Buchbesprechungen 311 collation on the photo, and the fact that in this point the tablet is fractured, the sign could simply be a broken pa. CTH 785: KBo 42.2 rev. 1H can be read as follows: pa-n[i PN, PN] gáb.z[u.zu ša PN išt  ur] using a phrasing typical of some Walwaziti’s colophons, in which the name of the supervisor always precedes the name of the scribe (with the exception of KBo 3.7 and of some colophons of the išu- wa-festival). CTH 825: In the hand copies of KBo 55 the fragments E 1730 (published as no. 279) and E 1733 (published as no. 280) have been switched by the editors. According to the photos in Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.95), E 1733 looks like no. 279 and E 1730 like no. 280. CTH 825: Durham 2462 rev. 1: the traces of the signs before the name of Walwaziti should be interpreted as pa-ni. Shai Gordin: Hittite Scribal Circles. Scholarly Tradition and Writing Habits. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 59). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015. xxiv, 461 S. ISBN 978-3-447-10526-2. E-Book: ISBN 978-3-447-19457-0. Preis: € 88,00. Besprochen von Rita Francia, Rome, Email: ritafrancia@libero.it https://doi.org/10.1515/za-2017-0104 The book under review is a revised version of Gordin’s Berlin dissertation on writing habits in Late Empire Period Ḫattuša, written under the supervision of E. Cancik-Kir- shbaum and J. Klinger. The premise of this study is the author’s research on the prosopography of 13 th century BC Hittite officials, conducted under the guidance of I. Singer at Tel Aviv University in 2008. The purpose of the book is the reconstruction of the scribal environment in Ḫattuša during the late 13 th century BC, together with an analysis of the writing habits of indi- vidual scribes. The choice to focus research on the last phase of the Hittite Empire is justified by the fact that in this period scribal signatures and personal annotations are better documented. To this aim Gordin has examined 172 personally annotated tablets (p. 51). In the Introduction (Chapter 1, pp. 1–50) the author discusses the main goals and the methodology of the work, the influences of Mesopotamian, Hurrian and Hattian literatures and cultures, the various types of writing mediums, their composition, the diplomatics and their storage. The primary objects of study are introduced here: colophons, scribal signatures and annotations, scribal circles, scribal families, scriptoria and supervisors (§§ 1.3.2; 1.3.3). Chapter 2 (pp. 51–94) is dedicated to studying the corpus of personal scribal annotations, with all that is related to it: the classification of ancient written docu- ments (§ 2.3.1), the importance of prosopography to recon- struct social institutions (§ 2.3.2) and, in the most important paragraph in this chapter (§ 2.3.3), one of the main goals of the book is declared: to identify individual handwrit- ing through the analysis of sign forms and orthographic features, with the aim of reconstructing the main charac- teristics of scribal bureaus. Some specific terms are taken from the paleographical lexicon, such as ductus and sign form. The description and characterization of individual scribal hands, personal ductus, with the associated ter- minology, has recently been the core of several studies by M. Cammarosano, who applied 3D computer analysis to Hittite cuneiform tablets.1 In Gordin’s affirmation, “In the Hittite context the significance of ductus is exhibited at least partly in the use of unique or irregular sign form, and in rare signs or rare signs values either adapted to Hittite case or more frequently taken from their Akkadian and Sumerian context” (p. 83), he seems to confuse ductus, that is uniquely “the act of tracing strokes on the writing surface”2 and sign shape, that is “that which embodies the characteristics, or essential elements, which enable a reader to distinguish one letter from another in the alpha- bet of a particular script” (Parkes [fn. 2] 152). Furthermore, the basic ductus may not coincide with sign form, that is “the configuration of traces required to construct a particu- lar letter [i. e. cuneiform] shape” (cfr. Parkes [fn. 2] 152), rather, the latter originates from it (p. 83). In this respect, Gordin’s definition and analysis of personal ductus is doubtful (§ 2.3.3). Cuneiform script is in itself different 1 M. Cammarosano, 3D-Joins und Schriftmetrologie. A quantitative approach to cuneiform palaeography, in: E. Devecchi [e. a.] (edd.), Current research in cuneiform palaeography. Proceedings of the workshop organized at the 60 th Rencontre Assyriologique Internatio- nale, Warsaw 2014 (Gladbeck 2015) 145–186. 2 M.B Parkes, Their hands before our eyes. A closer look at scribes. The Lyell lectures delivered in the University of Oxford 1999 (Al- dershot 2008) 151. Authenticated | ritafrancia@libero.it author's copy Download Date | 2/4/18 11:29 AM