see van den
Hout 1995: 171f.)
b. of Purandamuwa, Alihešni, Nani(n)zi
and Adduwa, s. of Mittannamuwa
Walwaziti (UR.MAHziti/UR.MAH)
- KBo 6.4 l.e. 2; VBoT 24
IV 38 111-124, 132f., 178, 203,
212 and passim
Ziti (A) (LÚ) d. of Karunu(wa) (A), Hanikkuili (A)
and Anu-šar-ilāni, f. of NU.GIŠ.SAR
(A), gf. of Ziti (B), Hanikkuili (B) and
Šaušgaziti, ggf. of Alihhini
221

Ziti (B) (LÚ) b. of Hanikkuili (B) and Šaušgaziti, s.
of NU.GIŠ.SAR (A), g. of Ziti (A), d. of
Karunu(wa) (A), Hanikkuili (A) and
Anu-šar-ilāni
51, 111-124
supervisor, teacher KUB 10.96 4', 5'; KUB
12.15 l.e. 2[]; KUB
51.12 rev. 8'; KUB
33.120+++ IV 32'; KUB
55.59 l.e. 2; KBo 39.41
IV 3
copyist KUB 29.4+ IV 45; KUB
35.41 IV 5'; KBo
14.86+++ IV 15'; KBo
45.168+++ l.e.
Nis 68, 539-540
Zuwa b. of Šakkapi, s. of Uza(?), g. of Mauiri teacher KUB 13.9+ IV 11
119, 166f., 176-180, 182f.
copyist under Angulli KBo 23.97 21'
118f.
Zuwanni f. of Halpaziti, gf. of GUR-Šarruma A - KUB 10.96 3; KBo 18.76
(not colophon)
82f.
Zuzzu s. of Šanda ( d AMAR-UTU) copyist under Anuwanza KUB 10.89 VI 3; KUB
36.83 IV 12'; KBo
43.319 IV 19
Logographic names
A.A see Muwa
AMAR.MUŠE copyist KBo 23.1+++ l.e. 2
see Šanda
d AMAR.UTU
E-UR.SAG (Bēl-qarrad) f. of GUR-Šarruma (B) - KUB 37.210 rev. 4 118 n. 365
GIŠ.GI.PÌRIG-i copyist under Anuwanza KUB 26.28 10' 174
116-118
GUR-Šarruma (A) s. of Halpaziti, g. of Zuwanni copyist under Ziti (B) KUB 51.12 rev. 7'; KUB
12.15 l.e. 1?
trainee and copyist under Ziti (B) KUB 10.96 1
GUR-Šarruma (B) s. of EN-UR.SAG (Bēl-qarrad) copyist KUB 37.210 rev. 3 118 n. 365
see Kuruntaili
d LAMMA-SUM
222

MAH.DIGIR MEŠ teacher KBo 15.37 VI 15 73f., 76 n. 227, 152, 213
teacher KBo 48.133 IV 4'
s. Ziti (A), d. of Karunu(wa) (A),
Hanikkuili (A) and Anu-šar-ilāni, f. of
Hanikkuili (B), Ziti (B) and Šaušgaziti
U.GIŠ.SAR (A) (also
GIŠ.SAR.U or GIŠ.U.SAR)
51, 112-114, 119-124
- KUB 12.34++; KBo 6.4
l.e. 1; VBoT 24 IV 38;
KBo 10.34 IV 16; KBo
12.105+++ IV 7'; KUB
29.4+ IV 45; KUB 35.41
IV 6'; KBo 14.86+++ IV
15'
70, 72, 119-124
U.GIŠ.SAR (B) s. of SAG member of a scribal team HFAC 53 obv. ? 6'
trainee of Hulanabi KUB 44.61 l.e. 4
SA 5-pala (Maruwapala?) copyist KUB 17.28 IV 59
70, 72, 119-124
SAG f. of NU.GIŠ.SAR (B) - KUB 44.61 l.e. 4; HFAC
53 obv. ? 7']
ZA.HUM-ZA (Halwaziti?) s. of Iuni, g. of Tehup-ŠEŠ copyist under Ziti (B) KUB 55.59 l.e. 1 117, 119
Fragmentary names
Šan[…] copyist KUB 15.72 rev. 16'
[ … ]ni copyist under Angulli KBo 57.224 176, 183
Nis 322-326; SBo II 68 155-160 and passim
[Penti?]-Šarruma chief scribe on wood KUB 26.32 I 2 (not
colophon)
[...-Šarr]uma trainee of Halwaziti KUB 57.110
[...]zi-Tešup man of Nuhašša? ? KBo 10.7 IV; KUB 8.29
IV 1
Lost names with titles
[ … ] DUB.SAR TUR copyist KUB 20.4
[ … ] GÁB.ZU.ZU copyist, trainee of Miramuwa KBo 12.41 rev.
223
[ … ] GÁB.ZU.ZU g. of Nenuwa? copyist, trainee [of Nenuwa?] KBo 39.41

Appendix: Hieroglyphic Luwian Titles and Professions
The following tables, sectioned according to sector, are supplied in order to facilitate the reader
with most of the HL titles Hittite officials bore on their seals and in other inscriptions during the
Empire Period, and in part also during Neo-Hittite times. They aim to be a reference tool not only
for the present study but also for others who wish to consult Hittite administration.
Palatial sector: dignitaries and palace officials
L. 363 - L.
289
L. 363 - G.
149/ G. 208
L. 130 + L.
363
L. 10 - L. 90
(L. 363 - L.
247=) L. 250 -
L. 45
L. 473/74
L. 254
L. 363 - L.
173
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
MAGNUS.AURIGA GAL (LÚ.MEŠ) IŠ / KUŠ7,
GAL(?) KARTAPPU
224
great
charioteer
Pecchioli Daddi 1977;
Beal 1992: 446–450;
Hawkins 2005a: 301
MAGNUS.AURIGA2 Hawkins 2005a: 301
AVIS3 + MAGNUS
GAL / UGULA
LÚ(.MEŠ) MUŠEN.DÙ(?)
CAPUT-ti man, prince
MAGNUS.DOMUS.
FILIUS
EUNUCHUS
EUNUCHUS2
MAGNUS.
HASTARIUS
GAL DUMU (MEŠ)
É.GAL
wasinasi-
/ sariyasi-
(Late)
LÚ SAG,
LÚ ša rēši
GAL MEŠEDI
great augur Hawkins 2005a: 302
chief of
palace
attandents
Hawkins 2005a: 304
eunuch Hawkins 2002
eunuch?,
chief?
commander of
the royal
guard
Hawkins 2005a: 303
Singer 1977: 186 n. 16

L. 363 - L.
196 - L. 390
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
L. 181 PANIS
L. 363 - L.
438
L. 363 - L.
336( - L. 383)
*525
L. 17
L. 17 - L. 45 =
L. 46
L. 17 - L. 46.2
L. 363 - L.
372
L. 387
L. 354
L. 363 - L.
354
L. 363 - L.
312
MAGNUS.HATTI.
DOMINUS
MAGNUS.PASTOR GAL NA.GAD
MAGNUS.PITHOS( +
RA/I)
PRINCEPS
REX LUGAL
REX.FILIUS DUMU LUGAL
225
great noble of
Hatti
Hawkins 2005a: 304
LÚ NINDA.DÙ.DÙ baker Hawkins 2005a: 305
overseer of
herdsman
Chief pithos
man (?)
Bossert 1960; Beal
1992; Hawkins 2005a:
305
Hawkins 2005a: 305f.
LÚ tuh(u)kanti- crown prince Hawkins 2001
king (usually
of a vassal
state)
descendant of
the king,
prince
Singer 1977: 184f.;
Singer 1997; Herbordt
2005: 106f.
REX.FILIA DUMU.SAL LUGAL princess Singer 1991
MAGNUS.
SACERDOS2
LÚ SANGA
great "ear",
priest
SERVUS servant, slave
URCEUS
LÚ SILÀ.ŠU.DU8.A cupbearer
MAGNUS.URCEUS GAL/UGULA
LÚ(MEŠ) SILÀ.ŠU.DU8.A
overseer of
cupbearer
Hawkins 2005a: 307f.
Güterbock 1977:15 no.
41; Hawkins 2005a:
309
Laroche 1983: 18f. and
fig. 9; Hawkins 2005a:
310
Hawkins 2005a: 310
MAGNUS.VIR LÚ GAL grandee, lord Hawkins 2005a: 310

L. 363 (- L.
370) - L. 160
Military posts
G. 149/208 -
L. 247 - L.
326
L. 289
G. 149/ G.
208
L. 283 - L.
289
L. 399
L. 399 - L.
390
L. 338
L. 283 - L.
390
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
MAGNUS (BONUS2)
VITIS
GAL.GEŠTIN great "wine"
226
Beal 1992: 342–357;
Dinçol 1998b;
Hawkins 2005a: 311
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
ASINUS2A.DOMUS.
AURIGA2
AURIGA
LÚ IŠ/KUŠ7,
KARTAPPU,
tarupašani-(?)
donkey house
groom
charioteer
SBo II:no. 171
Pecchioli Daddi 1977;
Beal 1992: 155–162;
Hawkins 2005a: 301
AURIGA2 Hawkins 2005a: 301
EXERCITUS.
AURIGA (?)
LÚ IŠ/KUŠ7 KARAŠ,
KARTAPPU KARAŠ
CRUX2 / CENTUM LÚ GIŠ ŠUKUR(?)
CRUX2 /
CENTUM.DOMINUS
CULTER
EXERCITUS.
DOMINUS
GAL LÚ
GIŠ ŠUKUR(?)
army groom (?)
spear guard?/
hundred?
commander of
spear
guard?/hunderd
?
LÚ GÍR(?) dagger-man
EN KARAŠ,
tuzziyaš išha-
army
commander
On the reading of L.
283 see Dinçol 2001:
92–94
Hawkins 2005a: 302;
Herbordt 2005: 101f.
Hawkins 2005a: 302f.;
Herbordt 2005: 101
Dinçol 2001

L. 173
L. 160
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
Municipal sector
Scribal sector
See under II.3
Administration
L. 101 - L.
247 - L. 326
L. 390
L. 212 - L.
390 - L. 210
L. 411 - L.
411 - L. 390
L. 438
L. 336( - L.
312)
L. 336 - L.
312 - L. 390
HASTARIUS LÚ MEŠEDI royal guard Hawkins 2005a: 304
VITIS LÚ GEŠTIN "wine"(-man)
227
Beal 1992; Dinçol
1998b; Hawkins
2005a: 311; Marizza
2007c
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
ASINUS2A.DOMUS.
SCRIBA
DOMINUS EN, išha-
FLUMEN.DOMINUSia
NI.NI-DOMINUS
(REGIO.DOMINUS?)
PASTOR
PITHOS(.VIR)
PITHOS.VIR.
DOMINUS
donkey house
scribe
lord, master,
overseer
river-lord
LÚ NA.GAD herdsmen
DUG harši-
/haršiyalla
pithos man
master of pithos
men (?)
Hawkins 2005a: 301
Hawkins 2005a: 304 –
305
Bossert 1960; Hawkins
2005a: 305
Hawkins 2005a: 305–
306

L. 228 - L.
390
L. 247 - L.
327
L. 225 - L.
390
L. 23 - L. 390
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
Religious sector
* 524 - L. 391
L. 360 - L.
247
L. 360 - L.
247 - L. 390
L. 413 - L.
175 - L. 391
L. 334 - L. 90
- L. 278
REGIO.DOMINUS EN.KUR, utniyašha-
(DOMUS.)SIGILLUM LÚ É NA4.KIŠIB
URBS.DOMINUS
LIS.DOMINUS
EN URU LIM ,
HAZAU
GAL/UGULA
LÚ(MEŠ) MUBARRĪ
228
overseer / lord
of the land
(man of) the
seal(-house)
mayor (of
Hattusa?)
lord of
declarations,
litigations
Mora 2004a
Hawkins 2005a: 309
Hawkins 2005a: 309f.
Singer 1999; Hawkins
2005a: 299f.
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
CORNU+CAPUT-mi
DEUS.DOMUS
(DEUS.)DOMUS.
DOMINUS
hi-la-mi
pa-ti-li
(LÚ) É.DINGIR LIM ,
LÚ karim(ma)nala-
LÚ.MEŠ EN
É.DINGIR MEŠ
prophet, kind of
priest
temple-man Herbordt 2005: 303
overseer of
temple
LÚ hilammi- temple servant Hawkins 2005a: 304
LÚ patili- "patili" priest Hawkins 2005a: 305

L. 355
L. 372
L. 312 - L.
199
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
Unspecified / Unidentified
L. 82(?)
L. 84 - L. 390
L. 363 - L.
370 + L.
383(?) - ?
L. 66 - L. 88 +
L. 383
L. 191 + L.
383 - L. 390
L. 100 - L. 13
- L. 41 - L.
327
L. 363 - L.
312 - L. 270(=
L. 70)
SACERDOS priest
SACERDOS2
VIR.TONITRUS LÚ d U
LÚ SANGA / LÚ ḪAL
229
priest, diviner,
seer
man of the
Storm-god
SBo II 36
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
CRUS(?)
CRUS2 DOMINUS
MAGNUS.SU +
RA/I(?)-[X]
pi-tu+ra/i
SOL + RA/I
DOMINUS
LÚ pidduri-
ta-pari-tà-sa5 //-tà-ra/i LÚ tapri, LÚ tapritašši-
MAGNUS.VIR.SUPE
R
LÚ MEŠ GAL.GAL (?)
grand intendant
(?), high
dignitary (?)
lord of Arinna
(?)
"chair-man /
woman" (?), a
cultic official
upper
grandee(?)
Hawkins 2005a: 302
Herbordt 2005: 184
Hawkins 2005a: 305
Hawkins 2005a: 309
Hawkins 2005a: 309
Hawkins 2005a: 310

L. 135.2
L. 363 - L.
135.2
L. 292(?)
L. 363 - L.
398
L. 402
L. 414 - L.
390( + L. 391)
L. 414 - L.
391 - L. 390
L. 443
L. 468/69
L. 363 - L.
468/69
HL Title Rendering Cuneiform Trans. Ref.
L. 135.2
MAGNUS.L. 135.2
HALA
MAGNUS.L. 398
L. 414.DOMINUS( +
MI)
L. 414.MI.DOMINUS
L. 468/69
LÚ IGI.MUŠEN /
LÚ A.ZU (?)
GAL/UGULA
LÚ IGI.MUŠEN (?)
EN NA 4hekur (?)
230
Auspex /
physician (?)
great auspex
overseer of
"eternal peak"
(?)
LÚ ŠÀ.TAM / LÚ MU (?) chamberlin /
cook (?)
MAGNUS.L. 468/69 GAL/UGULA
LÚ ŠÀ.TAM / LÚ MU (?)
chief
chamberlin /
cook (?)
Hawkins 2005a: 311f.
Hawkins 2005a: 312
Dinçol, B. 2001: 101;
Hawkins 2005a: 312
Hawkins 2005a: 312

Alaura, S
Bibliography
1998 “Die Identifizierung der im "Gebäude E" von Büyükkale-Boğazköy gefundenen
Tontafelfragmente aus der Grabung von 1933”. AoF 25: 193–214.
1999a “Review of Hout, Th. van den 1998”. OLZ 94 (4-5): 484–494.
1999b “Due testi oracolari sulla "malattia degli occhi" di Hattušili III”. Pp. 7–28 in S. de Martino &
F. Imparati, eds. Studi e testi II, (Eothen 10). Firenze.
2001 “Archive und Bibliotheken in Hattuša”. ICH 4: 12–26.
d'Alfonso, L.
2000 “Syro-Hittite Administration at Emar: New Considerations on the Basis of a Prosopographic
Study”. AoF 27: 269–295.
2005 Le procedure giudiziarie ittite in Siria (XIII sec. a.C.), (StMed 17). Pavia.
2007 “The Treaty between Talmi-Teššub King of Karkemiš and Šuppilulii̭ ma Great King of
Alp, S.
Ḫatti”. Fs Košak: 203–220.
1991 Hethitische Briefe aus Maşat-Höyük. Ankara.
Archi, A.
1971 “The Propaganda of Hattušiliš III”. SMEA 14: 185–215.
1973 “L'organizzazione amministrativa ittita e il regime delle offerte cultuali”. OA 12/3: 209–226.
1984 “Anatolia in the Second Millennium”. Pp. 195–206 in A. Archi, ed. Circulation of Goods in
on-Palatial Context in the Ancient ear East. Proceedings of the International Conference
Organized by the Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, (Incunabula Graeca 82).
Rome.
2001 “Text Forms and Levels of Comparison. The Rituals of Emar and the Syrian Tradition”. Fs
Haas: 19–28.
2006 “Hurrian Gods and the Festivals of the Hattian-Hittite Layer”. Fs de Roos: 147–163.
Arnaud, D.
1986 Emar VI: texts sumeriens et accadiens (Vol. 3). Paris.
1991 Textes syriens de l'age du Bronze recent. Sabadell.
1996 “Études sur Alalah et Ougarit à l'age du Bronze récent”. SMEA 37: 47–65.
Baker, H. D.
2000 The Prosopography of the eo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 2, Part I: H-K. Helsinki.
2001 The Prosopography of the eo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 2, Part II: L-. Helsinki.
231

2002 The Prosopography of the eo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 3, Part I: P-Ṣ. Helsinki.
Bawanypeck, D.
2005 Die Rituale der Auguren, (THeth 25). Heidelberg.
2006 “Die hethitischen Königssiegel vom Westbau des Nişantepe in Boğazköy-Hattuša”. BYZAS
Beal, R. H.
4: 109–123.
1988 “The GlŠ TUKUL-lnstitution in Second Millennium Hatti”. AoF 15: 269–305.
1992 The Organization of the Hittite Military, (THeth 20). Heidelberg.
2002 “Gleanings from Hittite Oracle Questions on Religion, Society, Psychology and Decision
Beckman, G. M.
Making”. Fs Popko: 11–37.
1982 “The Anatolian Myth of Illuyanka”. JAES 14: 11–25.
1983a “A Contribution to the Hittite Onomastic Studies”. JAOS 103/3: 623–627.
1983b “Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Hattuša”. JCS 35/1-2: 97–114.
1983c Hittite Birth Rituals. 2 nd Revised Edition, (StBoT 29). Wiesbaden.
1987-90 “Medizin. B. Bei den Hethitern”. RlA 7: 629–631.
1989/90 “Review of Otten 1988”. WdO 20/21: 289–294.
1992a “Hittite Administration in Syria in the Light of the Texts from Hattuša, Ugarit and Emar”.
Pp. 41–49 in M. W. Chavalas & J. L. Hayes, eds. ew Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria
(Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25). Malibu.
1992b “Review of Hagenbuchner 1989”. WdO 23: 174–179.
1995 “Hittite Provincial Administration in Anatolia and Syria: the View from Maşat and Emar“.
ICH 2: 19–37.
1997 “Review of Otten 1993”. JAOS 117: 214–215.
1998 “Anatolian Stamp Seals from a California Collection”. SMEA 40: 83–86.
1999 Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2 nd Edition. Atlanta.
Beckman, G. M. & Hoffner, H. A.
1985 “Hittite Fragments in American Collections”. JCS 37/1: 1–60.
Bemporad, A.
2002 “Per una riattribuzione di KBo 4.14 a Šuppiluliuma II”. Gs Imparati: 71–86.
Beran, Th.
1957 “Siegel und Siegelabdrücke”. Boğazköy III: 42–58.
Beyer, D.
2001 Emar IV. Les sceaux, (OBO Series archaeologica 20). Fribourg.
232

Bilgi, Ö
1989 “A Unique Spearhead from Sadberk Hanım Museum“. Fs T. Özgüç: 29–31.
Bittel, K.
1976 Die Hethiter. Die Kunst Anatoliens vom Ende des 3. bis zum Anfang des 1. Jahrtausends vor
Boehmer, R. M.
Christus. München.
1972 Die Kleinfunde von Boğazköy. Aus den Grabungskampagnen 1931-1939 und 1952-1969,
Bolatti-Guzzo, N.
(BoHa VII). Berlin.
2004 “La glittica hittita e il geroglifico anatolico“. Pp. 215–305 in M. Marazzi, ed., Centro
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M.
mediterraneo preclassico. Studi e ricerche I. Napoli.
1997 The eo-Babylonian Ebbabar Temple at Sippar: its Administration and its Prosopography.
Borger, R.
Leiden.
1970 “Bemerkungen zu den akkadischen Kolophonen“. WdO 5: 165–171.
Bossert, H. Th.
1954a “Bemerkungen zu einer hieroglyphen Hethitischen Inschrift aus Aleppo”. Syria 31: 225–253.
1954b “Das hethitische Felsrelief bei Hanyeri (Gezbeli)”. Or 23: 129–147.
1958 “Sie schrieben auf Holz”. Fs Sundwall: 67–79.
Bryce, T. R.
1992 “The Role of Telepinu the, the Priest, in the Hittite Kingdom”. Hethitica 11: 5–18.
2002 Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford.
2005 The Kingdom of the Hittites (New Edition). Oxford.
Bulst, N.
1986 “Zum Gegenstand und zur Methode von Prosopographie”. Pp. 1–16 in N. Bulst & J.-P.
Burde, C.
Genet, eds. Medieval Lives and the Historian. Studies in Medieval Prosopography
(Proceedings of the First International Interdisciplinary Conference on Medieval
Prosopography, University of Bielefeld, 3-5 December, 1982). Kalamazoo, Michigan.
1974 Hethitische medizinische Texte, (StBoT 19). Wiesbaden.
Cancik-Kirschbaum, E.
1996 Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad. Berlin.
233

Carter, Ch.
1962 Hittite Cult Inventories, (Diss., University of Chicago). Chicago.
Christiansen, B.
2006 Die Ritualtradition der Ambazzi. Eine philologische Bearbeitung und entstehungs-
Cohen, Y.
geschichtliche Analyse der hethitischen Ritualtexte CTH 391, CTH 429 und CTH 463,
(StBoT 48). Wiesbaden.
2004 “Kidin-Gula–The Foreign Teacher at the Emar Scribal school”. RA 98: 81–100.
2005 “A Family Plot: The Zu-Bala Family of Diviners and Hittite Administration in the Land of
Aštata”. ICH 5: 213–224.
Forthcoming The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age. To appear in Harvard
Collins, B. J.
Semitic Series.
1997 “Establishing a New Temple for the Goddess of the Night (1.70)”. CoS 1: 173–177.
Corti, C.
2007 “The so-called "Theogony" or "Kingship in Heaven". The name of the Song”. ICH 6: 109–
Dardano, P.
121.
2002 “'La main est coupable', 'le sang devient abondant': sur quelques expressions avec des noms
de parties et d'éléments du corps humain dans la littérature juridico-politique de l'Ancien et
du Moyen Royaume hittite”. Or 71: 333–392.
2006 Die hethitischen Tontafelkataloge aus Hattuša (CTH 276-282), (StBoT 47). Wiesbaden.
Dinçol, A. M.
1983 “Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen zu Adana, Hatay und Istanbul”. JKF 9: 213–
249.
1989a “Ein hurro-hethitisches Festritual: (h)išuwaš”. Belleten 53: 1–50.
1989b “The Hieroglyphic Signs on the Spearhead”. Fs T. Özgüç: 31.
1993 “Interessante Beispiele von Schreibersiegeln aus Boğazköy”. Fs . Özgüç: 127–130.
1995 “Ein Überblick auf die achte Tafel des Ḫišuwa-Festes und das ḫilištarni-Opfer”. ICH 2:
117–122.
1998 “Die Entdeckung des Felsmonuments in Hatip und ihre Auswirkungen über die historischen
und geographischen Fragen des Hethiterreichs”. TÜBA-AR 1: 27–34.
2001 “Ein interessanter Siegelabdruck aus Boğazköy und die damit verknüpften historischen
Fragen”. ICH 4: 89–97.
2007 “Fünf neue Siegel und Siegelabdrücke aus Boghazköy und Überlegungen über die
Bedeutung des Hieroglyphenzeichens L. 402“. ICH 6: 227–233.
234

Dinçol, B.
1998a “Tönerne Siegelkopien aus Boğazköy“. ICH 3: 167–175.
1998b “Der Titel GAL GEŠTIN auf den hethitischen Hieroglyphensiegeln”. AoF 25: 163–167.
2001 “Bemerkungen über die hethitischen Siegelhinaber mit mehreren Titeln”. ICH 4: 98–105.
Dinçol, A. M. & Dinçol, B.
1987 “Unpublished Hittite Hieroglyphic Seals in the Regional Museum of Adana”. Hethitica 8:
81–93.
1988 “Hieroglyphische Siegel und Siegel abdrücke aus Eskiyapar”. Fs Otten 2 : 87–98.
2002 “Die 'Anzeigen' der öffentlichen Schreiber in Hattuscha”. Gs Imparati: 207–215.
Doǧan-Alparslan, M.
2007 "Drei Schreiber, Zwei Könige". ICH 6: 247–257.
Durand, J.-M.
1988 Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1. Paris.
Durham, J. W.
1976 Studies in Boğazköy Akkadian (Diss., Harvard University). Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Easton, D. F.
1981 “Hittite Land Donations and Tabarna Seals”. JCS 33: 3–43.
Edel, E.
1994 Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer
Ehringhaus, H.
Sprache, (Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-westfalischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 77).
Opladen.
2005 Götter, Herrscher, Inschriften. Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen Großreichszeit in der Türkei.
Forlanini, M.
Mainz am Rhein.
1977 “L'Anatolia nordoccidentale nell'impero eteo”. SMEA 18: 197–225.
Frantz-Szabó, G.
2001 “ m NU.GIŠ.KIRI6”. RlA 9: 609.
Freu, J.
2001 “De l'indépendance à l'annexion: le Kizzuwatna et le Hatti aux XVIe et XVe siècles avant
notre ère”. Pp. 13–36 in E. Jean, A. M. Dinçol & S. Durugönül, eds. La Cilicie: espaces et
pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C. - 4e siècle ap. J.-C.), Actes de la table ronde
internationale d’Istanbul, 2-5 novembre 1999. Istanbul – Paris.
2004 “Le grand roi Tuthalia, fils de Kantuzzili”. Fs Lebrun I: 271–304.
235

2006 Histoire politique du royaume d'Ugarit. Paris.
Freydank, H. & Saporetti, C.
1979 uove Attestazioni dell'onomastica medio-assira. Rome.
Gamkrelidze, T. V.
1961 “The Akkado-Hittite Syllabary and the Problem of the Origin of the Hittite Script”. ArOr 29:
Gelb, I. J.
406–418.
1939 Hittite Hieroglyphic Monuments. Chicago.
Gesche, P.
2000 Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr., (AOAT 275). Münster.
Gessel, A. H. L. van
1998 Onomasticon of the Hittite Pantheon I-II (HdO 33). Leiden – New York – Köln.
Giorgieri, M.
1995 I testi ittiti di giuramento, (Diss., Università di Firenze). Firenze.
Glocker, J.
1997 Das Ritual für den Wettergott von Kuliwišna: Textzeugnisse eines lokalen Kultfestes in
Goldman, H. et al.
Anatolien der Hethiterzeit, (Eothen 6). Firenze.
1956 Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus Volume II. From the eolithic through the Bronze Age.
Gonnet, H.
Princeton, New-Jersey.
1991 “Les légendes des empreintes hiéroglyphiques anatoliennes”. Pp. 198–214 in Arnaud 1991.
Gordin, Sh. Y.
Barcelona.
Forthcoming “Remarks on the Scribes in the Lower City of Hattuša in the Hittite Empire Period”. To
Götze, A.
appear in a forthcoming Festschrift.
1925 Hattušiliš. Der Bericht über seine Thornbesteigung nebst den Paralleltexten, (MVAeG
29.3). Leipzig
1928/29 “Die historische Einleitung des Aleppo-Vertrages (KBo I, 6)”. MAOG 4: 61–66.
1933 Die Annalen des Muršiliš, (MVAeG 38). Leipzig
1952 “Hittite Courtiers and Their Titles”. RHA 12: 1–14.
Groddek, D.
1994 “Fragmenta Hethitica dispersa I”. AoF 21: 328–338.
236

1997 “Die Flußlisten des Hišuwa-Festes. Eine Zwischenbilanz”. SMEA 39: 177–178.
2002a Hethitische Texte in Traskription. KBo 30, (DBH 2). Dresden.
2002b Hethitische Texte in Traskription. KUB 55, (DBH 4). Dresden.
2002c “Review of KBo 42”. BiOr 59(5/6): 586–589.
2004a Hethitische Texte in Traskription. KBo 39, (DBH 11). Dresden.
2004b Hethitische Texte in Traskription. KUB 20, (DBH 13). Dresden.
2004c “Fragmenta Hethitica dispersa XIII”. AoF 31: 73–86.
2004d Hethitische Texte in Traskription. KUB 51, (DBH 15). Dresden.
2006 Hethitische Texte in Transkription. KUB 60, (DBH 20). Dresden.
Groddek, D. & Kloekhorst, A.
2006 Hethitische Texte in Traskription. KBo 35, (DBH 19). Dresden.
Groddek, D. et al.
2002 Hethitische Texte in Traskription. VS F 12, (DBH 4). Dresden.
Gröndahl, F.
1967 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Rome.
Gurney, O. R.
1983 “The Hittite title Tuhkanti-”. AnSt 33: 97–101.
1993 “The Treaty with Ulmi-Tešub”. AnSt 43: 13–28.
2002 “The Authorship of the Tawagalawas Letter”. Fs Popko: 133–141.
2003 “The Upper Land, mātum elītum”. Fs Hoffner: 119–126.
Güterbock, H. G.
1933 “D. Die Texte”. MDOG 72:37–53.
1944 “Ein hethitischer Brief aus Maşat bei Zile”. ADTCFD 2: 399–405.
1946 Kumarbi. Mythen vom churritischen Kronos aus den hethitischen Fragmenten
zusammengestellt, übersetzt und erklärt, (Istanbuler Schriften 16). Zürich – New York.
1954 “The Hurrian Element in the Hittite Empire”. CHM 2: 383–394.
1956 “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son, Mursili II”. JCS 10: 41–130.
1957a “Review of HW”. Oriens 10: 350–362.
1957b “Narration in Anatolian, Syrian and Assyrian Art“. AJA 61: 62–71.
1961 “The North-Central Area of Hittite Anatolia”. JES 20(2): 85–97.
1962 “Hittite Medicine”. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 36.2: 109–113.
1964 “A View of Hittite Literature“. JAOS 84: 107–115.
1971 “Izi Boghazköy”. MSL 13: 132–147.
1973 “Hittite Hieroglyphic Seal Impressions from Korucutepe”. JES 32: 135–147.
1974 “The Hittite Palace“. Pp. 305–314 in P. Garelli, ed. Le palais et la royauté. Archéologie et
civilization, (CRRAI 19). Paris.
237

1975a “Hieroglyphensiegel aus dem Templebezirk”. Boğazköy V: 47–75.
1975b “The Hittite Temple According to Written Sources”. Pp. 125–132 in Le temple et le culte
(CRRAI 20). Leiden.
1977 “The Hittite Seals in the Walters Art Gallery”. Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 36: 7–76.
1979 “Some Stray Boǧazköy Tablets”. Fs Laroche: 137–144.
1980 “Seals and Sealing in Hittite Lands”. Pp. 51–63 in K. DeVries, ed. From Athens to Gordion :
the papers of a Memorial symposium for Rodney S. young. Philadelphia.
1991/92 “Bemerkungen über die im Gebäude A auf Büyükkale gefundenen Tontafeln. Kurt Bittel
Haas, V.
zum Gedächtnis”. AfO 38/39: 132–137.
1994 Geschichte der hethitischen Religion, (HdO 15). Leiden.
2003 Materia Magica et Medica Hethitica. Ein Beitrag zur Heilkunde im Alten Orient. Berlin -
New York.
2006 Die hethitische Literatur: Texte, Stilistik, Motive. Berlin & New-York.
2007a “Beispiele für Intertextualität im hethitischen rituellen Schrifttum”. Fs Košak: 341–351.
2007b “Rhetorische figuren in Zentralanatolischen mythen“. Fs Dinçol: 309–313.
Haas, V. & Wegner, I.
1996 “Review of KBo 39”. OLZ 91: 573–575.
2001 “Review of KBo 31”. OLZ 96: 700–703.
Hagenbuchner-Dresel, A.
1989 Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter, (THeth 16). Heidelberg
1992 “War der LÚ TUHKATI Neriqqaili ein Sohn Hattušilis III?”. SMEA 29: 111–126.
2006 “Prinz, Prinzessin. B. Bei den Hethitern”. RlA 11: 2–4.
2007 “Verschlußsysteme bei den Hethitern”. Fs Košak: 353–365.
Hallo, W. W.
1972 “The House of Ur-meme”. JES 31: 87–95.
Hawkins, J. D.
1979 “The Hieroglyphic Luwian Stele of Meharde-Sheizar“. Fs Laroche: 145–156.
1988 “Kuzi-Tešub and the "Great Kings" of Karkamiš”. AnSt 38: 99–108.
1993 “A Bowl Epigraph of the Ofiicial Taprammi”. Fs . Özgüç: 715–717.
1995 The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (SÜDBURG), (StBoTB
3). Wiesbaden.
1997 “A Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription on a Silver Bowl in the Museum of the Anatolian
Civilizations, Ankara”. AMM: 7–24.
1998 “The Land of Išuwa: the Hieroglyphic Evidence”. ICH 3: 281–295.
2001 “Urhi-Tešub, tuhkanti”. ICH 4: 167–179.
238

2002 “Eunuchs among the Hittites”. Pp. 217–233 in S. Parpola & R. M. Whiting, eds. Sex and
Gender in the Ancient ear East, (CRRAI 48). Helsinki.
2003 “Scripts and Texts”. Pp. 128–169 in H. C. Melchert, ed. The Luwians, (HdO I/68). Leiden -
Boston.
2005a “Commentaries on the Readings and on the Sign List”. Pp. 248–313, 426–436 in Herbordt
2005. Mainz am Rhein.
2005b “A Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription on a Silver Bowl”. Studia Troica 15: 193–204.
2005c “Puranda”. RlA 10: 115.
2006 “Tudhaliya the Hunter”. Fs de Roos: 49–76.
Hazenbos, J.
2003 The Organization of the Anatolian Local Cults during the Thirteenth Century B.C., (CM 21).
Leiden – Boston.
2007 “Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt. Betrachtungen zum hethitischen Orakelpersonal”. Pp. 95–
Hecker, K. H.
110 in J. Hazenbos, A. Zgoll & C. Wilcke, eds. Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten
Orient. Wiesbaden.
1992 “Zur Herkunft der hethitischen Keilschrift”. ICH 1: 53–63.
Heinhold-Krahmer, S.
1983 “Unterschungen zu Piyamaradu (Teil I)”. Or 52: 81–97.
1986 “Unterschungen zu Piyamaradu (Teil II)”. Or 55: 47–62.
1991/92 “Zur Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy und ihrem historischen Inhalt (Review of Otten 1988)”. AfO
38/39: 138–158.
2001 “Zur Diskussion um einen zweiten Namen Tutḫaliyas IV”. ICH 4: 180–198.
2002 “Zur Erwähnung Šaḫurunuwas im "Tawagalawa-Brief"”. Gs Imparati: 359–375.
Helck, W.
1971 Die Beziehungen Agyptens zur Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend V. Chr. Wiesbaden.
Herbordt, S.
1995 “Eine Januskopf-Hieroglyphe aus Boğazköy”. Fs Boehmer: 257–258.
2002 “Hittite Seals and Sealings from the Nişantepe Archivr, Boğazköy: A Prosopographical
Study”. Gs Güterbock: 53–60.
2005 Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der Hethitischen grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem
işantepe-Archiv in Hattusa, mit Kommentaren zu den Siegelinschriften und Hieroglyphen
von J. David Hawkins, (BoHa 19). Mainz am Rhein.
2006 “Hittite Glyptic: A Reassessment in the Light of Recent Discoveries”. BYZAS 4: 95–108.
239

Herbordt, S., Bawanypeck D. and Hawkins, J. D.
Forthcoming Die Siegel der Großkönige und Großköniginnen auf Tonbullen aus dem işantepe-Archiv in
Hess, R. S.
Hattusa, (BoHa 23). Mainz am Rhein.
1993 Amarna Personal ames. Winona Lake, Indiana.
Hoffner, H.A.
1980 “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: The Hittites”. Or 49: 283–332.
1982 “The Milawata Letter Augmented and Reinterpreted“. AfO 19: 130–137.
1992 “Syrian Cultural Influence in Hatti". Pp 89–106 in M. W. Chavalas & J. L. Hayes, eds. ew
Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria, (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25). Malibu.
1997 The Laws of the Hittites. A Critical Edition. Leiden – New York – Köln.
1998 Hittite Myths. Second Edition. Atlanta, Georgia.
2000 “Hittite Laws”. CoS 2: 106–119.
2003a “1. Records of Testimony given in the Trials of Suspected Thieves and Embezzlers of Royal
Property”. CoS 3: 57–60.
2003b “2. Votive Recordes”. CoS 3: 66–67.
2003c “3. Archive Shelf Lists (Hittite)”. CoS 3: 67–69.
Hout, Th. van den
1989 “A Chronology of the Tarhuntassa-Treaties”. JCS 41: 100–114.
1990 “Review of KUB 57”. BiOr 47: 423–432.
1994 “Träume einer hethitischen Königin: KUB LX 97+?XXXI 71”. AoF 21 : 305–327.
1995 Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung, (StBoT 38). Wiesbaden.
1998 The Purity of Kingship. An Edition of CTH 569 and Related Hittite Oracle Inquiries of
Tuthaliya IV, (DMOA 25). Leiden.
1998-2001 “Nerikkaili”. RlA 9: 231–232.
2002a “Another View of Hittite Literature”. Gs Imparati: 857-878.
2002b “Tombs and memorials: The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered”. Gs
Güterbock: 73–91.
2003a “Omina (Omens). B. Bei den Hethitern”. RlA 10: 88–90.
2003b “Orakel (Oracle). B. Bei den Hethitern”. RlA 10: 118–124.
2003c “Maeonien und Maddunnašša: zur Frühgeschichte des Lydische”. Pp. 301–310 In M.
Giorgieri et al., eds. Licia e Lidia prima dell'ellenizzazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale
Roma, 11-12 ottobre 1999. Roma.
2005 “On the Nature of the Tablet Collections at Ḫattuša”. SMEA 47: 277–289.
2006a “Institutions, Vernaculars, Publics: The Case of Second Millennium Anatolia”. Pp. 217–256
in S. L. Sanders, ed. Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. Chicago, Illinois.
240

2006b “Administration in the Reign of Tuthaliya IV and the Later Years of the Hittite Empire”. Fs
de Roos: 77–106.
Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J.
1973a “Review of H”. BiOr 30 (3/4): 252–257.
1973b “Brief Comments on the Hittite Cult Calendar: The Main Recension of the Outline of
nuntarriyašhaš Festival, especially Days 8-12 and 15’-22’”. Fs Otten: 167–194.
1974 “The Early and Late Phases of Urhi-Tešub's Career”. Fs Güterbock: 123–150.
1983 “Brief Comments on the Hittite Cult Calendar: the Outline of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM Festival”.
Fs Güterbock 2 : 95–110.
1992 “The Bronze Tablet of Tudhaliyas IV and its Geographical and Historical Relations”. ZA 82:
233–270.
1994 “Urhi-Tessub revisited”. BiOr 51 (3/4): 233–259.
1998 “The Scribes of the Maşat Letters and the GAL DUB.SAR(.MEŠ) of the Hittite Capital
during the Final Phase of the Early Empire Period”. Fs Römer: 157–178.
Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J. & Josephson, F.
1967 “Muwatallis' Prayer to the Storm-God of Kummanni (KBo XI 1)”. RHA 25: 101–140.
Huehnergard, J.
1989 The Akkadian of Ugarit, (Harvard Semitic Studies 34). Atlanta, Georgia.
Hunger, H.
1968 Babylonische und assyriche Kolophone, (AOAT 2). Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Hutter, M.
2003 “Aspects of Luwian Religion”. Pp. 211–280 in H. C. Melchert, ed. The Luwians, (HdO I/68).
Imparati, F.
Leiden Boston.
1974 “Una concessione di terre da parte di Tudhaliya IV”. RHA 32 (whole issue).
1977 “Le istituzioni cultuali dei Na 4hékur e il potere centrale itita“. SMEA 18: 19–63.
1985 “Auguri e scribi nella società ittita”. Pp. 255–269 in S. F. Bondi et al., eds. Studi in onore de
Edda Bresciani. Pisa.
1987 “La politique exterieure des Hittites: tendances et problemes”. Hethitica 8: 187–207.
1988 “Armaziti: attività di un personaggio nel tardo impero ittita”. Fs Carratelli: 79–94.
1992 “Significato politico della successione dei testimoni nel trattato di Tuthaliya IV con
Kurunta”. CR. Instituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Antolici, Seminari anno 1991.
Rome.
1999 “Die Organisation des hethitischen Staats” Pp. 320–387 in Klengel 1999.
2003 “Significato politico dell’investitura sacerdotale nel regno di Hatti e in alcuni paesi vicino
241

orientali ad esso soggetti”. Fs Fronzaroli: 230-242.
Imparati, F. and Pecchioli Daddi, F.
1991 “La relazioni politiche fra Hatti e Tarhuntassa all'apos epoca di Hattusili III e Tudhaliya IV”.
Izre'el, Sh.
Pp. 23–68 in F. Imparati, ed. Quattro studi ittiti, (Eothen 4). Firenze.
1991 Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study. With an Appendix on the History of Amurru by Itamar
Singer. Volume I (Harvard Semitic Studies, 40); Volume II (Harvard Semitic Studies, 41).
Atlanta, Georgia.
1997 The Amarna Scholarly Tablets, (CM 9). Groningen.
2005 Canaano-Akkadian, (Languages of the World/Materials 82). München.
Jie, J.
1994 A complete retrograde glossary of the Hittite language, (PIHANSt 71). Leiden.
Kammenhuber, A.
1976 Orakelpraxis, Träume und Vorzeichenschau bei den Hethitern, (THeth 7). Heidelberg.
Karasu, C.
1992 “(h)išuwa Bayramı kolofonları üzerine bazı düşünceler”. Fs Alp: 335–339.
1995 “Some Considerations on Hittite Scribes”. ArAnat 1: 117–121.
1996 “Some Remarks on Archive-Library Systems of Hattuša-Boğazköy”. ArAnat 2: 39–59.
2001 “Observations on the Similarities and Differences between the Hittite and Babylonian-
Kempinski, A. & Košak, S.
Assyrian Colophons”. ICH 4: 248–254.
1977 “Hittites Metal 'Inventories' and their Economic Implications”. Tel Aviv 4: 87–93.
Kennedy, D. A.
1959 “Sceaux hittites conservés à Paris”. RHA 17: 147–172.
Klengel, H.
1964 “Ein neues Fragment zur historischen Einleitung des Talmišarruma-Vertrages”. ZA 56: 213–
217.
1989 “Nerikkaili. Zum Problem der Homonymie im hethitischen Anatolien”. AoF 16: 185–188.
1991 “Tuthalija IV. Von Hatti: Prolegomena zu einer Biographie”. AoF 18: 224–238.
1992 Syria 3000 to 300 B.C. A Handbook of Political History. Berlin.
1996 “Handwerker im hethitischen Anatolien”. AoF 23: 265–277.
1999 Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, (HdO 34). Leiden – Boston – Köln.
Klinger, J.
1995 “Das Corpus der Maşat-Briefe und seine Beziehungen zu den Texten aus Hattuša”. ZA 85:
242

74–108.
1996 Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion des hattischen Kultschicht, (StBoT 37). Wiesbaden.
1998 “"Wer lehrte die Hethiter das Schreiben?" Zur Paläographie früher Texte in akkadischer
Sprache aus Boğazköy: Skizze einiger Überlegungen und vorläufiger Ergebnisse”. ICH 3:
365–375.
2001 “Die hurritische Tradition in Hattuša und das Corpus hurritischer Texte”. Fs Haas: 197–208.
2002 “Zum "Priestertum" im hethitischen Anatolien”. Hethitica 15: 93–111.
2006 “Der Beitrag der Textfunde zur Archäologiegeschichte der hethitischen Hauptstadt”. BYZAS
Knoppers, G. N.
4: 5–17.
1996 “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: a Parallel“. JAOS 116/4:
Kohlmeyer, K.
670–697.
1983 “Felsbilder der hethitischen Grossreichszeit”. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15: 7–53
Korošec, V.
1943 “Podelitev hetitske pokrajine Dattašše Ulmi-Tešupu (= KBo IV, 10). Pravna presoja z
Košak, S.
besedilom in prevodom”. Razpravi pravenga razreda 2: 53–103.
1982 Hittite Inventory Texts, (Theth 10). Heidelberg.
1986 “Review of KUB 55”. ZA 76: 130–133.
1988 “Review of KUB 56”. ZA 78: 145–149.
1995 “The Palace Library "Building A" on Büyükkale”. Fs Houwink ten Cate: 173–179.
Kronasser, H.
1961 “Fünf hethitische Rituale”. Sprache 7: 140–167.
Labat, R.
1932 L'akkadienne de Boghaz-köi. Bordeux.
Lackenbacher, S.
1989 “Trois lettres d'Ugarit”. Fs Sjöberg: 317–320.
Lackenbacher, S. & Malbran-Labat, F.
2005a “Penti-Šarruma (suite)”. ABU 2005/4: 95–97.
2005b “Ugarit et les Hittites dans les archives de la 'Maison d'Urtenu'”. SMEA 47: 227–240.
Laroche, E.
1947/48 “Un point d'histoire: Ulmi-Teššub”. RHA 8: 40–48.
1949 “La Bibliothèque de Hattuša”. ArOr 17: 7–23.
243

1956a “Documents hiéroglyphiques hittites provenant du palais d'Ugarit”. Ugar. III: 97–160.
1956b “L'inscription hittite d'Alep”. Syria 33: 131–141.
1956c “Noms de dignitaires“. RHA 14: 26–32.
1958 “Études sur les hiéroglyphes hittites“. Syria 35: 252–283.
1960 Les hiéroglyphes hittites 1 L'écriture. Paris.
1966 see H.
1978/79 Glossaire de la langue hourrite, 1: A-L; 2: M-Z, Index, (RHA 34-35). Paris.
1981 see H suppl.
1983 “Les hiéroglyphes hittites de Meskene-Emar: un emprunt d'écriture”. CRAIBL.
Lebrun, R.
1980 Hymnes et prières hittites (Homo Religiosus 4), Louvain-la-Neuve.
1983 “Studia ad civitates Samuha et Lawazantiya pertinentia II. Voeux de la Reine à Ištar de
Lawazantiya”. Hethitica 5: 51–62.
1994 “Questions oraculaires concemant le nouveau déroulement de fêtes secondaires de printemps
et d'autornne = CTH 568”. Hethitica 12: 41–77.
2001 “Propos concernant Urikina, Ussa et Uda”. ICH 4: 326–332.
Leichty, E.
1964 “The Colophon“. Fs Oppenhiem: 147–154.
Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R.
1996 A Greek-English Lexicon (Ninth Edition). Oxford.
Malbran-Labat, F.
1995 “L'épigraphie akkadienne. Rétrospective et prespectives”. Pp. 33–40 in M. Yon et al., eds. Le
pays d'Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C. Paris.
2004 “Les hittites et Ougarit”. Fs Lebrun II: 69–104.
Marazzi, M.
2000 “Sigilli e tavolette di legno: le fonti letterarie e le testimonianze sfragistiche nell'Anatolia
hittita”. Pp 79–102 in M. Perna, ed. Administrative Documents in the Aegean and their ear
Eastern Counterparts (Proceedings of the International Colloquium aples, February 29 -
March 2, 1996). Torino.
2007 “Sigilli, sigillature e tavolette di legno: alcune considerazioni alla luce di nuovi dati”. Fs
Marizza, M.
Dinçol: 465–474.
2007a Dignitari ittiti del tempo di Tuthaliya I/II, Arnuwanda I, Tuthaliya III (Diss., Università di
Trieste). Trieste.
2007b Dignitari ittiti del tempo di Tuthaliya I/II, Arnuwanda I, Tuthaliya III (Eothen 15), Firenze.
244

2007c “The Office of GAL GEŠTIN in the Hittite Kingdom”. KASKAL 4: 153–180.
Martino, St. de
2005 “Hittite Letters from the Time of Tuthaliya I/II, Arnuwanda I and Tuthaliya III”. AoF 32/2:
291–321.
Martino, St. de & Otten, H.
1984 “Review of KUB 52”. ZA 74: 299–302.
Mascheroni, L. M.
1979 “Un'interpretazione dell'inventario KBo XVI 83 + XXIII 26 e i processi per malversazione
alla corte di Hattuša”. Fs Meriggi 2 : 353–371.
1983 “Apropos d'un groupe de colophons problématiques”. Hethitica 5: 95–109.
1984 “Scribi hurriti a Boğazköy: una verifica prosopografica”. SMEA 26: 151–173.
Masson, E.
1975 “Quelques sceaux hittites hiéroglyphiques”. Syria 52: 213–239.
1980 “Les inscriptions louvites hiéroglyphiques de Köylütolu et Beyköy”. Kadmos 19: 106–122.
Mauer, G.
1986 “Die Karriere des Schreibers Tattamaru, Sohn des Šaḫurunuwa”. Pp. 191–195 in K. R.
Veenhof, ed. Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, (CRRAI 30). Istanbul.
1988 “Zu einigen ideographischen Schreibungen in Hethitischen“. Fs Deller: 189–197.
McMahon, G.
1991 The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deities. (AS 25), Chicago.
Melchert, C.
1983 “Pudenda Hethitica”. JCS 35 (3-4): 137–145.
1998 “Hittite arku- "chant, intone" vs. arkuwā(i)- "make a plea"“. JCS 50: 45–51.
2001 Cuneiform Luvian Corpus. Electronic Publication in www.unc.edu/~melchert/
CLUVIAN.pdf
2005 “The Problem of Luvian Influence on Hittite”. Pp. 447–460 in G. Meiser & O. Hackstein,
Michalowski, P.
eds. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagungder Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft, 17-23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden.
1991 “Charisma and Control: On Continuity and Change in Early Mesopotamian Bureaucratic
Miller, J.
Systems”. Pp. 45-57 in M. Gibson & R. D. Biggs, eds. The Organization of Power: Aspects
of Bureaucracy in the Ancient near East (Second Edition). Chicago, Illinois.
2004 Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals, (StBoT
245

46). Wiesbaden.
2005 “Von Syrien durch Kizzuwatna nach Ḫatti: Die Rituale der Allaituraḫḫi und Giziya”. Pp.
129-144 in D. Prechel, ed. Motivation und Mechanismen des Kulturkontaktes in der späten
Bronzezeit, (Eothen 13). Firenze.
2007 “Mursili II's Dictate to Tuppi-Teššub's Syrian Antagonists”. KASKAL 4: 121–152.
Monte, G. F. del
1974 “Mašhuiluwa, König von Mira”. Or 43: 355–368.
1975 “I testimoni del trattato con Aleppo (KBo I 6)”. RSO 49: 1–10.
1978 “Utruna e la festa purulli-”. OA 17: 179–192.
1991/92 “Ulmitešub re di Tarhuntaša”. EVO 14/15: 123–148.
Monte, G. F. del & Tischler, J.
1978 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte, (RGTC 6). Wiesbaden.
Mora, C.
1987 La glittica anatolica del II millennio a.C.: Classificazione tipologica. Vol 1: I sigilli a
iscrizione geroglifica, (StMed 6). Pavia.
1988 “Halpaziti e Kukulana: indagine sui sigilli ittiti a doppia intestazione”. Fs Carratelli: 159–
167.
1998 “Osservazioni sull'uso del ''geroglifico anatolico'' in Siria nel II millennio a.C.”. Pp. 195–218
in M. Marazzi, ed. Il geroglifico anatolico (Atti del Colloquio e della tavola rotonda apoli-
Procida, 5-9 giugno 1995). Napoli.
2000 “Archivi periferici nell'Anatolia ittita: l'evidenza delle cretule”. Pp. 63–78 in M. Perna, ed.
Administrative Documents in the Aegean and their ear Eastern Counterparts, Proceedings
of the International Colloquium, aples, February 29-March 2, 1996. Torino.
2003 “On Some Clauses in the Kurunta Treaty and the Political Scenery at the End of the Hittite
Empire”. Fs Hoffner: 289–296.
2004a “'Overseers' and 'Lords' of the Land in the Hittite Administration”. Gs Forrer: 477–486.
2004b “Sigilli e sigillature di Karkemiš in età imperiale ittita I. I re, i dignitari, il (mio) Sole”. Or
73: 427–450.
2006 “Riscossione dei tributi e accumulo dei beni nell'impero ittita”. Pp. 133–146 in M. Perna, ed.
Fiscality in Mycenaen and ear Eastern Archives. Proceedings of the Conference held at
Soprintendenza Archivistica per la Campania, aples, 21 – 23 October 2004. Napoli.
2007 “I testi ittiti di inventario e gli 'archivi' di cretule. Alcune osservazioni e riflessioni”. Fs
Košak: 535–550.
Mora, C. & Giorgieri, M.
2004 Le lettere tra i re ittiti e i re assiri ritrovate a Hattuša. Padova.
246

Müller-Karpe, A.
1980 “Die Funde” in P. Neve, “Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy – Hattuša 1979”. AA (1980): 303–307.
Negri Scafa, P.
1995 “Osservazioni sul mondo scribale ittita e dell'Alta Mesopotamia”. ICH 2: 283–293.
Neu, E. & Rüster, Ch.
1975 Hethitische Keilschrift-Paläographie II (14.-13. Jh. v. Chr.), (StBoT 21). Wiesbaden.
Neve, P.
1975 “Der grosse Tempel in Bogazköy-Hattusa”. Pp. 73–79 in Le temple et le culte (CRRAI 20).
Leiden.
1980 “Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy – Hattuša 1979”. AA (1980): 285–312.
1982 Büyükkale. Die Bauwerke, (BoHa XII). Berlin.
1992 Ḫattuša – Stadt der Götter und Tempel. eue Ausgrabungen in der Hauptstadt der Hethiter
(Antike Welt. Zeitschrift für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte. 23. Jahrgang.
Sondernummer). Mainz am Rhein.
2001 Die Oberstadt von Hattuša. Die Bauwerke II. Die Bastion des Sphinxtores und die
Nunn, J. F.
Tempelviertel am Königs- und Löwentor, (BoHa XVII). Berlin.
1996 Ancient Egyptian Medicine. London.
Oettinger, N.
2004 “Entstehung von Mythos aus Ritual. Das Beispiel des hethitischen Textes CTH 390A”. Pp.
Oppenheim, A. L.
347–356 in M. Hutter & S. Hutter-Braunsar, ed. Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und
individuelle Religiosität. Akten des religionsgeschichtlichen Symposiums „Kleinasiens und
angrenzende Gebiete vom Beginn des 2. bis zur Mitte des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.“ (Bonn,
20.-22. Februar 2003), (AOAT 318). Münster.
1965 “A Note on the Scribes in Mesopotamia”. Fs Landsberger: 253–256.
Otten, H.
1951 “Review of ABoT”. BiOr 8 (6): 224–232.
1956 “Hethitische Schreiber in ihren Briefen”. MIO 4: 179–189.
1969 “Die Berg- und Flusslisten im Ḫišuwa-Festritual“. ZA 59: 247–260.
1971 Ein hethitisches Festritual (KBo XIX 128), (StBoT 13). Wiesbaden.
1975 Puduhepa. Eine hethitische Königin in ihren Textzeugnissen. Wiesbaden.
1979 “Original oder Abschrift – zur Datierung von CTH 258”. Fs Laroche: 273–276.
1976-1980 “Izzummi”. RlA 5: 228.
1980-1983 “Kolophon bei den Hethitern”. RlA 6: 187–188.
247

1986 “Archive und Bibliotheken in Hattuša”. Pp 184–190 in K. R. Veenhof, ed. Cuneiform
Archives and Libraries, (CRRAI 30). Leiden.
1988 Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy. Ein Staatsvertag Tuthalijas IV, (StBoTB 1). Wiesbaden.
1993 Zu einigen eufunden hethitischer Königssiegel. Stuttgart.
1995 Die hethitischen Königssiegel der frühen Grossreichszeit. Stuttgart.
Otten, H. & Rüster, C.
1993 “"Ärztin" im hethitischen Schrifttum”. Fs . Özgüç: 539–541.
Otten, H. & Souček, V.
1965 Das Gelübde der Königin Puduḫepa an die Göttin Lelwani, (StBoT 1). Wiesbaden.
Özgüç, T.
1982 Maşat Höyük II. Boğazköy'ün Kuzeydogusunda bir Hitit merkezi / A Hittite center northeast
Parker, V.
of Boğazköy. Ankara.
1999 “Reflexions on the Career of Hattušili III until the Time of his Coup d'Etat”. AoF 26: 269–
Payton, R.
290.
1991 “The Ulu Burun Writing-Boards Set”. AnSt 41:99–106.
Pecchioli Daddi, F.
1977 “Il LÚ Kartappu nel regno ittita”. SCO 27: 169–190.
1978/79 “Kaššu, un antroponimo ittita”. Mesopotamia 13-14: 201–212.
1982 Mestieri, professioni e dignità nell’Anatolia ittita (Incunabula Graeca 79). Rome.
1992 “Osservazioni su alcuni teonimi hattici”. Fs Alp: 97–108.
1997 “Review of Hout, Th. van den 1995”. OLZ 92: 169–181.
2003 “Le cariche d'oro”. Fs Hoffner: 83–92.
2004 “Palace Servants and Their Obligations”. Fs Carruba: 451–468.
2006 “The System of Government at the Time of Tuthaliya IV”. Fs de Roos: 117–130.
Pedersén, O.
1998 Archives and Libraries in the Ancient ear East. 1500-300 B.C. Bethesda, Maryland.
Poetto, M.
1982 “Ancora sulla parola per "esercito" in luvio”. Kadmos 21: 101–103.
1992 “Nuovi sigilli in luvio geroglifico”. Fs Alp: 431–443.
1995 “Una rivisitazione dei frammento in luvio geroglifico Alaca Höyük IV”. SMEA 35: 101–104.
Poetto M. & Salvatori S.
1981 La collezione anatolica di E. Borowski, (StMed 3). Pavia
248

Polvani, A. M.
1988 La terminologia dei minerali nei testi ittiti, (Eothen 3). Firenze.
Popko, M.
1988 “Review of KUB 54–57“. Or 57: 88–92.
1995 Religions of Asia Minor. Warsaw.
Popko, M. & Taracha, P.
1988 “Der 28. und der 29. Tag des hethitischen AN.TAH.ŠUM-Festes”. AoF 15: 82–113.
Posner, E.
1972 Archives in the ancient world. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Postgate, J. N.
1972 “Taxts and Fragments”. JCS 24: 174–177.
2003 “Documents in Government under the Middle Assyrian Kingdom”. Pp 124–138 in M.
Pruzsinsky, R.
Brosius, ed. Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions. Concepts of Record-Keeping in the
Ancient World. Oxford.
2003 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Emar (SCCNH 13). Bethesda.
Radner, K.
1998 The Prosopography of the eo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 1, Part I: A. Helsinki.
1999 The Prosopography of the eo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 1, Part II: B-G. Helsinki.
Riemschneider, K. K.
2004 Die Akkadischen und Hethitischen Omentexte aus Boğazköy, (DBH 12). Dresden.
Robson, E.
2001 “The Tablet House: A Scribal School in Old Babylonian Nippur”. RA 95: 39–66.
Roche, C.
2003 “La tablette TK 02.1“. Berytus 47: 123–128.
Roos, J. de
1984 Hettitische geloften: een teksteditie van hettitische geloften met inleiding, vertaling en
critische noten, (Diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam). Amsterdam.
1998 “Hittite Votive Texts”. ICH 3: 491–495.
2007 Hittite Votive Texts, (PIHANSt 109). Leiden.
Rosi, S.
1984 “Il ruolo delle “truppe” UKU.UŠ nell'apos organizzazione militare ittita. SMEA 24: 109–129.
249

Roszkowska-Mutschler, H.
2007 Hethitische Texte in Transkription. KBo 44 (DBH 22), Dresden.
Rüster, Ch.
1988 “Materialien zu einer Fehlertypologie der hethitischen Texte”. Fs Otten 2 : 295–306.
1993 “Eine Urkunde Hantilis II”. Fs eve: 63–70.
Salvini M.
1980 “Ittita e hurrico nei rituali di Boğazköy”. VO 3: 153–167.
1995 “La tablette hittite RS 17.109”. SMEA 36: 144–146.
Salvini M. & Wegner, I.
1984 “Die hethitisch-hurritischen Rituale des (h)išuwa-Festes”. SMEA 24: 175–185.
Saporetti, C.
1970 Onomastica medio-assira. Rome.
Sasson, J. M.
2002 “The Burden of Scribes”. Gs Jacobsen: 211–228.
Schneider, T.
1992 Asiatische Personnamen in agyptischen Quellen des euen Reiches. Freiburg (Schwiez).
Schuler, E. von
1957 Hethitische Dienstanweisungen für höhere Hof- und Staatsbeamte. Ein Beitrag zum antiken
Recht Kleinasiens, (AfO Beiheft 10). Gratz.
1965 Die Kaškäer. Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des alten Kleinasien. Berlin.
Schuol, M.
2004 Hethitische Kultmusik, (OrA 14). Leidorf.
Seeher, J.
1998 “Die Ausgrabungen in Boǧazköy-Hattuša 1997”. AA 1998/2: 215–241.
2006 “Hattuša – Tuthalija-Stadt? Argumente für eine Revision der Chronologie der Hethitischen
Seminara, S.
Hauptdstadt”. Fs De Roos: 131–146.
1998 L’accadico di Emar. Roma.
Siegelová, J.
1986 Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis im Lichte der Wirtschafts- und Inventardokumente. Prague.
Singer, I.
1977 “A Hittite Hieroglyphic Seal Impression from Tel Aphek ”. Tel Aviv 4: 178–190.
1983a The Hittite KI.LAM Festival, (StBoT 27). Wiesbaden.
250

1983b “Takuḫlinu and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek”. Tel Aviv 10: 3–
25.
1985 “The Battle of Niḫriya and the End of the Hittite Empire”. ZA 75: 100–123.
1991 “The Title "Great Princess" in the Hittite Empire”. UF 23: 327–338.
1995 “Borrowing Seals at Emar”. Pp. 57–64 in J. G. Westenholz, ed. Seals and Sealing in the
Ancient ear East. Proceedings of the symposium held on september 2, 1993, Jerusalem,
(Bible Lands Museum Publications 1) Jerusalem.
1996a Muwatalli's Prayer to the Assembly of Gods through the Storm-God of Lightning (CTH 381).
Atlanta, Georgia.
1996b “Great Kings of Tarhuntašša”. SMEA 38: 63–71.
1997 “Review of Hout, Th. van den 1995”. BiOr 54 (3/4): 416–423.
1998a “From Hattuša to Tarhuntašša: Some Thoughts on Muwatalli's Reign”. ICH 3: 535–541.
1998b “The Mayor of Hattuša and His Duties”. Pp. 169–176 in J. G. Westenholz, ed. Capital
Cities: Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions. Procc. of the Symposium, Jerusalem,
May 27-29 1996, Jerusalem.
1999a “A political History of Ugarit”. Pp 603–733 in W. G. E. Watson & N. Wyatt, eds. Handbook
of Ugaritic Studies (Handbuch der Orientalstik, Abt. 1, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten:
Bd.39). Lieden, Boston, Köln.
1999b “The Head of the MUBARRÛ-men on Hittite Seals”. ArOr 67: 649–653.
2000 “Appendix I: Hittite Sealings”. Pp. 81–89 in J. G. Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions in the
Collection of the Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem: The Emar Tablets, (CM 13). Groningen.
2001a “The Treaties Between Karkamiš and Hatti”. ICH 4: 635–641.
2001b “The Fate of Hattusa during the Period of Tarhuntassa's Supremacy”. Fs Haas: 396–403.
2002a “Kantuzili the Priest and the Birth of Hittite Personal Prayer“. Fs Popko: 301–313.
2002b Hittite Prayers. Atlanta.
2002c “Danuhepa and Kurunta”. Gs Imparati: 739–751.
2003 “The Great Scribe Taki-Šarruma”. Fs Hoffner: 341–348.
2005 “On Luwians and Hittites”. BiOr 62(5/6): 430–451.
2006a “The failed reforms of Akhenaten and Muwatalli”. bmsaes 6: 37–58.
2006b “Ships Bound for Lukka: A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS 94.2530 and
RS 94.2523”. AoF 33/2: 242–262.
2006c “The Hittites and the Bible Revisited”. Fs Mazar: 723–756.
2007 “A Hittite-Assyrian diplomatic exchange in the Late 13th Century BCE”. ICH 6: 713–720.
Skaist, A.
2006 “When did Ini-Tešub succeed to the Throne of Charchemish?”. UF 37: 609–619.
Souček, V.
1959 “Die hethitischen Feldertexte”. ArOr 27: 5–43, 379–395.
251

Starke, F.
1985 Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte in Umschrift, (StBoT 30). Wiesbaden.
1992 “Review of Hagenbuchner 1989”. BiOr 49(5/6): 804–815.
1996 “Zur "Regierung" des hethitischen Staates”. ZAR 2: 140–182.
Stefanini, R.
1992 “On the Tenth Paragraph of the Bronze Tablet (ii.91-iii.3)”. Archivio Glottlogico Italiano 67
Stone, L.
(1/2): 133–152.
1971 “Prosopography”. Daedalus 100: 46–79.
Strauß, R.
2006 Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung hethitischer Ritualtradition
Sürenhagen, D.
und Kulturgeschichte. Berlin – New York.
1992 “Untersuchungen zur Bronzetafel und weiteren Verträgen mit der Sekundogenitur in
Symington, D.
Tarhuntašša”. OLZ 87: 341–371.
1991 “Late Bronze Age Writing-Boards and their Uses: textual evidence from Anatolia and
Taggar-Cohen, A.
Syria”. AnSt 41: 111–124.
2006 The Hittite Priesthood, (THeth 26). Heidelberg.
Tani, N.
2001 “More about the "Hešni Conspiracy”. AoF 28: 154–164.
2002 “KUB 40.91 (+) 60.103 e alcuni nuovi frammenti di CTH 294”. Gs Imparati: 827–835.
Tanret, M.
2002 Per aspera ad astra: l’apprentissage du cunéiforme à Sippar-Amnānum pendant la période
Tischler, J.
paléobabylonienne tardive, (Mesopotamian History and Environment Series III Texts 1).
Ghent.
1982 “Beiträge zur hethitischen Anthroponymie”. Fs eumann: 439–453.
2002 “Zur Morphologie und Semantik der hethitischen Personen- und Götternamen”. Pp. 75–84 in
Thornton, D. E.
M. P. Streck & S. Weninger, eds. Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik, (AOAT 296).
Münster.
1997 “Kings, Chronicles, and Genealogies: Reconstructing Medieval Celtic Dynasties”. Pp. 23–40
252

Torri, G.
in K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, ed. Family Trees and the Roots of Politics. The Prosopography of
Britain and France from the tenth to the twelfth century. Woodbridge.
2007a “The Scribes of the House on the Slope”. ICH 6: 771–782.
2007b “Subject Shifting in Hittite Magical Rituals“. Fs Košak: 671–680.
Trabazo, J. V. G & Groddek, D.
2005 Hethitische Texte in Transkription. KUB 58, (DBH 18). Dresden.
Trémouille, M.-C.
1998 “CTH 628: une mise à jour”. SMEA 40/2: 263–270.
1999 “CTH 628: une mise à jour II”. SMEA 41/1: 115–121.
2004a “I rituali magici ittiti”. Res Antiquae 1: 157–203.
2004b “I testi ittiti di medicina”. Res Antiquae 1: 205–225.
2006a see Onomastique on line
2006b “Un exemple de continuité religieuse en Anatolie. Le dieu Šarrumma”. Pp. 191–224 in M.
Tsukimoto, A.
Hutter & S. Hutter-Braunsar, eds. Pluralismus und Wandel in den Religionen im
vorhellenistischen Anatolien. Akten des religionsgeschichtlichen Symposiums in Bonn (19.-
20. Mai 2005), (AOAT 337), Münster.
1988 “Sieben Spätbronzezeitliche Urkunden aus Syrien”. ASJ 10: 153–189.
Ünal, A.
1977 “Naturkatastrophen in Anatolien im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”. Belleten 41 (163): 447–472.
1978 Ein Orakel text über die Intrigen am hethitischen Hof (KUB XXIII 70 - Bo 2011), (THeth 6).
Heidelberg.
1987 “Review of KUB 55”. BiOr 44(3/4): 474–486.
1989 “Drawings, Graffiti and Squiggles on the Hittite Tablets – Art in Scribal Circles“. Fs T.
Van Soldt, W. H.
Özgüç: 505–513.
1988 The Title T̠ ʾY. UF 20, 313-321
1991 Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit Dating and Grammer (AOAT 40), Neukirchen.
1995 “Babylonian Lexical, Religious and Literary Texts. and Scribal Education at Ugarit and its
implications for the alphabetic literary texts“. Pp. 171–212 in M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, eds.
Ugarit – ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient Ergebnisse und Perspektiven
der Forschung (Vorträge gehalten während des Europäischen Kolloquiums am 11.-
12.Februar 1993). Münster.
253

Veenhof, K. R.
1986 “Cuneiform Archives. An Introduction“. Pp. 1–36 in K. R. Veenhof, ed. Cuneiform Archives
Veldhuis, N.
and Libraries, (CRRAI 30). Leiden.
1996 “The Cuneiform Tablet as an Educational Tool”. Dutch Studies 2: 11–26.
Vita, J. P.
1999 “The Society of Ugarit”. Pp. 455–498 in W. G. E. Watson & N. Wyatt, eds. Handbook of
Watkins, C.
Ugaritic Studies, (HdO 39). Lieden.
1995 How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New-York – Oxford.
Wegner, I. & Salvini M.
1991 Die hethitisch-hurritischen Ritualtafeln des (h)išuwa-Festes (ChS I/4). Rome.
Weidner, E. F.
1923 Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Leipzig.
Werner, R.
1967 Hethitische Gerichtsprotokolle, (StBoT 4). Wiesbaden.
Westbrook, R. & Woodard R. D.
1990 “The Edict of Tudhaliya IV”. JAOS 110/4: 641–659.
Wilhelm, G.
1994 Medizinische Omina aus Ḫattuša in akkadischer Sprache, (StBoT 36). Wiesbaden.
2005 “Zur Datierung der älteren hethitischen Landschenkungsurkunden”. AoF 32: 272–279.
2007 “Ausgewählte Textfunde der Kampagne 2006”. AA 2007/1: 86–90.
Woudhuizen, F.C.
2004 Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire
Zadok, R.
Period. Innsbruck.
2002 “Contributions to Babylonian Geography, Prosopography and Documentation”. Fs Dietrich:
871–897.
254