Knocking on Wood: Writing Boards in the Kassite Administration

2.1 The Kassite Letter BE 17: 51 (P265716, CBS 10510)

obv. 6′: The reading ^URU Lu-⸢ub ^?⸣-[di] is a tentative suggestion; the possible sign ⸢ub ^?⸣ is strongly damaged.

obv. 8′: kuruštû, *kurušta-, “sheep or goats being fattened” (AHw: 514a; CAD K, 582), or “ein süßes Mastfutter” (AHw: 514a). von Soden (1965: 514a) (=AHw) translates BE 17: 51 obv. 8, 12, ku-ru-uš-ta-a, as “fattening feed”.

rev. 1: It is possible to read U₈.UDU.HI.A ša-qá […], because there is large gap following the sign qá. šaqû means in the context of livestock „to give to drink, to water animals“ (CAD Š/2: 24, 26). However, a gap between signs can appear in one word, as can be seen in rev. 2 and l. 5 between ḫa-za-an-na-a- and -ti and between a-wi-lu-us-su- and -nu and does not necessarily indicate the end of one word.

rev. 3: mādā appears to be the stative fem. pl. of mâdu, “to be numerous, plentiful, abundant” (cf. CAD M/1, 24), either referring to a substantive in the fem. pl., or a dual. The term U₈.UDU.HI.A, Akkadian ṣēnu, “flock (of sheep and goats)” is a feminine substantive, cf. CAD Ṣ: 128–131; ḫazannāti is the feminine plural, as well. It is more likely that the sender mentions the high number of sheep and goats instead of towns’ mayors.

In the Kassite letter BE 17: 51 (P265716, CBS 10510) from Nippur the subordinate sender asks his lord to send fattening feed, presumably for sheep and goats. If the emendation in obv. 6′ is correct, then the sheep and goats may be located in the town Lubdu in the north-east of the Kassite kingdom (Nashef 1982: 178–179), near the Assyrian border. According to rev. 1–4 there is a great number of sheep and goatherds under the administration of the towns’ mayors of his lord (for the reading of the signs ša(-)qá(-)[(at ^?)] see the commentary to line rev. 1 above; for the translation “hand (of)” as “under the administration of” see Petschow 1974: 56–57). Thus, the recipient, a “lord” in Nippur, had a higher rank than ḫazannu-officials in the area of Lubdu, since they were “in his hand (=under his administration)”. The Kassite letters from Nippur were allegedly found in the palace complex of Nippur (see Pedersén 1998: 115), so it may be the case that the recipient was a high official in the palace, i.e. in the provincial administration of Nippur. He may have been the šandabakku. If the town in obv. 6′ is indeed to be emended to ^URU Lu-⸢ub ^?⸣-[di], then this would imply that this high-ranking recipient commanded ḫazannu officials (rev. 2′–3′: ḫazannāti ša bēlīja) in a completely different province. This could be understood to indicate that the šandabakku of Nippur had supra-regional influence over certain lands, workers and resources in other provinces.

Since the sender asks in rev. 4, “what” of “theirs” his lord is going to take, which, may refer the sheep and goats, it appears that the lord in Nippur is going to extract some of the sheep and goats from the herds of the ḫazannus. However, in the following lines rev. 5′–9′, the sender asks his lord to take something, either a writing board on which awīlūtu are listed, or to take the awīlūtu, who are listed on his writing board (rev. 9′: li-il-⸢qé⸣). As we can see in other Kassite administrative sources, such as in the cattle account BE 15: 199 (see below), the Nippur administration actually sold livestock to purchase awīlūtu.

It is unclear whether the passage in rev. 5′–9′ is linked to the discussion of the extraction of sheep and goats in the previous lines. However, the letter seems to imply that the local ḫazannus (possibly in the area of Lubdu) managed not only sheep and goats, but that they also controlled amīlūtu workers. These workers are apparently listed on a wooden writing board of the sender’s lord. This means they are under his lord’s supervision. The sender asks his lord to “take” them, which may imply that the lord shall redistribute the man power from one place to another place, perhaps, even from another province (Lubdu) to Nippur, where the letter was found.

Lubdu lay at the north-eastern fringes of the Kassite kingdom and had belonged to Mittani before it came under the control of Babylonia, perhaps, under Burna-Buriaš II (1354–1328), when Babylonia destroyed the area up to the Lower Zāb and conquered areas of the Mittani kingdom (Jakob 2011: 192, fn. 3; Wilhelm 1982: 50). The conquest of Lubdu presumably resulted in the influx of Hurrian servile workers (arrapḫāju, ḫanigalbātû) since the reign of Burna-Buriaš II (1354–1328). These Hurrian servile workers appear in personnel and ration lists, especially under Kurigalzu II (1327–1303) and Nazi-maruttaš (1302–1277, cf. Brinkman 1981: 33; Sassmannshausen 2001: 134–135). In case the letter BE 17: 51: obv. 6′ does contain a reference to the town Lubdu, then it may document the redistribution of such Hurrian workers to another location, possibly, to the province of Nippur, where the recipient of the letter was located.

Later, Adad-nārārī I (1307–1275) destroyed the area of Lubdu during the war with Nazi-maruttaš (1302–1277, Paulus 2014a: 71)^[11] It is unclear, but likely that the aftermath of several wars with Assyria resulted in more (Assyrian) prisoners of war who ended up as servile personnel in the border towns and may have been redistributed to central Babylonian provinces, such as Nippur.

2.2 The Kassite Letter PBS 1/2: 77 (P261059, CBS 4790)

obv. 2′: Regarding the verb form tuš’idanni, and its verbal root *īd cf. Aro (1957, 39) and von Soden (1995: 194).

obv. 4′: To report about conditions found at the sender’s location the sender often used a kī and a preterite verb form in the sub clause, followed by a stative in the main clause to describe the state of affairs. In case the sender wants to express the state of affairs he found “when” he had looked at the writing boards, then the kī is not to be translated as “after”, but rather as “as” and “when”.

obv. 7′, 9′: For the personal name Išbu-ula see Balkan (1954: 57) and Hölscher (1996: 108).

b.e. 1: The third and fourth sign of b.e. l. 1 can be read ṣi-bít/bat/mit/be etc. The fourth sign is the sign BAD with the reading mit, or bít or be.

1. ṣimdu is a Kassite “yoke” field (120 big cubits × 120 big cubits, 30 sila seeds), one-eighth of a bur (Powell 1987–1990: 481–482). A plough drawn by a team of oxen could plough this amount in one day (Paulus 2014b: 169, fn. 214.)

2. ṣe-bít, ṣe/ēbit,^[12] could be the participle in the status constructus or the stative of ṣabātu, since in the Middle Babylonian period the /a/ in a closed syllable could become an /e/ if the following syllable contained an /e/ or /i/ (Aro 1955: 41–49). ṣe-bít, read as participle ṣēbit, followed by me-e, mê, “water,” could be translated as “the seizer of/the one, who seizes water.” Thus, Išbula is listed “in,” i.e. under the section of the workers, who “seized” water. ṣabātu, “seize,” can mean “to contain” with water, see CAD Ṣ: 23a, s.v. ṣabātu. The examples refer to vessels which contain certain amounts of water given in measures of capacity. ṣabātu can also mean “to block an approach” (see CAD Ṣ: 29b, s.v. ṣabātu); perhaps, in the sense of “blocking a stream of water”?

3. Another possible reading is ṣi-be. ṣīpu or ṣību means “soaking (referring to irrigation)” (CAD Ṣ: 205), “Durchfeuchtung” (AHw: 1104), which is a possible reading in the context of mê, “water.” appears to be a likely reading. ṣībē may be the gen./acc. pl. of “soaking”, i.e. ina ṣībē may mean “the soakings”. Išbula’s name was written down ina ṣībē mê, “in the soakings of/with water”, i.e., while these soakings happened, or his name appears in a section on the writing board which concerns the irrigation and soaking of fields.

rev. 1: The name can be read ^I.d Nin-urta-kab ^? -ti-ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú or ^I.d Nin-urta-SAG^? -ti-ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú (see Hölscher 1996: 158). However, in rev. 3, the sign KAB is identifiable in the name ^I.d Nin-urta-kab ^? -ti-ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú.

Furthermore, the cuneiform signs are very cursive (tilted to the left side), and, thus, both the sign SAG and the sign KAB are possible readings. The vertical wedge of the sign TI is tilted to the left so that it is nearly horizontal. In accordance with this, the vertical wedges of the alleged sign KAB are slightly tilted to the left, as well. Those wedges, which are supposed to be horizontal in the signs KAB and TI, appear to be (nearly) horizontal. However, in order to read the sign SAG, one would have to assume that of the two horizontal wedges of the sign SAG – not all of the horizontal wedges – are tilted to the right and not the left, like the rest of the wedges in rev. 1. This would be an odd exception to the cursive writing. Therefore, it seems more likely to me to read KAB instead of SAG.

In Kassite letter PBS 1/2: 77 (P261059, CBS 4790) the sender mentions that the recipient brought something to his attention in Babylon. The origin from which the letter was sent is unknown. It is possible that it came from Babylon. The letter was found in Nippur, where it may have been received and/or archived.

It is typical in Kassite ardu letters from subordinates to higher ranking officials that the sender wants to report to his lord about certain conditions. However, in PBS 1/2: 77, there are no expressions characteristic of an ardu letter, such as addressing the recipient with “my lord” in the 3rd ps. sg. or giving him direct orders in the imperative. The verb form tuš’idanni in obv. 2′ (“you brought to my attention”) could be an indicator that PBS 1/2: 77 is an aḫu letter or even bēlu letter, since the sender addresses the recipient directly in the 2nd ps. sg. However, occasionally subordinates used the 2nd ps. sg. instead of the 3rd. ps. sg. when they addressed higher ranking officials; such a possible mistake is not necessarily an indicator that a superior addressed a subordinate or “brother.” Since the sender is not giving any commands to the recipient, it is improbable that this is a bēlu letter from a superior to his subordinate. However, since he had access to the official records of the provincial administration, it is to be expected that he was a high ranking official in the Nippurean palace. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that PBS 1/2: 77 is an ardu or aḫu letter between a subordinate and his lord or between more or less equals.

The sender was apparently asked to check entries on wooden writing boards (obv. 3′–4′: i-na ^GEŠLI.U₅.UM lu-mu-ur, “I shall read the wooden writing board”), as several men had made the claim that their fathers’ names were listed there. The sender reports that he has checked three entries (obv. 7′-b.e. l. 2; rev. 1–5;^[13] rev. 6–10^[14]) on his writing board. However, he rejects their claims, since their fathers’ names were apparently not written down on the writing board (obv. 6′: ul ša-aṭ-ru, “they are not written down there”). Two of these three sons claim that their fathers were conscripted during the reign of two preceding kings, Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333) and Nazi-maruttaš (1307–1282, see Brinkman 2017: 36). One son, however, appears to mention the conscription of his father in the context of irrigation work (see above the commentary to b.e. l. 1).

Between the 22nd year (1338) of king Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333) and the 22nd year (1286) of king Nazi-maruttaš (1307–1282) there is a time span of 53 years. This is an indicator that writing boards and more importantly the inscriptions on writing boards were archived for at least half a century. Furthermore, if one could demand from officials of a temple or the provincial administration that he would check entries on a writing board more than half a century later, then this means the inscriptions were permanent.

It is highly probably that the letter PBS 1/2: 77 was written and sent no less than two years after the 22nd year of Nazi-maruttaš, because expressions such as “this year” and “last year” are attested in Old Babylonian and Kassite letters as well as Amarna letters: The expression “(of/in) this year” is expressed with šatta/šattu, ina/ša šatti, ina/ša šatti annīti, šattu annītu, šattu agâ, see e.g. the Amarna letter EA: 11 from Kassite King Burna-Buriaš II rev. 17: ina libbi šatti šannīti, EA: 162: obv. 44: ina šatti šannīti, EA 287: obv. 20: ina šatti šannīti). The expression “(in/of) last years” is expressed with šaddagda, ša šaddagda/i, šaddagdiš, see e.g. the Old Babylonian letter CT 4: 28 from Sippar-Jaḫrurum (mod. Tell Abu Habbah) rev. 4–5: ul šadaqda ul šatta, “nor (for) last year nor (for) this year” or the Kassite letter BE 17: 34: obv. 14: kī pī ša šaddag[da], as well as PBS 1/2: 16 obv. 18; 52 obv. 11. The terminus post quem is, therefore, 1284, which means that the writing boards were kept for at least 55 years.

Hölscher (1996: 56, 108, 149, 156, 158) tentatively dates PBS 1/2: 77 to the reigns of Kadašman-Enlil II (1263–1255) or Kudur-Enlil (1254–1246,“<KaE II/KuE>” or “und.”, i.e. “not dated”). The reasons for this dating are unclear. Following Hölscher, the letter PBS 1/2: 77 was sent more than 76 years after a scribe made an entry in a writing board in the 22nd year (1338) of king Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333). This is a strong indicator that writing boards were used as a lasting writing medium, and not merely for temporary notes that were later fixed on clay. It is attested that writing boards served as a permanent medium both for administrative and scholarly texts in the first millennium (Finke 2003: 58; Jursa 2004: 170–178; Kozuh and Nielsen 2021: 148–145; Parpola 1983: 4; Robson 2019: 126). Thus, PBS 1/2: 77 is proof that writing boards served this purpose already in the second half of the second millennium BC in Mesopotamia.

2.3 The Kassite Letter CBS 4773 (P261042)

obv. 3: The lower parts of the signs ⸢x(-)šap ^?⸣ are broken off; the reading of the sign šap is likely, but due to the damage, other readings remain possible.

rev. 1′: ik-ri-ku from karāmu, “to hinder, slow down” (CAD K: 200b–201a).

rev. 7′: The Akkadian term gišṭû is attested in Neo-Assyrian colophons (AHw: 294; CAD G: 110a; e.g. in KAR: 164 (Enūma eliš) or KAR: 307 (mythical explanatory text)) of Standard Babylonian texts. Standard Babylonian (SB) refers to the language of Akkadian literature from the second half of the second millennium BC to the end of the cuneiform tradition. However, in KAR: 164 and 307 gišṭû is written ĝiš-ṭu-u, here it is lacking the last sign -u. gišṭû (Sumerogram: GEŠ.DA), ‘wooden writing tablet’, is supposedly a loanword from Sumerian ^ĝeš da, ‘wooden writing board’ (CAD G: 110a).

Although the verb šapāru regularly appears in the Kassite letters from Nippur, a D-Stem of šapāru (hypothetical: šuppuru) is neither listed in the AHw: 1170a–1171b nor in the CAD Š/1: 430b–448b. However, the D-stem of the verb šebēru, ‘to break, to fracture, to shiver,’ šubburu, ‘to break, smash, demolish, to injure severely, to grind (?)’ is attested (see CAD Š/2: 246b–250b). The D-stem builds the stative šubbur, subordinated šubburu, and the verbal adjective šubburu. Note that the D-stem of šebēru means specifically “to break wooden objects” according to the CAD Š/2: 249b, s.v. šebēru, such as wagon wheels or house gates.

The Kassite letter CBS 4773 from a subordinate to his lord in Nippur is strongly damaged. The sender writes about possible digging work of his lord and mentions the settlement Dūr-Gula, which lay near Isin.

In rev. 7′ the sender then refers to “two broken writing boards” with the Akkadian term gišṭû, which is only attested in Neo-Assyrian colophons. In the following line, the sender asks his lord to send something, which could either be a written command per letter or other goods. It could be speculated whether the sender asked for a replacement for the broken writing boards. In the second line following the mention of the writing boards, the sender announces that he wants to distribute something. The most feasible context is that the sender wants to distribute rations to workers.

2.4 The Cattle Account Table BE 15: 199 (P259820)

On the reverse of the Kassite tablet BE 15: 199, in rev. 12, a wooden writing board is mentioned (in the same passage clay tablets containing a “list of names” are mentioned, as well). BE 15: 199 is a cattle account table and dates to Kurigalzu II (for a complete translation, see Huang 2020: 118–119, 287–292 and Torczyner 1913: 52–54). The account documents the whereabouts and responsible officials of the cattle herds, because the šandabakku and his provincial administration were in certain contractual relationships. Contemporary Kassite herding contracts show that the šandabakku could act as a contractor, i.e. that a part of the cattle in his herds was entrusted to him, and that temples could be some of his clients (see Huang 2020: 96–102).

BE 15: 199 has a “low” CBS-number, CBS 3446; however, it does not appear in Sassmannshausen’s list of tablets from the area WA (Pedersén’s archive “Nippur 2”, see Pedersén 1998: 115, and Sassmannshausen’s “Archiv des Speichers”, which may have belonged to the Gula temple, see Sassmannshausen 2001: 186–187. Thus, BE 15: 199 may stem from the provincial palace in Nippur (area WB), i.e. the šandabakku’s administrative archive(s)).

On the reverse of BE 15: 199, there are two columns. In the left column the number of cattle is given. The right column contains detailed qualitative or descriptive information about the cattle, including the responsible ḫazannu official, the origin and destination of the cattle, and previous extractions out of the herd (TA) etc. In order to understand the context, in which the wooden writing board is mentioned, in this section (1.4) the passage BE 15: 199 rev. 11–18, is analysed in detail:

The relevant passage, BE 15: 199 rev. 11–18, consists of three entries of numbers of cattle (rev. 11, l. 14, l. 16), which are each followed by explanatory notes in the right column. The explanatory notes stretch across two lines (rev. 14–15 and 16–17) and three lines each (rev. 11–13). The fourth entry does not contain a number in the left column (rev. 18).

According to the reverse l. 4, the total of 719 bīru cattle (^GU4INDA_, see Attinger 2021: 573–574) belong to the nakkamtu, the “storehouse”, or in this context more suitable, “barn” (see Sassmannshausen 2001: 172).^[15] The term bīru designates young cattle up to three years of age (CAD B: 266a-b, s.v. bīru B). That bīru cattle, which is kept in a nakkamtu stable, is given out as draft animals for ploughing (with a seeder plough, see e.g. BE 15: 199 rev. 14, 16, 17), as price for the purchase of amīlūtu (see e.g. BE 15: 199 rev. 7: TA 30 ša a-na SAM_x a-mi-lu-ti na-ad-nu) and of barley (see e.g. BE 15: 199 rev. 13, 18) and for slaughter (see BE 15: 199 rev. 8), and it is transferred from one province or town to another (see e.g. BE 15: 199 rev. 11 and 12). In BE 15: 199: rev. ll.13, 18 each bīru is equivalent to ca. 2400 l of barley (in case on BAN₂ equals 10 SILA₃, see rev. 13, 18: ša 1 GU₄ 8;0.0.0 GUR ŠE, “for (=that of) one oxen is 8;0.0.0 gurs of barley”).

rev. 12: TA is the equivalent for Akkadian ištu/ultu, which is either the conjunction “since, after, as soon as,” see CAD I: 284b–286a, s.v. ištu, or the preposition “from (a point in space or time), out of (a place, an object, a quantity), since, after,” see CAD I: 286a–288a (both the preposition and conjunction are written with the Sumerogram TA). TA marks extractions from the herd in the interlineary comments, which break down the number of cattle in the previous line(s), see Huang (2020: 128).

TA/ištu/ultu cannot be translated as the preposition “out of” and it cannot be understood as “out of these (=the aforementioned).” Instead, it needs to be translated with “after”, because the transactions introduced with TA must have occurred before the number of cattle was recorded in the table. This can be demonstrated in BE 15: 199 rev. 11–13. BE 15: 199, rev. 11 lists 26 young oxen under the administration of the ḫazannu Marduk-nāṣir.

However, a close look at the sentences introduced with the sign TA shows that the cattle was not extracted out of a total of 26 oxen, but that the 26 oxen were the remainder of previous extractions. If TA/ištu/ultu marks extractions, then according to rev. 12 and 13 these extractions are explicitly “added” (ru-ud-du-ú) to other herds, once to the herd(s) of the town Arad-bēlti (rev. 12) and, secondly, to those of Iddin-Nergal (a-na mu-uḫ-šu, see rev. 13). If one adds up these numbers of oxen, which are clearly marked as “added” to other herds in rev. 12 and 13, then the 19 oxen from rev. 12 and the 12 oxen from rev. 13 result in 31 oxen. Furthermore, TA marks 20 oxen, which were “given” in exchange for barley, and 8 oxen, which were written on a writing board, as extractions – this would result in a deduction of 59 oxen. Obviously, a total of 59 oxen, marked as “extracted” with the sign TA, cannot be taken out of a herd of 26 oxen.

Furthermore, TA/ištu/ultu, “out of (a place, an object, a quantity)” i.e. “out of these,” should not be misunderstood as an introduction to a sub-category of an aforementioned number or amount. Sub-categories of a number or amount of cattle were introduced with EN. This can demonstrated with the help of BE 15: 199 rev. 11–13, as well: if the herds of town Arad-bēlti (rev. 12) and Iddin-Nergal (a-na mu-uḫ-šu, see rev. 13) were sub-categories of the 26 oxen under the administration of the ḫazannu Marduk-nāṣir in rev. 11, then 31 oxen were added to Marduk-nāṣir’s herds and 20 oxen would be deduced in exchange for barley (rev. 13), resulting in 11 oxen. It would then be unclear, whether the 8 oxen on a writing board should be deduced (resulting in three oxen) or added (resulting in 19 oxen). In any case, the totals would not match the number 26 in rev. 11.

rev. 17: Note that in ta-KAL-ta-šu, the sign KAL can be read rib. According to Hruška (2005: 512) takaltu is a container attached to the seeding plough or the handle of the plough (“Sterz”). Cf. the tablet CBS 1354 l. 24, which is line 15 of the Farmer’s Almanac in Civil (1994: 28–29, 42–43, 72). The second possibility is the reading ta-rib-ta-šu. tarībtu means “replacement”, but only occurs in personal names (see CAD T: 230a). However, note that in another Kassite cattle muster, BE 14: 168: obv. 34 the term ta-rib-ti, the “replacement” of a ploughing-ox, appears as well. Note the term pillati for replacement oxen in documents concerning cattle from Ur (Gurney 1983: 65, 123).

rev. 18: For the name ^ILAL₃ ^!-É-kur see Hölscher (1996: 130).

The ḫazannu Marduk-nāṣir (see Hölscher 1996: 138), who appears on the obverse ll. 3, 6 as a responsible ḫazannu for two herds, does also appear several times on the reverse, working for the šandabakku Amīl-Marduk.^[16]

In order to determine the function of the writing board in the management of cattle, let me explain the meaning of the entries in rev. 11–18: the oxen in rev. 11, 16, and 18 originate from the Sealand province (in rev. 11 26 oxen and in rev. 16 30 oxen), whereas the 25 young oxen in rev. 14 come from Dūr-Kurigalzu. These oxen from Dūr-Kurigalzu in rev. 14 were transferred to the administration of Nippur for seeding (by means of a seeder-plough) and for returning (ana … turrî); although this could imply that these oxen would have had to be returned to Dūr-Kurigalzu after they had been used as draft animals, the CAD E: 287a, s.v. erēšu B, understands ana erēši ū turrî nadnu in BE 15: 199 rev. 14 as “given for drilling and covering the seed (lit. turning back).” According to rev. 14–15, previously 24 oxen had been extracted and transferred to the town Arad-bēlti for seeding, and this transfer was documented on “the tablet of the town Arad-bēlti.” This transfer occurred under the control of Amīl-Marduk.

Furthermore rev. 15 informs us that a “tablet with names” (DUB šu-ma-ti) was received and that someone is going to collect “it” and that “it” should be given to Marduk-nāṣir. One possibility is that the object, which shall be collected, is this “tablet with names”. The extracted cattle was recorded on additional lists, which we have preserved. One example is BE 14: 89, which records the ṣabittu ^[17]-cattle, i.e. the “deposited” cattle, which had been marked with TA as being extracted from the herds in BE 14: 99a rev. i and vii, ll. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 21. The numbers of rams and bucks, i. e. male sheep and goats, and the herdsman attributed to the cattle in BE 14: 99a appear in the same order in BE 14: 89, presumably to designate that the cattle originated from their herds (for more details see Huang 2020: 128–131).

Incidentally, a list of cattle, probably destined for a town such as Nippur, was found in a Kassite settlement in the Sealand province, modern Tell Kirbāsi (see Kessler 1992: 95). The Sealand province appears in several cattle accounts as the source for cattle, see Kessler (1992: 95–97). Kessler (1992: 96) suggests that the Nippurean temple administration received their livestock from the royal centre at Dūr-Kurigalzu and from their own temple land in the Sealand province.

Not only the cattle in rev. 11, but also the cattle in rev. 16 and 18 originated in the Sealand province. According to rev. 18, 67 oxen had been exchanged for barley; rev. 18 also contains the exchange rate.

One could speculate whether the term ṭuppi šumāti, the “tablet with names”, designated such a record of extracted cattle or cattle to be extracted together with the names of the herdsmen, whose herds were the origin of the cattle that has been extracted or was about to be extracted.^[18] Such a detailed list of responsible officials was necessary, since an account such as BE 15: 199 was used by the šandabakku of Nippur to monitor the location of the herds under the administration of several provincial officials, so that the clients could extract their cattle back at some point from the responsible official or herdsman (see Huang 2020: 136–142).

However, that which was going to be collected and given after the “tablet with names” had been received, could also refer to the cattle. The officials and their subordinates, who had to physically remove the cattle out of their herds, would have received the “tablet with names” of the herdsmen, out of whose herds they were supposed to remove the cattle. Then, they would “collect” the cattle from the herdsmen, who owed the cattle to the clients of the provincial cattle administration. After the “collection” (esirtu/isirtu), “it” (= the cattle) could be given (i-nam-din) to Marduk-nasir who managed the extraction. esēru, “to collect” or “press for payment due” (CAD E: 332b-334a), is used in other texts concerning livestock to describe extractions of goods and animals, see e.g. herding contracts such as CBS 10738: rev. 11, CBS 11060: rev. 4′ or CBS 11104: rev. 7 or the cattle account table BE 14: 168: obv. 35 or rev. 9–10 (esirtu/isirtu, “collection of payment”, see CAD I: 197b–198a).

However, in BE 15: 199: rev. 14 and 15, the cattle are given explicitly “for seeding (by means of a seeder-plough)” – a second possibility to interpret the ominous “tablet with names” is that the “names” were the names of the ploughmen, who used the oxen for ploughing (see the reference to the iššakku-farmers (lessees) in rev. 19, who gave old male oxen for checking).

These speculations must be treated with caution, since the exact nature of the ṭuppi šumāti, the “list with names,” remains unclear. However, they result in two reasonable hypotheses:

1. Perhaps, the “tablet with names” (DUB šu-ma-ti) was a record of extracted cattle, similar to BE 14: 89 and the Tell Kirbāsi-tablet.

2. Another possibility is that the “tablet with names” (DUB šu-ma-ti) of the ploughmen, who made use of the plough-oxen for seeding with the seeder plough, was given to the ḫazannu or šandabakku ahead of the physical transfer of the cattle.

The oxen in rev. 14 are not the only ones, which are given “for seeding”: in rev. 16–17, 30 young oxen, which came from the Sealand province, are given for the same purpose and “a tablet with names” is received. The extracted cattle is to be given to the ḫazannu Marduk-nāṣir. According to rev. 17, one of the extracted oxen is replaced. According to rev. 12–13, previously cattle had been extracted and transferred to herds of the town Arad-bēlti and of a man called Iddin Nergal. Furthermore rev. 13 contains the entry that previously 20 oxen had been exchanged for barley; for the same exchange rate as rev. 18.

In this context, among the list of extractions, which had happened previously, an extraction (introduced with TA) is phrased as having been written on a wooden writing board (rev. 12): “⸢after⸣ 8 of Ninurta-muballiṭ are […] on the (his) wooden writing board […]”. The line is damaged, but one could propose that the writing board contained a similar record as the “tablet with names” (DUB šu-ma-ti), i.e. a list of the transfers of cattle and of herdsmen, whose cattle is extracted.^[19] However, a counter-argument to this hypothesis is that the other “tablets with names” appear to have been written on clay. A good argument for the use of a wax-covered writing board in this administrative context is that a record written in wax can be continuously modified, rewritten and revised, whereas clay would dry. A running record of transfers of cattle with the information of the responsible officials and herdsmen on a writing board could have been frequently updated by the provincial administration. Thus, the writing board mentioned in BE 15: 199 rev. 12 would have contained an entry regarding the eight young oxen, which were extracted.

3.1 Trade and the Materiality of Writing Boards in Mesopotamia

The initial inquiry pertains to the materials that must be evidenced in sources from Kassite Nippur for the production of writing boards. Writing boards were made of wood or ivory, and filled with a paste of beeswax and ochre or orpiment. The only archaeological evidence of writing boards in Mesopotamia is a small selection of writing boards from the Neo-Assyrian period from Nimrud (16 wooden and 16 ivory writing boards from the late 8th century BC forming polyptichs)^[20] and Assur (three diptych leaves and hinge elements of ivory from the 8th or 7th century BC),^[21] as well as two writing boards from the shipwreck Ulu Burun from the 14th century BC.^[22]

The Nimrud ivory leaves still contained wax flakes inscribed with cuneiform (Cammarosano, Jendritzki, and Streckfuss 2019a: 151, 154; Howard 1955: 14; Mallowan 1954: 99; Nemet-Nejat 2000: 256 fn. 18; Volk 2016: 609; Wiseman 1955: 3). The use of beeswax is securely attested in Mesopotamia since the third millennium BC, for example for the creation of moulds for the casting of metal objects (Volk 1999: 288–289, fn. 91; for the Ur III period see in detail Dercksen 2017: 108–112). Beeswax (GABA.LAL₃ or LAL₃.HUR, cf. Volk 1999: 289, fn. 85–87, iškurum) was not a domestic produce in Babylonia (San Nicolò 1948, 69–70),^[23] but it was imported from Anatolia, from what is now northern Iraq, and from Elam (San Nicolò 1948: 70; Volk 1999: 290, fn. 94). A Sumerian or Akkadian term for beekeeping does not exist. There are no depictions of apiculture in Mesopotamian iconography, such as is attested in ancient Egypt (Volk 1999: 281). In the 8th century BC the local governor of Mari and Suḫu, Šamaš-rēša-uṣur, claims to have introduced apiculture to Mesopotamia from the Iranian plateau (cf. Frame 1995: 281–282; Na’aman 2008: 235; Volk 1999: 281–282, fn. 24). Sargon II’s claims in his standard inscription from his palace in Khorsabad, l. 170, that lallāru, “white honey”^[24] is a produce from the mountains (Volk 1999: 282, fn. 25; Winckler 1889: x, 132–133).^[25]

The writing boards found in Nimrud were covered with a mixture of beeswax and 25 % arsenic sulfide, which naturally occurs in Mesopotamia in the form of orpiment, a deep-coloured, orange-yellow mineral (lēru, Sum.: IM.KU₃.GI, and šīpu, Sum.: IM.ŠIM.BI.KU₃.GI). Orpiment/arsenic sulfide coloured the beeswax yellow, and made the surface texture more plastic and easier to inscribe (Mallowan 1954: 99; Volk 1999: 286, fn. 61; Wiseman 1955: 5). Furthermore, the ancient vessels found at the Turkish coast carried orpiment as well.^[26] However, Neo-Babylonian expenditure accounts tell us that kalû (IM.GA₂.LI), yellow ochre, and not orpiment, was used to fill wax-covered writing boards (Nemet Nejat 2000: 249–259).^[27] Regarding the ratio of wax and ochre in Neo-Babylonian expenditure accounts for wax board production see Cammarosano, Jendritzki, and Streckfuss (2019a: 153–154).

Volk (1999: 286) and Cammarosano, Jendritzki, and Streckfuss (2019a: 51, fn. 287, 52–53, 76) suppose that the valuable ivory boards from the king’s library in Nimrud used the expensive orpiment to colour the paste gold, whereas the writing boards recording less important contents were only filled with a paste containing ochre. On the one hand, Neo-Babylonian notes referring to kalû as a component of a wax covered writing board also stem from the Eanna temple (San Nicoló 1948: 67), and, thus, belong to a wealthy environment. It is a reasonable assumption that if orpiment was a luxury addition that it was used in the context of the Eanna temple as well. On the other hand, the Neo-Babylonian references to writing boards make it likely that they were used for bookkeeping within the temple (see Jursa 2004: 172–174, id. 2011: 195–196; MacGinnis 2002: 225), as opposed to the revered prestigious or representative objects, such as the Nimrud ivory boards containing the astrological series Enūma Anu Enlil from the royal library.

Can we identify evidence for the existence of wax in Kassite Nippur? The answer is affirmative; we have documentation from the local administration of Kassite period Nippur, specifically two documents that make reference to the presence of beeswax: PBS 1/2: 27 + 54 and MUN 406.

The Kassite letter PBS 1/2: 27 + 54 (CBS 4749 + CBS 12526): rev. 2–5 notably mentions the delivery of 6 minas of wax:

It appears that Arad-eššēši, the debtor, had sealed a legal agreement which stipulated that he owed the wax to the sender. The party who enters into a commitment seals a legal agreement, whereas the other party keeps the document of proof for the amount owed. Thus, in PBS 1/2: 27 + 54 the sender, who had access to the document proving the debt, may have been the creditor. PBS 1/2: 27 + 54 shows that (bees)wax was obtainable by the elite of officials in the Kassite kingdom, though the extent of its availability is unknown.

The accessibility of beeswax in Kassite Nippur is supported by another administrative document. In the Kassite receipt MUN 406 a goldsmith receives 1/3 mina of wax, perhaps used for the creation of moulds for metal (gold) casting.

The value of beeswax in the Kassite period remains unclear, since no standard value equivalent is given, which we could compare to prices of other commodities at that time.

In the Ur III period 2 minas (= ca. one kilogram) of beeswax had the worth of one shekel (8.3 g) of silver^[28] (Powell 1987–1990: 510; Volk 1999: 287; note the mistake in Volk 2016: 609: one mina beeswax equals 4.15 g of silver, which is half a shekel, as one shekel weighs ca. 8.3 g).^[29] In a late Babylonian text from Sippar a temple buys 6 minas (3 kg) of beeswax for three shekels (24.9 g) of silver, cf. MacGinnis 2002: 226, fn 50). This equals the Ur III price (as opposed to Volk 2016: 609), as this means that also in this late period (under Nebuchadnezzar/Darius) 2 minas (=one kilogram) of beeswax had the worth of one shekel (8.3 g) of silver (Powell 1987–1990: 510). Since it is generally assumed that prices increased 30–50 % from the Old to the Neo-Babylonian period,^[30] this might imply that beeswax became cheaper compared to other commodities in the Neo- and Late Babylonian period, possibly because it was more widely available and used for writing boards in the context of temples and the (palaces) administration in the first millennium. Unfortunately the prices of commodities and value of the commonly used standard equivalents silver, gold and copper fluctuated^[31] and changed substantially in three millennia of Mesopotamian history, so it is difficult to draw conclusions for the prices of beeswax in the Kassite period.^[32]

Now, we turn our attention to materials other than wax, ochre, or orpiment that would have been essential for the production of writing boards in Kassite Nippur. The Nimrud writing boards were made out of walnut and ivory (elephant and hippopotamus, see Cammarosano, Jendritzki, and Streckfuss 2019a: 146; Volk 1999: 286; Wiseman 1955: 3), and the Ulu Burun writing boards were made of boxwood (^GEŠDAŠGARI(-N), taskarinnu, AHw: 1336–1337; Attinger 2021, 239; CAD T: 280–282; Pendleton and Warnock 1991: 107–110). Assyrian texts tell us that tamarisk (bīnu, ^GEŠŠENEG; Attinger 2021, 986; CAD B: 239–241), cypress (šurmēnu, ^GEŠŠUR.MIN₃, ^GIŠŠU-UR₂.MIN₃, ^GIŠŠU-UR₂.ME; Attinger 2021, 1006; CAD Š/3, 349–353) and cedar (erēnu, ^GEŠEREN; Attinger 2021, 357; CAD E, 274–279) woods were used to make writing boards (Wiseman 1955: 3, cf. fn. 11–13). While the tamarisk is native to Mesopotamia (Streck 2012, 428–431), the cedar was imported from the Cilician Taurus mountains, the Amanus mountains, the Lebanon and Cyprus (Streck 2017a: 236–239), and the cypress was imported from coastal Turkey and Levant, the eastern Taurus, and from Northern Iran (Streck 2017b: 371–372).

Regarding the sources of boxwood, out of which the Ulu Burun writing boards were made, Pendleton and Warnock (1991: 110) assume that “the Amanus mountain range in coastal northern Syria was the major recorded supplier of boxwood for the Egyptians and the various Mesopotamian empires,^[33] with Cyprus as a possible minor source” in the 14th century BC.^[34] The Amarna letter EA: 25, a list of luxury items sent from Tušratta of Mittani (mid-14th century) to Egypt, documents that boxwood (EA: 25 iv 23, 25, 63, together with elammakku wood) was sent from Mittani to Egypt.^[35] It is speculated that Mittani may have controlled the Amanus mountains at that time (Pendleton and Warnock 1991: 109).^[36]

3.2 The Sealing of Writing Boards

Having discussed the archaeological evidence and the availability of the raw materials to produce writing boards in Kassite Babylonia, let us now address the possibility that a writing board could function as an official sealed document in Kassite Nippur.

Postgate (1986: 23) argued that MDP 10: pl. 11 i 17, a late Kassite kudurru from Meli-Šipak (MŠ 3 in Paulus 2014b: 390–401), mentions the sealing of a writing board. However, the transliteration of MDP 10: pl. 11 i 17, to which Postgate referred, is now outdated. In the past, the combination of DIŠ.Ú was read as li _x -ú, which was interpreted as lē’u, “writing board.” This reading has been disproven. Instead, DIŠ.Ú is to be read as 1.KÙŠ, Akkadian ammatu, to designate a land survey document. The CAD L: 157a, s.v. lē’u, transliterates and translates MDP 10: pl. 11 (MŠ 3) i 17 incorrectly with [li _x]-ú.MEŠ … ik-nu-uk-ši, “he sealed the writing board.” The correct transliteration and translation, however, is supposed to be […]’ ù [1] KÙŠ.MEŠ bi-rim ^NA4KIŠIB-šu an aḫ-rat u ₄ -mi ik-nu-uk-ši, ‘And he sealed the land survey document with the impression of his seal for the future days’ (see Charpin 2002: 179, fn. 61; Paulus 2014b: 102, fn. 270, 394, 398; Sommerfeld 1984: 304; Zimmermann 2023: 84, fn. 50). Therefore, the reference to Postgate (1986: 23) in Zimmermann (2023: 96–97) is incorrect.

However, is there additional archaeological evidence in Kassite Nippur supporting the use of writing boards for legal or administrative purposes? With regard to first millennium writing boards and Hittite writing boards, sealed clay bullae are often quoted as archaeological evidence for sealing writing boards. It is a widely held view in the field of Hittitology that bullae/cretulae found in the northern part of the Upper City (Oberstadt) of Boğazköy and “Building D” on the acropolis Büyükkale were used to seal economic and legal texts (possibly land deeds), which are assumed to have been written on writing boards that are not preserved (Mora 2010: 97; van den Hout 2020: 218–23; Waal 2014–2016: 316).^[37] For criticism of this theory see Mora (2007: 535–59, ead. 2010: 96–97, ead. 2012: 59–76) and van den Hout (2020: 225–33).

The fact that Hittite writing boards were sealed is attested in Hittite textual sources: one example are the Hittite “Instructions for Temple Personnel” (KUB 13: 4 ii 42–44), in which a list of alienated goods on a GEŠ.HUR shall be sealed twice. Another example is the Hittite court document CTH 293, in which a LĒ’U writing board is sealed, and the purchaser promises to seal the received horses and mules in the future “in the same way” (Cammarosano, Jendritzki, and Streckfuss 2019a: 137–138).

It is commonly assumed that writing boards were sealed in the following way: a cord was wrapped around the board and tied into a knot, to which a clay bulla was attached, which was then sealed. Hence, the bullae have string holes near the apex, and breaking the string damaged the seal, exposing unauthorized tampering with the document’s content (MacGinnis 2002: 223; Postgate 1986: 23; Symington 1991: 120–1; Zimmermann 2023: 96). The Ulu Burun diptych shows that writing boards could also be fastened with a cord wrapped around a hook out of wood, metal, or ivory (Nemet Nejat 2000: 255). The Hittite clay bullae from the Nişantepe archive at Boğazköy were wrapped around the loosely hanging knot (Herbordt 2005: 25).

The references in Hittite texts demonstrate that sealing a writing board was possible. However, Mesopotamian sealing practices with regard to writing boards may have differed from Hittite sealing practices – after all, some researchers speculate that Mesopotamian writing boards may also have differed from Hittite ones (see Waal 2011, ead. 2012).^[38]

If the debate is to be moved forward, then it is important to consider that the Old Assyrian iṣurtum debt-notes of the native population in Anatolia must have been sealed to be legally valid. This means that the Assyrian traders were well aware of Anatolian sealing practices. Consequently, the possibility exists that they either copied or adapted the practice with some changes or (had) developed a separate tradition of sealing writing boards in Mesopotamia (see Dalley and Postgate 1984: 75 below). One argument raised against the existence of wooden documents in the Old Assyrian Period is the absence of large archives of clay bullae at Kültepe as opposed to Hattuša. Waal (2012: 309) argues that the Old Assyrian iṣurtum-documents may not have been sealed like the Ulu Burun writing board (likely of Mycenaean origin) or like the presumed sealing practice of first millennium BC writing boards. Therefore, no such clay bullae were found at Kültepe. Further, it has been discussed whether some of the clay bullae from Hattuša might have been attached to other perishable goods as well (Mora 2007: 535–59, ead. 2010: 96–97, ead. 2012: 59–76; Waal 2012: 308–309).

Having highlighted the controversy surrounding Hittite sealing practice and the possibility that there were differences between Hittite and Assyrian sealing practices, I would now like to draw the attention to Dalley and Postgate’s (1984: 75) analysis of the stamped bullae from Fort Shalmaneser. Dalley and Postgate (1984: 75) suggest that a Neo-Assyrian group of clay lumps from Fort Shalmaneser with stamp seal impressions and with a flat reverse, which bear wood and string impressions, may have been used to seal writing boards. However, the clay bullae of Fort Shalmaneser would be attached in a different way than the alleged Hittite sealing practice: the Neo-Assyrian bullae would be pressed to the point at which the cords, which are wrapped around the board, cross (the reconstructions in Cammarosano, Jendritzki, and Streckfuss 2019a: 148, Figure 10). The clay lumps date to the period between Sargon II and Sennacherib, when stamp seals became more popular on clay bullae (Dalley and Postgate 1984: 3, 73–75; see also MacGinnis 2002: 223).

Note that these Neo-Assyrian clay lumps contain the inscription ERIN₂.MEŠ MAN, the “troops of the king” (Dalley and Postgate 1984: 3, 73–75, nos. 21–23). This is reminiscent of the Middle Assyrian sources, which indicate that the documents termed lē’u ša PN, “the writing board of PN”, contained contingents of ERIN₂.MEŠ (work) troops, which belonged to high-ranking officials or the king (see Bloch 2013: 194, fn. 9; Freydank 1974: 55–89, id. 2001: 104, based on Cancik-Kirschbaum).

[T]hey were all apparently applied to a wooden object with a flat surface, which had been secured with string. One obvious candidate is a box, but it is perhaps likelier, as suggested in TCAE p. 26, that they were the sealings of wooden tablets inscribed with lists of soldiers. This can hardly be proved, but it does at least provide a single adequate explanation of the string and wood impressions on the reverse, the inscriptions on the obverse, and of the royal seal. Why the lists should have required tying up and a formal sealing, we do not know, but it presumably reflects the existence of some kind of administrative obligation between the officers named and the palace (Dalley and Postgate 1984: 75)

MacGinnis (2002: 223) addressed the question whether writing boards could have functioned as sealed legally authoritative documents in Mesopotamia in a similar capacity as they did in the Hittite realm. He comes to the conclusion that Mesopotamian legal practice, which was tied to traditional sealing practices, was “perfectly adapted to use on clay tablets,” while sealed writing boards had disadvantages in comparison. According to MacGinnis (2002: 23), traditional clay tablets, once dried, prevented alterations in contracts and allowed for the inspection of sealed contracts without damage; in contrast, sealed writing boards required the destruction of the seal or its string for inspection. Cammarosano, Jendritzki, and Streckfuss (2019a: 124–125, fn. 25), when discussing this possibility, point out that in specific periods of Roman history, wax boards were considered suitable for legal contracts, later replaced by alternative media; however, the shift was unrelated to enhanced security against alterations, as both wax boards and parchment offer similar safeguards when sealed.

Considering the probability that the stamp sealed and inscribed clay lumps from Neo-Assyrian Fort Shalmaneser sealed writing boards that recorded “reviewed” ERIN₂.MEŠ MAN, “troops of the king” (Dalley and Postgate 1984: 3, 73–75, nos. 21–23), we could consider whether a similar practice can be assumed for Kassite Nippur. So far, the sealed clay lumps and bullae from Kassite Nippur have not been associated with sealings of writing boards.

However, there is archaeological evidence from Nippur, which can cautiously be interpreted as pointing to the possibility that writing boards were sealed with clay bullae: five Kassite clay objects and tablets from Nippur bear stamp seal impressions from seal rings. One of these clay objects/tablets from Nippur, a bulla with a stamp seal impression, also bears a cord/string impression. As I argued before (Zimmermann 2023: 97), in the late Kassite period the seal ring, unqu, is attested (see Stiehler-Alegria Delgado 1996: 47–48). The unqu ring contained a stamp seal and, occasionally, the impression of an ellipsoidal bezel is visible in the clay (however, the most common seal type in the Kassite period is the cylinder seal). Further, Stiehler-Alegria Delgado notes that in the Kassite period some cylinder seals were not rolled over the clay, but pressed into it like a stamp seal (Stiehler-Alegria Delgado 1996: 44).

There are five stamp seal impressions from Nippur: Matthews (1992: nos. 182, 183, 184, 185, 186) and Stiehler-Alegria Delgado (1996: nos. 329, 338, 338a).

Although Matthews (1992: 57) notes that the ring stamps most often occur on bullae, not on tablets or envelopes, out of the five stamp seal impressions from Nippur, two stamp seal impressions of ring-seals, Matthews (1992: nos. 183 and 184) (14 N 244 and 14 N 248), are actually to be found on clay tablets. The clay tablets are most likely a dated legal document (perhaps, a receipt etc.) and an administrative (ration ?) list. The seal impressions belong to the “Second Kassite Group,” which is attested since the time of Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333), see Zettler (1993: 87). The tablet 14 N 244 (IM 80135; P349375), on which the seal ring Matthews (1992: no. 183) is impressed (on the right and left edges), dates to the 20th day of the month ajjaru (2nd month) of the accession year of Šagarakti-šuriaš (1246 BC, see Brinkman 2017: 36, see the visible signs in Zettler 1993: pl. 101b). An ellipsoidal bezel of the seal ring is partly visible on the right edge of 14 N 244 (Zettler 1993: 89, see pls. 92a and 101b). The second seal ring impression is visible on the upper edge of the undated tablet 14 N 248 (IM 80137; P349379). 14 N 248 is an administrative list, perhaps, a ration list (see the preserved amounts in the first two columns and rests of – presumably – personal names in the third column in Zettler 1993: pl. 102b).

The other three seal ring impressions from Nippur are impressed on two bullae (one with string marks, one with a flat surface) and on a clay object, which had been attached to a vessel:

1. The seal ring impression Stiehler-Alegria Delgado (1996: no. 329) (13 N 518, Matthews 1992: no. 186) was impressed 17 times on a plano-convex object, which was attached to the rim of a vessel – thus, it is clear that this object was not used to seal a writing board.

2. The second seal ring impression Stiehler-Alegria Delgado (1996: no. 338) and (Matthews 1992: no. 185) is on a bulla with string marks.

3. The third seal ring impression Stiehler-Alegria Delgado (1996: no. 338a) (CBS 8503; Matthews 1992: no. 182) can be found at least six times on a half-cylindrical bulla with three string holes on one end (Matthews 1992: 128 suspects a fourth hole on the flat side), which join and form one large hole at the other end.

At least one (possibly two) stamp seal impression from Kassite Ur is impressed on a contract (and, possibly, on a receipt). The seal ring impression Stiehler-Alegria Delgado (1996: no. 335) is visible on the legal agreement UET 7, 26 (IM 85497; Gurney 1974: no. 26, date: Marduk-apla-iddina I, year 5 = 1167 BC) from Ur on the reverse and the left edge (see Gurney 1974: pl. 13, no. 26, pl. 79, no. 26). The legal agreement concerns an exchange (a baby for five (?) garments, see Gurney 1983: 86–87). A second possible seal ring impression from Ur (it is unclear whether this is a damaged cylinder seal impression or a stamp seal impression, see Stiehler-Alegria Delgado 1996: no. 334) is preserved on the late Kassite receipt UET 7, 69 (IM 85540; Gurney 1974: no. 69, in which brewers confirm the receipt of corn as their maššartu, see Sassmannshausen 2001: 309–310; possibly dating to Adad-šuma-uṣur, 1216–1187).

The fact that seal rings are used to seal legal and administrative documents on clay from the 13^th century onwards in Kassite Babylonia, make it at least theoretically possible that a sealing practice similar to the practice assumed in Neo-Assyrian Fort Shalmaneser (Dalley and Postgate 1984: 3, 73–75, nos. 21–23) existed. The string marks on the stamp-sealed bulla Stiehler-Alegria Delgado (1996: no. 338) and (Matthews 1992: no. 185) and the string holes in the stamped bulla Stiehler-Alegria Delgado (1996: no. 338a) and (Matthews 1992: no. 182) imply that they were attached to an object with a string, possibly, to any goods or to a writing board. Furthermore, since cylinder seals were still predominantly in use in the Kassite period, one could imagine that they were used to seal clay bullae attached to writing boards. Obviously, further work is required to investigate the possible objects to which the clay bullae and lumps from Kassite Nippur had been attached.

4.1 Writing Boards in Middle Assyrian Sources

The Middle Assyrian references to lē’u are usually written without the GEŠ determinative for wooden objects (Postgate 1986: 23). Therefore, it is unclear whether the Middle Assyrian references to lē’u designate writing boards made of wood or large clay tablets (Postgate 1986: 23). Postgate argues that the visibility of writing boards and styli on Middle Babylonian kudurru monuments as the symbol for the deity Nabû supports the interpretation of lē’u in Middle Assyrian sources as writing board.

The term lē’u, present in the Middle Assyrian administrative texts, primarily serves three (presumed) functions, which exhibit distinct parallels to contemporary Kassite sources discussed above:

4.2 Writing Boards in Sources from Anatolia, Emar and Ugarit

To support the hypothesis of writing boards being employed in the Kassite administration for bookkeeping (especially for the workforce and cattle management), this section will present evidence from the regions in the north and northwest of the Kassite kingdom, including their use for contracts and debt notes in the Hittite kingdom, for bookkeeping in Emar, and for letter writing in Ugarit. One caveat needs to be noted regarding the Hittite realm and the regions under Hittite influence: due to the difference between Mesopotamian and Hittite scribal and sealing practice, the function of writing boards in Hittite society may only be applicable to Kassite Babylonia to a limited extent. However, the exceptionally numerous Hittite references provide us with an idea of the type of documents inscribed on writing boards as well as their sealing practice. Thus, in my opinion, it is useful to include a section on Anatolian writing boards in this study.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Hittite tradition of writing on wax and wood is to be distinguished from Mesopotamian traditions, textual sources from Kültepe suggest close contacts between Anatolians and Assyrians in the early 2nd millennium. Hittite sources make use of the akkadogram uṣurtum and the sumerogram GEŠ.HUR; furthermore the Akkadian term iṣurtum is attested in Kültepe (see below). Hittite sources distinguish between two groups of scribes, the ^LU2.MEŠDUB.SAR, “scribes,” and the ^LU2.MEŠDUB.SAR.GEŠ, “scribes on wood” (Cammarosano, Jendritzki, and Streckfuss 2019a: 145; van den Hout 2009–2011: 273–74; Waal 2011: 22, ead. 2012: 297).^[41] Although the Hittite influence on the Middle Euphrates region may have accelerated the use of wooden writing boards, the use of writing boards in the context of the palace and temple administration also appears to have been an ancient Mesopotamian tradition (Symington 1991: 111–12).

The Hittite ^LU2DUB.SAR.GEŠ is attested in sources from 13^th century Emar. In the Emar letter Arnaud (1985–1987: No. 261), the diviners Kapi-Dagan and Šaggar-abu ask for oil for offerings to the gods.^[42] The letter Arnaud (1985–1987: No. 261 17–25) reads the following:

inanna kīmē ēṣēti igammarū šūlâmma ella ištu līt Ṭuppi-[Teššub] LU₂.DUB.SAR GEŠ ša ina Šatappi ašbu šupuršu lilqû, “Now, because of the fact that they have used up these (f.) few, have it come up (=take it away, cf. CAD E, 133, s.v. elû), and send to him the oil out of the assets of Ṭuppi-[Teššub], the scribe-on-wood, who lives in the city of Šatappi. They shall take (it)!” (Arnaud 1985–1987: No. 261 17–25)

5.1 Writing Boards in the 3rd Millennium

There is very little evidence for the use of writing boards in third-millennium Mesopotamia. The earliest references to writing boards come from the Ur III period.^[55] In the earliest attestations, writing boards are called le-um (a loan from Akkadian lē’um) and ^ĝeš da, both meaning “board” or “wooden board.”^[56]

It appears that the provision of the workforce was already listed on wooden writing boards in the 3rd millennium BC – a remarkably similar context to the Kassite sources, especially BE 17: 51 (see above). The 3rd millennium sources tell us the following: a) le-ums were used for bookkeeping (to list income and expenditures), b) le-ums may have been used to record the work pensum of workers, c) le-ums were used for land surveys,^[57] d) le-ums functioned as a reliable source for the measurements of fields, and e) le-ums were stored in baskets together with clay tablets.

5.2 Writing Boards in the 1st Millennium

After demonstrating the diverse functions of writing boards in the southern Babylonian administration prior to the Kassite period, we will now briefly demonstrate their utilization in the post-Kassite era to look for parallels to the Kassite sources discussed above. According to Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian textual sources, long literary series and administrative lists were written on writing boards. A number of colophons indicated that Neo-Assyrian literary and scholarly texts, such as the astrological series Enūma Anu Enlil, were copied from writing boards (San Nicolò 1948: 63). According to the cover of the Nimrud writing boards for the royal library of Sargon II, they were inscribed with Enūma Anu Enlil. Based on the preserved inscribed flakes of wax Wiseman (1955: 7–8) calculates that the whole volume of Enūma Anu Enlil could have been written on the complete set of the polyptich leaves. An inventory from the library of Assurbanipal, which is from the 1^st millennium BC, contained at least 1441 clay tablets and 69 polyptichs; as the inventory is damaged, Parpola (1983: 4, fn. 11) calculates that the library may have contained 2000 clay tablets and 300 wooden writing boards (Cammarosano, Jendritzki, and Streckfuss 2019b: 132; fn. 109; Parpola 1983: 4, fn. 11; Volk 1999: 287).

The mentions of writing boards in 1st millennium textual sources align with the administrative function seen in the Middle Assyrian period and, possibly, during Kassite use for recording goods and workers. In the Neo- and Late-Babylonian period, there are countless references to the use of writing boards in the palace and temple administration^[77] as “real running accounts – the ledgers” (Jursa 2004: 170; Volk 1999: 287).^[78] These mentions in the Ebabbar and Eanna archives attest to their use as registers of agricultural land, temple personnel, silver/gold, rations, material issued for the preparations of food offerings and prebendary income, accounts of livestock, various agricultural dues, an income derived of house rentals (Jursa 2004: 172).^[79] Each writing board focused on transactions of a single type (e.g. rents, tithes, gifts, etc., see Jursa 2004: 172).^[80]

One notable example, a Neo-Babylonian list of prebendary income “states that the data on that list was not entered on the relevant writing board. From this one can infer that the opposite was the rule, but that exceptions were possible” (Jursa 2004: 174). This is reminiscent of the Ur III and Emar income (and a re-distribution) lists, which note at the end that the received (and possibly re-distributed) payments and levies had not been listed on a wooden writing board (see the examples above) – i.e. the exception from the rule. This highlights a notable consistency in employing this writing medium for administrative purposes from the Ur III to the Neo Babylonian period, supporting my hypothesis regarding the utilization of writing boards in Kassite animal husbandry and labour management.