Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T08:22:13.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ulu Burun Writing-Board Set

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Robert Payton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1984 the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA) began the excavation of a Late Bronze Age shipwreck, which lay close to Ulu Burun near Kaş, in south west Turkey. In subsequent seasons the Institute's excavation team, under the directorship of George F. Bass and Cemal Pulak, has systematically recorded and excavated a large area of the shipwreck, which has been provisionally dated to the 14th century B.C. Although the nationality of the ship is still unknown, it has been deduced that it was travelling from the eastern Mediterranean coast westward when it sank. The ship was carrying an exceptionally varied and rich cargo reflecting complex and sophisticated trading on a large scale. Amongst the items recovered in the 1986 season were fragments of a wooden writing-board set found in the sediment of one of the large pithoi (KW 252) carried onboard the ship. The importance and implications of such a find in the Late Bronze Age was recognized by Pulak who was able to loosely fit together the small fragments, enabling on site recordings to be made. Despite careful sieving and extensive searching, smaller fragments of the boards and one of the hinges were never recovered.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 41 , December 1991 , pp. 99 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1991

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 See Pulak, C. and Frey, D. A., “The Search for a Bronze Age Shipwreck”, Archaeology 38:4 (1985) 18–24Google Scholar; Bass, G. F., “A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kaş): 1984 Campaign”, AJA 90 (1986) 269–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pulak, C., “The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign”, AJA 92 (1988) 1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bass, G. F., Pulak, C., Collon, D. and Weinstein, J., “The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign”, AJA 93 (1989) 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Pulak (1988) ibid. 33–4.

3 Pulak (1988) ibid. 36.

4 Bass et al. (1989) ibid.

5 In keeping with contemporary epigraphical terminology, the writing set will be described as boards rather than tablets, see D. Symington, “The Textual Evidence for Writing-Boards in the Late Bronze Age in Anatolia and Syria” (in this volume).

6 The writing set was conserved by the author using the water soluble polyethylene glycol wax bulking technique to stabilise the wood and Paraloid B-72 (acrylic copolymer) to consolidate the ivory pieces. The pieces were joined with Paraloid B-72 adhesive. No shrinkage of the wood was noted after treatment.

7 The wood has been identified as boxwood (Buxus), see P. Warnock and M. Pendleton, “The Wood of the Ulu Burun Diptych” (in this volume).

8 In the top left-hand corner of the left board can be seen a mark left by a drill hole. This drilling and cutting technique is much in evidence in the Phrygian furniture of Gordion, see Young, R. S., Three Great Early Tumuli (1981), 68Google Scholar.

9 Faint chisel marks can be seen along the upper edges of the recesses. The marks left by chisels can be seen on most surviving examples of writing boards; see Pippidi, D. M. and Russu, I. I., Inscriptiile Daciei Romane 1 (1975) 165–256Google Scholar, for illustrations of the effect of this tool.

10 For example, Pippidi and Russu, ibid., figs. 80–102. Most Roman tablets' recesses were in fact not scored.

11 For examples of scored ivory surfaces, see Wiseman, D. J., “Assyrian Writing-Boards”, Iraq XVII (1955), 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with illustrations of the Nimrud ivory boards, also, Klengel-Brandt, E., “Eine Schreibtafel aus Assur”, AoF 3 (1975)Google Scholar, figs. 1–2, for an ivory writing set from Assur.

12 For example the walnut boards found at Nimrud are said to be as large or even larger than the ivory ones (i.e. 33.8 × 15.6 cm.): see Mallowan, M. E. L., “The Excavations At Nimrud (Kalẖu)”, Iraq XVI (1953) 98Google Scholar.

13 The Ulu Burun boards are 9.5 × 6.2 cm.

14 Pippidi and Russu, op. cit.

15 For writing boards with wax pigmented black see the terracotta figurines holding writing boards in: Grandjouan, C., Athenian Agora: Terracottas and Plastic Lamps, (1961) 54 plate 8, no. 390Google Scholar and Higgins, R. A., Greek Terracottas, (1967) 54 plate 32aGoogle Scholar. Tar was said to have been used, Pollux, , Onomasticon X, 57Google Scholar. Besides yellow coloured wax, see footnote 16, other pigmented waxes are recorded such as red and green, see Hughes, T. M'Kenny “On some Waxed Tablets said to have been found at Cambridge”, Archaeologia 55 (1897) 264–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and (red), Bell, H. I., “Tablets of the Third Century B.C.”, Ancient Egypt (1927) pt. III, 1Google Scholar, and in Ovid, Ars Amatoria I, 12, 11Google Scholar.

16 Wiseman, op. cit. 5.

17 Bass (1986) op. cit. 278–9.

18 For a description of the use of orpiment throughout history in improving the richness of painted surfaces see Gettens, R. J. and Stout, G. L., Painting Materials (1966) 135Google Scholar.

19 In certain conservation techniques, plaster or chalk is often mixed with beeswax to improve the properties and appearance of the wax when it is used for gap-filling purposes.

20 For examples from Boǧazköy, see Boehmer, R. M., “Die Kleinfunde von Boǧazköy”, WV DOG 87, (1972) 133–4Google Scholar and Tafel XLI; also Boehmer, R. M., “Die Kleinfunde aus Der Unterstadt von Boǧazköy”, Boǧazköy-Hattuša X, (1979), 31Google Scholar, Tafel XIX.

21 For illustrations of bone styli see Thompson, D. T., Athenian Agora, No. 12 The Ancient Shopping Centre (1972) fig. 46Google Scholar; also, Perlzweig, J., Athenian Agora, No, 9 Lamps from the Athenian Agora (1963) fig. 8Google Scholar. A fine example of a 5th century B.C. ivory stylus from an Eritrean tomb can be seen in Walters, H.B., Greek and Roman Life (1929) 207, fig. 227Google Scholar.

22 Grandjouan op. cit., plates 83, 84, 90, 93, 97 and 390.

23 Depictions of cord hinges can be seen on Greek vase paintings, see 5th century examples in: Smith, C. H., Catalogue of Vases in the British Museum III, (1896)Google Scholar plate V, no. E80.; Hartwig, P., Wolters, P. and Zahn, R., Die Antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen 2, (1929) plate 27, no. 356 and plate 31 no. 409Google Scholar.

24 See Howard, M., “Technical description of the ivory writing-boards from Nimrud”, Iraq XVII (1955) 14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 See Bowman, A. K. and Thomas, J. D., The Vindolanda Writing Tablets (1974) plates V and XIVGoogle Scholar.

26 Klengel-Brandt op. cit.

27 Bittel, K., Die Hethiter (1976), figs. 313 and 316Google Scholar.

28 Bittel ibid, fig. 305.

29 Wiseman op. cit., plate III, 2.

30 The hammering flattened out the ends of the wooden nails slightly, thereby providing a tight fit in the hinge holes. The wood of the nails has yet to be identified.

31 This is suggested by the observation that where the nail holes are visible in damaged areas, the tips of the nails do not reach to the end of the holes.

32 Bittel op. cit. fig. 316.

33 Undeciphered marks also exist on the border of an ivory recessed board (probably one of a pair) found in an Etruscan grave at Marsiliana d'Albegna, see Randall-Maclver, R., Villanovans and Early Etruscans (1924) 183–4, fig. 61Google Scholar; and Wiseman op. cit. plate III, 1.

34 Another carefully excavated shipwreck at Giglio in the Mediterranean, but of the Etruscan period, has also provided a writing board, no. G83/VJ2/6020. I thank Mensun Bound for showing me illustrations of this piece. This again indicates the potential of underwater archaeology for producing such finds.

35 See Symington op. cit.