Alphabetical Order as an Organizational Strategy at Ugarit?
Andrew Burlingame
GMU 3 | 2026 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22767312PDF
| Title: | Alphabetical Order as an Organizational Strategy at Ugarit? |
| Author: | Andrew Burlingame  Wheaton College  drew.burlingame@wheaton.edu |
| Keywords: | Ugarit, alphabet, alphabetical order, alphabetizing |
| Abstract: | A recent study of alphabetical order includes wide-ranging data drawn from Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia, dating from the second millennium BCE to the Middle Ages. Ugarit, however, is discussed only for the evidence its abecedaries provide for the order of the alphabet as learned by scribes in the Late Bronze Age. Yet occasional claims to detect alphabetization in texts from Ras Shamra have appeared in the secondary literature in the past. This study gathers recognized and unrecognized potential examples and reevaluates them in light of more recent research in order to determine whether alphabetical order was used as an organizational strategy at Ugarit. |
| Date: | 2026-09-23 (date of publication) |
| Issue: | Göttinger Miszellen zur Ugaritistik (GMU) 3 |
| DOI: | DOI |
| License: |  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. © Andrew Burlingame 2026. |
| Citation: | Burlingame, Andrew. 2026. “Alphabetical Order as an Organizational Strategy at Ugarit?” Göttinger Miszellen zur Ugaritistik 3. https://doi.org/ |
1. Introduction
Readers of these Miszellen will already be aware of the importance of epigraphic finds from Ras Shamra for establishing the antiquity and spread of the arrangements of the alphabet known from later traditions. Both the widely used ˀbgd order represented in later Canaanite and Aramaic abecedaries from the first millennium and the hlḥm arrangement known from Epigraphic South Arabian and Ethiopian Semitic traditions can be identified already in the Late Bronze Age, thanks in no small part to alphabetic cuneiform abecedaries found at Ras Shamra.The most thorough presentation of these abecedaries is that of Hawley 2008a, which provides a typology of abecedaries from Ras Shamra, including those following the “standard” order (a͗bgḫd …) as well as an atypical hlḥm exemplar (on which see further Bordreuil and Pardee 1995, 2001, and Robin 2008). Readers are also encouraged to consult Pardee 2007 for a detailed survey of the alphabetic cuneiform writing systems in evidence at Ras Shamra, as well as Hawley, Pardee, and Roche-Hawley 2015 for a historical contextualization of this system and its development.
The fact that the basic outline of the alphabetic order still used today was already in place in the second millennium BCE should never cease to amaze us, but a related question should also occur to us, which has perhaps been too infrequently raised. Allowing that we share the order of the alphabet essentially in common with these ancient traditions, we may reasonably wonder whether our own use of this order as an organizational tool through alphabetization might have more ancient precedents as well—and, if so, just how far back they go. Thanks to a recent article by Aaron Koller (2025), we now have a highly interesting survey of some of the earliest such uses currently known.
Koller reviews evidence for alphabetical arrangements of this sort, among which biblical acrostic poems represent early examples, though other types of alphabetized lists (like a second-century CE abecedary followed by an alphabetized list of personal names published by Puech 1980) are also mentioned. He further examines instances of alphabet-based encryption and play, including atbash-ciphers and gematria, which many have claimed to find already in biblical literature. The virtual absence of Ugarit from this discussion, however, may raise questions for some readers. While Koller discusses evidence from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant ranging from the second millennium BCE to the Middle Ages, Ugarit is invoked only for the information its documentary record provides concerning the order of the alphabet, courtesy of its abecedaries. Is the general omission of Ugarit from this survey justified? Does the site where the oldest body of alphabetic literature extant was produced and discovered offer any evidence for the development of alphabetical order as an organizational tool?
Some have seemed to answer this question affirmatively in the past. An alphabetic cuneiform list of personal names found during the nineteenth campaign at Ras Shamra, in which the entries all began with the same consonant, led Cyrus Gordon (1965, 280) to admit that the list might represent “a rudimentary use of alphabetizing in personnel management.” Fourteen years later, Maurice Sznycer (1979, 1422) asked whether the same list might be a “registre par ordre alphabétique.” Another possible example, discovered even earlier, was a logosyllabic list of toponyms first published by Charles Virolleaud (1940a, 124), who believed that the settlements registered were occasionally “groupées suivant l’ordre ‹ alphabétique ›.”
Is there anything to these claims? Among its many other “firsts,” does Ugarit provide the first evidence for alphabetical order as a tool of bureaucratic organization? More recent research makes it unlikely, and the findings of this article are accordingly negative. Nevertheless, as some of these dots have not previously been connected, a potential pitfall remains unrepaired in the bibliography, which this short study is designed to address.
2. Acrographic Organization
To begin, past scholarship has repeatedly observed that some lists of personal names follow an acrographic organization, according to which names beginning with the same consonant are grouped together. Sznycer’s and Gordon’s remarks just quoted were directed toward one such text (RS 19.003 = KTU 4.607). But acrographic arrangement is not the same thing as alphabetical ordering, and more recent scholarship has tended to view such acrographic lists as scribal exercises comparable to other thematic lexical lists. Hawley (2008b, 64) has described a group of such lists in the following terms:
“This type of text, attested from Ras Shamra in both script systems, bridges the gap between categories of ‘model documents’ and ‘thematic lists of words.’ Like the latter, the elements of these lists all belong to the same semantic category: in this case, personal names. Unlike the other members of that category, however, there is little or no evidence that these lists were learned in a particular fixed order; the single observable principle is their acrographic arrangement. Rather, in terms of pedagogical function, they seem more closely related to ‘model documents.’”
He identified RS 1.016 (= KTU 5.1),That this list of PNs is a scribal exercise has been suspected virtually since its discovery. The first presentation of the text (in copy only) appeared in Virolleaud 1929 (pl. LXX, no. 16), and by the following year, Bauer insisted that it was “[o]ffenbar ein Schülertäfelchen,” though he believed it consisted of a list of verb forms beginning with y- (1930, 74; see similarly Bauer 1936, 14, “Schreibübung”). Ginsberg (1936, 110) similarly classified the text as a scribal exercise (“תרגילו של־מתלמד”), observing that all entries began with the same letter (“בתרגיל זה כל התיבות מתחילות ב־י”). Herdner (1963, 199–200) included the text among her “textes économiques,” describing it as a “[l]iste de noms de personnes (?)” but adding that this classification was “douteux, bien que plusieurs des mots réunis ici et qui commencent tous par un y soient attestés comme noms propres” (1963, 199). Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín classified the text as a scribal exercise in all three editions of KTU (1976, 402; 1995, 489; 2013, 601), and the same classification can also be found in van Soldt 1995, 184 n. 71, 195; and Pardee 2009, 125. RS 19.003 (= KTU 4.607),Of the texts listed here, only RS 19.003 (= KTU 4.607) has occasioned more regular debate. The preceding and following texts are generally recognized as scribal exercises, whereas the placement of RS 19.003 in KTU section 4 reflects the conviction on the part of some researchers that this text is a genuine administrative list (though its status as a scribal exercise is assumed in the second and third editions of KTU, cited below). Clemens (2001, 447) provides a characteristically thorough review of previous literature treating this text. As noted already above, Sznycer (1979, 1422) had asked, “s’agirait-il d’une sorte de registre par ordre alphabétique, ici la lettre ’i?” Gordon (1965, 280) posed a similar question, observing that “whether such tablets are merely school exercises or indicate a rudimentary use of alphabetizing in personnel management remains open.” As Clemens (2001, 447) documents, many subsequent studies assume the first of these hypotheses, with van Soldt (1991, 117, 603), Sanmartín (1995, 142 n. 44, 158), Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1995, 420; 2013, 486 [though adding a question mark in the latter]), and Tropper and Vita (1998, 691) identifying the text as a scribal exercise. Clemens (2001, 447), on the other hand, maintains that the context of the find suggests a genuine administrative function. and RS 22.001 (= KTU 5.18)Like RS 1.016 (see above), the status of this text as a scribal exercise is generally acknowledged. It is treated as such in each edition of KTU (Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín 1976, 406; 1995, 495; 2013, 607), in the last two of which, the rationale is made explicit: “scribal exercise: list of PNs beginning with i-, cf. KTU 5.1; Ug. 5 N 98.” See further van Soldt 1995, 195. as the clearest alphabetic examples,Tropper and Vita (1998, 691) suggest that RS 19.014 (= KTU 4.608) may have functioned similarly. noting further (2008b, 64 with n. 54) that logosyllabic examples can be found in RS 15.054 (= PRU 3, p. 213),So also van Soldt 1995, 184 n. 73, 206. RS 20.007 (= Ug 5N [Nougayrol 1968], no. 98),So also Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín 1995, 489, 495; 2013, 601, 607; van Soldt 1995, 206. and “the sequences appended to the local version of Tu-ta-ti” published by Nougayrol (1965, 30).Van Soldt (1995, 206) cites RS 28.052 as another acrographic list of personal names, but this text remains unpublished. If the general consensus on this point is correct, then these lists do not provide evidence for alphabetized “extracts” of larger administrative lists and cannot be used to suggest that the order of the alphabet was employed as an organizational tool.
3. Acrostics in Ugaritic Poetry?
A second potentially related topic pertains to poetic acrostics. Wilfred Watson claimed to find examples of “quasi-acrostics” in Ugaritic poetic literature (Watson 1980, 445–447; 1994, 89–91, accepted in Noegel 2021, 221–222). These are series of poetic lines that begin with the same consonant—directly comparable, in other words, to the acrographic lists discussed immediately above. In light of the literary genre in which they appear, they have also been described as examples of “initial” or “anaphoric alliteration” (Watson 1980, 447; 1994, 431–434) or “opening alliteration” (Yogev and Yona 2015, 108–113). Yet none of these follow an alphabetical arrangement like those known from biblical acrostic poems.Nor do the “menostichs” Scott Noegel believes to be detectable in Kirta and Baˁlu (2021, 222–224). If neither the acrographic lists of personal names nor the quasi-acrostics appearing in Ugaritic poetry evince the use of alphabetical order as an organizational strategy, are other examples available?
4. Alphabetical Order in a List of Toponyms?
In a 1940 study dedicated to “[l]es villes et les corporations du royaume d’Ugarit,” Virolleaud published fourteen texts discovered during the tenth (1938) and eleventh (1939) archaeological campaigns at Ras Shamra that provided lists of toponyms or professional groups. The first of these texts was the logosyllabic list of settlements cataloged as RS 11.830 (= PRU 3, p. 190), which had been found in the Royal Palace, room 5 (Archives Ouest) (Bordreuil and Pardee 1989, 60). The text is presented here, adapting the transliteration of Virolleaud (1940a, 124):
| RS 11.830 (after Virolleaud 1940a, 124) | |
|---|---|
| 1 urugán-na-a | 4 UD-me |
| 2 urua-me-za | 2 |
| 3 uruia-ar-du | 5 |
| 4 uruia-pa-rum | 11 |
| 5 urušu-ra-šu | 7 |
| 6 urula-ab-ni-ma | 8 |
| 7 urumi-ḫi | 12 |
| 8 uruma-ṣi-bat | 4 |
| 9 uruma-at-qab | 4 |
| 10 uruma-ra-el | 4 |
| 11 uruu-bu-zu | 3 |
| 12 urugul-ba-ta | 3 |
| 13 uruḫal-bi ḫur.sagḫa-zi | 7 |
What caught Virolleaud’s eye were the sequences found in lines 3–4 and 8–10, which he described in the following terms (1940a: 124):
“dans certains cas, ll. 3–4 et ll. 8–10, les villes paraissent être groupées suivant l’ordre ‹ alphabétique ›. Même chose aux nos III, 30–31 (villes de Šanniga et Šannâ); VII, 4–5 (Šlrby et Šlḥny) et XI, 11–12 (Šlḥny, Šlrby).”
Fifty years later, Eckart Schwab’s study (1990, 304) of the “‚kanonischen‘ Reihenfolge der Städte in Ortsnamen-Listen” adopted and applied Virolleaud’s description:
“Bei der Reihenfolge ist wohl zunächst an geographische Gegebenheiten, etwa Grenz- oder Küstenlinien zu denken. … Gelegentlich werden aber auch mnemotechnische Aspekte eine Rolle spielen. So folgen verschiedentlich Ortsnamen aufeinander, die mit denselben Konsonanten beginnen … . Die syllabisch geschriebene Tafel RS 11.830 folgt in den Zeilen 3–4: ALUYa-ar-tu – ALUYa-pa-rum und besonders 8–10: ALUMa-ṣi-bat – ALUMa-at-qab – ALUMa-ra-el alphabetischer Ordnung.”
Readers will observe, however, that what both Virolleaud and Schwab describe as alphabetical arrangement actually represents the same acrographic principle described already above. Nevertheless, those who read either of these descriptions and examine the text in question more closely may be prone to notice what seems not to have caught the attention of either scholar,In fact, it would have been impossible for Virolleaud to recognize this potential pattern in 1940. At that time, only two of the eighteen abecedaries now known had been discovered, neither complete (RS 5.274 [= KTU 5.31]; RS 10.081 [= KTU 5.4]). The first of these was not published until 1963, at which point it had still not been recognized as an abecedary (“Contenu indéterminé,” Herdner 1963, 290 = CTA 215). Virolleaud published the second of these in the same year as the study under discussion above (Virolleaud 1940b, 34), but he did not recognize the text as an abecedary, due, no doubt, to its fragmentary state and the absence of clear parallels. He republished the text eleven years later (Virolleaud 1951, 23), by which time the most famous of the abecedaries—RS 12.063 (= KTU 5.6)—had been found, facilitating the correct identification of the example from the tenth campaign. namely, that the complete ensemble of ll. 3–10 does appear to track with alphabetical order as known at Ugarit: Yardu, Yaparu, Šurašu, Labnima, Miḫi, Maṣibat, Matqab, Marael follow, more or less neatly, the corresponding portion of the Ugaritic alphabet, y-[k]-š-l-m!
| RS 11.830 (= PRU 3, p. 190) | |
|---|---|
| Obverse, ll. 3–10: | ia-ar-du, ia-pa-rum, šu-ra-šu, la-ab-ni-ma, mi-ḫi, ma-ṣi-bat, ma-at-qab, ma-ra-el |
| cf. y-[k]-š-l-m | |
Virolleaud also mentioned his text III (RS 11.800 bis), examination of which turns up two similarly suggestive sequences:
| RS 11.800 bis (= PRU 3, p. 190) | |
|---|---|
| Obverse, ll. 10–14: | zi-na-ru, ḫal-bu qar-ra-di, ṭì-ba-qu, ia-ku-naˁmu(SIG5), ma-qa-bu |
| cf. z-ḥ-ṭ-y-[k-š-l]-m | |
| Reverse, ll. 23–27: | ia-pa-ru, la-bi-nu-ma, šúm-me, mi-ḫu, na-nu-ú |
| cf. y-[k]-š-l-m-[ḏ]-n (here š and l would be reversed) | |
Summarizing these three sequences synoptically in tabular format illustrates the potential more strikingly:
| Alph. | RS 11.830, ll. 3–10 | RS 11.800 bis, ll. 10–14 | RS 11.800 bis, ll. 23–27 | Alph. |
| z | zi-na-ru | z | ||
| ḥ | ḫal-bu qar-ra-di | ḥ | ||
| ṭ | ṭì-ba-qu | ṭ | ||
| y | ia-ar-du | ia-ku-naˁmu(SIG5) | ia-pa-ru | y |
| ia-pa-rum | ||||
| [k] | [k] | |||
| š | šu-ra-šu | la-bi-nu-ma | l! | |
| l | la-ab-ni-ma | šúm-me | š! | |
| m | mi-ḫi | ma-qa-bu | mi-ḫu | m |
| ma-ṣi-bat | ||||
| ma-at-qab | ||||
| ma-ra-el | ||||
| [ḏ] | [ḏ] | |||
| n | na-nu-ú | n |
Table 1: Alphabetical order in toponym lists (subject to revision below).
Even though the lists are not organized alphabetically throughout, these would nevertheless be astonishing examples, plausibly indicating that the individuals responsible for producing them were not only familiar with alphabetic cuneiform but felt free to use the alphabet as an organizational principle for logosyllabic lists. One could scarcely hope for a better illustration of the interaction of the two systems of writing and for an early, innovative use of the alphabet as an organizational tool. This would demonstrate not only the type of “metalinguistic thought” Koller discusses (2025, 494–496) but would arguably go farther than biblical alphabetic acrostic psalms in applying this innovation. Such poems are the result of an application or extension of the alphabet (in which an author creates poetic lines that begin with each successive consonant of the alphabet), whereas these texts would use the alphabet as a tool for organizing preexisting material not easily organized by other means (as we do today in our bibliographies and telephone directories).
Yet there are reasons to think that this scenario is too good to be true. First, the fact that only a handful of toponyms within these lists would be arranged alphabetically raises immediate questions. What purpose would partial alphabetization serve? Second, the examples noted in RS 11.800 bis are far from straightforward: they only work if we squint at them, overlooking the fact that Ḫalbu toponyms are consistently spelled with {ḫ} (the third letter of the alphabet), not {ḥ} (the ninth letter), in the alphabetic texts (see van Soldt 2005, 19–21) and making generous allowance for the reversal of {l} and {š} in the sequence appearing on the reverse of the tablet.
The most fatal flaw, however, can be exposed thanks to further, and in a couple of instances, relatively recent toponymic research. The second sequence identified above, RS 11.800 bis, ll. 10–14, begins with Zi-na-ru as published in 1940. In the same study, however, Virolleaud encountered examples of the alphabetically written toponym snr. He recognized even then the likely equation of the two, citing “Zinaru = Snr” as an example of syllabic Z-signs used for alphabetic {s} (1940a, 142) and even allowing that zi-na-ru should perhaps be transcribed as sí-na-ru (1940a, 143, 146). This latter proposal was adopted in Nougayrol’s edition (PRU 3, p. 190) and remains standard today (see van Soldt 2005, 35). A sequence s-ḫ-ṭ-y-m does not follow the alphabet quite so neatly!
In the case of the first and third examples, the toponym that Virolleaud gave as Miḫu/i was identically presented in Nougayrol’s editions of the two texts in question (both appearing in PRU 3, p. 190). In 1994, however, van Soldt proposed an identification of the syllabic toponym uruMI-ḫu/ḫi with the alphabetically attested toponym Silḫu ({slḫ}) (van Soldt 1994, 365 n. 9; 2005, 34 with n. 278). He argued that since alphabetic slḫ lacked any syllabic counterpart, while syllabic mi-ḫu/i was similarly stranded relative to the alphabetic data, MI should simply be read as silx, a reading “derived from the more regular value ṣíl” (1994, 365 n. 9). In fact, the arguments in favor of this reading go farther: syllabic uruMI-ḫu/ḫi and alphabetic slḫ regularly appear in conjunction with the same groups of settlements, a point more clearly exposed in van Soldt 2005. Especially compelling is the example found in RS 92.2001 ii 22–23 (= KTU 4.800), where slḫ follows mṣbt immediately, providing a direct parallel for the consecutive arrangement of uruMI-ḫi and uruma-ṣi-bat (though in the opposite order) in RS 11.830:7–8 above. Van Soldt (2005, 34) collected six examples of this toponym appearing in logosyllabic texts, consistently spelled with MI. Based on presently available evidence, his proposal is unassailable, so the equation MI = /sil/ should be regarded as established at Ras Shamra.Those who consult updated online sign lists like those of Oracc (https://
In the third example, the toponym given by Virolleaud as Šúm-me has also been revised. Nougayrol’s edition (PRU 3, p. 190) already read SUM as ar(i) rather than šúm. He offered the same correction in his presentation of RS 11.790:28' (= PRU 3, p. 189), but in neither case did he provide a rationale for the change. The “Répertoire III-2” of placenames appearing at the end of the volume (PRU 3, p. 265) presents this toponym as “alar(i)-mì (= ala-ri?).” If this hesitant equation of “Arimi” with Ari represents Nougayrol’s reason for reading SUM as he did, it was a lucky accident: the toponym uruari6/arx-me is most likely the syllabic representation of alphabetic ˁrm, not a͗r/“Ari” (see van Soldt 2005, 36 with n. 304).
Normalized according to current toponymic representations (following van Soldt 2005), the three sequences appearing above can be revised as follows:
| RS 11.830, ll. 3–10 | RS 11.800 bis, ll. 10–14 | RS 11.800 bis, ll. 23–27 |
| Yaˁartu | Sinaru | Yaparu |
| Yaparu | Ḫalbu-karradi | Lab(i)nūma |
| Šurašu | Ṭibaqu | ˁArmu |
| Lab(i)nūma | Yakunaˁmu | Silḫu |
| Silḫu | Maˁqabu | Nanuˀu |
| Maṣibat | ||
| Maˀduḫu | ||
| Maraˀil | ||
| y-š-l-s-m | s-ḫ-ṭ-y-m | y-l-ˁ-s-n |
Table 2: Revised presentation of toponym lists.
5. Conclusions
With these revisions in place, any hope of finding toponyms arranged in alphabetical order vanishes. For the time being, then, the material from Ugarit provides no clear instance of alphabetical order used as an organizational strategy—though we should continue to keep our eyes open for other possible examples!
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to Adam Miglio, Jacob Lauinger, Dennis Pardee, and the two anonymous reviewers of this article, each of whom has offered helpful input that has improved its clarity and quality. Any remaining errors are my responsibility.
Notes
- The most thorough presentation of these abecedaries is that of Hawley 2008a, which provides a typology of abecedaries from Ras Shamra, including those following the “standard” order (a͗bgḫd …) as well as an atypical hlḥm exemplar (on which see further Bordreuil and Pardee 1995, 2001, and Robin 2008). Readers are also encouraged to consult Pardee 2007 for a detailed survey of the alphabetic cuneiform writing systems in evidence at Ras Shamra, as well as Hawley, Pardee, and Roche-Hawley 2015 for a historical contextualization of this system and its development.
- That this list of PNs is a scribal exercise has been suspected virtually since its discovery. The first presentation of the text (in copy only) appeared in Virolleaud 1929 (pl. LXX, no. 16), and by the following year, Bauer insisted that it was “[o]ffenbar ein Schülertäfelchen,” though he believed it consisted of a list of verb forms beginning with y- (1930, 74; see similarly Bauer 1936, 14, “Schreibübung”). Ginsberg (1936, 110) similarly classified the text as a scribal exercise (“תרגילו של־מתלמד”), observing that all entries began with the same letter (“בתרגיל זה כל התיבות מתחילות ב־י”). Herdner (1963, 199–200) included the text among her “textes économiques,” describing it as a “[l]iste de noms de personnes (?)” but adding that this classification was “douteux, bien que plusieurs des mots réunis ici et qui commencent tous par un y soient attestés comme noms propres” (1963, 199). Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín classified the text as a scribal exercise in all three editions of KTU (1976, 402; 1995, 489; 2013, 601), and the same classification can also be found in van Soldt 1995, 184 n. 71, 195; and Pardee 2009, 125.
- Of the texts listed here, only RS 19.003 (= KTU 4.607) has occasioned more regular debate. The preceding and following texts are generally recognized as scribal exercises, whereas the placement of RS 19.003 in KTU section 4 reflects the conviction on the part of some researchers that this text is a genuine administrative list (though its status as a scribal exercise is assumed in the second and third editions of KTU, cited below). Clemens (2001, 447) provides a characteristically thorough review of previous literature treating this text. As noted already above, Sznycer (1979, 1422) had asked, “s’agirait-il d’une sorte de registre par ordre alphabétique, ici la lettre ’i?” Gordon (1965, 280) posed a similar question, observing that “whether such tablets are merely school exercises or indicate a rudimentary use of alphabetizing in personnel management remains open.” As Clemens (2001, 447) documents, many subsequent studies assume the first of these hypotheses, with van Soldt (1991, 117, 603), Sanmartín (1995, 142 n. 44, 158), Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1995, 420; 2013, 486 [though adding a question mark in the latter]), and Tropper and Vita (1998, 691) identifying the text as a scribal exercise. Clemens (2001, 447), on the other hand, maintains that the context of the find suggests a genuine administrative function.
- Like RS 1.016 (see above), the status of this text as a scribal exercise is generally acknowledged. It is treated as such in each edition of KTU (Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín 1976, 406; 1995, 495; 2013, 607), in the last two of which, the rationale is made explicit: “scribal exercise: list of PNs beginning with i-, cf. KTU 5.1; Ug. 5 N 98.” See further van Soldt 1995, 195.
- Tropper and Vita (1998, 691) suggest that RS 19.014 (= KTU 4.608) may have functioned similarly.
- So also van Soldt 1995, 184 n. 73, 206.
- So also Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín 1995, 489, 495; 2013, 601, 607; van Soldt 1995, 206.
- Van Soldt (1995, 206) cites RS 28.052 as another acrographic list of personal names, but this text remains unpublished.
- Nor do the “menostichs” Scott Noegel believes to be detectable in Kirta and Baˁlu (2021, 222–224).
- In fact, it would have been impossible for Virolleaud to recognize this potential pattern in 1940. At that time, only two of the eighteen abecedaries now known had been discovered, neither complete (RS 5.274 [= KTU 5.31]; RS 10.081 [= KTU 5.4]). The first of these was not published until 1963, at which point it had still not been recognized as an abecedary (“Contenu indéterminé,” Herdner 1963, 290 = CTA 215). Virolleaud published the second of these in the same year as the study under discussion above (Virolleaud 1940b, 34), but he did not recognize the text as an abecedary, due, no doubt, to its fragmentary state and the absence of clear parallels. He republished the text eleven years later (Virolleaud 1951, 23), by which time the most famous of the abecedaries—RS 12.063 (= KTU 5.6)—had been found, facilitating the correct identification of the example from the tenth campaign.
- Those who consult updated online sign lists like those of Oracc (https://
oracc. , accessed 17 July 2026) or eBL (https://museum. upenn. edu/ osl/ signlist/ l0077/ o0000455/ index.html www. , accessed 17 July 2026) will, in fact, find sil4 registered among readings of MI. As far as I have been able to determine, this appears to be a case in which an older reading, now generally stricken from standard reference tools, has made its way into these online sign lists. Among published sign lists I have consulted, only Deimel and Gössman (1947, 144 [sign #770]) offers “(s)il4” as a Sumerian value for MI. The reading sil4 is clearly removed by Borger in both ABZ (1986, 168) and MesZL (2010, 398). The result is that MesZL (2010, 517) includes sil1–3 and sil5–10, but no sil4. To avoid disrupting the established numbering and in light of Deimel and Gössman’s older MI = (s)il4, this reading and numbering should perhaps be reintroduced in standard sign lists, and van Soldt’s reading silx can be replaced with sil4.ebl. lmu. de/ tools/ signs/ MI - For the revised reading of GABA as duḫ rather than qab, yielding ma-ad-duḫ in place of Virolleaud’s ma-at-qab, and thereby facilitating connection to alphabetic {mi͗dḫ}, see van Soldt 2005, 28 with n. 214 (with earlier bibliography).
Abbreviations
The abbreviations follow RlA (Streck, Michael P., et al., eds. 1928–2016. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin etc. [Download PDF]).
References
Bauer, Hans. 1930. Entzifferung der Keilschrifttafeln von Ras Schamra. Halle.
Bauer, Hans. 1936. Die alphabetischen Keilschrifttexte von Ras Schamra. Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 168. Berlin.
Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee. 1989. La trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit 1: Concordance. RSOu. 5. Paris.
Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee. 1995. “Un abécédaire du type sud-sémitique découvert en 1988 dans les fouilles archéologiques françaises de Ras Shamra-Ougarit.” CRAIBL 139: 855–860.
Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee. 2001. “Abécédaire (no. 32).” In Études ougaritiques I: Travaux 1985–1995, edited by Marguerite Yon and Daniel Arnaud, 341–348. RSOu. 14. Paris.
Borger, Rykle. 1986. Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste. 3., unveränderte Auflage (Nachdruck der 1. Auflage mit Supplement S. 415–452). AOAT 33/33A. Kevelaer / Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Borger, Rykle. 2010. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Zweite, revidierte und aktualisierte Auflage. AOAT 305. Münster.
Clemens, David M. 2001. Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice. Vol. I: Ugaritic and Ugarit Akkadian Texts. AOAT 284/1. Münster.
Deimel, Anton, and Felix Gössmann. 1947. Šumerisches Lexikon, 1. Teil: Šumerische, akkadische und hethitische Lautwerte nach Keilschriftzeichen und Alphabet. 3rd ed. Rome.
Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. 1976. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit: Einschließlich der keilalphabetischen Texte außerhalb Ugarits. Teil 1: Transkription. AOAT 24. Kevelaer / Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. 1995. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. ALASP 8. Münster.
Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. 2013. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten. AOAT 360/1. Münster.
Ginsberg, Harold Louis. 1936. The Ugarit Texts. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
Gordon, Cyrus H. 1965. Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices. AnOr. 38. Rome.
Hawley, Robert. 2008a. “Apprendre à écrire à Ougarit : une typologie des abécédaires.” In D’Ougarit à Jérusalem: Recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil, edited by Carole Roche, 215–232. Orient et Méditerranée 2. Paris.
Hawley, Robert. 2008b. “On the Alphabetic Scribal Curriculum at Ugarit.” In Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. July 18–22, 2005, edited by Robert D. Biggs, Jennie Myers, and Martha T. Roth, 57–67. SAOC 62. Chicago.
Hawley, Robert, Dennis Pardee, and Carole Roche-Hawley. 2015. “The Scribal Culture of Ugarit.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2: 229–267.
Herdner, Andrée. 1963. Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. MRS 10. Paris.
Koller, Aaron J. 2025. “Alphabetical Order and Alphabetical Thinking in the East and West: From Antiquity to the Middle Ages.” In Interconnected Traditions: Semitic Languages, Literatures, and Cultures—A Festschrift for Geoffrey Khan. Volume 1: Hebrew and the Wider Semitic World, edited by Aaron D. Hornkohl et al., 491–527. Semitic Languages and Cultures 35. Cambridge.
Noegel, Scott B. 2021. “Wordplay” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Ancient Near East Monographs 26. Atlanta.
Nougayrol, Jean. 1965. “‹ Vocalises › et ‹ syllabes en liberté › à Ugarit.” In Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, edited by Hans G. Güterbock and Thorkild Jacobsen, 29–39. AS 16. Chicago.
Nougayrol, Jean. 1968. “Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit.” In Ugaritica V, edited by Jean Nougayrol, Emmanuel Laroche, Charles Virolleaud, and Claude F. A. Schaeffer, 1–446. MRS 16. Paris.
Pardee, Dennis. 2007. “The Ugaritic Alphabetic Cuneiform Writing System in the Context of Other Alphabetic Systems.” In Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg, edited by Cynthia L. Miller, 181–200. SAOC 60. Chicago.
Pardee, Dennis. 2009. Review of The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro‐Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah, c. 1500‐1000 BCE, by Izak Cornelius (2004. OBO 204. Fribourg), and Götter und Kulte in Ugarit: Kultur und Religion einer nordsyrischen Königsstadt in der Spätbronzezeit, by Izak Cornelius and Herbert Niehr (2004. Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie. Sonderbände der Antiken Welt. Mainz). JNES 68: 120–129.
Puech, Émile. 1980. “Abécédaire et liste alphabétique de noms hébreux du début du IIe s. A.D.” RB 87: 118–126.
Robin, Christian Julien. 2008. “La lecture et l’interprétation de l’abécédaire Raˀs Shamra 88.2215. La preuve par l’Arabie ?” In D’Ougarit à Jérusalem: Recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil, edited by Carole Roche, 233–244. Orient et Méditerranée 2. Paris.
Sanmartín, Joaquín. 1995. “Wirtschaft und Handel in Ugarit: Kulturgrammatische Aspekte.” In Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. Band I: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt, edited by Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, 131–158. ALASP 7. Münster.
Schwab, Eckart. 1990. “Beobachtungen zur ‚kanonischen‘ Reihenfolge der Städte in Ortsnamen-Listen mit verbesserten Lesungen einiger fragmentarischer KTU-Tafeln.” UF 22: 303–310.
van Soldt, Wilfred H. 1991. Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar. AOAT 40. Kevelaer / Neukirchen-Vluyn.
van Soldt, Wilfred H. 1994. “The Topography and the Geographical Horizon of the City-State of Ugarit.” In Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible (Manchester, September 1992), edited by George J. Brooke / Adrian H. W. Curtis / John F. Healey, 363–382. UBL 11. Münster.
van Soldt, Wilfred H. 1995. “Babylonian Lexical, Religious and Literary Texts and Scribal Education at Ugarit and Its Implications for the Alphabetic Literary Texts.” In Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. Band I: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt, edited by Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, 171–212. ALASP 7. Münster.
van Soldt, Wilfred H. 2005. The Topography of the City-State of Ugarit. AOAT 324. Münster.
Sznycer, Maurice. 1979. “Documents administratifs et économiques.” SDB 9, col. 1417–1425.
Tropper, Josef, and Juan-Pablo Vita. 1998. “Untersuchungen zu ugaritischen Wirtschaftstexten.” UF 30: 679–696.
Virolleaud, Charles. 1929. “Les inscriptions cunéiformes de Ras Shamra.” Syria 10: 304–310.
Virolleaud, Charles. 1940a. “Les villes et les corporations du royaume d’Ugarit.” Syria 21: 123–151.
Virolleaud, Charles. 1940b. “Textes administratifs de Ras-Shamra en cunéiforme alphabétique.” RA 37: 11–44.
Virolleaud, Charles. 1951. “Les nouvelles tablettes de Ras Shamra (1948–1949).” Syria 28: 25–56.
Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1980. “Quasi-Acrostics in Ugaritic Poetry.” UF 12: 445–447.
Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1994: Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse. JSOT Suppl. Ser. 170. Sheffield.
Yogev, Jonathan, and Shamir Yona. 2015. “Opening Alliteration in Biblical and Ugaritic Poetry.” ZAW 127: 108–113.