The twelfth–thirteenth centuries formed one of the richest periods in Armenian historiography. Armenian sources of that period can be classified as general histories, chronicles, hagiographic sources, colophons, epigraphic sources or inscriptions, and poetry. They are essential for understanding the patterns of thought of medieval Armenians as well as of the Mongols. The Armenian sources differ in their attitudes toward the Mongols, expressing both neutral and personal views, and depending on where they were written, in Greater Armenia or in Cilician Armenia. The information of these historians varies according to their views of certain historical events, which are based on their culture, locality, and time and style of writing, as well as the character of the sources, whether chronicles or historical compilations.

An overview of all possible terms denoting wooden tablets indicates that few can be regarded as positive evidence. As a result, it is argued that wooden tablets played a secondary and even modest role in scribal communication. There is also no real evidence for the theory that they were inscribed in hieroglyphs instead of cuneiform. The strong Luwian character of the terms discussed reinforces the picture of a Luwian speaking population in the chancellery. Other issues discussed here are the objects often identified as styli and assumed to be used for writing hieroglyphs, the cursivization of the hieroglyphic script, and Hittite terms for writing.