Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES/HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK) 9004109889, 9789004109889

Citation preview

HANDBOOK OF UGARITIC STUDIES

HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES ERSTE ABTEILUNG

DER NAHE UND MITTLERE OSTEN THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

H. ALTENMÜLLER · B. HROUDA · B.A. LEVINE · R.S. O’FAHEY K.R. VEENHOF · C.H.M. VERSTEEGH

NEUNUNDDREISSIGSTER BAND

HANDBOOK OF UGARITIC STUDIES

HANDBOOK OF UGARITIC STUDIES

EDITED BY

WILFRED G.E. WATSON

AND

NICOLAS WYATT

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON • KÖLN 1999

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Handbook of Ugaritic studies / [edited] by Wilfred G.E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt. p. cm. — (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten, ISSN 0169-9423 ; 39. Bd.) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004109889 (alk. paper) 1. Ugarit (Extinct city) 2. Cuneiform inscriptions, Ugaritic. 3. Ugaritic philology. I. Watson, Wilfred G.E. II. Wyatt. Nicolas. III. Series. DS99.U35H35 1999 939’.43—dc21 99-13946 CIP Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Handbuch der Orientalistik. – Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill Teilw. hrsg. von II. Altenmüller .– Teilw. hrsg. von B. Spuler .– Literaturangaben Teilw. mit Parallelt.: Handbook of oriental studies

Abt. 1. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten = The Near and Middle East / hrsg. von H. Altenmüller ... Teilw. hrsg. von B. Spuler Bd. 39. Handbook of Ugaritic studies. – 1999

Handbook of Ugaritic studies / by Wilfred G.E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt (eds.). – Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill, 1999 (Handbuch der Orientalistik : Abt. 1, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten : Bd.39) ISBN 90-04-10988-9

ISSN 0169-9423 ISBN 90 04 10988 9 © Copyright 1999 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

This handbook is dedicated to Cyrus H. Gordon

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations .................................................................... Preface ........................................................................................ W W – N W

xi xii

Chapter One General Introduction ...................................... W W – N W

1

Chapter Two Ras Shamra, Minet el-Beida and Ras Ibn Hani: The Material Sources .................................. A C Chapter Three The Written Sources .................................... 1 The Syllabic Akkadian Texts .......................................... W  S 2 The Alphabetic Ugaritic Tablets .................................... W P 3 The Hurrian and Hittite Texts ...................................... M D – W M

5 28 28 46 58

Chapter Four The Ugaritic Language .................................. 76 1 The Decipherment of Ugaritic ...................................... 76 K C 2 The Ugaritic Script .......................................................... 81 M D – O L 3 Ugaritic Grammar ........................................................... 91 J T 4 Ugaritic Lexicography ...................................................... 122 W W 5 Ugaritic Words in Syllabic Texts ................................... 134 J H Chapter Five Ugaritic Stylistics .............................................. 140 1 Ugaritic Prose .................................................................. 140 M D 2 Ugaritic Poetry ................................................................ 165 W W

viii



Chapter Six The Ugaritic Literary Texts .............................. 1 The Mythological Texts .................................................. J G 2 The Legend of Keret ...................................................... B M 3 The Story of Aqhat ........................................................ N W 4 The Rpum Texts .............................................................. W P 5 The Incantations .............................................................. K S

193 193 203 234 259 270

Chapter Seven The Ugaritic Cultic Texts ............................ 287 1 The Rituals ...................................................................... 287 P M – P X 2 The Offering Lists and the God Lists .......................... 305 G  O L 3 The Omen Texts ............................................................ 353 P X Chapter Eight The Correspondence of Ugarit .................... 359 1 The Ugaritic Letters ........................................................ 359 J-L C 2 The Akkadian Letters ...................................................... 375 J H Chapter Nine The Legal Texts from Ugarit ........................ I M R 1 Introduction ...................................................................... 2 The Akkadian Legal Texts .............................................. 3 The Ugaritic Legal Texts ................................................ 4 The Hittite Legal Text ....................................................

390 390 394 411 420

Chapter Ten The Economy of Ugarit .................................. 423 M H 1 The Administrative Texts ................................................ 423 2 Commerce ........................................................................ 439 3 Crafts and Industries ........................................................ 448 Chapter Eleven The Society of Ugarit ................................ 455 J-P V 1 Peoples, Cultures and Social Movements ...................... 455

 2 3 4 5

ix

The Royal Family, Administration and Commerce .... 467 The Family and the Collective ...................................... 475 Crafts and Professions ...................................................... 484 The Army ........................................................................ 492

Chapter Twelve The Onomastics of Ugarit ........................ 499 R H 1 Personal Names and Prosopography .............................. 499 2 Ugaritic Place Names ...................................................... 515 Chapter Thirteen The Religion of Ugarit: An Overview .......................................................................... N W

529

Chapter Fourteen The Iconography of Ugarit .................... I C

586

Chapter Fifteen A Political History of Ugarit ...................... I S 1 Preliminary Remarks ........................................................ 2 Ugarit in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages .............. 3 Ugarit under Egyptian Influence .................................... 4 Ugarit under Hittite Rule .............................................. 5 Ugarit in the Age of ‘Pax Hethitica’ ................................ 6 The Weakening Grip of the Hittites .............................. 7 The Last Years of Ugarit ................................................

603 603 608 621 627 646 683 704

Chapter Sixteen The Tablets and the Computer ................ 734 1 The Current State of Ugaritic Sudies and Technology ........................................................................ 734 T L – S W 2 Storage and Analysis of the Texts ................................ 747 J-L C References .................................................................................. Abbreviations .......................................................................... Bibliography ............................................................................ List of Contributors .................................................................... Indices Index of Topics ...................................................................... Index of Personal Names ...................................................... Index of Divine Names ........................................................

755 755 761 824 827 839 843



x Index Index Index Index Index Index Index

of of of of of of of

Toponyms ................................................................ Ugaritic Words ...................................................... Syllabic Akkadian .................................................. Various Languages ................................................ KTU Texts ............................................................ RIH Texts .............................................................. RS Texts ................................................................

844 847 850 851 852 871 871

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Map Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Western Syria in the Late Bronze Age .................... A list of offerings with the first tablet number (KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001) ............................................ The alphabet tablet from Ugarit (14th/13th cent. ) .................................................................... The long cuneiform alphabet from Ugarit and its relationship to Phoenician and Canaanite ................ The short cuneiform alphabet from Ugarit ............ The Ugaritic script in relation to the Western and Southern scripts .......................................................... The alphabet tablet from Beth Shemesh ................ Tablet with the South Arabic Alphabet .................. Deciphered alphabets of the South-Eastern h-l-˙-m-tradition .......................................................... The spread of cuneiform alphabets in the Eastern Mediterranean ............................................................ Calcite statue (of El?) ................................................ ‘Baal au foudre’ stela ................................................ Menacing god ............................................................ Gold decorated patera ................................................ ‘Qedeshet’-type gold pendant .................................... Ivory bed panel: royal couple caressing .................. Cylinder-seal impression (Minet el-Beidah) .............. Decorated rhyton ........................................................ Module 1 .................................................................... Module 2 .................................................................... Module 3 ....................................................................

xiv 81 82 83 84 86 87 87 88 90 588 590 592 594 596 597 599 600 752 753 754

PREFACE

The Handbook of Ugaritic Studies is the product of the labours of a large team of scholars from many countries. Its gestation has been quite lengthy, with many emergencies, false alarms, high bloodpressure, worrying scans, premature contractions and so forth. The original editor, Johannes de Moor of Kampen, began the organization of the volume, drew up an outline and undertook the arduous task of contacting contributors from around the globe. However, for personal reasons, he felt compelled to withdraw from the enterprise at an early stage and the publishers then invited Wilfred Watson (Newcastle) to take over. This, of course, was felt to be a great honour, but due to the need for a fellow-worker, Nicolas Wyatt (Edinburgh) was then invited to act as co-editor. The use of e-mail has enabled the editors to work closely together on all the stages of the production of the Handbook and to maintain contact with many of the contributors. It was also helpful for the translation of contributions in German, Italian and Spanish (15 out of the 47 sections) prepared by Watson, with some revision by Wyatt and the contributors concerned. Unfortunately, there was a gap of several months before the project was resumed under its new editors and for a variety of reasons a number of scholars withdrew from the project. Only when it was reestablished under the direction of the new editorial team did the entire membership of the Mission de Ras Shamra withdraw. This meant that new contributors had to be found, some at quite short notice. Further withdrawals at intervals right to the end of the project have discouraged us, and we have to thank Patricia Radder of Brill, as well as those contributors who generously stepped into the breaches left by others, in some cases very late in the day, to enable us finally to make the volume ready for delivery. Since this volume has been published in English, we have by and large standardized ancient names where there are recognized English equivalents, so that, for instance, ancient ‘Karkami“’ and ‘Kargami“’ are rendered ‘Carchemish’. Similarly, ‘Ilu’ becomes ‘El’, ‘Ba'lu’ becomes ‘Baal’, and so on. We have not however imposed total consistency, so that ‘›atti’ and ‘Muki“’, for instance, which have no



xiii

standard modern forms, retain their diacritics. For Ugaritic texts KTU numbers are followed, with cross-reference to RS numbers, and in some instances where contributors have added PRU, Ug or RSO numbers these have been retained. We feel obliged to honour the Kotharat, the goddesses of childbirth, whose gracious intervention has finally achieved a safe parturition. It is frequently observed, to move to the spheres of influence of other deities, that among the most traumatic human experiences other than death are house-buying and divorce. Perhaps we should add to this list the editing of large reference books. “b' alpm lk∆rt : seven oxen to the Kotharat! W G.E. W University of Newcastle

August 1998

N W New College, Edinburgh

Western Syria in the Late Bronze Age

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION W G.E. W – N W

1

P C S

As yet no handbook of Ugaritic studies has been published with the scope and range of the present volume. However, there have been forerunners on a smaller scale. The first substantial work of this kind was by D 19371, 19412. In two volumes, it was greatly influenced by the Hebrew Old Testament, of course, and with some of the misconceptions of the time (particularly in respect of alleged geographical allusions). Another comprehensive survey by  L 1945, described the discovery and history of Tell Ras Shamra, the texts found there, the writing and language of the alphabetic texts, their archaeological, geographic and historical background (with a list of the personal names) and a description of the family, social and political life of Ugarit. Here S 1939a may also be mentioned. Later came D 1975, K 1981 and C 1985. Two more recent works which cover some of the same ground as the present volume and also include maps and rich illustrations are B 1996 and C 1992b. Some recent encyclopaedia entries include C 1979b, C 1979, Y 1992a, P ‒ B 1992; and brief descriptions of the language are provided by P 1997d and W 1994b. A survey of work up to 1980 is provided by Y, G.D. 1981, Cunchillos has produced a useful handbook for students (C 1992b) and the proceedings of further international conferences have been published (UBL 11— Manchester 1992, ALASP 7—Münster 1993, RSO 11—Paris 1993, UBL 12 —Edinburgh 1994). The successive volumes of Ugaritica and PRU, together with other volumes of the RSO series have provided updated instruments of research.

 

2 2

S C W

The tablets, our primary source of information, are unfortunately deteriorating fast. On a more positive note, photographs of the texts are in preparation (Z ‒ Z 1997) and computer programs have been applied to scan them (see section 15). A new edition of the tablets in transcription has been published (KTU 2)1 as well as a concordance of the tablet-numbers (TEO = RSO 5/1). An edition of the texts is now available both on the Internet and on CD-ROM (C ‒ V 1993a; C 1998b, 1998c, and ongoing work in the United States with the West Semitic Research Project) which has the advantage of being updated continually. Other reference works available are concordances (C ‒ V 1995a, which largely replaces W 1972) and word lists (D ‒ L 1996b). Of particular significance is the first volume of the new dictionary (DLU =  O L ‒ S 1996). In addition, three teaching grammars (S 1984; C ‒ Z 1995; S 1997) and outlines of grammar (C 1979; C 1992b; P 1997d) have been published. Comprehensive coverage of the Akkadian of Ugarit is available (H 1989;  S 1991a) and the Hurrian of Ugarit has also been studied (D ‒ M 1995, etc.). Studies are available on the town of Ugarit – Ras Shamra (S 1978; RSO 1, 3, 6, 8, 10) and on Ugaritic religion ( O L 1992a = 1999) and (W 1996a), sociology (V 1995a; A 1971; H 1976, 1982) and other topics (G 1965; RSP 1–3) including the hippiatric texts (C ‒ S 1983; P 1985; S 1988a; C 1996).2 Ugaritic remains a flourishing discipline. UF is now in its 30th year and periodicals such as AfO, AuOr, JNES, JSS, SEL, Semitica, Syria, WO and ZA carry articles and reviews on Ugaritic. Unfortunately, the Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies has been discontinued (last issue April–October 1989) in spite of efforts to reactivate it. Several translations have been available: C 19762; C 1978; G 19693, 129–55; H ‒ H 1990;  M 1987; R – R 1992; G 1978 (a revision of D 1956),  O L 1981a and X 1982a. A number of new trans1 2

For corrections see T 1995b, 1995–6, 1998; P 1998. See T 1997b for a survey and evaluation of recent work.

 

3

lations have appeared including TO 2, CS i, with the translations of Ugaritic texts by P and others (also P in RSO 4, 12), as well as P (ed.) 1997 and most recently, W 1998c, with extensive footnotes, and  O L 1998b. Monographs on single texts include G 19642 (on Keret), M 1989a (on the Aqhat text) and S 1994 (on the Baal Cycle). Full bibliographies on Ugaritic up to 1988 are provided by D ‒ L et al. 1967–86; D ‒ L 1996a; C 1990 (TEO 2 = RSO 5/2); while B ‒ P 1989 (TEO 1 = RSO 5/1) is particularly useful for determining the locations of tablets in various museums, their condition and what they contain. Work currently in hand includes a three-volume work on Ugaritic grammar (T); a series of articles on toponyms ( S 1996; 1998); an English translation of  O L 1992a (1999), new editions of the ritual texts (P in press) and the letters (P), the second instalment of which is eventually to appear in an English language edition, a study of religion (W), and further volumes of S 1994 and CS.

3

F R

With this description of the present state of studies, which shows the discipline to be in a healthy condition, it is important to point to further work that is required, although some indications are provided in the various contributions. Topics to be studied more exhaustively include the alphabetic and syllabic personal names, as well as archaeology; and as yet there is no comprehensive translation of the so-called administrative texts. The texts in Ugaritic have tended to be the focus of attention, with the result that other areas have suffered from comparative neglect.

4

T H  U S

Due to the international nature of this undertaking, which entailed a large number of scholars, and in spite of the advantages of communication by e-mail, the articles in the Handbook cover the material to different depths and there is also inevitably some overlap

4

 

between them. Even so, many contributors discuss a range of topics either not previously dealt with, such as iconography and technology, or with more detail than previously available. The main thrust of the book has been to provide surveys of what has been achieved, a task which often proved difficult either due to the absence of previous surveys or because of the sheer range of opinions voiced. It is hoped that a balance has been struck in respect of the amount of detail provided and coverage is intended to be comprehensive and representative rather than complete. Finally, the extensive consolidated bibliography will certainly be of use for reference, filling the gap between 1988 (covered by AOAT 20/6) and 1998. This work has appeared in the seventieth anniversary of the discovery of Ras Shamra, a propitious portent, perhaps, of discoveries to come.

CHAPTER TWO

RAS SHAMRA, MINET EL-BEIDA AND RAS IBN HANI: THE MATERIAL SOURCES A H.W. C

1

I

Seventy years have elapsed since a chance discovery was made close to the coast of Syria which was to spark off a series of archaeological investigations which have continued right up to the present. Not only have the excavations revealed an important commercial centre— the ancient city of Ugarit —which flourished in the second millennium , thereby shedding light on the history and culture of the area and of the wider ancient Near Eastern world. They have also yielded a hitherto unknown language or dialect—Ugaritic—which has made an important contribution to the study of the north-west Semitic languages in addition to giving access to the life and thought of the people of the city. The facts, firstly that the newly discovered language was seen to be akin to Hebrew, secondly that the texts, once deciphered, were found to contain references to deities mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, in particular the god Baal, and thirdly that the site was geographically rather closer to the land occupied by the Israelites than the other great centres of ancient Near Eastern civilization (though the considerable distance has sometimes been minimised) all doubtless contributed to the early claims that a site of major significance had been discovered. This had its pluses and its minuses. It brought the discoveries to earlier prominence and to a wider audience than might otherwise have been the case. But the issue of the relevance of the discoveries at Ugarit for the study of the Hebrew Bible, exacerbated by the tendency to assume that Ugarit was a Canaanite city, has often been unduly dominant, at the expense of an appreciation of Ugarit and its texts in their own right. The excavation of other ancient cites in Syria, notably Ebla and Emar, has helped to redress the balance somewhat and enabled Ugarit to be seen in its rather more immediate geographical milieu.

 

6 2

D  E E

The chance discovery alluded to above took place in the spring of 1928 some 10 km to the north of Latakia, close to a small bay, the white rocks at whose entrance had given it the name Minet el-Beida (formerly known as Leukos Limen, both names meaning ‘white harbour’). A local farmer was halted in the task of ploughing his land when his ploughshare struck a large piece of stone which, on closer examination, turned out to be one of a number of stone slabs which formed the roof of a vaulted tomb. It appears that a number of antiquities had alread been found in the vicinity, so the discovery was brought to the attention of the Service des Antiquités en Syrie et au Liban. Its director at the time was Charles Virolleaud, who was subsequently to play a major role in the decipherment of Ugaritic and the early publication of the Ugaritic texts. He sent a member of his staff, Léon Albanèse, to visit the site and it was identified as a necropolis. Some pieces of ceramic were found which appeared to be of Mycenean or Cypriot origin and to date from approximately the thirteenth century . However the site was not, at that stage, thought to be particularly interesting. Fortunately a plan of the tomb and some pottery samples were sent to the Louvre in Paris for further examination. There they came to the notice of René Dussaud, who was at the time Keeper of the Department of Oriental Antiquities, and who noted that the tomb appeared to be reminiscent of Cretan funerary vaults. He suggested that what had been discovered might be the necropolis of a significant city. Albanèse had already noticed that there was a mound nearby whose shape suggested that it might be a tell. This hill was known as Ras Shamra, the name (which means ‘fennel head[ land]’) being derived from the plants which grew on its surface. So it was decided that excavations should be carried out on the site, under the auspices of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, under the direction of Claude F.A. Schaeffer. It was in the Spring of 1929 that the first team of archaeologists (accompanied by a detachment of soldiers to safeguard them) arrived on the site, their equipment having been transported on the backs of camels because the roads in the vicinity could not be used by motor vehicles. The initial work undertaken involved a survey of the vicinity, and traces of occupation stretching from the Neolithic period to the time of the Romans were discovered. It was on April 2nd

  

7

that excavations proper began, and within a relatively short period early suspicions were confirmed when it became clear that a considerable complex had been found. It emerged that the ‘necropolis’ comprised two different areas, the seaward of which revealed finds of pottery and animal bones but no human remains. The other area comprised well-built vaulted tombs containing a variety of artefacts. Some of the earliest finds within the tombs were of considerable interest and importance. For example, they began to give an inkling of the cosmopolitan nature of the site, revealing artefacts which suggested an Egyptian or Cypriot origin. Among these earliest discoveries were a number which have come to have particular prominence in treatments of the discoveries from Ras Shamra. One was a small statuette (AO 11.598, C ‒ S 1980, pl. IXd), just 22 cm in height, of a male figure with one arm raised above his head and the other reaching forward, and with one leg in front of the other as though marching or else poised to throw something. The figure wore the accoutrements of a warrior—helmet, armbands and greaves, and the fact that the helmet (and head) were covered in gold leaf and that the armbands and greaves were of silver suggested that this was perhaps a deity. The figure was initially identified with Resheph, a god of plague, on the basis of other known representations of the god. However, it has subsequently been thought much more likely that the figure represented Baal, depicted as the storm-god armed (originally) with club and spear, symbolising the thunder and lightning, his ‘weapons’. This latter identification is supported by the striking similarity between the pose affected by the statuette and that of the figure on the famous ‘Baal stele’ (RS 4.427; C ‒ S 1980, pl. X) which was not, of course, known at the time of the earlier suggested identification (Fig. 11, p. 590). Another important early find was in fact made in a tomb which showed every sign of having suffered at the hands of tomb-robbers who perhaps did not regard a small ivory box-lid (AO 11.601, C ‒ S 1980, plates IV & V), only 13 cm high, as an object of value. Carved on it was a seated female figure with an ornate hairstyle, naked above the waist but wearing a very full skirt, holding what appear to be ears of corn in either hand and flanked by animals (probably goats or ibexes) standing on their hind legs. The style was unmistakably Mycenean, and it was suggested that the depiction was of a fertility goddess—perhaps the ‘Mistress of the Animals’— though the precise identity of the figure was unclear.

8

 

After just over a month (on May 9th) attention was turned from the necropolis to the tell itself, just over a kilometer away, in order to answer the question whether it did indeed contain the ruins of a city of which the necropolis was the cemetery. The summit of the mound, which was some 17–20 m above the surrounding terrain, was very uneven but showed no clear sign of any ancient structures. After a survey of the tell’s surface, the decision was taken to make the first trial excavation at the point on the mound’s surface which was closest to the sea. The decision was influenced by reports that local inhabitants had come across artefacts, some of gold, in an olive orchard which lay below that part of the tell. Schaeffer wondered whether the objects might have come from a royal palace. His acumen was well and speedily rewarded. Almost as soon as digging commenced, the excavators came upon the foundations of a large edifice which seemed to have suffered destruction by fire. A bronze nail embedded between the blocks of a pillar, and a bronze dagger which had suffered distortion as a result of the intense heat of the conflagration, pointed to a date for the edifice in the second millennium . Confirmation of this dating was provided by the discovery of parts of an Egyptian statue made of granite and bearing a hieroglyphic inscription whose style of writing was dated to the New Kingdom period. As excavation continued, the scale and plan of the building began to become clearer. So that the extent of the building might be assessed, another trench was begun some 20 m to the east. More foundations were revealed, whose depth and direction suggested that they belonged to the same building, but here the rooms seemed to be smaller and it was thought likely that they were storerooms. Pieces of ceramic pointed to a date for the building which coincided with that of the necropolis and suggested that both had ceased to be used by the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the twelfth century . On May 14th, less than a week after excavations had begun on the tell, in the corner of one of the small storerooms, a tablet of baked clay bearing a cuneiform inscription was discovered. Soon others began to emerge within a small radius. Some had been rendered very friable, presumably by the fire of which evidence had already been found, and great care was needed to prevent them crumbling. It was necessary for some to be removed still encased in soil and allowed to dry slowly. This first epigraphic find involved a total of twenty tablets of varying sizes, and perhaps the most intriguing fea-

  

9

ture was that they had revealed a hitherto unknown cuneiform script. Shortly afterwards, in a newly opened area in another part of the tell, a deposit of 74 bronze artefacts was discovered under a stone slab (see S 1939, pl. XXII fig. 2 for photograph of hoard in situ). These objects included various tools and weapons, all apparently unused, and a small tripod decorated with pomegranate flowers. It was soon noticed that some of the tools bore incised inscriptions in the same script as that which had just been found on the clay tablets (KTU 6.6, 6.10, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9 = RS 1.[051]; 1.[052]; 1.[053]; 1.[054]; 1.[055] respectively). Charles Virolleaud, who examined the newly found tablets and the inscribed tools, suggested that the writing on the tools might perhaps provide the clue to the decipherment of the hitherto unknown script. (The inscription on the tools in fact turned out to read (or, in the case of KTU 6.7, include) the words rb khnm, ‘chief of the priests’, suggesting that the building where they had been discovered was the home of the chief priest, and that the bronze items were perhaps a dedicatory offering made by one of the metal-workers of the city.)

3

S C

The earliest excavations had done more than enough to suggest that an important city had been discovered, and that a campaign lasting a number of seasons was justified. At that stage the identity of the newly discovered city was not known. However, a tablet unearthed in 1931 was to provide the clue. Schaeffer, in the context of giving a preliminary report of the 1931 campaign (Schaeffer 1932) made public the fact that the tablet contained a phrase which was transliterated as nqmd mlk égrt (‘Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit’), suggesting that this might be the ancient city of Ugarit whose existence was already known from e.g. the Tell el-Amarna letters, which suggested that its location must have been somewhere in the vicinity of Ras Shamra. (The identification had apparently already been suggested by Albright (A 1931–2, 165 n. 9).) Excavations continued until the outbreak of the Second World War, initially both in the region of the harbour as well as on the tell. Soundings were taken on the tell to attempt to establish the antiquity of the site and its principal occupation levels (C 1992). These indicated that occupation

 

10

went back as far as the Neolithic period, and suggested five major phases of occupation: Level Level Level Level Level

I II III IV V

ca. 1200–1600 ca. 1600–2100 ca. 2100–3500 ca. 3500–4000 Neolithic

(Subsequent excavations have revealed a much more complex stratigraphy, and discerned some twenty occupation levels stretching from the Early Neolithic period [ca 6500–6000 ] down to a Roman occupation in the first and second centuries .) In the pre-war seasons of excavation on the tell, work was carried out in particular on the acropolis, revealing what came to be identified as the Temple of Baal, the Temple of Dagan and the House of the High Priest. This last emerged as much more than simply a dwelling place for an important cultic official, but as a temple library and scribal school where texts were written and stored and where new scribes could learn their art. After the interruption of the war years, a limited resumption was possible in 1948, but it was not until 1950 that full-scale work could again be undertaken. Excavations were concentrated first in the area of the Royal Palace. More will be said about this imposing edifice later, but it is appropriate to note that this was not just the residence of the royal family and court but also an administrative headquarters. A number of groups of texts were discovered—five which have been labelled as the Eastern Archives, the Central archives, the Southern Archives, the South-Western Archives and the Western Archives. A further group was found within what was originally identified as a firing kiln and therefore thought to comprise the last tablets to be written before the destruction of the city at the end of the LBA (but see M 1995). In the Royal Palace area, excavations were extended southwards to reveal what came to be known as the ‘Southern Palace’. Subsequently a building which has been named the ‘Northern Palace’ was found in the proximity of the Royal Palace. To the west of the Royal Palace was found a residential area which included a number of buildings which have been named as a result of discoveries made within them or because of evidence of their ownership. These included the houses of Ra“ap’abu and of Rap’anu, in the latter of which was found an archive of texts, and the so-called ‘House of the Scholar’

  

11

and ‘House of Alabasters’. Excavations were also carried out on the northern side of the tell in the so-called ‘Lower City’ below the acropolis, in the ‘Southern Acropolis’ (where a house which is thought to have belonged to a diviner was revealed, since it contained clay models of livers and a number of para-mythological texts) and in the ‘Southern City’, which seems to have contained a public square and a building which housed a library of texts. Between 1978 and 1984, excavations concentrated on the ‘City Centre’ which seems to have been primarily a residential area (Y et al. 1987). Perhaps the most significant of the discoveries made in that part of the city was another temple, originally known as the ‘Rhyton Temple’ because of the finding of a number of distinctively shaped drinking vessels in its vicinity. As will be noted later, it is possible that this temple was in fact dedicated to the worship of El, the head of the pantheon.

4

T D

In the foregoing brief account of the principal areas of excavation, a number of references have been made to the discovery of archives or libraries of texts. It is therefore appropriate to make some general observations about the textual discoveries. The cosmopolitan nature of the city is borne out by the number of different languages evidenced in the texts. Many tablets were written in Akkadian, a language which has been described as something of a lingua franca in the ancient Near East, there were texts in Sumerian, Hurrian, Hittite, in Egyptian hieroglyphs and in the linear script of Cyprus, as well as those in the hitherto unknown language which was thought to be the local language and hence known as Ugaritic. It was clear that the method of writing the unknown language was that employed throughout Mesopotamia, i.e. a cuneiform script produced by means of the use of a clay stylus to inscribe clay tablets which were subsequently baked hard. It was also clear that the basis of the writing of the language was very different since only about thirty different signs were employed. Thus it seemed that a significant advance had been made over the earlier cuneiform scripts which were based on ideographic or syllabic principles and involved much larger numbers of signs. This is not the place to enter into the argument as to whether Ugaritic is truly alphabetic (because three of its signs could be described as

12

 

‘syllabic’ in that they convey the consonant aleph followed by the vowels a, i, and u respectively; see below, §§ 4.1, 4.2). Suffice it to say that the script is generally regarded as alphabetic, and therefore as one of the earliest if not the earliest example of an alphabet. (Another alphabetic script was being developed further south in the area of the Sinai peninsular for the writing of a Semitic language or dialect.) How this particular script was produced is not clear. It is possible that was a conscious modification of the more complex cuneiform scripts already in use, but it may have been developed from a linear script to enable it to be more easily written on clay tablets by employing the cuneiform method of writing (M 1979; D ‒ L 1989). It is noteworthy that this newly developed script was used not only for the writing of the local language but also, at Ugarit, for the writing of Hurrian (L 1968a). Indeed, one of the thirty signs of the ‘Ugaritic’ alphabet may have been developed for the writing of Hurrian (S 1983b). This newly-discovered language was in fact deciphered remarkably rapidly. The first texts were published commendably quickly by Virolleaud, enabling other scholars to work on them. Notable among those who did so were E. Dhorme of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem and H. Bauer of the University of Halle, both of whom were experienced in cracking codes. It is not appropriate to go into detail about the decipherment here, since it will be dealt with in another chapter (see C, below § 4.1). Suffice it to say that it was a mixture of great erudition and inspired guesswork. The speed with which the decipherment was achieved can be illustrated by the fact that Virolleaud was able to publish his translation of what he called the ‘Epic of Aleyan and Mot’ as early as 1931 (V 1931a). It is important to note that, although the language has come to be known as Ugaritic, examples of this script have been found in other locations, some relatively close to Ras Shamra (e.g. Ras Ibn Hani and, a little further afield, at Tell Sukas [KTU 4.766 = Varia: TS 4001] and Tell Nebi-Mend (Qadesh on the Orontes) (KTU 6.71 = TNM 022). Some have been found at much greater distances, in Lebanon (KTU 6.2 = Varia: KL 67:428p; 6.67 = KL 77:66; 6.70 = Sar 3102), in Cyprus (KTU 6.68 = HST) and also in Israel. Tablets bearing the Ugaritic script have been found at Taanach (KTU 4.767 = TT 433) and at Beth Shemesh (KTU 5.24 = 8.1 = AS 33.5.165), and an inscribed dagger was found in the vicinity of Mount Tabor (KTU 6.1 = PAM = IAA 44.318). Although these

  

13

examples are limited in number, their existence is significant not least in the context of the discussion as to whether the beliefs and practices alluded to in the Ras Shamra texts were limited to the immediate proximity of Ugarit or whether they reflect a much more widespread phenomenon. This in turn leads to the further question, hinted at earlier, as to whether it is correct to describe Ugarit as a ‘Canaanite’ city, and its religion and culture as ‘Canaanite’. Before leaving the textual discoveries, it is appropriate to mention the variety of different types of literature contained therein. The number of languages represented among the texts has already been noted, and one particular type of text which must have been very important in ancient Ugarit was the ‘dictionary’ or ‘word-list’ in which words in Akkadian might be listed with their Sumerian or Hurrian equivalents. Such texts are also of great importance for the modern study of the languages of the ancient Near East. Reference has also been made to the discovery of archives, notably in the Royal Palace, and many texts of a diplomatic, legal, administrative or commercial nature were found (see PRU 2–6). Other finds include private correspondence and even veterinary texts (P 1985). Various types of text might be included within the category ‘religious’ (see below, §§ 6, 7). Lists of deities and of sacrifices give an indication of the large number of deities worshipped and perhaps hint at their relative importance. Some texts can perhaps be described as ‘rituals’. Then there are those longer texts which contain myths or legends, describing the exploits of the deities and of other ‘heroes’ who may have been regarded as human beings but who had encounters with or stood in a close relationship to the gods. It is these myths and legends, and particularly the stories of the activities of the god Baal, which have been taken up by students of the Hebrew Bible in the hope that they may shed light on the relationship not only between the Israelite deity Yahweh and his arch-enemy Baal, but also on the connection, if any, between Yahweh and El the head of the Ugaritic (and ‘Canaanite’) pantheon.

5

U   L B A

In the course of the earlier account of the excavations, a number of major buildings was noted, and it is appropriate to say a little more about some of them now in the context of an attempt to give

14

 

something of an impression of the city as it must have been in the years prior to its destruction. Ugarit must have been dominated by its acropolis, on which the most prominent building was the Temple of Baal—a fact which is doubtless an indication of the importance of the deity to the people of the city. The identification of the building was made possible by the discovery there or nearby of stelae naming or depicting him. Two are particularly noteworthy. One was a dedicatory stele presented by a person named Mamy who seems to have been the equivalent of the Egyptian ambassador to Ugarit (RS 1.[089] + 2.[033] + 5.185; Y 1991, 328, fig. 8; C ‒ S 1980 plate XII). The other, found a little to the west of the temple itself, has come to be the most familiar of the depictions of Baal (RS 4.427). He is shown standing with one leg in front of the other, wearing a helmet which seems to be decorated with horns (a symbol of divinity or perhaps fertility), a skirt or loin cloth and a scabbard. His right arm is raised above his head, holding what appears to be a club (probably a symbol of the thunder), and his left arm is stretched in front of him, holding an object which is pointed like a spear and which is probably a stylized lightning-flash (Fig. 11, p. 590; see S 1934, F 1996). Thus Baal appears as the divine warrior, armed with the weapons associated with the god of rain and storm. Another small figure on the stele may perhaps be the king. (A number of other statuettes, including that already mentioned, have been identified as representations of Baal because they show a figure in the same pose and garb.) The temple building itself conformed to a very familiar pattern (S 1949, 4 fig. 2). It was surrounded by a walled enclosure or sacred precinct, within which was discovered what was probably the base of an altar which would have been approached by two stone steps. The temple proper comprised an outer room which was approached by a monumental staircase, part of which has been preserved, and an inner room containing a structure of large stone blocks which may have been an altar or a platform, perhaps where an image of the god would originally have been located. This pattern of inner sanctum, outer room and sacred precint or courtyard is reminiscent of other Semitic sanctuaries, notably Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem as described in the Hebrew Bible. There was another temple on the acropolis which had been identified as the Temple of Dagan because of the discovery outside its southern façade of two stelae containing dedications to this deity

  

15

(KTU 6.13 = RS 6.021; KTU 6.14 = RS 6.028; Y 1991, 334, fig. 14). That Dagan should have had a temple in such a prominent position on the acropolis is perhaps somewhat surprising since he plays no active role in the mythological texts so far known. However, the texts do suggest that he was considered to be Baal’s father, which might account for his temple being located in the same vicinity. A feature of this temple was the thickness of the walls, a fact which even gave rise to the speculation that some particularly esoteric practices were performed therein. However this is far from certain and there are other possible explanations, e.g. that the walls supported an upper storey or tower. The general plan of the temple was similar to that of Baal. Close to the Temple of Dagan were found a number of drinking troughs which, it has been suggested, might have been used for the pouring of libations. But is not absolutely clear that they actually had any direct association with the temple. Between the two temples on the acropolis lay the building which was identified as the high priest’s house, thanks to the discovery of the cache of bronze tools and weapons, some of which, as has already been noted, bore the dedication ‘chief of the priests’. It was built of dressed stones, with rooms opening off a central courtyard. Within the building were found three groups of texts, including those longer texts in the Ugaritic language which record the activities of the gods, in particular the god Baal. Other texts had the appearance of being writing exercises. This suggested that the building functioned not only as a residence for the high priest but that it was also a school where scribes could learn to write and where texts were copied and stored. It may also therefore have been a temple library. Whether some of the mythological texts were actually used in the cult of the temple, and if so in what way, it is impossible to be certain, but some of them do contain hints that they may have been read or enacted in the context of the worship of the temple. In addition to the two temples on the acropolis, for a long time the only other building identified as a sanctuary was located in the vicinity of the Royal Palace (S, 1979, 115–6). However, in the course of the excavations in the City Centre, another building was unearthed which was identified as a sanctuary. This is the edifice which, as noted earlier, came to be known as the ‘Rhyton Temple’ because of the discovery of a number of conical drinking vessels in its vicinity which were thought to be cult items associated with the sanctuary (Y et al. 1987, 213–48; Y 1996, 405–22). The building

16

 

contained an entrance porch leading to the main central area, comprising a large room containing benches and a platform or altar and another smaller room. There appear also to have been various annexes to the main building. But is it possible to say to which deity this temple was dedicated? The discovery of a stone statue of a figure seated on a throne may provide the clue since it is thought to be a representation of El, the head of the pantheon (RS 88.70; Y 1996, 422 fig. 4c). It would be surprising if there were not a temple dedicated to El in Ugarit. The texts do suggest that El was perhaps receding somewhat into the background, in favour of the younger, more active Baal (though it should be remembered that many of these texts are particularly concerned with Baal and the construction of his ‘palace’ or temple, and doubtless reflect the beliefs of his worshippers). Nevertheless, El is still the head of the pantheon who presides over the assembly of the gods, and whose permission is needed for major projects such as the building of Baal’s palace/temple). So perhaps the ‘Rhyton Temple’ is in fact the Temple of El. The most impressive building in the city, certainly so far as its size was concerned, was doubtless the Royal Palace. There is reason to believe that it began (perhaps in the 15th century) as a relatively small building comprising a number of rooms arranged around two courtyards, but that it developed thereafter in a number of phases of construction until, by the 13th century, it was a huge complex containing some ninety rooms, five large courtyards and some smaller courts and what has been described as the ‘garden’. At its zenith it measured some 120 m by 85 m. (On the stages of development of the Royal Palace, see S 1962, 9–17.) One of the courtyards contained an ornamental pool surrounded by two tiers of shaped stones. Elaborate arrangements were made for the palace’s water supply, a covered channel having been constructed to bring water from a trough which was next to a well some distance from the palace itself. Servants presumably drew water from the well to feed the trough and in turn the channel bringing water to the palace. The main entrance to the palace seems to have been from the west, through a doorway approached by low steps and flanked by two columns whose bases remain in situ. A feature of the Royal Palace is the high quality of the stone-work which must have involved skilled masons. On some of the interior walls, traces of plaster can be seen and gaps between some of the courses of stone suggest that

  

17

originally wooden beams were employed in the construction. The presence of a number of staircases shows that there was an upper storey, and it is suggested that the private living quarters of the royal family may have been on the first floor, and that the ground floor would have been the location of various public and reception areas as well as the administrative headquarters, archives and store rooms (for the texts found in the archives of the Royal Palace, see PRU 2–6). The discovery of a kiln in the courtyard where the ornamental pool was situated shows that texts were written in the palace and not simply stored there, and the presence of writing exercises and glossaries suggests that here too, as in the House of the High Priest, scribes were trained in the art of writing. The Royal Palace seems to have been guarded by a tower and fortress located at the western extremity of the tell. Access to the fortress from outside the city was via what has become known as the ‘postern’ gate. In the vicinity of the Royal Palace were a number of other impressive buildings, including what may have been official residences and the royal stables. In a residential area within this north-western part of the city were houses whose occupants must have been significant or wealthy citizens. The owners of some of the houses are known. That of Rap’anu contained a library of texts and had over thirty rooms. That of Ra“ap’abu, a tax collector, also contained a library, as did the house of an unknown person nicknamed ‘the Scholar’. The presence of some forty alabaster vessels led to another of these houses being named the ‘House of Alabasters’. Evidence of staircases points to the fact that many of the houses would have had an upper storey, where it is probable that much of the living accommodation would have been located. Arrangements for sanitation and water supply in the larger houses was often impressive. Some were built round courtyards which contained a well and perhaps a trough into which the water, once drawn, would be poured. Used water was conveyed away along channels and gutters. Beneath the houses (or courtyards) were carefully constructed family tombs with vaulted ceilings reminiscent of a type of Cretan tomb. A staircase would lead down into the funerary vault, which was paved and whose walls contained niches or ‘windows’. It seems likely that the bodies were not placed in coffins, but were laid directly on the floor, probably wrapped in shrouds. The discovery of various items of funerary equipment (despite evidence of the activity of tomb robbers who had presumably removed objects which

 

18

they considered to be of value) suggests that perhaps it was felt necessary to make some sort of provision for the dead, a fact which, if correct, would be of relevance for the question whether the people of Ugarit believed in some form of afterlife. The presence of cups may also indicate the notion of the provision of sustenance for the dead. Earlier descriptions of these tombs noted the presence of clay pipes which were thought to be for the purpose of providing liquid (or perhaps even libations) for the dead. But it is perhaps more likely that these were less glamorously part of the drainage system (P 1994). In some of the excavated areas further from the palace, for example to the south of the acropolis and in the so-called ‘Southern City’, the houses were often rather smaller and closer together, built along narrow streets. In the latter area, where it seems likely that some of the city’s artisans and craftsmen lived, there is evidence that houses were built around a public square, close to which was a large building which contained a library of texts. Preliminary excavation reports have been published in the journal Syria.

6

A  C

This survey has already mentioned craftsmen and metal-workers, scribes and texts, stonework and carved ivory, elaborate drinking vessels, statuettes and other representations of deities. All such things suggest that the city of Ugarit was a place of some culture. A feature of the discoveries at Ugarit is the variety of artistic influences which they reveal, notably from the Aegean world, but also from further afield, e.g. Egypt. It is not always clear to what extent such objects are imports (Ugarit was after all a centre of commerce), or local products influenced by the artistic styles and techniques of other regions with which the city had contact. Ugarit seems to have been renowned for its metal-working. A feature of the discoveries has been the number of different types of weight which have been found. Many of these are geometrically shaped, but others take the form of e.g. a bull (S 1939, pll. XX, XXI) or even a human head (ibid. pl. XXI). A weight in the shape of a head was found among a set of weights discovered along with the bronze pans from a pair of scales, and gave rise to the

  

19

speculation that this was perhaps a replica of the head of the metal worker himself, and that he was therby making it absolutely clear whose weights they were! The actual value of the various weights suggests that both the Mesopotamian and Egyptian weighing systems were in use in Ugarit. Two particularly fine examples of metal-work deserve mention. These were a bowl (sometimes described as a cup) and a rimmed plate or patera, both made of gold, which were unearthed together in 1932 (Fig. 13, p. 594; S 1939 pll. XVII, XVIII, ibid., 1949, 1–48). The bowl, 17 cm in diameter, was embossed with various decorative features, notably three concentric circles of animallike figures, some of which appear to be winged and are probably mythological creatures. The principal scene depicted on the rimmed plate (19 cm in diameter) is easier to interpret. It is a hunting scene, showing a figure (often thought to be the king) in a chariot, armed with a bow and arrows, in pursuit of various animals and followed by a dog. Noteworthy among other items of gold which have been found at Ugarit are a number of pendants, some of which were decorated with geometric devices, e.g. stars (see S 1939, pl. XXXII fig. 1). Other pendants depicted a naked female, sometimes showing the full figure from head to feet (Fig. 14, p. 596), and sometimes showing just the head and torso with particular concentration on the breasts and pubic region (see S 1939, pl. XXIX fig. 1). It is thought likely that these were representations of a goddess, probably associated with fertility. In addition to evidence of skilled metal work, it is also clear that carved ivory was used as a decorative feature. Mention has already been made of the little ivory box-lid, of Mycenaean style, perhaps depicting a fertility goddess. Various ivory items were found during excavations in the Royal Palace in 1952, one of which was particularly impressive (S 1954b; C ‒ S 1980, pll. XXVIII, XXIX). This was a large ivory panel, measuring approximately 1 m by 50 cm, comprising eight smaller plaques, six of which were carved with scenes and two (at either end) were representations of trees. Because of the fragile state of the panel, it could only be removed from the ground with some difficulty, but, when the task was eventually achieved, it became evident that this was an even more impressive piece than had at first been appreciated. There was, in fact, another set of plaques underneath the first, making it clear that this was a double-sided panel, comprising sixteen panels in total,

20

 

which had probably decorated an item of furniture—perhaps a couch or a bed. Some of the pictures are clearer than others, and it is possible that they are to be understood as depicting scenes from the life of the king. In one he appears to be about to thrust a spear into an animal, while in another he is about to put out the eyes of an enemy whom he grasps by the hair. But not all are quite so gruesome since he is also shown with (and perhaps about to embrace) his wife. One other panel deserves special mention. It shows two smaller figures sucking the breasts of a larger winged figure with a horned head-dress, presumably a goddess (S 1954a, pl. VIII; C ‒ S 1980, pl. XXIXb). This depiction calls to mind an indication in the story of Keret that his hoped-for heir will suck the breasts of Anat (or perhaps Rahmay [W 1998c, 209]) and Athirat. Before leaving the heading of ‘Art and Culture’, it is important that a word is said about music at Ugarit (C 1996a). Among the discoveries have been a number of objects which are clearly or probably musical instruments. These include horns made from the ivory of the elephant and of the hippopotamus, a pair of small bronze cymbals, and what are probably scrapers and clappers used in musical accompaniments. The picture provided by such discoveries is enhanced by a number of representations of musical activities. Cylinder seal impressions (A 1992, nos. 265, 273) have been interpreted as showing dancers and, perhaps, acrobats. A small bronze shows a kneeling figure playing cymbals or a tambourine, and a rather damaged limestone figure may represent someone playing a double-flute. (Line drawings of the above are given in C 1996a.) Particularly intriguing was the discovery of a tablet (RS 15.030+ = Ug 5, 463, 487) inscribed with the words of a hymn or prayer in the Hurrian language and which seemed also to carry a sort of musical notation indicating chords. The precise relationship between the hymn and the music is not clear, but an attempt has actually been made to reconstruct this piece of music, and to record it sung to the accompaniment of lyres (K 1974; K et al. 1976). For further discussion on the religious aspect of Ugaritian art, see below § 13.12 (W) and § 14 (C).

   7

21

T P A

To the south of Minet el-Beida, in the vicinity of the first discoveries, were located the remains of an occupation which dated from the 14th century (and possibly even the late 15th century)  and lasted until the time of the destruction of Ugarit. It has been suggested that these might be the ruins of a quite separate city, Mahadou, but it is probably appropriate to regard this as the port area of Ugarit, to be associated with the city’s commercial activities which many textual discoveries attest, and that it was in this area that those particularly involved in maritime activities would have lived. The houses, some of which suggest that they may have belonged to people of substance, were built along straight, intersecting streets. Many were arranged around courtyards, often containing a well, and comprised several rooms. Underneath one of the rooms would be a vaulted tomb approached by a staircase (see RSO 1, 3). Other buildings were stores and warehouses, and one was found to contain some 24 large pottery jars, many in a remarkable state of preservation. In fact, large numbers of pottery vessels of various types but often suggesting a Cypriot or Mycenean origin and probably used in commercial activities, were found in the area. (In this context it is relevant to note that, on the cliff north of Minet el-Beida, a misfired Cypriot vase was discovered, suggesting that there was a pottery workshop nearby, and that perhaps Cypriot settlers lived in the vicinity of Ugarit.) Other discoveries included an Egyptian axe and several Egyptian-style ivory cosmetic boxes, some of which were in the shape of a duck (S 1939b pl. XIV fig. 1). These pointed to trading links further south as well as with the Aegean world. Metal-work finds included various bronze tools and weapons as well as silver rings and lead ingots. Weights made of stone or haematite, cylinder seals and, perhaps not surprisingly, stone anchors (some of which had also been found on the tell; F 1969; S 1978; F 1991) featured among the discoveries. Another noteworthy find was a deposit of murex shells, for which the Mediterranean coast is noted, used for the making of the purple dye. The port area may also have contained its places of worship, as is indicated by the presence of altars and other cultic installations, including what may have been a small sanctuary. On the port area see now Y 1997.

 

22 8

R I H

About 8 km north of Latakia and 4.5 km south-west of Ras Shamra there is a small cape which juts out into the Mediterranean. There are some grounds for believing that it may have been an island in the second millennium  (see below). It was already known that there had been a Roman occupation there because of the remains of buildings which were observable, and Gabriel Saadé had noted in 1965 that there was what appeared to be a low tell in the middle part of the cape. But it was yet another chance discovery which led to excavations being carried out in this area. In the course of earth-moving activities associated with urban developments (including plans to build the Meridien hotel) on the cape, a tomb was discovered in 1973 which gave rise to the possibility that there might have been a significant occupation in the LBA. Thus, as a matter of urgency, excavations were undertaken under the auspices of the Direction générale des antiquités et des musées de Syrie, and a joint FrancoSyrian team was established, in charge of which were A. Bounni and J. Lagarce (L 1995). When work began in earnest in 1975 it took place on the southern side of the low tell, in the face of constant difficulties caused by the presence of modern earth-moving machinery in the vicinity. It was undertaken in the hope of clarifying the different phases of occupation. Evidence soon emerged of thick rubble walls which had often been reduced to foundation-level by the predations of later builders in the Iron Age and the Hellenistic period who used its stones. What was clear was that these were the walls of a building from the LBA. This became known as the ‘Southern Palace’. The following year, a survey was undertaken using geophysical techniques which measured electrical resistivity. This provided useful indications of the westward extent of the ‘Southern Palace’. It was decided to remove the surface soil by means of mechanical diggers, thereby making it possible to gain a clearer impression of the plan of the southern part of the building. It was in the course of this activity that the presence of pottery reminiscent of Mycenaean ware from the beginning of the Iron Age was first noticed. Excavations in the area of the ‘Southern Palace’ continued until 1980, particular attention being paid to the Hellenistic remains. Studies of the geomorphology of the cape which have been carried out since 1976 have, as has already been indicated, given rise

  

23

to the speculation that it may have been an island during the second millennium . Sections of stone paving which showed through the sand from place to place to the south-east of the ‘Southern Palace’ seemed to be the vestiges of a roadway. These pieces of paving seemed to predate the sand-bar on which part of the Hellenistic town was situated. Further study of the roadway has been impossible since 1976, but, in 1991, radiocarbon tests were carried out on two samples of natural cement formed between the paving-blocks of the roadway when they were submerged as a result of an earlier phase of erosion. These tests yielded dates of 1179–860 and 791–441 and led to the suggestion that the road must have been constructed prior to 1179/860 and was subsequently submerged. The most likely time for its construction, in view of what is known of the site, would have been the LBA, the period of building of the ‘Southern Palace’ (and other important buildings as will be noted later), and it is possible that the roadway originally led to the eastern entrance to the ‘Southern Palace’. In 1977, a new area close to the tomb which had been discovered in 1973 was opened up. It soon became clear that this was a site of considerable importance and led to subsequent excavations being concentrated in this area and on the edifice which has come to be known as the ‘Northern Palace’. Various soundings were undertaken with a view to establishing the extent of the building in the LBA. It became clear that this was a major building including not only residential areas but also an administrative centre and that it housed workshops, e.g. for metal-working. It proved difficult to produce a plan of this ‘Northern Palace’, partly due to the fact that, as in the ‘Southern Palace’, stones had been removed to be re-used later (but see the plan in L 1995, 154). Some indication of its extent was provided by the presence of what appeared to be a street running along its western periphery and, less certainly, another to its east. The block which lay between these two limits has been analysed as divisible into two quite distinct sections. The first, to the south-west, was basically rectangular and arranged around a central courtyard; the second, to the north-west, was a much more confused conglomeration of rooms. It is thought unlikely that these two sections of the building were entirely separate, and that there must therefore have been a corridor or passageway linking them. There is some evidence which makes it possible to suggest the original function of some of the rooms. For example, an impressive room off the

24

 

central courtyard, approached by an entrance flanked by two columns, may have been a throne room (room XII). Apparently next door to this ‘throne room’ was a workshop which seems to have been used for working in bone (room XX). This juxtaposition of rooms seems rather strange, and has led to the suggestion that the latter may originally have been on the first floor but that, with the destruction of the building, its contents fell through to ground level where they were subsequently found. The presence of staircases suggests that the building had more than one storey. Caution is therefore necessary in identifying the original function of the building’s rooms. Nevertheless, it has been thought possible to make some judgements about the likely use of certain parts of the building in the LBA. The main access to the ‘Northern Palace’ was probably from the south and into the rectangular south-western area of the building, which seems from its stonework, general plan and lay-out around the courtyard, to have been the most prestigious part of the edifice. It has been described as the ‘reception area’. By contrast, the northwestern part of the building followed a much less geometric plan and gives the impression of being something of an annexe. This is not to suggest that this part of the building was unimportant. It was in this area that rooms housing tablets were located, and perhaps where administrative activities were undertaken. Access from one part of the building to the other may have been via a courtyard and a room with benches which is perhaps to be understood as a guardroom controlling access to the less public areas of the ‘Northern Palace’. The ‘Northern Palace’ appears, then, to have been an important residence, administrative and production centre. But whose residence? The very nature of the building would suggest the likelihood that it was a royal residence and one particular tablet (KTU 2.82 = RIH 78/12) found on the site may provide the clue since it is addressed ‘To the queen, my mother’. Although the queen is not named, it is suggested that she may have been A¢atmilku, the mother of 'Ammi∆tamru II who reigned in Ugarit in the middle of the thirteenth century . A seal impression bearing the imprint of this king was found in connection with administrative documents in the ‘Northern Palace’ in 1982 and 1983, indicating that some at least of the texts discovered there originated during his reign. Further excavations sought to establish the relationship between

  

25

the ‘Northern Palace’ and the buildings on either side of it. There are some grounds for the belief that the building which lay immediately to the east may have functioned as a service building for the ‘Northern Palace’, not least because there did not appear to be sufficient room for a completely separate building between the palace and the eastern extremity of the city. More importantly, several of its rooms seem to have served a utilitarian function, including cookery and the baking of bread. The rooms seem to have been well constructed and paved, and one housed a toilet. The building to the south-west (which became known as Building B) was separated from the ‘Northern Palace’ by a street, though it is possible that the buildings may have been joined in an unexcavated area. There is some evidence of ‘city planning’ in this area, though not to the extent which would have yielded a number of blocks separated by parallel streets. It seems that some of the streets went round corners, which would have had the effect of reducing the strength of the wind, and that at least one was a cul de sac. But the symmetry of this building with the ‘Northern Palace’ is noteworthy and it is not impossible that the two buildings were constructed to the same basic plan. It too comprised a paved area (perhaps a courtyard) off which several rooms opened, one of which contained a staircase. The symmetry even extends to the presence of two wells in ‘opposite’ rooms, and kilns in ‘opposite’ rooms. The kiln in building B was well-preserved and impressive though its precise function was unclear. It was located in a room along whose eastern wall ran a bench covered in white mortar which supported several vessels and a lamp. There were pieces of ceramic and bone on the floor. Another intriguing discovery in this building comprised about ten ceramic objects which have been described as scoops. It has been suggested that they may have been used for the distribution of rations, a possibility which might support the suggestion that this too was a public building. How long did this LBA occupation last on Ras Ibn Hani? There is some evidence of repairs or resurfacing of the floors, particularly in the ‘Northern Palace’, which might suggest a relatively lengthy period of occupation. It is also possible that there there is evidence for the secondary usage of certain rooms, e.g. in the ‘bakery’ in the ‘service building’, and that a funerary vault under the ‘Northern Palace’ was not, in its present state, contemporary with the building’s

26

 

construction. However, there is no clear evidence, e.g. from the pottery found on the site, for a beginning of this occupation earlier than the 13th century . Pottery may be of more use in suggesting the possibility that the end of Ras Ibn Hani mirrored the end of the city of Ugarit itself, in view of the fact that people using a particular type of Mycenaean ware seem to have occupied the site immediately after its destruction. This would lend support to the view that both Ugarit and Ras Ibn Hani were destroyed in the context of the advance of the ‘Sea Peoples’ as they pressed south through the regions of the Levantine coast. The ‘Northern Palace’ seems to have suffered a violent destruction by fire, but not before it was abandoned and emptied of essential moveable items by the inhabitants. This fits with what appears to have been the case in Ugarit. A similar situation seems to have occurred with the ‘Southern Palace’, i.e. that it was emptied prior to being destroyed by fire. However, it is not clear that this was the case in ‘Building B’, where evidence of fire seems to be restricted to a room which was probably used for cooking or baking and which may therefore have been caused by that activity. It does not seem to have been the result of a major conflagration involving the whole building. Thus caution is needed. Nevertheless, it is possible to suggest that archaeology (to some limited extent supported by the texts found on the site) points to a foundation of what might be thought of as this outer suburb of Ugarit not earlier than the late 14th century and more likely in the early 13th century . This expansion of Ugarit may reflect a period of relative stability and prosperity. Its destruction was not later that the early 12th century and perhaps more likely at the end of the 13th century, probably at the hands of the ‘Sea Peoples’.

9

C

It seems appropriate, therefore to think of ancient Ugarit as comprising not merely the city on the tell of Ras Shamra, but also, at its zenith in the LBA, the city proper together with the port area and the outlying suburb of Ras Ibn Hani. It was an important strategic and commercial centre, standing at the ‘crossroads’ of major land and sea routes, and was doubtless quite cosmopolitan. It was a city of impressive buildings, high culture and literary artistry, which has

  

27

bequeathed to later generations a script which may represent one of the major steps forward in the development of writing systems. It is perhaps fitting that the name of the city should be best known because of the language and method of writing to which it has given its name—Ugaritic.

CHAPTER THREE

THE WRITTEN SOURCES

1

T S A T W  S 1.1

Introduction

The most surprising discovery made by the late C.F.A. Schaeffer during his first campaign at Tell Ras Shamra was undoubtedly the group of tablets written in an unknown cuneiform script.1 This discovery attracted so much attention that the decipherment of the script was accomplished in less than a year.2 Overshadowed by the tablets in the new (alphabetic) script was the find of a number of texts written in a script already well-known to the excavators, the Mesopotamian (syllabic) cuneiform script. The first campaign yielded only a handful of these texts3 but during the years to come, and especially after the discovery of the royal palace, many syllabic texts came to light. Not all of these were written in the languages of Mesopotamia, Sumerian4 and Akkadian. A number of tablets had been drawn up in Hurrian5 and in Hittite.6 However, the number of tablets in Sumerian and Akkadian (the latter is by far the most important) is very large indeed and new ones are being discovered regularly.7 In this chapter of the handbook I shall study the syllabic Akkadian texts found at Ugarit by looking at their archaeological context and 1

S 1929, 295; V 1929. B 1932, 9. See § 4.1. 3 V 1929, 304–5 and Pl. LXXVI–LXXVII. For a complete list of the tablets found during the first campaign, see B – P 1989, 16–23;  S 1991a, 532–5. 4 Sumerian is only attested in schooltexts: lexical, literary and religious texts copied by apprentice scribes, see below. 5  S 1991a, 339–40. 6 L, Ugaritica 5, 769–79. 7 See, for example, B – P 1995a; D – L 1994b; Y 1995; B – M-L 1995. 2

   

29

their general contents. A study of the former involves a survey of the various archives where the texts have been discovered, a study of the latter will encompass such varied aspects as the genres found in the texts, their distribution over the archives, the education of the scribes, and a short description of the characteristics of their Akkadian. Naturally, in discussing the archives and genres I cannot avoid mentioning the alphabetic texts as well. The focus, however, will be on the syllabic texts. 1.2

The archives

In contrast to many other excavators, Schaeffer at least attempted to keep a record of every individual object which he found during his excavations. He did so by assigning topographical points ( points topographiques, hence p.t.) which were written on a label attached to the object and entered in a plan of the excavated area. Moreover, he kept a notebook in which every object was described and listed with its p.t. and the depth at which it had been found. A combination of the plan and the elevation of the findspot (deduced from the depths and an elevation plan of 1928, before the excavations had begun) would give—at least in principle—the correct findspot.8 First I shall discuss the archives found in the royal palace, then we shall take a look at the ones found in private houses. In order to save space I shall refer to the pertinent chapters in  S 1991a, where all the previous literature can be found. New publications are added wherever necessary. 1.2.1

The palace archives

The Western Archive9 was located in rooms 3, 4 and 5 near the main entrance10 and contained almost only administrative texts, mainly

8 There are, however, many problems with the way the excavator kept his record. During the first nine campaigns new p.t.s. were given for every new pit that was opened. This led to duplicate numbers with the threat of confusion. Therefore, a unified system was set up in 1938 which also covered previous seasons ( S 1991a, 673–4; the new p.t.s. are sometimes provided by B – P 1989, 16–50). However, the multitude of p.t.s. given in the record for a single tablet from the house of the High Priest (1929–1934) makes any attempt to locate them hazardous. 9  S 1991a, 49–60. 10 See the plans in M 1995a, 194–5.

30

 

in alphabetic cuneiform. Noteworthy are a few letters and schooltexts and especially two ‘work copies’ of the treaty with the Hittites, in which the tribute is stipulated.11 Similar tablets were found elsewhere in the palace. Dated texts point to the time of 'Ammi∆tamru II and later ( S 1991a, 57–8), with the notable exception of the translated12 treaty from the time of Niqmaddu II. Whether the tablets had been stored on an upper storey cannot be ascertained. No stairs were found in this part of the building. The Eastern Archive13 (rooms 54–56) is more diverse in contents than the Western Archive, although administrative texts—mainly in Ugaritic—still form by far the biggest group. Interesting is a small group of juridical texts, most of which are styled as private contracts.14 It is only from rooms 54 and 55 that we have royal deeds.15 The most remarkable group of texts from this archive, however, is formed by the letters. More than fifty letters were found, a fair number of which can be ranked as international correspondence. The letters were mainly addressed to king Ibirànu and his(?)16 queen Ôaryelli.17 Only a few texts survive from before this king.18 The tablets were at least partly stored on an upper storey. The Central Archive19 consists of three different wings with different contents.

11

RS 11.732 (PRU 3, 181; 4, 47) and RS 11.772 (KTU 3.1). For the latter, see KTU 2 199–200 and  S 1990a, 354–7. 12 Translations of Akkadian texts into Ugaritic such as KTU 3.1 = RS 11.772 are not really summaries nor are they faithful copies of the original. For KTU 3.1 see K (1993), who suggests that the text is a covering letter including a tribute list sent by Niqmaddu. However, since the text is in Ugaritic, I tend to regard it as a simplified copy for the use of the administrators in the Western Palace archive. According to M 1995, 120, not all letters in Ugaritic which were sent by foreign powers need to have had Akkadian or Hittite originals. The messenger could have memorized the message which was then written down in Ugarit. 13  S 1991a, 60–73. 14 RS 15.37 (PRU 3, 35), 15.81 (PRU 3, 37), 15.173 (PRU 3, 40), 15.180 (PRU 3, 36), 15.182 (PRU 3, 35), 17.248 (PRU 4, 236), 17.388 (PRU 6, no. 50), 17.426 (PRU 6, no. 51). Note also 15.128 (KTU 3.3), a legal text in Ugaritic. 15 RS 15.113 (PRU 3, 168), 15.114 (PRU 3, 112), 15.131 (PRU 3, 133). 16  S 1985–6, 71; 1991a, 15–8. 17 That the diplomatic correspondence in general was kept in the eastern archive as contended by Courtois 1988 is not true; many international letters were found in other archives as well. It is possible, however, that the correspondence of Ibirànu was concentrated in this wing of the palace. 18 Niqmepa': RS 15.117 (KTU 7.63); 'Ammi∆tamru II: RS 15.114 (PRU 3, 112), RS 15.131 (PRU 3, 133) and probably RS 17.383 (PRU 4, 221). 19  S 1991a, 74–96.

   

31

The northern wing is made up of rooms 30 and 31 and is the most important. Here almost all the royal deeds concerning real estate were filed and the distribution of the texts suggests that most of them were kept in dossiers on the upper storey which, after the destruction, fell on top of the debris in court IV.20 Genres other than legal texts as well as texts in Ugaritic are rare in this part of the building. The eastern wing (room 64) contained mainly economic texts, some of them in Ugaritic. The few legal texts are not concerned with real estate. More important is a group of letters between king 'Ammi∆tamru II and the king of Carchemish. A few other letters (mainly in Ugaritic) are addressed to the queen. This queen was most probably 'Ammi∆tamru’s mother A¢atmilku, although Ôaryelli cannot be excluded.21 Part of the tablets had been stored on the upper storey. The southern wing archive (room 66; tablets were also found in 65 and 67) consisted mainly of administrative texts, almost all in Ugaritic. Of interest is a small group of legal texts from room 66 dealing with the sale of land to queen Ôaryelli and witnessed by a certain Ôipi†-Ba'lu.22 The Southern Archive23 was located in a late addition to the palace, rooms 68 and 69 to the south of court V. In this archive all tablets were found that regulate the relations of Ugarit with the foreign powers, the Hittite king and the king of Carchemish. The archive proper was probably kept on an upper storey, which could be reached through room 69, while room 68 served as a secretariate. Apart from the many treaties and international juridical texts,24 however, we also find a number of local real estate transfers, as well as a few administrative texts, some of them in Ugaritic. The dates obtained from the texts cover the entire historical period at Ugarit. The Southwestern Archive25 (rooms 80 and 81) contained mainly administrative texts in Ugaritic. Other genres, such as letters and schooltexts, were written in Ugaritic as well. Of special interest is the  S 1986, 200–3; 1991a, 91–2.  S 1991a, 78. 22 Published as Ugaritica 5, nos. 159–61. For the seal of Ôipi†-Ba'lu, see ibid., p. 261. 23  S 1991a, 97–109. 24 Published in PRU 4. 25  S 1991a, 114–24. 20 21

 

32

synoptic table of scripts found in room 81.26 A substantial group of religious texts was written in Hurrian in syllabic script.27 Two legal texts28 were found as well. All available dates point to the reign of 'Ammi∆tamru II and later. The tablets could have been stored on an upper storey, although one can also think of shelves along one of the walls. Miscellaneous tablet finds in the palace. Several groups of texts have been found outside the archival rooms described above, such as rooms 73 and 90 (both mainly administrative). The most important find, however, is that of a cluster of tablets in court V, formerly believed to have been put there for baking.29 As it turned out later, the traces of oven material proved to be burnt debris, and the cluster of tablets was probably a mixed lot, some of which may even have belonged to an older, discarded archive (at least according to M 1995b, 66–7; M 1995, 119 speaks of ‘the result of inverting a carefully packed basket’). A number of them, however, have to be dated shortly before the final destruction of the city, as shown by the translation into Ugaritic of a letter to king 'Ammurapi" (KTU 2.39 = RS 18.38). 1.2.2

The private archives

A number of houses proved to be important findspots of cuneiform tablets. The owners of these private archives may have been scribes themselves or may have needed the services of scribes. This is not always clear and sometimes it even proves impossible to ascertain the very name of the owner. The so-called Southern Palace30 probably was the house of the chief administrator (“atammu rabû) Yabni-“ap“u (abbreviated Yabninu),31 who had an administrative archive in rooms 203 and 204. Almost all tablets are administrative in nature (all but a few in Akkadian) and from a letter we learn about a scribe who, surprisingly enough, has a good Akkadian name: Na¢i“-“almu.32 Provided the scribe himRS 19.159 (KTU 5.14), see  S 1991a, 122 and 325. Ugaritica 5, 465–96. 28 RS 18.283 (PRU 6, no. 67) and 19.98 (PRU 6, no. 31). Especially the latter, a real estate transfer, seems out of place. 29  S 1991a, 110–4. 30 C 1990;  S 1991a, 149–58 and 1991b, 340. 31  S 1991a, 155–7. C 1990 (only Yabninu). 32 Spelled pna-¢é-“ i—“al-mu by his Ugaritic colleague (RS 19.53 = PRU 6, no. 18:2). For the name, see CAD s.v. na¢à“u 1c. For Middle Assyrian references, see 26 27

   

33

self was Mesopotamian and not a native of Ugarit in Mesopotamian disguise, the rigid Mesopotamian orthography observed for texts from this archive33 may at least partly be due to him. In view of the many Assyrianisms, both in sign forms and in grammar (see § 3.1.5), we have to assume that Na¢i“-“almu was an Assyrian scribe working in Ugarit. The archive was in use until the destruction of the city. The house of Ra“ap"abu34 is one of the three buildings containing an archive discovered in the residential quarter east of the royal palace (the two following archives were found here as well). The owner was a man called Ra“ap-"abu, the supervisor of the harbour (Ma"¢adu) and the archive mainly consists of legal texts (partly dealing with Ra“ap-"abu’s affairs) and administrative texts. The legal texts date from the reign of Niqmaddu II through that of 'Ammi∆tamru II. There are only very few school texts from this house; two of them are practice letters in Ugaritic.35 The house of the Lettré 36 is named after its contents: literary, religious, and lexical texts. The house may originally have belonged with that of Ra“ap-"abu, the name of the owner is still unknown. Apparently, the house served as a school. The house of Rap"ànu37 can easily lay claim to the status of the most important school in Ugarit. Among its hundreds of tablets the most important category is that of the lexical texts. Strangely enough, hardly any literary and religious texts have come to light, which seems to indicate that the scribes did not practise their knowledge in context very much.38 The presumed name of the owner is known from three letters in which he appears twice as recipient and once as sender.39 Another important group of texts in this archive is formed by the international letters. A large part of the royal correspondence was kept here (and not in the palace), and it is here that we find some of the famous letters dealing with the threat of the Sea Peoples.40 Since the architectural remains and the archive are still unpublished S 1970 I, 344; S – F 1979, 91. For Middle Babylonian, see H 1996, 146a. 33  S 1991a, 372. 34  S 1991a, 160–3. 35 RS 17.63 (KTU 5.10) and 17.117 (5.11). 36  S 1991a, 163–5. 37  S 1991a, 165–81. 38  S 1995a, 179. 39 Cf. Ugaritica 5, nos. 53–5. 40 For the correspondence in general, see Ugaritica 5, nos. 20–80; The Alashiya letters are nos. 22 and 24 (no. 23 comes from the antiques market).

34

 

not much can be said about the stratigraphy of the building. The dates obtained from the tablets are generally late: 'Ammi∆tamru II through 'Ammurapi". The Tablet House (Maison-aux-tablettes)41 has recently been published by C (1994, 53–61). In the centre of a residential area opened up in 1959 the excavators discovered a big house with a large number of tablets. Most of these tablets are school texts: lexical and literary texts written by apprentice scribes. The few letters and legal texts do not help to identify the owner of this important house. The majority of the tablets had been stored on an upper storey. However, a small group of texts was found below floor level.42 In view of the joins which can be made between tablets of both groups ( S 1991a, 185, 187, 192)43 the two groups cannot be separated in time (contra C 1994, 61). Dates deduced from the texts point to the time of 'Ammi∆tamru II and later. The Archives on the South Acropolis. In a heavily damaged building on the southern part of the Acropolis two archives were discovered; the first was named the archive of the Hurrian Priest, the second the Lama“tu-archive.44 This first archive was located in two rooms (10 and 11) in the northeastern wing of the house, one of which (10) was interpreted as a cella (C 1969). The archive contained almost exclusively texts in alphabetic cuneiform. The second archive was housed in the southwestern wing of the house and contained a large number of syllabic cuneiform texts. Since most of these are lexical and literary texts the wing must have housed a school. That the teacher(s) in this school must either have been Babylonian or have been trained by Babylonian scribes can be seen from the ductus in which they wrote and from their Akkadian.45 The few letters and legal texts do not allow an identification of the owner. The tablets in the Lama“tu-archive had partly eroded down the slope of the Acropolis, but it is clear from the many joins that they belong with the archive.46 Circumstantial evidence points to a relatively late date for both archives.  S 1991a, 182–93.  S 1991a, 190–1; C 1994, 61. 43 The most striking example is RS 22.403 + 431 + 433–, a copy of Lu 1, pieces of which were found at 0.70, 1.00 and 2.50 m below the surface. 44 For the former, see  S 1991a, 193–203, for the latter, ibid., 204–11. 45  S 1991a, 209, 373–4, 521. 46  S 1991a, 209–11. 41 42

   

35

The Library of the High Priest47 on the Acropolis was the first archive to be discovered and, as it happens, it contained the literary texts in Ugaritic which brought Ugarit instant fame. Apart from these important texts, the building must have housed a school, as can be seen from a number of lexical texts.48 As pointed out at the beginning, the findspots of the tablets cannot always be identified with certainty. An assessment of the stratigraphy will have to await new research. Dates obtained from the texts probably point to the period from Niqmaddu II (the Ugaritic literary texts)49 until the end of Ugarit’s existence (most other texts). The house of Urtenu50 was discovered by accident in 1971 after a tablet had been found in debris from building activities by the Syrian army. In 1973 the excavators were allowed to search the debris but a regular excavation could only be carried out from 1986. At the end of the 1994 season more than 500 texts had been recovered from this house,51 thereby making it the biggest archive discovered so far. The great majority of the texts is in Akkadian, but there are a few important texts in Ugaritic as well. One of these is a literary fragment written by Ili-malku,52 the scribe who wrote a number of literary texts in the house of the high priest. Two groups stand out among the Akkadian texts, a number of international letters dealing with important historical events,53 and a group of lexical texts written by apprentice scribes.54 The owner of the house, (the scribe?) Urtenu, is known from a number of letters and an incantation in  S 1991a, 212–20; C 1989.  S 1995a, 194. 49 For arguments for this date, see  S 1991a, 27–9. However, according to B – M-L 1995, 447–8, the king mentioned in the colophons is more likely to be Niqmaddu III than Niqmaddu II. 50 Y 1995; For Urtenu, see already  S 1991a, 221. B – M-L 1995; RSO 7; B – P 1995b, 31–2; M-L 1995a, L 1995. For previous literature, see  S 1991a, 221–3. 51 Y 1995, 439. 52 B – P 1995, 28; B – M-L 1995, 447–8. In view of a number of syllabic spellings with -a-, I prefer the vocalization Ili-malku to the more traditional Ili-milku, see provisionally van Soldt 1991a, 21 n. 182 and M.S. S 1994, 3 n. 6. 53 For example, the battle of Ni¢riya, RSO 7, no. 46, a letter from NorthBabylonia (no. 47, in line 3 read dú-túl—mi-ri, ‘Shepherd of Mari’ [ /qv1ttÃ1l/, e.g. ibr /"ibbìr-/ < *"abbìr ‘bull’ (KTU 1.10 = RS 3.362+ iii 35 etc.); *"v 1C.v 2C(C ) > *'v2C.v2C(C ) (‘v1’ = short vowel), e.g. urbt /"urubbat-/ < *"arubbat‘opening, hatch’ (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ v 61, etc.), ir“t /"iri“t-/ < *"ari“t- ‘wish’ (KTU 1.104 = RS 24.248:1, etc.). (b) Vowel syncope: pretonic: (Cv)CvCvC.v > (Cv)CvCC.v (‘v’ = short vowel), e.g. ri“t /ra"“àt-/ < *ra"a“àt- ‘heads’ (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 i 23.24, etc.); post-tonic: C.vCvCvCv > C.vCCvCv or C.vCCvCvCv > CvCCvCCv (‘v’ = short vowel). 3.3.5.3

Sound changes in diphthongs and triphthongs16

(a) Contraction of diphthongs: *aw > /ô/; *ay > /ê/; *iy > /î/; *uw > /û/. (b) Preservation of some types of triphthong (/uwå/, /iyÆ/, /aw/yà/, /Ãw/yÆ/) as opposed to the contraction of other types of triphthong (*awù> /û/; *awì> /î/*ayù > /û/; *ayì > /î/; *awa> /â/; *aya > /â/; *uwù > /û/).

13 However, word-initial /w/ is preserved (a) in the conjunction w, ‘and’, (b) before the vowel /u/ (D-stem infinitives of the I-y < I-w roots, e.g. wld /wullad-/ ‘to bear (a child)’ [KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ iii 48 etc.] and wp∆-m /wuppa∆-/ ‘to insult’ [KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ vi 13]). 14 On this topic see G 1986 and V 1991. 15 For syllabic spellings see H 1987b, 268–83. 16 For syllabic spellings see H 1987b, 288–92.

 

98 3.3.5.4

Sound changes within syllables

(a) Prothesis (to avoid a word-initial consonant cluster): e.g. ußb'/(")ußba'-/ < *ßiba'- ‘finger (pl.)’ (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 iv 14, etc.). (b) Specific pausal forms: words at the end of a sentence occasionally have a phonetically altered form (e.g. reduction of the ending or special lengthening of the stressed syllable). 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.1.1

Morphology and morphosyntax

The pronoun The personal pronoun

a. Nominative forms: 1.c.sg. ank = syll. a-na-ku /"anàku/ (longer form) or an /"anà/ (shorter form); 2.m.sg. at = syll. at-ta /"attå/ < *"anta; 2.f.sg. at /"attì/ < *"anti; 3.m.sg. hw = syll. ú-wa /huwa/ < *hu"a; 3.f.sg. hy /hiya/ < *hi"a; 2.m.pl. atm /"attumù/ < *"antumù; 2.c.du. atm /"attumà/ < *"antumà; 3.c.du. hm /humà/.17 b. Oblique forms (gen./acc.): 3.m.sg. hwt /huwåti/ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014] vi 20 etc.); 3.f.sg. hyt /hiyåti/ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014] iii 10 etc.); 3.m.pl. hmt /humùti/ (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iii 9 etc.); 3.c.du. hmt /humàti/ (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] v 20.30; KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iii 44). 3.4.1.2

Pronominal suffixes

1.c.sg. possessive suffix -Ø or -y /-ì/, -y /-ya/;18 1.c.sg. object suffix -n /-nì/; 2.m.sg. -k /-kå/; 2.f.sg. -k /-kì/; 3.m.sg. -h = syll. -ú /-hù/; 3.f.sg. -h /-hå/; 1.c.pl. -n /-nå/(?); 2.m.pl. -km /-kumù/; 2.f.pl. -kn /-kun(n)å/; 3.m.pl. -hm /-humù/; 3.f.pl. -hn /-hun(n)å/; 1.c.du. -ny /-nayà/; 2.c.du. -km /-kumà/; 3.c.du. -hm /-humà/. 3.4.1.3 Demonstrative pronouns – ‘this’ (adjectival): hnd (many); hndn (KTU 2.71 = RS 29.095:10). – ‘this’ (nominal): hndt (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iv 62; KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031:12; KTU 2.45 = RS 18.140:7). 17

1.c.pl., 2.f.pl., 3 m./f.pl. and 1.c.du. forms are not attested. After a short /i-/ vowel and after various long vowels it is /-ya/, otherwise it is /ì/. 18

 

99

– ‘that’ (adjectival): hnhmt (KTU 3.3 = RS 15.128:8; perhaps also KTU 4.659 = RS 19.166:6). – ‘that’ (nominal): hnk (KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402:23); hnkt (KTU 2.41 = RS 18.147:13; KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174:10). 3.4.1.4

The determinative pronoun (relative pronoun)

The forms of the Ugaritic determinative pronoun, which also functions as a relative pronoun, are: m.sg. d = /dù/ (Nom.), /dì/ (gen.), /dà/ (acc.) and d = /dì/ (only KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194:45 [gen.]); f.sg. dt = /dàtu/, /dàti/, /dàta/; c(?).pl. dt /dùtV/. There is also an indeclinable variant d = /då/(?).19 3.4.1.5

Interrogative pronouns

– ‘who?’: my /mìya/(?) (several occurrences); mn (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014] iii 37; KTU 1.3 iv 4; perhaps KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ iv 23. – ‘what?’: mh /mah(a)/ (several occurrences); mhy (KTU 2.14 = RS [Varia 4]:9 only); mat (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ i 38 only); mn (uncertain occurrences: KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ iv 23; KTU 2.45 = RS 18.140:25; KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124:22; in KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ ii 19.20 it means ‘how many?’). 3.4.1.6 Indefinite pronouns – ‘anyone’: mnk (KTU 3.2 = RS 15.111:12 [mnk mnkm]); mnkm (KTU 2.19 = RS 15.125:12; KTU 3.2 = RS 15.111:13); mnmn (KTU 1.123 = RS 24.271:22 [mr mnmn]);20 mnn (KTU 5.9 = RS 16.265 i 2). – ‘anything’: mhk (KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031:26); mhkm (KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379:22; KTU 2.71 = RS 29.095:14 [mhkm]); mnm (many occurrences). – ‘whatever’ (adjectival): ay (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002:6; KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194:44).

19 It occurs only as a determinative pronoun before a noun clause or as a relative pronoun before a nominal relative clause. 20 Cf. Akk. mamman < *man-man ‘anybody’ as well as the expression màr mammana(ma), ‘anybody’s son’ (CAD M/1, 200–1).

 

100 3.4.2 3.4.2.1

The noun Noun formation

Several different patterns are used for the formation of nouns (nouns and adjectives) in Semitic: monosyllabic forms; polysyllabic forms; forms with lengthened components; forms with prefixes, infixes and suffixes. Most patterns can be assigned to specific classes of meaning. There are severe limitations on identifying nominal patterns in Ugaritic as the alphabetic spelling often permits no conclusions regarding formation.21 The Ugaritic noun forms attested in syllabic spelling are rich in information.22 3.4.2.2

Gender

There are two grammatical genders: masculine (masc.) and feminine (fem.). Masc. nouns are basically unmarked, whereas as a rule fem. nouns have a special ending. By far the commonest feminine morpheme is -(a)t. The choice of the morpheme variant -at instead of -t is largely dependent on syllable structure. The -(a)t-ending also denotes nomina unitatis (singular nouns), e.g. mn˙t ‘(single) gift’ (KTU 4.709 = RS [ Varia 13]:6) in relation with the generic name mn˙ ‘gift(s)’ (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 i 38 etc.). Besides the feminine ending -t = /-(a)/ probably a rare feminine ending y = /-ayV/ is also attested: n'my ‘the (exceedingly) lovely’ (KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ vi 6.28; KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] ii 42). There are also grammatically feminine nouns without a feminine ending, e.g. um ‘mother’. 3.4.2.3

Number

There are three numbers in Ugaritic: singular (sg.), dual (du.) and plural (pl.). The sg. is unmarked. The du. and pl. are denoted by special morphemes. In Ugaritic the du. is productive and is marked by the morpheme -Ø = /à/ which always coalesces with the case ending: nominative -à, oblique (gen./acc.) -ê. In the absolute state the ending is lengthened by mimation: nom. -m = /-àmi/, obl. -m = /-êma/ (alternatively: /-êmi/). As a rule, the dual ending is added onto the singular 21 22

Cf. S 1984 § 43; S 1997, 60. On this topic see H 1987b, 302–17.

 

101

form. It comes after the gender morpheme -t = /-(a)t/ of (marked) fem. nouns. The pl. is marked by a morpheme which causes vowel lengthening. With fem. nouns the plural marker comes before the gender marker and the case endings: nominative /-àtu/, oblique /-àti/; in the masc. noun it merges with the case endings: nominative /-ù/, oblique /-ì/ (absolute state: /-ùma/, /-ìma/). The nominal base of the pl. is mostly the same as the sg. In certain nominal patterns and certain weak root classes, the plural basis differs from the base of the singular. It should be emphasized that -forms generally have a bisyllabic base in the plural (e.g. pl. ra“m/t /ra"a“-/ of sg. ri“ /ra"“-/). 3.4.2.4 Case a. Ugaritic has three main cases: nominative (nom.), genitive (gen.) and accusative (acc.). They are marked by vocalic morphemes which follow the gender marker in fem. nouns. In the (masc. and fem.) sg. the three main cases are mostly differentiated by three different vowel endings: nom. -u, gen. -i, acc. -a (triptotic endings). Nouns of certain patterns (including certain personal names) have only two different case-endings in the sg.: nom. -u, gen./acc. = oblique (obl.) -a (diptotic). In the du. and masc. pl. the inflection is exclusively diptotic: du.nom. -à, du.obl.-ê; m.pl. nom. -ù; m.pl. obl. -ì.23 b. Besides the three main cases, Ugaritic has two further cases with primary adverbial function, i.e. the terminative and the locative. Both are comparatively little used. The terminative functions as an independent adverbial case, primarily for denoting direction. It is marked by the -h-ending which, in connection with the so-called ‘he locale’ (locative h) of Hebrew grammar is probably to be vocalised as /-ah/. The terminative ending is probably added on to the uninflected noun stem: arßh = /"arßah/ ‘towards the earth’ (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ i 29). It only occurs for certain in the abs. state. The locative is marked by the ending /-ù/, e.g. ßbu “p“ /ßabì"ù/ 23 Occasionally the oblique ending seems (already) to have assumed the function of the nominative ending, e.g. ily ugrt (= /ilì UgaritV/) t©rk t“lmk ‘may the gods of Ugaritic guard you (and) grant you well-being’ (KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008:4–6).

 

102

‘at sunset’ (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:47.53). Examples are difficult to identify as the locative ending is only evident from spellings in forms of III-’ roots. There seem to be several different functions of the locative. It denotes place (locative), time, the ablative, the instrumental, measure and quantity, final nuances (with infinitives or verbal nouns) and the paronomastic infinitive (e.g. bt krt bu tbu, ‘she did enter Krt’s house’ [KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 3]). c. The form of the noun in the imperative and in direct address— the vocative—is expressed by various syntagmata: (a) by an unintroduced noun, (b) by the noun introduced by the particle l, (c) by a noun introduced by the particle y or (d) by a noun with a 1st pers. noun suffix. There is no explicit information on the case-endings of the vocative in Ugaritic in spite of a few occurrences of III-’ radical nouns. It is uncertain whether a noun in all the constructions just mentioned (a–d) has the same morphological form. It is also uncertain whether the vocative has the same form as one of the three main cases. There are indications that in the singular the vocative can be expressed without any case-endings and that the accusative case serves as a vocative. d. In the corpus of Ugaritic texts there are occasionally m.sg. nouns without any inflection.24 This could be a relic of what is known as the ‘absolute case’,25 comparable with the ‘absolute state’ of Akkadian grammar (cf. GAG § 62 c–j). 3.4.2.5 State The noun has two states which depend on the syntactic position of a noun: 1. the absolute state (abs. st.), 2. the construct state (cstr. st.). The abs. st. is unmarked in the singular and so is the same as the cstr. st. In the dual and plural it is sometimes marked by a final -m, known as nominal mimation. The cstr. st. is unmarked for all numbers and differs from the abs. st. in the dual and plural by the lack of mimation. Both states in Ugaritic have (the same) case-endings.

24 25

For syllabic spellings see H 1987b, 300–1. On the absolute case in Hamito-Semitic see S 1984.

  3.4.2.6

103

Determination/Indetermination

Ugaritic has no morphological marker for determination or indetermination. There is neither a definite article nor a specific determined case, and mimation on nouns has neither a determinative nor an indeterminative function.26 3.4.3

Cardinal numbers

a. The cardinal numbers 1–10 are as follows: ‘one’ ‘two’ ‘three’ ‘four’ ‘five’ ‘six’ ‘seven’ ‘eight’ ‘nine’ ‘ten’

a˙d /"a˙(˙)ad-/; a˙t/"a˙˙att-/ ∆n /∆inà/ (nom.), /∆inê/ (obl.); ∆t /∆ittà/ (nom.), /∆ittê/ (obl.) ∆l∆ /∆alà∆-; ∆l∆t /∆alà∆at-/ arb'/"arba'-/; arb't /"arba'at-/ ¢m“ /¢ami“-/; ¢m“t /¢am(i )“at-/ ∆∆ /∆i∆∆-/; ∆∆t //∆i∆∆at-/ “b' /“ab'-/; “b' t /“ab'at-/ ∆mn /∆amànû/ < *∆amàniy-; ∆mnt /∆amànît-/ t“' /ti“'-/; t“' t /ti“'at-/ '“r /'a“ (a)r-/ < *'a≤ar-; '“rt /'a“(a)rat-/

The uninflected (masc.) forms of the cardinal numerals 3–10 can be coupled with nouns of either gender. In the Baal Cycle, the Aqhat Epic and a few other poetic texts, however, fem. numerals are generally used with masculine countables (syntax with ‘polarity of gender’). In prose, fem. numerals are used exclusively with the ellipsis of ∆ql ‘shekel’ and ym ‘day’. b. The numerals from 11–19 are made up of the units 1–9 and the expression for ‘ten’ ('“r / '“rt / '“rh). The sequence is mostly ‘unit— ten’, e.g. (a) ¢m“ '“r, (b) ¢m“ '“rh and (c) ¢m“t '“rt ‘15’. Type (a) is only used together with masc. nouns. Type (b) occurs with fem. and masc. nouns. Type (c) is used only with the ellipsis of ∆ql ‘shekel’ or ym ‘day’—here as an ordinal numeral. Numerals 12–19 can also be constructed in the reverse sequence (‘ten—unit’). In these cases the unit is always followed by the word kbd which can be rendered ‘plus’, e.g. '“r arb' kbd ‘14’. c. The numeral 20 is formed from the dual or plural form of '“r ‘10’, the tens from 30 to 90 from the plural forms of the numerals 3 to 9: '“rm, ∆l∆m, ¢m“m, ∆∆m, “b'm, ∆mnym, t“ 'm. The cardinal numerals 26

Against S 1984, §§ 52.6, 62.6, 73.21.

 

104

21–99 comprise two or at most three words: the ten, the unit and usually a word linking the ten and the unit, e.g. ∆∆ l ∆∆m ‘66’ (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ vii 9) or ∆mnym ∆mn kbd ‘88’ (KTU 4.179 = RS 15.103:14). d. ‘100’ is mit /mi"t-/, ‘200’ mitm (dual of mit). The hundreds from 300 are formed by connecting a unit and mat /ma"àt-/ (pl. of mit), e.g. ∆l∆ mat. e. ‘1,000’ is alp /'alp-/, ‘2,000’ alpm (dual of alp). The thousands from 3,000 are formed from a unit and alpm (pl. of alp), e.g. ¢m“ alpm ‘5,000’ (KTU 4.181 = RS 15.106:2). f. The word for ‘10,000’ (or ‘myriad’) is rbt or rbbt. 3.4.4 3.4.4.1

The verb Introduction

The inflected verb differentiates gender, number, person, aspect/tense (imperfective or perfective; antecedent, contemporaneous, subsequent), mood (indicative or volitive [imperative, jussive]), diathesis (active, reflexive, passive) and aspect (e.g. factitive, causative). Gender, number and person are differentiated by various prefixes and/or suffixes. Various verb stems differentiate diathesis and aspect (see § 3.4.4.3); aspect/tense and mood are differentiated by a) subtypes of the prefix conjugation, b) the imperative and c) the suffix conjugation. Alongside the genuine (finite) verbal forms two nominal (infinitive) categories occur in connection with the verb system, i.e. participles and infinitives. They are morphologically and semantically directly related to verbal categories. Besides gender and number their inflection also differentiates diathesis and aspect. 3.4.4.2 Morphological classes of the basic stem 3.4.4.2.1 The imperative a. The imperative (impv.) is the mood of command in the 2nd pers. Morphologically, it is identical with the short form of the prefix conjugation without the prefix and phonemically monosyllabic, i.e. (V = /a/, /i/ or /u/; the same thematic vowel as in the prefix conjugation). As a word-initial consonant cluster is not tolerated, the impv. becomes bisyllabic, usually by insertion of an auxiliary vowel

 

105

after the first radical (= anaptyxis), generally /i/, more rarely /u/: e.g. isp /"ispì/ < *"Vsupì (f.sg.) ‘collect!’ (KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+:33 etc.); u¢d /u¢ud/ < *"¢ud ‘seize!’ (KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134:6). b. The inflected endings of the impv. are the same as the endings of the 2nd person of the short form of the prefix conjugation: qVtVl; f.sg. qVtVlì; m.pl. qVtVlù (f.pl. not attested); c.du. qVtVlà. c. Besides the uninflected form of the m.sg. impv.—in line with Hebrew—there is probably a lengthened (‘emphatic’) form qVtVlå, marked by the suffixed morpheme /-å/,27 e.g. “a /“a"å/ < *≤a"å (√n“") ‘raise/lift up!’ (KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ v 13; KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ ii 22). 3.4.4.2.2 The prefix conjugation a. ‘Prefix conjugation’ (PC) is the generic term for various different morphological subtypes which have differing verbal meanings. Inflection is by means of prefixes and suffixes. In morphological terms and functions the following subtypes of the PC can be distinguished (cf. § 3.4.4.2.5): Form short form extended short form long form

Function a) perfective aspect, preterite b) ‘jussive’ mood jussive/cohortative mood imperfective aspect, present

Abbreviation PCSp PCSj PCSe PCL

b. The prefix consonants of the PC are: 3.m.sg. y-; 3.f.sg. and 2.m./f.sg. t-; 1.c.sg. "-; 3.m.pl. t-/*y-;28 3.f.pl. and 2.m./f.pl. t-; 1.c.pl. n-; 3.m.du. y-/t-;29 3.f.du. and 2.c.du. t-.

It is the same morpheme as occurs in the PCse (cohortative mood); see § 3.4.4.2.2f. 28 Normally a t-prefix (see D 1981). There was also a variant with a y-prefix—probably attested only in two cases (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ v 17: yblk ‘they should bring’ || tblk; KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ v 38.40: yblnn ‘they brought’). This variant is no (longer) productive and only attested in grammatical parallelism with the ‘normal’ t-prefix form. 29 Forms with the y- and t-prefix both occur (with almost the same frequency). 27

 

106

c. The personal suffixes of the PC are the endings of the short form of the prefix conjugation (PCS): 3.m./f.sg., 2.m.sg., 1.c.sg./pl. -Ø; 2.f.sg. /-ì/; 3./2.m.pl. /-ù/; 3./2.f.pl. /-nå/(?);30 3./2.du. /-à/. d. The PC in the basic stem of the underlying ‘strong’ roots has the following structure: (paradigm root √qtl; C = any prefix consonant; V1 = prefix vowel; V2 = thematic vowel). The thematic vowel (TV) is /a/, /i/ or /u/, the prefix vowel (PV) either /a/ (before TV /u/ or /i/) or /i/ (before TV /a/). The following PCpatterns occur: , und .31 The choice of TV is essentially dependent a) on the semantic class of the root (roots with a fundamentally stative meaning usually have the TV /a/, roots with a fientic basic meaning have either /u/ or /i/ as a TV, b) and on the phonetic quality of the third and second root consonant (roots with gutturals in second or third position often have /a/ as TV). e. The paradigm of the PCS is therefore (paradigm root √qtl, TV /u/): Singular 3.m 3.f. 2.m. 2.f. 1.c.

yaqtul-Ø taqtul-Ø taqtul-Ø taqtul-ì 'aqtul-Ø

Plural taqtul-ù taqtul-nå(?) taqtul-ù taqtul-nå(?) naqtul-Ø

Dual y/taqtul-à taqtul-à taqtul-à taqtul-à (as masc.) — (?)

f. The forms of the PCS without endings have a morphological variant with the suffixed morpheme /-å/ instead of -Ø (= PCSe).32 It is only attested in connection with jussive forms and so can be termed a lengthened or ‘emphatic’ jussive. The lengthened jussive is attested in an unequivocal spelling a large number of times only in the 1st p. sg. In analogy with Hebrew this form can be called ‘cohortative’. As the lengthened jussive is not attested for every person and is not in functional opposition to the ordinary jussive (= PCSj), it is not an 30 V 1984, 317–9 has a different view and postulates a PCL tqltn = /taqtulùna/ and a PCS tqtl = /taqtulù/ for the 3.f.pl. However, a PC-form of the 3.f.pl. without the -n ending does not exist. 31 For these vocalic sequences see already B 1894, 4–5. For the validity of ‘Barth’s Law’ in Ugaritic see especially V 1983b. 32 It is therefore the same morpheme as probably also occurs in Ugaritic on the lengthened impv. (m.sg.); see § 3.4.4.2.1c.

 

107

autonomous grammatical category. In other words, unlike Arabic, Ugaritic does not have a specific ‘yaqtula-mood’. g. The long form of the prefix conjugation (PCL) differs from the PCS by an additional suffixed morpheme. Forms without an ending in the PCS have the ending /-u/ in the PCL; forms with a vocalic ending in the PCS (except for the 3./2. f.pl.) have the additional ending -n = /-na/ or /-ni/ in the PCL:

3.m. 3.f. 2.m. 2.f. 1.c.

Singular

Plural

Dual

yaqtul-u taqtul-u taqtul-u taqtul-ìna 'aqtul-u

taqtul-ùna taqtul-nå (?) taqtul-ùna *taqtul-naå (?) naqtul-u

y/taqtul-àni taqtul-àni taqtul-àni taqtul-àni (as masc.) — (?)

h. In earlier research the question was hotly debated whether in Ugaritic there was also a long form of the prefix conjugation with the pattern , comparable to Akkadian iparrVs, Ethiopic yéqattél or similar formations in modern South Arabic languages.33 F (1970) and M (1975, 75–104, esp. 97ff.) demonstrated independently, however, that this category does not exist in Ugaritic. The Ugaritic texts published over the last twenty years provide absolute proof of this. 3.4.4.2.3 The suffix conjugation a. The Suffix conjugation (SC) is not a homogeneous category in Ugaritic, as is also the case in other West Semitic languages. There is a fundamental difference between SC-forms with stative meaning and those with a fientic (perfective, mostly preterite) meaning. The former can be called ‘statives’, the latter ‘perfects’ (abbreviations: ‘SCs’ and ‘SCp’). The subtypes mentioned also differ from each other morphologically by different thematic vowels (see § c). b. The paradigm of the suffix conjugation is as follows:

33

See esp. G 1938, 296–309.

 

108 Singular 3.m. 3.f. 2.m. 2.f. 1.c.

qatVl-a qatVl-at qatVl-tå qatVl-tì qatVl-tù35

Plural qatVl-ù qatVl-à/ù(?) qatVl-tum(V )34 *qatVl-tun(n)å *qatVl-nå/ù

Dual qatVl-à qatVl-tà qatVl-tumà qatVl-tumà (also masc.) qatVl-na/iyà

c. The thematic vowels of the SC are /a/, /i/ and /u/. /a/ is reserved exclusively for the fientic-perfective subtype of the SC (SCp), /u/ for the stative subtype of the SC (SCs). /i/ occurs in both subtypes. In the fientic subtype, however, it is limited to roots with II/ III guttural, where the thematic vowel of the PC is /a/. The system of thematic vowels in the SC and their equivalents in the PC can be summarized as follows: SC qati/ula – PC Ciqtal (stative); SC qatala – PC Caqtu/il (fientic); SC qatila – PC Ciqtal (fientic II/III-guttural). 3.4.4.2.4 Finite Verb Forms with Energic Ending a. Besides the inflectional endings, finite verb forms—especially in poetry and in object suffixes—often exhibit a so-called energic ending,36 spelled either -n or -nn. At least two perhaps even three different alloforms of the energic morpheme can be distinguished (energic types I/II/[III]). As the energic endings may occur, basically, on all finite verb forms, whether they are indicative or volitive, the energic is not a mood in the strict sense. b. By far the the most commonly attested allomorph of the energic is -n = /-(a)nnV/ (= energic type I). It may stand alone and or before the 3rd pers. sg. pronominal suffixes. In combination with 3rd pers. sg. suffixes, the ending is -nh, to be vocalised as /-anna-hù/ or /-annahå/ respectively. c. There is also an energic allomorph: -nn = /-nin/(?) (= energic type II). It occurs exclusively in combination with 3rd pers. sg. suffixes. The initial consonant, /h/, of the pronominal suffix is thus

34 Alternatively /i/- vowel, i.e. /qatVl-tim(V )/. Similarly for 2.f.pl. (/qatVl-tin(n)à/) and 2.c.du. (/qatVl-timà/). 35 Alternatively: /-tì/ (as in Canaanite). In favour of /-tù/ however is that the independent personal pronoun 1.c.sg. in Ugaritic also ended in /-u/ (/"anàku/). 36 On this topic see especially V 1988, 79–98 and K 1993.

 

109

always assimilated to the second /n/ of the energic ending: -nn = /-nVnnù/ < *-nin-hù or /-nVnnå/ < *-nin-hå respectively. d. Perhaps Ugaritic also had a third allomorph of the energic, i.e. -n = /-an/ (= energic type III). The orthographical proof for this allomorph has not yet been produced. 3.4.4.2.5 Aspect and tense Verbal aspects and (relative) tenses are mainly differentiated by the subtypes of the PC and the fientic variant of the SC. The functions of these categories can be set out in the following table (paradigm root √qtl, 3.m.sg.):

anteriority contemporaneous posteriority

yaqtul (PCsp) ——— *yaqtul(å) (PCSj/e)

perfective

imperfective

qatala (SCp) *qatala (SCp) qatala (SCp)

yaqtulu (PCL) yaqtulu (PCL) yaqtulu (PCL)

All the fields on the right = imperfective column of the table are filled by the long form of the prefix conjugation (PCL). The left = perfective column includes the short form of the prefix conjugation (PCS) and the perfective-fientic suffix conjugation (SCp). In the field ‘perfective anteriority’, the PCSp and the SCp have practically the same function. The field ‘perfective-contemporaneous’ is empty because facts which occur simultaneously are essentially imperfective. Only a special function of the SCp, i.e. the function of the so-called ‘performative perfect’,37 can be placed in this field. The field ‘perfective-posteriority’—with reference to indicative statements—is only covered by the SCp. The function of the variants of the PCS also in that slot is exclusively volitive ( jussive). The table shows clearly that the PCL is always imperfective and the PCS is always perfective. As the PCL is used for simultaneous situations, this category is conventionally labelled the ‘present’. As, on the other hand, the indicative PCSp generally expresses previous events, this category is conventionally called the ‘preterite’. These labels, which suggest an opposition of tense between PCL and PCS, are not in fact correct, as the PCL can also denote previous events, 37

E.g. l rgmt lk ‘I hereby surely tell you . . .’ (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 iv 7).

110

 

provided that they are imperfective. An imperfective presentation is demanded especially for situations which are marked by the features of plurality or repetition.38 The PCSp occurs for certain only in narrative verse and is used there as the usual narrative form for single and instantaneous actions of the past.39 In other genres perfective actions of the past are obviously always expressed by the SCp. However, the SCp also occurs in narrative poetry, sometimes as a free variant of PCSp.40 3.4.4.2.6 Moods In the Ugaritic verbal system the ‘indicative’ (= declarative mode) and ‘volitive’ (= wish and command mode) moods are differentiated. The categories PCSp, PCL and SC (SCp and SCs) are used for indicative statements.41 The following have volitive functions: a) the imperative, b) the PCSj ( jussive) and the PCSe (cohortative) as well as—relatively rarely—c) both subtypes of the suffix conjugation, i.e. SCp and SCs. There is no specific use of mood in subordinate clauses. Volitive moods, i.e. PCSj and PCSe, occur only in subordinate clauses with volitive (final) meaning. In Ugaritic there is no specific ‘subordinating mood’, comparable to the Akkadian ‘subjunctive’, which only occurs in dependent clauses.42 3.4.4.2.7 Participles The pattern for the formation of the active participle of the basic stem (G-ptc. act.) is . For the passive participle of the basic stem (G-ptc. pass.) probably the pattern is generally used, as in Canaanite.43 38 E.g. p'nh l tm©yn hdm / ri“h l ym©y apsh ‘His feet did not reach the footstool, his head did not reach as far as its (upper) end’ (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ i 59–61 [general-continuing event, expressed by the PCL]). 39 See for instance t“u ilm ra“thm ‘the gods lifted up their heads’ (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367+ i 29). The morpho-syntactic autonomy of the category PCSp is, however, questioned by some scholars; for discussion see M.S. S 1994, 39–41. According to Smith, PCSp and PCL —although in morphological contrast—are free variants. 40 On the parallelism between PCSp and SCp see M.S. S 1994, 49–51 and 1995, 797–9. On other functions of the Ugaritic SC see M.S. S 1994, 45–57 and 1995. 41 For the use of these categories see § 3.4.4.2.5. 42 For a different view cf. V 1988, esp. 8–10. 43 Over the years scholars have repeatedly stated that in Ugaritic there could also or only be other patterns for the passive participle of the basic stem. The discussion centres on the patterns (G-Ptc. pass. in Aramaic) and (G-Ptc. pass. in Arabic). So far, however, no proofs have been provided.

 

111

3.4.4.2.8 Infinitives/Verbal nouns As in Hebrew, an absolute infinitive and a construct infinitive may be differentiated. The former corresponds syntactically to a noun in the absolute state, the latter to a noun in the construct state or a noun after a preposition. The infinitive (inf.) of the basic stem generally has the pattern . Besides this there is in Ugaritic a series of differently constructed verbal nouns of the basic stem. Two patterns are noteworthy. One is , which occurs several times in syllabic spellings, e.g. ni-i¢-rù /ni©ru/ ‘guard’ (Ug 5, 137 = RS 20.123+ i 5').44 The other is , which occurs only in I-w/y roots and √hlk, e.g. ßat /ßi'at-/ ‘going out, expression’ (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ vii 30.32); d't /da'at-/ ‘knowlege’ (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367+ i 16.32); lkt /likt-/ ‘going’ (KTU 1.10 = RS 3.362+ ii 28, 29). Whereas the pattern is used for both the absolute and the construct infinitives, other patterns can only denote the construct infinitive. 3.4.4.3 The system of verbal stems: basic and derived stems a. The Semitic languages use a large number of different patterns to express aspect and diathesis, called ‘verbal stems’. The simple basic stem of Semitic is morphologically unmarked. The ‘derived’ verbal stems are, instead, indicated by specific morphological markers. b. Ugaritic has the following ten verbal stems, which can be arranged as follows:

44

symbol

stem

functions

G Gp Gt D Dp

basic stem passive basic stem reflexive basic stem intensive passive intensive

basic lexical function passive of G45 reflexive of G etc.46 intensive, factitive etc.47 passive of D

For further examples see H 1987b, 305–6. On occurrences of the Ugaritic Gp-stem see M 1971. 46 E.g. reciprocal, durative and iterative. At times no clear difference in meaning between Gt and G can be established. On the Gt and tD stems in Ugaritic see K 1991. 47 In stative verbs the function is chiefly factitive/causative (e.g. ‘be good’: ‘to make [someone/something] good’). In intransitive-fientic verbs the D-stem chiefly provides transitivity. In transitive-fientic verbs it strengthens or pluralizes the verbal 45

 

112 (table cont.) symbol

stem

functions

tD ” ”p ”t N

reflexive intensive ” or causative passive ” reflexive ” N or passive

reflexive of D etc. causative passive of ” reflexive of ” etc.48 reflexive, passive49 etc.50

Four of the ten patterns can be called ‘cardinal stems’: G, D, ” and N. G is unmarked (≅ Heb. qal); D is marked by gemination of the middle radical (≅ Heb. piel); ” is marked by the prefix “- (≅ Heb. hiphil in function);51 N is marked by the prefix n- (≅ Heb. niphal). All the ‘cardinal stems’—except for N—have both a passive and a reflexive variant. The reflexive forms have an additional element t; in the Gt it comes after the first radical, in tD (≅ Heb. hithpael) before the first radical and in ”t directly after the causative marker “-. The passive forms, i.e. Gp, Dp (≅ Heb. pual) and ”p (≅ Heb. hophal in function) are differentiated from the corresponding active forms only by different vowels. As this characteristic is usually not expressed in the alphabetic spelling, in most cases examples of the passive stems can be determined only from syntax or context. Some authors52 doubt53 their existence in Ugaritic. c. The paradigm of the verb stems (forms are vocalized; finite forms are always 3.m.sg.; ptc. and inf. uninflected; n.o. = no [certain] occurrences): meaning (plurality of agents or objects; repetition of an action). The D-stem is also used for denominative meanings. 48 On the ”, ”p and ”t in Ugaritic see T 1990a, 21–111. 49 Chiefly or only in prose texts. 50 E.g. reciprocal, ingressive and inchoative. 51 As non-sibilant causative morphemes occur in other Northwest Semitic languages (e.g. the causative marker h- in the Heb. hiphil), repeated attempts have been made by sholars over the years to prove these types of causative also occur in Ugaritic. The attempts in question have not been convincing, however (see T 1990a, 113–82). 52 The most uncompromising opponent of the existence of the passive stem in Ugaritic is V 1985, 324–30. It should be noted, however, that all the central Semitic languages have passive stems. 53 There are no other verbal stems in Ugaritic. On the so-called ‘lengthened stems’ (L) see under § 3.4.4.4f and § 3.4.4.4h, on the so-called ‘reduplicated stems’ see under § 3.4.4.4i. In Ugaritic there are no stems corresponding to IX, XI or XII–XV of Arabic.

 

G Gp Gt D Dp tD ” ”p ”t N

3.4.4.4

PCSj

impv.

SC

yaqtu/il yiqtal yuqtal yiqtati/al 54 yuqattil 56 yuqattal ? yVtqattVl yu“aqtil 59 yu“aqtal yV“taqtil yiqqatil 60

qVtu/il qVtal n.o. ("i )qtatil qattil n.o. n.o. “aqtil n.o. n.o. naqtVl ?

qatala qati/ula quti/ala ("i)qtat(a)la qattila qutti/ala ? ("i)tqatti/ala 57 “aqtila “uqta/ila n.o. naqtala

113 ptc. qàtil (act.) qatùl (pass.) — muqtatil ? muqattil muqattal ? n.o. mu“aqtil mu“aqtal mu“taqtil n.o.

inf. qatàl ? tVqtatil 55 quttal n.o. ?58 “VqtVl n.o. n.o. naqtål

Morphological peculiarities of the ‘weak’ verbs

a. Five I-’ verbs have irregular G-PC-forms of the type yuC2C3 = /yôC2VC3/ instead of or as well as yiC2C3 = /ya'C2VC3/ (cf. § 3.2.2e): √"bd ‘to perish’, √"hb ‘to love’, √"¢d ‘to seize’, √"kl ‘to eat’, √"sp ‘to gather’.61 b. I-h verbs usually have strong forms. Exceptions are verbs with /l/ as the second radical, i.e. √hlk ‘to go’ and √hlm ‘to strike, hit’. Both verbs have G-PC-forms without /h/, e.g. ylk- /yalik-/ or ylm- /yalum-/. Whereas the remaining forms from √hlm are strong (e.g. G-impv. hlm- /hélum-/), √hlk is weak in other ways, i.e. it produces forms without /h/: G-Impv. lk- /lik-/; G-verbal noun lkt /likt-/; Gt-PC ytlk /yitalik/. ”-PC-forms from √hlk are instead strong: a“hlk /"a“ahlik/ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ v 2, etc.).62 54 In forms with endings there was probably syncope of the corresponding vowel: /yiqtatlù/ < *yiqtatVlù (cf. § 3.3.5.2b). The same applies to other forms of the paradigm with similar syllabic structure. 55 Occurrences: tmt¢ßh ‘her fighting’ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ ii 19); tmt¢ß ‘fighting’ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ ii 29); t¢tßb ‘quarrel’ (KTU 1.3 ii 20.30). 56 /y/t/nuqattil/; 1.c.sg. but /"aqattil/ < *"uqattil (vowel harmony; see § 3.3.5.2a). 57 Alternatively: /taqatti/ala/. The only certain example: w tkms /wa-t(a)kammVsa/ ‘he fell to his knees’ (KTU 1.12 = RS 2.[012] ii 54). Another possible example: tmz' (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ i 36.46). 58 Possibly /tuqattil/; cf. the uncertain syllabic spelling: tu-a-pí-[ku(?)] /tuhappiku/ (Ug 5 137 = RS 20.123+ ii 23). 59 /y/t/nu“aqtil/; 1.c.sg. however /"a“aqtil/ < *"u“aqtil (vowel harmony). 60 < *yinqatil (chiefly undifferentiated by spelling). 61 The same verbs also have similar forms in Hebrew (verbs with ‘weak aleph’ as the first radical). On the topic see esp. T 1990b, 367. 62 On the morphology of I-h verbs see T 1990d.

114

 

c. In I-n verbs and √lq˙ ‘to take’, the first radical—when vowelless—is assimilated to the following consonant, e.g. y©r /ya©©ur-/ < *yan©ur- (√n©r ‘to guard’ G-PC) or yq˙ /yiqqa˙/ < *yilqa˙ (√lq˙ G-PC).63 In most I-n verbs the G-impv is formed without the first root, e.g. “a/“a"å/ < *“a"å (√n“" ‘to raise’, lengthened impv. m.sg. [KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ viii 5]). “u /“a"ù/ (√n“", m. pl. [KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 i 27 etc.]), sk /sakì/ (√nsk ‘to pour’, f. sg. [KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 16 etc.]) as well as q˙/qa˙/ (√lq˙, m. sg. [KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ ii 32, etc.]). The verb √n©r ‘to protect’ constitutes an exception: impv. m. sg. n©r /né©urà/ ‘look out!’ (KTU 1.4 viii 14 [alternatively: N-impv. /na©©Vrà/ < *nan©Vrà]). d. III-’ verbs are—besides III-w/y verbs—of central importance for understanding the Ugaritic verbal system as in principle in such verbs the spelling allows verbal aspects and moods to be differentiated clearly. PCL forms occurs with the spelling yC1C2u (3.m.sg); for forms of the PCS, however, the spelling yC1C2i (3.m.sg) is expected. In fact, though, the situation is more complex as in Ugaritic word-final aleph was no longer reliably pronounced.64 On this basis only verbs with the PC thematic vowel /i/ permit an unequivocal differentiation of the underlying classes: e.g. PCL yßu /yaßi"u/ ‘he goes out’ (√yß") versus PCS yßi /yaßi"/ (or /yaßî '/ < *yaßi") ‘he should go out / he went out’. In PCS forms with the thematic vowels /u/ and /a/ this differentiation is not given with certainty: spellings such as ybu (√n“") and y“u (√n“ ") can be understood as PCL (/yabu"u/ or /yi““a"u/), but possibly they could also be PCS forms (/yabû/ < *yabu"; /yi““ô/ < *yin“a").65 e. Verbs with /w/ or /y/ as the first, second or third radical present several forms which are irregular with respect to the forms of the paradigm of the ‘strong verb’, as the semi-vowels /w/ or /y/, depending on position in the syllable, can occur either as consonants or as vowels. f. The paradigm of I-w/y verbs, which in Ugaritic includes √ytn ‘to give’, is characterised by the occurrence of forms both with and without a (consonantal) first radical. If the word begins with a semi63 However, there is no assimilation of /l/ in the N-stem: SC nlq˙t /nalqa˙at/ (KTU 4.659 = RS 19.166:1). 64 See § 3.2.2d (quiescent aleph). 65 On the grapheme for /ô/ < *a" see § 3.2.2d. There are no attested forms of the spelling y“i. On the topic see T 1990c.

 

115

vowel it is normally retained, as long as there no aphaeresis of the whole initial syllable occurs as in impv. G. As word-initial *w in Ugaritic generally becomes /y/ (see § 3.3.5.1a.), except before a /u/vowel (inf. D), it is not possible to distinguish I-w roots from I-y roots by spelling in most cases. In non-initial position the semi-vowel (/w/) is retained only after a /u/-vowel (D-PC); in the other cases either it causes a lengthening of the preceding vowel (e.g. in forms of the ” stem) or it disappears unreplaced (e.g. G-PC forms). The function of the inf. cstr. is generally filled by verbal nouns of the pattern (see § 3.4.4.2.8). Significant forms of the paradigm for I-w verbs (√yrd < *wrd ‘to descend’):66

G Gp Gt D ” N

PCS

impv.

yarid yurad yittarid yuwarrid yu“ôrid 67

SC

ptc.

inf.

rid

yarada

yàrid

yaràd

“ôrid

“ôrida nôrada

mu“ôrid

wurrad

g. In forms of II-w/y verbs, the second (weak) radical never occurs as a consonant but always causes a lengthening of the original preceding or following vowel, G-PCL 3.m.sg. /yaqûmu/ < *yaqwumu, G-SC /qâma/ < *qawama (√qwm).68 The thematic vowel of the GPC, is usually /u/ in II-w verbs (e.g. /yaqûmu/), in II-y verbs usually /i/ (e.g. /ya“îtu/). Instead of the (‘normal’) intensive stems (D, Dp and tD), II-w/y verbs form stems which are marked by lengthening the vowel between the first and second radical and reduplication of the third radical (≅ Heb. polel, polal, hithpolel). They are conditioned variants of the ‘normal’ intensive stems (D, Dp, tD) and have the same functions. Here they are denoted by the symbols D*, Dp* and tD*.69 66 The paradigm for I-y verbs is still blank at many points due to the lack of significant forms. 67 However, 1.c.sg. /"a“ôrid/. 68 Conventionally vocalized as /yaqùmu/ or /qàma/. 69 These stems are conventionally called ‘lengthened stems’ and denoted by ‘L’, ‘Lp’ and ‘tL’. The term ‘lengthened stem’ has been taken from Arabic but is

 

116

Significant forms of the paradigms for II-w and II-y verbs (√qwm ‘to rise’ and √“yt ‘to place’):70 PCL G D* Dp* tD* ”

yaqûmu71 ya“îtu yuqô/âmimu yuqô/âmamu yitqô/âmimu yu“(a)qîmu

impv.(m.sg./pl.)

SC

ptc.

qum/qûmù “it/“îtù qô/âmim

qâma72 “âta

qâm-(?)73 “ât-(?) muqô/âmim-

“aqim/“aqîmù

“aqîma

mu“(a)qîm-

inf. abs. qûm-(?) “ît-(?)

h. The paradigm of III-w/y verbs is marked by the occurrence of forms both with and without a (consonantal) third radical. In originally syllable-closing position (also when final) the weak third radical is always vocalic (contraction of diphthongs *iy > /î/, *ay > /ê/, *uw > /û/, *aw > /ô/ [see § 3.3.5.3a]). In intervocalic position it is partly preserved as a consonant (e.g. ybky = /yabkiyu/ ‘he weeps’ [G-PCL 3.m.sg.]), partly the relevant triphthong is contracted. Which triphthongs in particular remain and which are contracted is still not clearly explained74 in spite of extensive research.75 It seems that occasionally paradigmatically identical forms occur both with and without contraction. Forms III-w and III-y verbs are usually orthographically identical. Some indications of different paradigms of these two classes are provided however by forms such as atwt /"atawat/ (√"tw) ‘she came’ (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ iv 32) versus m©yt /ma©ayat/ (√m©y) ‘she arrived’ (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ ii 23, etc.).

misleading. Ugaritic ‘L’-stems correspond to the III and VI verbal stems of Arabic neither in form nor in function. 70 The II-y forms in the derived stems are the same as II-w forms. 71 Shortening of the long vowel between the first and third radical when the syllable in question is closed, e.g. PCS /yaqum/ and PCL/S 3.f.pl. /taqumnà/; analogically, impv. m.sg. /qum/, PCS II-y /ta“it/, impv. m.sg. II-y /“it/. 72 Before personal endings beginning with a consonant, either /qam-/ < *qâmor /qâ/ûmå/ (cf. Heb. bìnòtì [byn ‘to understand’, G-SC 1.c.sg.]). The same applies analogously to the SC-forms of the derived stems. 73 Uncontracted forms of the type *qàyim or *qà'im are unattested. 74 See S 1984 and V 1985, 330–41. 75 The rules concerning triphthongs in respect of noun forms (cf. § 3.3.5.3b) cannot be transferred to verbs without being modified.

 

117

On the basis of comparative linguistics, one can conclude that in PC as well as in SC different thematic vowels existed (III-w: /u/ and /a/; III-y: /i/ and /a/). In III-y the commonest type was definitely *yaqtiy- (PC) versus *qataya (SC), in III-w *yaqtuw- (PC) versus *qatawa (SC). Significant forms of the III-y paradigm, basic stem (√bny ‘to build’): PC yabniyu (PCL); yabnî 76 (PCS). impv. bVnî (m.sg.); bVniyì or bVnî (f.sg.); bVniyù or bVnû (m.pl.).77 SC banaya or (rarely) banâ (3.m.sg.); banayat or banât (3.f.sg.); banêtå (2.m.sg.); banayù (3.m.pl.). ptc. bàniyu/a (m.sg. nom./acc.); bàniyi (m.sg. gen.); bànît- (f.sg.).78 inf. banàyu/i/a or banû/î/â.

i. The paradigm of weak geminate verbs (II-gem.) still presents many uncertainties. In the basic stem they are both ‘strongly’ constructed forms, i.e. forms with reduplicated 2nd = 3rd radical, and ‘weak’ forms, i.e. forms with doubled 2nd = 3rd radical. Doubled consonants, when final, are reduced to a single consonant. The distribution of strong and weak forms is not as in classical Arabic. However, there are parallels with the Hebrew paradigm for II-gem. Significant forms of the II-gem. paradigm, basic stem (√sbb ‘to go round’): with endings: yasubb- (e.g. PCL 3.m.sg. yasubbu).79 without endings: yasbub or yasub < *yasubb. impv. sub < *subb (m.sg.); subbù (m.pl.). SC sabba (3.m.sg.); sabbatå (2.m.sg.);80 sabbanVyà (1.c.du). ptc. sàbib-. PC

Forms of the derived stems—as far as can be ascertained—are strong throughout. In agreement with Hebrew (pòlel = pò'è') it is possible that instead of or alongside ‘usual’ D-stems (D, Dp, tD) the Ugaritic II-gem. verbs form so-called ‘lengthened stems’ (D*, Dp*, tD*),81 e.g. 76 Analogously III-w: PCSj 3.f.sg. tdu /tad"û/ < *tad"uw ‘she flew’ (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 6.7). 77 Analogously III-w: du /dé"û/ (m.sg.) (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iii 28); di /dé"î/ < *dé"iyì (f.sg.) (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ v 48); du /dé"û/ < *dé"uyù (m.pl.) (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iii 14). 78 Analogously III-w : dit /dà"ît-/ (KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252:8). 79 II-gem. verbs which are also I-n provide an exception: all the forms have a reduplicated 2nd = 3rd radical, e.g. t††/ta†u†à/ < *tan†u†à ‘they (3.f.du.) trembled’ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 33, etc.). 80 Cf. Heb. sabbòtà < *sabbàtà. 81 For the term ‘lengthened stem’ and the sigla see § g.

 

118

D*-PC *yusàbib- instead of D-PC *yusabbib- (vowel lengthening instead of consonant lengthening). The orthography is ambiguous. j. Only a few Ugaritic verbs have four radicals. The three most important formations are C1-r/l-C 3-C 4,82 b) C1-C2-C1-C283 und c) C1C2-C3-C3.84 The forms of types (b) and (c) are conventionally understood as ‘reduplicated stems’ (R-stems) of roots with three or two radicals.85 3.4.5 3.4.5.1

Particles 86 Adverbs

a. Adverbs of place: ∆m, ∆mt, ∆mn, ∆mny: ‘there’; 'l, 'ln ‘above’; l pnm ‘before’; b'dn ‘behind’; a∆r ‘(directly) after’; pnm ‘within/inside’. b. Adverbs of time: ht, htm, 'nt ‘now’; idk, ap(.)hn, apnk, b km ‘then; thereupon; a¢r ‘after(wards), later’, a∆r ‘(directly) after’; a¢rm ‘in succession’(?); 'lm ‘on the following/next (day)’ (alternatively: ‘further’). c. Modal adverbs: k, kd, kmt ‘thus, in this way’; lbdm ‘alone’. d. Interrogative and indefinite adverbs: iy, i, ‘where?’; an ‘whither?’; ik, ikm, iky, ‘how? why?’; lm ‘what for? why?’. 3.4.5.2

Prepositions

The Ugaritic prepositions mostly denote an adverbial position but— in connection with certain verbs—can also be used directionally. They can then fundamentally express both directions, terminative and ablative.87 82 √grd“ (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003+] i 11.23: SC grd“ ); √prs˙ (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 iv 22.25: SC [probably N-stem] yprs˙). 83 √glgl (KTU 1.13 = RS 1.006:33: SC glgl ); √grgr (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002:66: PC tgrgr); √˙m˙m (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 40.41: SC ˙m˙mt); √krkr (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ iv 29: PC ykrkr; √q∆q∆); (KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258:5: PC yq∆q∆). 84 √ß˙rr (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ v 17; KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ ii 24, etc.: SC ß˙rrt). 85 See UT §§ 9.41–2. 86 On this topic see especially A 1974, 1978. 87 On this topic see P 1975, 1976.

 

119

a. monoconsonantal prepositions: b (also: by), syll. bi-i /bì/ ‘in, at, on, with, from’; l (also: ly), syll. le-e /lì/ (or /lê/) ‘towards, for, against; from; away from; to’; k /ka/ with the (lengthened) variant km88 ‘as, like’. b. prepositions formed from bi- or triconsonantal roots: yd /yada/ ‘next to, together (with)’; 'm /'imma/ ‘(together) with; towards’; bn /bêna/ ‘between’; 'd /'adê/(?) ‘until’; 'l /'alê/â/ ‘upon; towards; down from; away from’; t˙t /ta˙ta/ ‘under, beneath’; qdm /qudàma/(?) ‘before; in front of ’; b'd /ba'da/ ‘behind’; a∆r /"a∆(a)ra/ ‘in the wake of; (directly/immediately) after’; tk /tôkâ/(?) ‘(right) in the midst of; into’; qrb /qarba/ ‘in the interior; into’. c. Composite prepositions: (preposition b or l + noun): bd /bâdi/ < *bi yadi ‘in/from the hand of; from’; b tk /bi tôki/ ‘in the midst of’; b qrb /bi qarbi/ ‘in the midst of’. l p /li pî/ ‘according to, in the manner of’; l pn /li panî/ ‘to the front of; before; before (temporal); away from (spatial)’; l p'n /li pa'nê/ ‘at (both) feet of; (low) before’; l Ωr /li Ωâri/ ‘on top of; on; onto (movement); from off/on (movement)’; l bl /li balî/ ‘without’. d. Prepositions can be lengthened by the enclitic particles -m or -n90 with no essential change in meaning. The forms b-m, k-m, l-m, 'm-m, l-n und 'm-n are attested. They are especially favoured in poetry. 3.4.5.3 Conjunctions a. coordinating: – w /wa/ ‘and; but’: copulative conjunction. – p /pa/ ‘and then/thereupon/consequently’: copulative conjunction; it marks a temporal or logical sequence.90 – ap (extended variant: apn) ‘thus, just as; even’.91 – u /"ô/ < *"aw ‘or’: disjunctive conjunction. b. subordinating: – a¢r ‘after’: to introduce a temporal clause. – id ‘when; as soon as’: to introduce a temporal clause. – 'd ‘while; as long as; until’: to introduce a temporal clause. 88 89 90 91

See § d. See § 3.4.5.9. On Ugaritic p see W 1990e, 1994e. Also functions as an asseverative particle.

 

120

– hm /him/ with the phonetic variant im /"im/ ‘if, in case’: to introduce a conditional clause. – k /kì/ (variant spelling: ky) 1. ‘because’: to introduce a causal clause; 2. ‘that’: to introduce an object clause; 3. ‘as, when if’: to introduce a temporal or conditional clause. – km /kìma/ ‘as; as soon as’. – hlm ‘lo!; as; as soon as’. 3.4.5.4

Interjections

– Presentation particles (‘lo!’): hn (extended variants: hnn; hnny); hl (extended variants: hlm, hln, hlk); mk.92 – vocative particles: y /yà/; l (cf. § 3.4.4.2.4c). – i /"ì/ ‘truly!’ (only in oaths); an ‘oh!’ (exclamation). 3.4.5.5

Asseverative particles

– k, al, dm, l, m': ‘truly!; certainly!’. 3.4.5.6 Optative particles – l /lù/ (alternatively: /la/): proclitic optative particle before a jussive (PCSj/e). – a˙l: ‘alas!; if only!’. 3.4.5.7

Negatives

– l /là/: for negating words and verbal clauses.93 – al /"al/: for negating volitive verbal clauses (only before PCSj/e). – bl /bal/ (extended variant: blt): for negating words and noun clauses; in verbal clauses only in an interrogative sense. 3.4.5.8 Existential particles – i∆ /"i∆ê/ < *"i∆ay: ‘there is/are’. – in /"êna/ < *"ayna (extended variants: inm; inn): ‘there is/are not’.

92 93

Alternatively: ‘then, after that’ (adverb of time). W 1991c.

  3.4.5.9

121

Enclitic particles

The most important enclitic particles in Ugaritic are -m,94 -n, -y, -k and -t. The enclitics -m and -n, which are by far the most frequent, serve generally to emphasise certain constituents of a sentence. The enclitic -y obviously acts as a marker of direct speech;95 -k and -t occur chiefly in connection with pronouns and adverbs.96 (Translation: W.G.E. W)

94

On which see W 1992c, 1994f. See T 1994a. 96 Note the special abbreviations: C = any consonant; c. = common gender; obl. = oblique case; PC = prefix conjugation; PCS = short form of the prefix conjugation; PCSe = lengthened short form of the prefix conjugation (cohortative); PCSj = short form of the prefix conjugation with jussive function; PCSp = short form of the prefix conjugation with perfective-preterite function; PCL = long form of the prefix conjugation; PV = vowel of prefix; SC = suffix conjugation; SCp = fientic sub-type of the suffix conjugation; SCs = stative sub-type of the suffix conjugation; syll. = syllabic; TV = thematic vowel; V = any vowel. 95

4

U L W G.E. W

4.1 Previous work Not unexpectedly, the meanings of Ugaritic words have been a matter for discussion and analysis right from the earliest days of Ugaritic studies and it is due to the difficulties inherent in these texts that many words remain unexplained to this day. Several surveys of previous studies are available1 and there is no need to repeat all this material here. As yet, the only complete dictionary is Aistleitner’s Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache (1963, etc.). The only other comparable ‘dictionary’ is the glossary which formed part of Gordon’s series of handbooks to Ugaritic: with each new edition, the glossary was revised as new texts were discovered and different solutions were proposed.2 Like the Wörterbuch, Gordon’s glossary listed all the words found in the Ugaritic texts discovered at the time, including personal and place names. Partial glossaries are to be found in Segert’s grammar (S 1984, 175–205) and in the various translations of the Ugaritic texts now available.3 Specialised glossaries are included in studies on the following: the hippiatric texts,4 the ritual texts.5 Also important are the studies of prepositions6 and the particles7 and in spite of its age,  M 1971 remains a mine of lexical information. Of particular interest are the study of terms connected with textiles used in the Ugaritic texts (R – X 1985)8 and the discussion of terms for sheep and goats ( O L 1993, 183–97) and of terms for sacrifice ( O L 1995). Useful, too, are Pardee’s listing of lexical items with bibliography (P 1987) and the studies of syllabic spellings.9 The personal names of  M 1973;  O L – S 1988; W 1995a. G 1965 (1967); 1940; 1947 and 1955. 3 D 1955; G 1978;  O L 1981; TO II and CARTU but not TO I. 4 C – S 1983; P 1985. See also S 1988b and C 1996. 5  O L 1992a, 20–1 = 1999, 00–0; X 1981. 6 P 1975, 1976, 1979. 7 A 1974, 1978. 8 See the review by D 1990. 9 H 1987b; S 1984a; see review by H 1987a. 1 2

 

123

Ugarit are also a source of lexical items even though their meaning may not have been noticed overtly either by those who gave them or by those who bore them. The classic collection by Grøndahl (G 1967) is a useful if somewhat dated reference work in this respect. Some recent studies have provided additional material.10 Toponyms also contribute lexical items but their origins are more difficult to ascertain.11 Several series of articles on Ugaritic lexical problems have been written by various authors, some of which are to be continued,12 as well as sets of studies on Ugaritic semantics.13 There are many notes and articles on individual words or groups of words which cannot be listed here.14 It is very helpful when a study is devoted to words belonging to a particular semantic field: sociology (R 1963), fabrics and dyes ( S 1990), sacrifice ( O L 1995), crafts (S 1995) and the army (V 1995a). For various reasons, some words receive more attention than others, for example, words which occur in the mythological texts.15 A reverse glossary (English-Ugaritic) is provided in UT, 530–7.16 In recent years actual dictionaries are starting to be published. One is the Diccionario de la lengua ugarítica (DLU ) by del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, a two-volume work of which the first volume has appeared and the second is at an advanced stage of preparation. Another is Cohen’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, as yet unpublished.17 The third such lexicon (UHw),18 which was initiated in Münster at Ugarit-Forschungen several years ago, will soon be ready for publication but is available in the form of a word-list (D – L 1996b).19 10

W 1990a, 1990b, 1993, 1995b, 1996a. See A 1987; cf. § 12.2. 12 D – L and D – L – S; bibliography in SEL 5 1988, 2–12. Many of their studies are concerned with differentiating homonyms. A 1968, 1984, 1985, 1991; B 1970; M 1982; S 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1988; X 1978b, 1980. See also  M 1965, 1979, G 1967, B – B – M – A – V 1976, R 1984, W 1978, etc. 13 See now  O L 1984; S 1973. 14 See, for example, W 1996c. 15 E.g. “lmm, which denotes a type of sacrifice, has 25 entries in P 1987, 410. 16 A semantic glossary is provided in CARTU, 177–92. 17 As mentioned in S 1997, xix. 18 Ugaritisches Handwörterbuch. 19 Supplemented by the extremely helpful ‘glossary’ in D – L 1996a, 543–926. Card indices of lexical material are also held in research institutes (see, for example, R – X 1985, 11). 11

124

  4.2

The texts

The texts under discussion are, of course, those in Ugaritic found at Ras Shamra, Ras Ibn Hani and elsewhere (conveniently collected in KTU 2), supplemented by more recent discoveries. The Akkadian texts are relevant chiefly for the lexical material they provide, either directly (as in the lexical texts) or indirectly (see K 1974, 1975). Of particular interest is the treaty20 (KTU 3.1 = RS 11.722+) of which large sections in Ugaritic correspond to its Akkadian exemplars (RS 11.732, 17.227, 17.382; K 1993 with previous bibliography). It can also be noted that some Ugaritic letters may in fact be translations from Akkadian, Egyptian and Hittite. 4.3

Problems

Aside from the large number of words which are known from common Semitic (um, ‘mother’, klb, ‘dog’, etc.)21 it is difficult to determine the meaning of many lexical items in Ugaritic for several reasons. For one thing, the corpus is small and the range of significant contexts is accordingly quite limited. Also, vowels (aside from the use of the three aleph signs, ’a, ’i, ’u) are not indicated, and it is therefore not always easy to distinguish homographs. While prose and verse texts share much of the vocabulary (e.g. t˙m, ‘message’), certain words are found only in non-literary contexts (e.g. Àzl ‘spinner’ [KTU 4.358 = RS 18.048:9]) whereas others occur only in verse (e.g klat ‘both’ [KTU 1.1 = RS 3.361 iv 10 etc.]; p˙l ‘stallion’ [KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ iv 5.9.15, etc.]; r∆ ‘dirt’ [KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ v 29, etc.]).22 Many words are difficult or obscure, or have uncertain etymologies, e.g. ilqßm, bnn, bΩr, gml, gpr, ddym, dnt II, dqr, ≈nt, kb, kbm, kdr, kmlt, kn¢, kpsln, krln, 'bk, 'prt, 'rgz, '∆rb, Àb, Àbt, Àprt, “dmt,23 tkt, etc., and the meanings of others (ak∆n, aÀzr, aqhr, a“krr, idm, idrp, idt, udbr, unk, '“d, etc.) cannot as yet be determined. Some words occur in broken or difficult contexts, e.g. hkm, hnn, ˙sm, ˙tn, kdt, Àbz, Àbt, Àdm (see DLU for details). With the discovery of new texts, previously unknown words continue to be added to the lexicon but the meanings of these 20

Or letter accompanying a treaty (K 1993). Even here there can be false assumptions, as S (1996) has shown in respect of ahl which means ‘town’ (Akkadian àlum) rather than ‘tent’ (as in Hebrew). 22 For the vocabulary of the Ugaritic letters see C § 8.1.5. 23 But see W 1992c. 21

 

125

can also be uncertain, e.g. udn, ‘to give ear’, ghr, ‘to sound forth(?)’, zb, ‘to foam(?)’, qnn, perhaps ‘to stand up’, in RS 92.2014 (P 1997a, 327–8) 4.4

Principles

In view of the vast literature on Ugaritic lexicography and the often conflicting or at least divergent conclusions reached by scholars, there have been several attempts to set out solid methodological principles for the determination of meanings.24 These are discussed here briefly. Once the correct reading of the text has been established, the context is of crucial importance. In fact, all agree that context is the most important single element for ascertaining what a word may mean. Syllabic spellings must also be taken into account,25 and finally, comparative philology can be used. For this approach to be valid a set of rules must be applied: context is more significant than etymology; without context, etymology can only uphold a hypothetical proposal; phonological rules should only be flouted with supporting evidence; words in another language may not necessarily have the same meaning in Ugaritic; homographs and homonyms should be assumed only as a last resort; syntagmata and idioms as well as words need to be compared; a distinction must be made between the (archaic) poetic texts and the language of the letters, rituals and administrative texts; in the poetic texts it is important to determine stichometry and parallelism; in general, the rules of grammar and syntax should be applied. Finally, non-linguistic evidence should not be neglected. Some illustration of these principles is provided below. 4.5

Use of cognate languages

Comparison with other Semitic languages can provide a significant contribution to determining the meanings of words, but a degree of caution is required. Healey has surveyed the contributions available from Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic, Akkadian, South Arabian26 and Ethiopic (L 1968), particularly Aramaic and Syriac 1988).27

24 25 26

H 1959, 169;  M 1973, 98; P 1979–80. See S 1984a; H 1987b. See especially R 1987.

126

 

His conclusion, though, is that context is ‘the ultimate arbiter’. 28 Arabic has been much used (and misused) as a resource for determining the meaning of Ugaritic words. This approach has been examined in detail by Renfroe29 who has shown that there are many genuine Arabic-Ugaritic isoglosses but an equal if not greater number of spurious ones. In many cases we may simply have to say that there is insufficient evidence for any firm conclusions. It always has to be remembered that the meaning of a word in a cognate language cannot simply be transferred to Ugaritic and at times is no more than a guide. The same applies to the contribution from Eblaite (S 1991). 4.6 Methodology The first task necessary before resolving the meaning of a Ugaritic word is to survey all previous attempts, which is often very timeconsuming, with no guarantee of complete coverage. The scholar must then establish the correct reading on the tablet, determine the context, perhaps use etymology based on established language laws, refer to a wide range of Semitic languages, if necessary, use other languages (including Egyptian, Hittite, Hurrian, and even Sanskrit and Sumerian) and avoid the multiplication of homonyms and homographs. These rules, however, are an over-simplification. In practice, several other factors need to be taken into account, as the following examples show. 4.7 Selected examples Some examples can help to illustrate the above. Evidence from cognate (Semitic) languages can come from Phoenician ( O L 1986), Hebrew, Akkadian, Aramaic and Arabic as well as from such languages as Ethiopic30 and even Syriac. For example, the verb nßr, parallel to bky ‘to weep’ (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 4–5), can be explained from Syriac neßar/naßar, ‘to sigh, groan, murmur, howl, shriek, lament’.31 Choice of the correct cognate is important; for 27 28 29 30 31

H 1988. H 1988, 68. R 1985, 1986a, 1986b, 1989, 1992. See D – L 1991d on '“r. H 1976; S 1978, 451. However, cf. W 1998c, 237, n. 280.

 

127

instance in the expression b bz'zm (KTU 1.80 = RS 15.072:4) which could mean ‘from the booty of goats’, in view of Heb. baz, ‘plunder, spoil’ (HALOT, 117). However, in the context—a list of sacrifices— it is more likely to mean ‘a young animal from the udder of the goats’, i.e. an unweaned kid, where Ugaritic bz is an isogloss of Arabic buzz, Jewish-Aramaic bìzzà", etc. all denoting ‘teat’ (S 1979, 723–4). Extra-linguistic evidence can also help determine meanings, for example, ©lp may denote murex used as a body-dye, since this type of shellfish was common near Ras Shamra ( M 1968). Correct syntactic analysis is important for determining the meanings of words as shown by Husser (H 1995) in respect of a∆r in l'pr ≈mr a∆rh KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 27–8 (and par.). This expression has been understood in various ways but because of the parallelism with the previous line (larß m“ßu q†rh, ‘who makes his spirit come out towards the earth’), which refers to correct burial, the preposition l also means ‘to(wards)’. It is probably to be translated ‘who protects his step towards the dust’, and therefore a∆r cannot mean ‘place’, ‘shrine’ or even ‘sanctuary’. The meaning of a word can depend on several factors including the structure of a text and recognition of the correct meaning of another word in the same passage. For instance, in KTU 4.392 = RS 18.130, prs means neither ‘steering pole (of a chariot)’ nor ‘horse’ but more probably a type of ‘ration’: l¢m“ mrkbt ¢m“ '“rh prs bt mrkbt, ‘For the five chariots of the five divisions: ten prs-rations from the chariot-house’, since ¢m“ '“rh does not mean ‘fifteen’ but ‘five divisions (of the army)’ followed by the numeral ‘ten’ (V 1996).32 It is also important to compare not just isolated words but syntagmata in Ugaritic with those in another (Semitic) language. Del Olmo Lete has provided a list of syntagmata common to Ugaritic and Phoenician.33 Of interest, too, is the term ˙rß which occurs in the economic texts in connection with chariots (e.g. KTU 4.145 = RS 15.034:8–9) as a syntagm in the form w.˙rß and means ‘precisely, exactly’, a usage borrowed from Akkadian.34 The personal names provide a wealth of vocabulary, with many items not otherwise attested, e.g. rgln (KTU 4.619 = RS 19.047:7),

32

The text remains difficult because the term “ant (line 2) is not yet understood.  O L 1986b, 46–7 = 1996a, 32–3. For comparison with a syntagm from Aramaic cf. W 1992d. 34  O L 1979; cf. V 1995a, 57. 33

 

128

which is formed from the word rgl, ‘leg’. The same applies to placenames such as bir, ‘well’ (KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015:29, etc.). For both types of names syllabic spellings can be of use in determining meanings. 4.8

Lexical tablets

Of considerable importance are the polyglot vocabularies which have been found in Ugarit. These list the equivalents of words in four languages (Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian and Ugaritic) and in five of the eight tablets discovered so far, the Ugaritic column has been preserved (details in H 1987b, 21–3). According to Huehnergard, about 114 Ugaritic words have been vocalized in syllabic cuneiform spellings. For example: S ”UL EZEN

A e†-lu za-am-ma-rù35

H u“-ta-an-ni ¢al-mi

U ba-a¢-¢u-rù “i-i-ru

M ‘youth’ ‘song’36

The sources for the vocalization of Ugaritic are (1) the three aleph signs, (2) syllabic spellings of Ugaritic words and to a lesser extent (3) comparative Semitics. The aleph signs give some indication of the associated vowels (or the absence of a vowel; see § 4.3.2.2). The syllabically written Ugaritic words and names are particularly helpful. The list of such items in  S (1991a, 301–8) has 156 entries. Huehnergard provides a glossary with approximately 280 entries (H 1987b, 103–94). Similarly, S 1984, 185–295, although his sources are not confined to texts found at Ras Shamra (see § 4.5).37 Reference to other Semitic languages can only provide an indication of possible spellings and has to be used with caution. 4.9

Non-Semitic words in Ugaritic

The city of Ras Shamra was a melting pot of several nationalities speaking different languages and both court and administration dealt with documents in several languages. In ritual, particularly, sections of text were written in Hurrian and Hurrian words occur liberally 35 As H 1987b, 97 notes, za-am-ma-rù stands for zamàru (the double -mm- is incorrect) and all the forms are nouns rather than infinitives. 36  S 1991a, 747–53: ‘Appendix C: The lexical texts at Ugarit’. 37 See  S 1989d for review.

 

129

in the Ugaritic texts. It is not suprising, then, that many words in the Ugaritic lexicon are in fact borrowed from Hurrian, occasionally from Hittite and more rarely from Egyptian or from other nonSemitic languages. Over the years more and more such words have been identified.38 Thus, although most Ugaritic lexical items have a Semitic etymology, several are (or may be) of non-Semitic origin. Some of these words are listed here under the following headings: (1) Hurrian words, (2) Hittite words, (3) Egyptian words, (4) Sumerian words, (5) Indo-European words, (6) words from other languages. 4.9.1 Hurrian words include al¢n, ‘steward’ (KTU 4.392 = RS 18.130:4; cf. KTU 4.102 = RS 11.857:25; KTU 4.337 = RS 18.024:11) borrowed from Hurro-Urartian allae-¢¢i-nn, ‘housekeeper’, all, ‘(festive) garment’ (KTU 1.12 = RS 2.[012] ii 47, etc.), Hurrian alàlu (N 1996, 314, n. 22); itnn, ‘gift’ (KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244:74), Hurrian uatnannu;39 grbz, ‘helmet’ (KTU 4.363 = RS 18.055:2), Hurrian gurpisi; hdm, ‘footstool’ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ ii 22, etc.), Hurrian atmû (W 1996b); ¢br∆, ‘vessel, container’ (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ ii 9), Hurrian ¢ubru“¢i; ¢ptr, ‘pot, cauldron’ (KTU 1.4 ii 8), Hurrian ¢uppataru; ¢rd, ‘warrior’, Hurrian ¢uradi/e (S 1981); k˙∆, ‘throne’ (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 i 23, KTU 1.4 vi 51 etc.),40 probably HurroUrartian; kkrdn, ‘chef ’ (KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084:27); kmn, ‘(a surface measure)’ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iv 38 etc.), Hurrian kumànu; ll¢ (KTU 4.363 = RS 18.055:5) denotes part of trappings or harness, Hurrian lula¢¢i, (DLU, 245); Àr, ‘total’, Hurrian ¢eyari; pÀ(n)dr, ‘a type of fabric’ (KTU 4.270 = RS 17.111:10), Hurrian pa¢andarri-;41 tbl, ‘smith’ (KTU 4.790 = RS 86.2235:15), Hurrian tabiri- (D – L 1990); tÀp∆, ‘felt(?)’ (KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116 ii 10, etc.), Hurrian ta¢ap“e (W 1995c, 540); ∆kt, ‘chariot’ (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ v 7, etc.), Hurrian “ukìtu (L 1996). Note that some words are Semitic with Hurrian endings, e.g. ¢≈Àl, ‘arrowsmith’ (KTU 4.138 = RS 15.016:2, etc.) which is a Hurrian form of Ug. ˙Ω, ‘arrow’ with the Hurrian -(¢u)li ending (S 1995, 179). Others

38 See the list provided by  M 1973, 98. Not all are correct, of course. For additional material the indices of Ugarit-Forschungen and other periodicals may be consulted. For a survey see W 1995c, 1996c. See also P 1996. 39 Borrowed through Middle Assyrian utnannu: cf.  S 1988. 40 However, cf.  O L – S 1995. 41 D – L 1977; R – X 1985, 61.

130

 

are Semitic words in Hurrian guise, e.g. kld, ‘bow’ (KTU 4.277 = RS 17.141:1) is a form of qa“tu, ‘bow’ (D – L 1978b). 4.9.2 Hittite words: an“, ‘small of the back’ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 35), Hittite ana““a ( M 1980); uryn, ‘(an official)’ (KTU 6.29 = RS 17.364:3), Hittite ur(/i)yanni; dÀ∆, ‘incense’ (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iv 23, etc.), Hittite tu¢¢ui-/tu¢¢uwai-; ˙t∆, silver’ (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ iv 1; KTU 1.14 ii 17), Hittite (or Hattian) ¢attu(“ )-; ¢ndlt, ‘(coloured wool)’ (KTU 4.182 = RS 15.115:17), Hittite SÍG¢andala; ¢sn, ‘domestic’ (KTU 4.137 = RS 15.015+:1.10), Hittite ¢a““ann-; m∆yn, ‘(garment)’ (KTU 4.146 = RS 15.035:5), Hittite ma““iya—‘(a garment)’ (R – X 1985, 52); spsg, ‘glass’ (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] vi 36–7 etc.), Hittite zapzagi-, which denotes precious stones or a mineral (N 1995); tpnr, ‘chief scribe’ (KTU 3.1 = RS 11.772+:32; KTU 4.44 = RS 9.453:28), Hittite tuppanuri, etc. 4.9.3 Egyptian words:42 br, ‘boat, (war)ship’ (KTU 4.81 = RS 11.779:2–3, etc.); ˙∆, ‘bread’ (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:22), Egyptian ˙∆3 (W 1995a, 223–4); ˙t∆, ‘silver’ (see above), Egyptian ˙≈; kw, ‘drinking vessel’ (KTU 4.691 = RS 20.010:6), Egyptian kb; krk, ‘pickaxe’ (KTU 4.390 = RS 18.119:8 etc.), Egyptian grg ‘pick’ (S 1987b, 151); ktp, ‘(weapon)’ (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ v 2); m', ‘I pray’ (enclitic of entreaty; KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ i 20, etc.), ∆kt, ‘ship’ (KTU 4.81 = RS 11.779; KTU 4.366 = RS 18.074); etc. 4.9.4 Sumerian words: ad, ‘father’ (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002:32 etc.); ilg, ‘stone’ (KTU 4.751 = RS 29.096:11); ksu, ‘seat, throne’, (KTU 1.3 vi 15 etc.), krs/≤u, ‘(a type of forage or fodder)’ (KTU 4.225 = RS 16.198 []+:16); plk, ‘spindle’ (KTU 1.4 ii 3.4), etc. 4.9.5 Indo-European/Indo-Aryan words: agn, ‘cauldron’ (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002:15.31.36) may be cognate with Sanskrit agni ‘fire’; mryn probably Indo-Aryan, e.g. Sanskrit marya, ‘hero’; srn, ‘king’, (KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] i 18); ssw/≤≤w, ‘horse’ (KTU 1.71 = RS 5.300:7 etc.), Sanskrit a≤va (D – L 1983); ∆nn, ‘archer’ (KTU 4.35 = RS 8.183+ ii 11 etc.) and perhaps others such as “mrgt

42

W 1961 now needs updating.

 

131

‘emerald’,43 Sanskrit marakata and Greek smaragdos (also found as maragdos), both meaning ‘emerald’ (W 1998c, 91, n. 90). 4.9.6 Words from other languages: adr, ‘door (?)’ (KTU 4.195 = RS 15.184:5), explained by anduru of uncertain origin;44 irp, ‘vase, container’ (KTU 4.123 = RS 13.014:20), is perhaps Hurro-Hittite, unless to be explained by Egyptian irp, ‘wine’ and therefore, possibly, ‘wine-container’; u∆ryn (KTU 3.1 = RS 11.772+:30 has the syllabic spelling u“-r[i-ia]-ni (PRU 3 203 = RS 16.257+ iv 21) and may derive from Hurrian, Hittite or some other language (cf. DLU, 62). Generally speaking, in the case of some loanwords it is difficult to know whether they have been loaned directly, or indirectly through another language such as Akkadian, or even whether they are in fact Kulturwörter or Wanderwörter. Some words may even have been borrowed back from the language which initially borrowed them, e.g. k˙∆, ‘throne’, from Hurrian ke“¢i, itself a loan from Semitic ksu ( O L – S 1995) and the same may apply to mgn, ‘gift’ and mryn, ‘warrior’ (O’C 1989). There were also inner-Semitic borrowings,45 and a distinction must be made between cognates and actual loans, such as nmrt from Akk. namurratu, ‘splendour’ (P 1988b, 115).46 4.10 Homonyms Homonyms can be distinguished by context, comparative philology and occasionally from syllabic spellings. Simple examples of homonyms are bt ‘house’ and bt ‘daughter’, both nouns; from comparative Semitics and (where attested) syllabic spellings, it is possible to determine that the first word corresponds to /bètu/ and the second to /bittu/ (S 1984, 210.212). In the case of weak verbs it is also difficult to determine the correct form of the root (e.g. does Àl derive from Àll, Àly or Àyl ?). Since the Ugaritic corpus is so small, it is quite possible that a ‘word’ which occurs only a few times may have as

43

KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ i 32, which is read “mr¢t in KTU 2. Listed as = daltu, ‘door’ in CAD A/2, 117; AHw, 51a (C 1984, 47). 45 Including loans from Ugaritic to Akkadian, e.g. Ug. m∆†, ‘oar’, which was borrowed by Ugaritic Akkadian (V 1995b). 46 In KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252:21.24; nouns with preformative n- are Akkadian, not Ugaritic, as P notes (ibid.). 44

 

132

many different meanings.47 Examples include b'r I, ‘to burn’, b'r II, ‘to abandon’ (only in the D stem);48 gl I, ‘shout of joy’, gl II, ‘cup’ and gl III, ‘(type of field)’; p∆t I, ‘linen’ and p∆t II, ‘(make-up) case’ (KTU 4.247 = RS 16.399:22; S 1987a, 54, n. 7). A clear example of the importance of distinguishing homonyms (and incidentally of correct word division) is provided by yrk t'l bÀr mslmt bÀr tliyt wt'l bkm barr bm arr wbßpn bn'm bÀr tliyt (KTU 1.10 =

She climbed the mountain by the flank, by the incline, the immense mountain. She climbed bkm, Araru, Araru, Íapùnu, the fair, the immense mountain RS 3.362+ iii 27–31)

Although the sequence bkm looks like the particle bkm, ‘thereupon’, this is impossible here as such particles are never postpositive: they always come first in the clause (R 1992, 58). Instead, here km means ‘hill, mound’ (as proposed by A 1968, 291) and it is preceded by the preposition b (as part of the syntagm 'ly + b, ‘to climb’).49 Hence the third line should be translated ‘She climbed the mound, Araru’.50 4.11

Ghost words

Non-existent words are due to scribal error, false readings, incorrect analysis or incorrect word division. Examples of words written incorrectly are any (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i 7–8) which is to be read n!ny, a place-name and tdrs (KTU 1.45 = RS 1.008+:5), to be read tdrq, ‘tread’. The word skl, ‘vizier’ in KTU 3.1 = RS 11.772+:38 (K 1993) may have to be read skn (so KTU 2). A classic example is ulp, taken by some scholars to mean ‘noble, chief or the like’, though it is really to be understood as u, ‘and’ + lp, ‘like’51 or as u + l + p, ‘whether from the mouth of ’ (see § 13.6.2). In some cases, the word division is uncertain, e.g. the sequence grbtil (KTU 1.19 =

47

See especially the studies by D – L and D – L – S. 48 D – L – S 1975. 49 Cf. P 1975, 362. 50 However, cf. DLU, 107. 51 Where lp is the preposition l + p, ‘mouth’; cf.  M – S 1991, 291–2, with bibliography.

 

133

RS 3.322+ iii 47) could be analyzed as gr bt il ‘resident in the house of Ilu’, as grbt il, ‘leprosy of Ilu’52 or even as grb til ‘may you seek asylum as a leper’;53 kgmn may = k + gmn, ‘like a funeral offering(?)’ or kgmn = Hurrian ‘three-year old’.54 On the other hand, in KTU 1.96 = RS 22.225:1, most scholars corrected 'nn to 'nt ! ‘Anat’, thus eliminating a previously unnoticed word which may mean ‘evil eye’.55 4.12

Future research

Although the core vocabulary of the Ugaritic texts is now understood to a large extent, there still remain many lexical items which either need to be determined or require further clarification. For example, in the Keret epic, m“b'thn b“l˙ ttpl, ‘The seventh of them fell by (the) “l˙’ (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ i 20–1), it is uncertain whether the deaths described refer to his wives or to his children or indeed to the way the last victim died. The word “l˙ could mean ‘a throwing weapon’, ‘a sword’, ‘war’, ‘lightning’, the god ‘”al˙u’, ‘parapet’ or a disease which affects babies (Babylonian “ul¢û). If the last meaning applies, then this death must have affected Kirta’s children, which in turn is significant for the meaning of the epic (W 1997c). However, the task of determining the meaning and or etymology of individual words is not simply a luxury for students of Ugaritic. Scholars in other branches of Semitic studies or in other disciplines frequently need to consult reference works on Ugaritic for their own purposes. Examples include the compilers of DNWSI and HALOT or of encyclopaedias of various kinds or of comparative studies (e.g. H 1994). It is important, therefore, to establish as accurately as possible what Ugaritic words mean. Our main difficulties in understanding correctly many a difficult passage are principally that there is no similar passage in Ugaritic or that the context is uncertain. In other words, the Ugaritic corpus is simply too small owing to lack of texts. Future discoveries and continuing research are our only hopes in this exercise. 52

H 1985. R 1986, correcting amd, the first word of the line, to tmd. See W 1989a, 47–8. 54 D – L – S 1976. 55  O L 1992b; L 1996, W 1998c, 375 n. 1. See S § 6.5.3. 53

5

U W  S T J H

Embedded within the syllabic cuneiform texts written by scribes at Ugarit are over three hundred Ugaritic lexical items. These Ugaritic forms appear in all genres of Akkadian texts. In one group of syllabic cuneiform texts, those of the polyglot Syllabary A Vocabulary (Sa Voc.), the Ugaritic words were intentionally recorded by the scribes. The Sa Voc. was a Mesopotamian lexical series in which columns of individual cuneiform signs, in a fixed order, were equated with one or more Akkadian words in a second column (L – H 1955). This lexical series was imported to scribal centres in the west, including ›attu“a, Emar, and Ugarit. The Ugarit exemplars of the Sa Voc. are unusual in that they do not have merely the two columns of the exemplars found elsewhere; instead, they add either one additional column giving lexical equivalents in Hurrian1 or, more often, two additional columns with equivalents in both Hurrian and Ugaritic. Six exemplars of this quadrilingual type are known ( S 1990, 728–30), on which more than one hundred Ugaritic words are wholly or partly preserved. Thanks to the presence of Akkadian equivalents (and, when those are broken away, the fixed order of the cuneiform signs), the meanings of the Ugaritic words in the Sa Voc. exemplars can be established with more precision and certainty than is the case with the Ugaritic lexical items attested in other text genres. Nearly all parts of speech are attested among these forms as the examples on p. 135 illustrate. Apart from the Sa Voc. exemplars, Ugaritic words appear in Akkadian texts either (a) as parts of the names of local geographical features or plots of land or, much more often, (b) by chance, essentially lapsus calami in which the scribe either forgot the appropriate Akkadian word and substituted a Ugaritic form or thought that the (Ugaritic) form he was writing was proper Akkadian. The former group, which by their nature are substantives and adjectives, occur in legal and 1 RS 21.062 (Ug 5 no. 135); also RS 94.2939, discussed by M. S and B. A-S at the 45th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Cambridge, Mass., July 6 1998.

u-mu

[UD

 i-gi-da

é ù

[MU]

i -[n]a

i-di-da

. . .]

a-na

a-nu-um-ma

[UD

ma-nu-ku

tap-“u-¢u-um-me

biù-i

é

le-éeù

al-li-ni-PI

[l]a-a

tu-a-pí-[ku]

pu-la-†u

é ù

a -bu-u“-ku-me

pí-i†-r[ù]

la-ba-nu

zu-lu-du-me

. . .]

é

´]-lu-"v-[´] naù-[“ ]u-ma

PI-mu

a-da-nu

[b]u-nu-“u

du-ú

ú-PI

U

. . .]

at-ta-ni

tar-“u-wa-an-ni

a-PI

ma-an-ni

H

[MU]

la-a

na-bal-ku-tu4

BAL

NU

“u-zu-bu

KAR



pa-†á-[r]u

GAB

 (infin.)

pé-eß-ßú

[UD

ni-“u

a-bu

NU

U[N

a-mi-lu

“a]

[LÚ

NU

“u-ú]

[LÚ

A



(plural)





S

/bi-/

/li-/

/hallinìya/

/là/

/tuhappiku/

/pulla†u/

/pi†ru/

/labanu/

/na“ùma/

/yòmu/

/"adànu/

/bunù“u/

/dù/

/huwa/

U 

‘in’

‘to(ward)’

‘now (then)’

‘not’

‘to be upset’

‘to save’

‘to loosen’

‘white’

‘people’

‘day’

‘father’

‘man’

‘which, that’

‘he’

M RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137) ii 28' RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137 ii 29' RS 20.149 = Ug 5, no. 130 ii 8' RS 20.149 = Ug 5, no. 130 ii 9' RS 20.426 = Ug 5, no. 138 2' RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137 ii 9' RS 20.426 = Ug 5, no. 138 4' RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137 iii 2 RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137 ii 20' RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137 ii 23' RS 20.149 = Ug 5, no. 130 ii 7' RS 20.426 = Ug 5, no. 138 5' RS 20.149 = Ug 5, no. 130 iii 5' RS 20.149 = Ug 5, no. 130 iii 6'

R

     135

 

136

economic texts; many of them correspond to designations attested in alphabetic texts, such that alphabetic gt X corresponds to syllabic A.”À(me“/˙i.a) X or (é)AN.ZA.GÀR X (see H 1987a, 11 n. 51), as in gt gt gt gt gt

gwl = A.”Àme“ gu-PI- éliù (/guw(w)åli/ ‘circuit?’); dprn = A.”À¢i.a dì-ip-ra-ni-ma (/diprànìma/ ‘junipers’); m'br = éAN.ZA.GÀR ma-ba-ri (/ma'bari/ ‘ford’); 'mq = [AN.ZA].GÀR: am-qa (/'amqa/ ‘stronghold?’); Àl = A.”À˙i.a: ¢u-li (/Àôli/ ‘low ground?’).

The largest number of Ugaritic words in syllabic texts, however, are those that appear, seemingly at random, for an expected Akkadian form. About a fourth of the Akkadian texts contain one or more such Ugaritic words. They are found in all genres, although they are, understandably, relatively uncommon in texts that are copies of Mesopotamian originals, i.e. lexical texts (other than the Sa Voc.) and literary texts; note, however, the following examples: lexical úEME.UR.GI7 = la-“a-nu UR.GI7me“ ‘hound’s-tongue’ (a plant name), with Ugaritic /la“ànu/ for Akkadian li“àn(u) (RS 22.034 + 349 = MSL 10 107ff. A, 110); literary lip-¢u-dú-ma ‘may they fear’ RS 17.155 = Ug 5, no. 17a r. 7', in which the root is Northwest-Semitic p-˙/¢-d ‘to fear’ ( S 1969) but the form, as is usually the case in the few examples found in literary texts, has been made to conform to an Akkadian paradigm (here, precative).

Ugaritic vocabulary is much commoner in the many legal and economic texts written in syllabic cuneiform. Some economic texts contain several Ugaritic words, or even a preponderance of them (e.g. RS 19.071= PRU 6, no. 114). An extreme instance is RS 17.240 = PRU 6, no. 136, a list of men of different professions who are owed a shekel (of silver), in which it is likely that every syllabically-written word is Ugaritic; this text may be compared with the very similar alphabetic text KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845, in which most of the same terms occur, albeit in the plural and not in the same order:

5

RS 17.240 = PRU 6, no. 136 KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845 é ù 1 GÍN UG[U lú 1 GÍN MIN lú[ 1 GÍN MIN lú[ 1 MIN lú”[À.TAM] 1 MIN lúpa-[sí-lu] pslm (line 17) 1 MIN lúSAN[GA] khnm (line 9)

     1 MIN lúma-¢[i-ßú ] 1 MIN lúka4 -bi-s[ú ] 1 MIN lúna-¢i-ru 10

1 MIN lúga5(QA)-la-b[u] 1 MIN lúia-ßí-[ru] 1 MIN lúia-qí-“ [u] 1 MIN lúUGULA ma-“[i1 MIN lúmur-ú [

15

1 MIN lúna-s[í-ku]

137

m¢ßm (line 15) kb≤m (line 7) (cf. nÀr krm in KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016.12) yßrm (line 11) or lúia-ßí-[¢u] = yß˙m (line 19) yq“m (line 6) mru ibr énù (line 12) and mru skn (line 13) nsk ksp (line 14)

As the examples cited thus far suggest, most of the Ugaritic forms that occur in Akkadian texts (except for the Sa Voc. quadrilinguals) are nouns. A few finite verbs are also found, however, such as the following suffix-conjugation forms: G

3ms ta-ba-"a /taba'a/ ‘he departed’ RS 19.032 = PRU 6, no. 77:1; 3mp ßa-ma-tù /ßamatù/ ‘they devolved’ RS 16.147 = PRU 3, 90b:13; D 3ms “al/“a-li-ma /“allima/ ‘it delivered’ RS 20.012 = Ug 5, no. 96 passim; ?N 3mp na-ap-†a-ru /nap†arù/ ‘they exchanged?’ RS 15.123 + 16.152

= PRU 3, 89a:5. The syllabically-written Ugaritic words are usually not identified as such by any graphic device; they simply occur within an otherwise Akkadian context, as in ul-ma-tu GALme“ “á gi“MÁ ‘4 large ship’s hammers? (/hulmàtu/)’ RS 19.112 = PRU 6, no. 141:4; é AN.ZA.GÀR TN n (lú)ÌR(me“) (la) “al/“a-li-ma ‘the manor of TN has (not) delivered (/“allima/) n slaves’ RS 20.012 = Ug 5 no. 96, passim; ù ma-“a-ra “a TN ‘and the tithe (/ma'“ara/, acc.) of TN’ RS 16.244 = PRU 3, 93b:7. 4

urudu

In many instances, however, the Ugaritic words are preceded by a special sign that is written with two small angled wedges. This sign, usually termed a ‘gloss mark’ (‘Glossenkeil ’), has several functions in the syllabic texts from Ugarit (see H 1987a, 204–8), but its most common use is to mark the word that follows it as nonAkkadian (i.e. in all but a few examples, as Ugaritic). The gloss mark is indicated by a colon in transliteration: ”Eme“-“u KA”me“-“u “a : ma-a"-“a-ri-“a ‘the grain and beer of its (sc. a TN) tithe (/ma'“ari/)’ RS 16.153 = PRU 3, 146–7:10–1 (compare the last example cited above);

138

  i-na A.”À : ad-ma-ni ‘in “redland (/"admàni/) field”’ RS 15.145 = PRU 3, 122–3:8, 12; u É-tu4 PN a-na 1MÍ.éLUGALù-ti : ßa-ma-ta ‘and PN’s field devolved (/ßamata/) upon the queen’ RS 15.086.15–16 = PRU 3, 51–2.

Most of the syllabically-written Ugaritic words are also attested in alphabetic texts. Over one-fifth of the forms, however, are thus far unknown in alphabetic form. In the case of some presumably common words, such as the first example cited below, the absence of an alphabetic attestation may be due to the poetic nature of much of the Ugaritic corpus. ri-i[g]-lu /riglu/ ‘foot’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137 i 10'; lú.me“ b[i ]-¢i-ru uruu-g[a-ri-it] ‘the elite troops (/bi˙irù/) of Ug[arit]’ RS 17.432 = PRU 6, no. 71:5'; [k]a-ma-"a-étuù /kama"àtu/ ‘truffles’ RS 19.035 +  = PRU 6, no. 159:3'; ti-ib-nu /tibnu/ ‘straw’ RS 20.149 = Ug 5, no. 130 iii 17'.

Several Ugaritic consonantal phonemes do not occur in Akkadian. These were generally represented in syllabic writings by signs whose consonantal component approximated that of the Ugaritic sound: /ä/ appears only rarely, as in i-zi-ir-[tu 4] /'iäirtu/ ‘help’ RS 20.149 = Ug 5, no. 130 iii 7'; /y/ is written with ”-signs: mu-“a-bu /môyabu/ ‘seat’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137 iii 32"; gi““u-uq-du(-)ma /yuqdu/ ‘almond’ RS 19.035 +  = PRU 6, no. 159:4'; ma-á“-¢a-†u-ma /may¢a†ùma/ ‘(cloths)’ RS 19.028 = PRU 6, no. 126:1; /Ω/ probably appears in: zu-ur-PI /Ωurwu/ ‘(aromatic) resin’ EA 48:8; /˙/ and /À/ are written with ›-signs: ¢a-ra-é“uù /˙arrå“u/ ‘artisan’ RS 20.189 +  (L 1979b, 479) 7; ¢é-qu /˙êqu/ ‘lap’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137) i 9'; [l]ú¢a-ma-ru-ú /Àamaru-hù/ ‘his apprentice’ RS 19.042 = PRU 6, no. 79, 11; ¢u-ul-ma-tu4 /Àulmatu/ ‘darkness’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137: iii 15'; /"/, /h/, and /'/ are sometimes written with the Akkadian "-sign, as in ni-"a-tu /ni"àtu/ ‘(implements)’ RS 19.135 = PRU 6, no. 142:2; gi“.me“ ßa-"a-tu /ßà'àtu/ ‘(wooden) bowls’ RS 19.064 = PRU 6, no. 163: r. 4'; ma-a"-“a-ri /ma'“ari/ ‘tithe’ RS 16.153 = PRU 3, 146–7:11; sometimes indicated by ‘broken writings’, as in ma-a“-a-li /ma“ "ali/ ‘oracle(?)’ RS 15.092 = PRU 3, 54ff.:25; tu-a-pí-[ku] /tuhappiku/ ‘to be upset’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137: ii 23'; sí-il-a /sil'a/ ‘cliff(?)’ RS 16.249 = PRU 3, 96ff.:5; and sometimes, especially word-initially, not represented, as in a-na-ku /"anàkù/ ‘I’ RS 20.149 = Ug 5, no. 130: iii 12'; ú-[P]I-[t]u4 /huwàtu/ ‘word’ RS 20.189 +  (L 1979b, 479) 12; ab-du /'abdu/ ‘slave’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137: iii 4.

    

139

The greatest linguistic benefit of the syllabically-written words is the evidence they provide for the vocalization of Ugaritic. They show, for example, that the patterns of some Ugaritic words differed from those of their Northwest Semitic and Arabic cognates, as in da-ab-¢u /dab˙u/ ‘sacrifice’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137: iii 6, versus Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic *äib˙; : ma-ad-da-tù /maddatu/ ‘measurement’ RS 17.022 + 087 = Ug 5, no. 5:9, versus Hebrew middâ; a-du-rù /"aduru/ ‘mighty’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137: ii 34', versus Hebrew "addîr.

A number of phonological processes are also exposed by the vocalized syllabic forms. Among these are vowel assimilation around gutturals: †u-ú-ru /†uhùru/ < *†ahùru ‘pure’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137: ii 1; [urudu.me“]me-¢i-[ ß]ú- éma ùme“ /mi¢ìßùma/ < *ma¢ìßùma ‘(implements)’ RS 19.135 = PRU 6, no. 142:4; ta-a-ma-tu4 /tahàmatu/ < *tihàmatu ‘sea’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137: iii 34"; raising of a and à before w and y: [¢]u-PI-tu4 /˙uwwatu/ < *˙awwatu ‘land’ RS 20.123+ = Ug 5, no. 137: ii 10'; ¢é-PI-ma /˙iyyùma/ < *˙ayyùma ‘life’ RS 20.426 + 201 = Ug 5, no. 131:6'; optional syncope of short vowels in open syllables: na-bá-ki-ma and : na-ab-ki-ma /nab(a)kìma/ ‘springs’ RS 16.150 = PRU 3, 47a:16 and RS 16.263 = PRU 3, 49b:5; [¢]a-ma-ru-m[a] and lú.me“¢a-am-rumame“/Àam(a)rùma/ ‘apprentices’ RS 15.042 + 110 = PRU 3, 196: i 1 and RS 25.428:6 (see PRU 6, 150 n. 3); “a- éanù-[t]u4 /“antu/ < *“anatu ‘year’ RS 20.189 +  (L 1979b, 479) 11 (see  S 1990b).

The Ugaritic vocabulary attested in Akkadian texts has been studied in detail in B 1975, S 1984a (see the reviews of H 1987b,  S 1989d), H 1987a (see the important review of  S 1990b), and  S 1991a. Several studies of individual lexical items have also appeared, including, recently, L 1988; S 1987b, 1992;  S 1989a; V 1995b, 1996a; W 1995; W 1992; X 1990.

CHAPTER FIVE

UGARITIC STYLISTICS

1 U P M D

1.1

Introduction

It is rather difficult to give a precise definition of Ugaritic prose texts. In general, they include all those texts that are assumed not to be poetic texts, or at any rate do not reveal clear marks or criteria of poetry as found in the major Ugaritic myths and legends. However, the distinction between poetry and prose is rather clear, where poetic sections of myths and legends are interrupted by prose sentences containing ritual prescriptions, instructions for performance and recitation, or colophons (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ le.edge, KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 54–8; KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ le.edge, KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] le.edge). For instance KTU 1.4 v 42–3: w∆b lmspr . . ktlakn Àlmm ‘and repeat the recitation that the lads were sent’ and KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ vi. le.edge whndt.y∆b.lmspr ‘and this (passage) should be recited once more’ (referring to the legend from iv 23 onwards). We shall see that hndt is a typical prose word. A similar line of instruction is included in the myth of KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002.56 y∆bn yspr l¢m“ lßlmm* wy“r p¢r klat, ‘One shall repeat the recitation five times before the images and the congregation together shall sing . . .’. KTU 1.23 is a good example of how prose ritual prescriptions are interspersed in a poetic text, particularly in the opening sections (KTU 1.23.12, 14–5, 18–22), but in the expiation ritual KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002+.35 the instruction w.∆b.lmpsr ‘and start to recite again . . .’ appears in a prose discourse. The majority of documents published in KTU 1 and 2 are prose texts. The largest group, the economic or administrative texts, usually contain lists of persons and cities, or villages, often introduced by a label or heading identifying the nature and purpose of the list and some-

 

141

times also preceded by the general marker spr. Often only these headings permit some grammatical and syntactic analysis. Together with the letters, they may help to assess the criteria and character of the Ugaritic vernacular used during the years of Ugarit’s final flourishing, basically the last fifty years following the reign of Ammi∆tamru III, though some older documents survived (KTU 3.1, 3.4, 7.65 = RS 11.772+, 16.191+ and 16.402[]) mentioning such kings as Niqmadu II and his son Niqmepa. It has been assumed that these latest texts reflect the more developed language of everyday use (S 1984, § 13.1). The purpose of this chapter is to review the different types of prose style and syntax found in distinctive prose genres such as letters, contracts, or rituals. Distinct use of a given verb form may occur in different types of discourse. Prose discourse is a constellation of functionally used verbal or noun clauses pertaining to a given type of prose. Discourse types may, for instance, be narrative, precative, persuasive, prescriptive or performative and each function implies the use of certain modes of verbs and noun clauses. This review starts from the assumption that each type of prose is, in effect, such a cluster of functionally and semantically used verbal or noun clause types (L 1992, 177–8). It implies that reports are basically narrative, ritual and medical instructions prescriptive, and prose incantantions and letters persuasive. The borderlines between the different types of discourse are not always well defined; performative elements may also occur in rituals and incantations. Letters may contain narrative parts in so far as they function as reports. Such a functional approach related to context and genre for the study of verb and syntax in Ugaritic prose is more appropriate than the generic aspectual and temporal distinction made, for instance, by S 1984 (particularly § 64.2, but see R 1987, 397; T 1993a, 389ff.). We cannot deal extensively here with the function of perfect and imperfect in poetry in comparison with its function in prose, but there is more overlap between prose and poetry than Segert suggests. He states that the perfect and imperfect acquired temporal character in the late Ugaritic vernacular (about 1200 ; S 1984, § 64.21). However the perfect is used in poetry as a narrative mode describing a completed action in the past, whereas it still may appear in its constative and performative function in late Ugaritic prose depending on the context, for instance in contracts and rituals. Segert’s assumption may in general apply to Ugaritic

 

142

correspondence and administrative texts, but the modes of use may be different for other types of discourse. 1.2 Classification of the prose texts 1.2.1

Administrative texts

KTU 2 lists 792 texts as economic or administrative. They are by far the largest group of prose texts. Not all of them are administrative texts (e.g. KTU 4.669+ = RS 19.174 is possibly Hurrian [D 1994, 125–6] and 4.659 = RS 19.166 a sales contract for a female slave) and many fragments are chips and bits that may in time be joined to other documents (e.g. KTU 4.412 + 545 + 518 + 512 = RS 18.251 + 18.[471] + 18.[435] + 18.[426]). However, some texts listed as religious texts, letters or juridical documents would better be assessed as administrative documents (e.g. KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015, 2.27 = RS 16.378, 2.69 = RS 24.660 and spr mn˙ bd ! mnny KTU 3.10 = RIH 84/33, compare also KTU 4.91 = RS 11.795). 1.2.2

Letters

The second largest corpus of Ugaritic prose texts that are susceptible of basic linguistic analysis are letters (KTU 2.1–83). There is some doubt as to the epistolary nature of some of the texts (KTU 2.2 = RS 3.334, 2.5 = RS 1.020, 2.7 = RS 1.026+, 2.19 = RS 15.125 [manumission of a royal slave], 2.27 = RS 16.378, 2.31 = RS 16.394, 2.60 = RS 18.[528], 2.62 = RS 19.022 and 2.69 = RS 24.660). Quite a few letters are purely formal epistles, or contain only short messages apart from the usual airs and graces (KTU 2.4 = RS 1.018, 2.10 = RS 4.475, 2.11–7 = RS 8.315, 9.479, 11.872, [Varia 4], 15.007, 15.008, 15.098, 2.24 = RS 16.137 [bis]+, 2.26 = RS 16.264, 2.30–31 = RS 16.379, 16.394, 2.40 = RS 18.040, 2.63– 64 = RS 19.029, 19.102, 2.68 = RS 20.199 and 2.71 = RS 29.095), or they are too broken for coherent translation (KTU 2.1 = RS 3.427, 2.3 = RS 1.013+, 2.6 = RS 1.021, 2.8–9 = RS 1.032, 2.[026], 2.18 = RS 15.107, 2.20 = RS 15.158, 2.22 = RS 15.191[], 2.25 = RS 16.196, 2.35 = RS 17.327, 2.48–59 = RS 18.285[], 18.286[], 18.287, 18.[312, 364, 380, 386, 387, 400, 443, 482, 500], 2.65–67 = RS 19.158, 19.181, 2.77–80 = RIH 77/01, 77/21, 77/25, 78/21 and 2.83 = RIH 78/25). Only a few offer larger portions of prose to give an impression of the 13th century West Semitic per-

 

143

suasive mode of discourse used in diplomatic and business letters (KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475, 2.23 = RS 16.078+, 2.31 = RS 16.394, 2.33 = RS 16.402, 2.36 + 37 + 73 + 74 = RS 17.435+, 17.438, 17.434 and 17.434, 2.38 = RS 18.031, 2.39 = RS 18.038, 2.42 = RS 18.113, 2.45 = RS 18.140, 2.70 = RS 29.093, 2.72 = RS 34.124 and 2.81 = RIH 78/03+78/30). Twenty or so more letters were found in 1994 in the house of Urtenu (M-L 1996; D – L 1997), but are not yet available for analysis. 1.2.3 Ritual texts Quite a large group are about fifty Ugaritic rituals and five lists of gods. With this group should also be mentioned about 26 completely or partially Hurrian ritual texts. The Ugaritic rituals include a series of monthly rituals as a kind of service book through the cultic year. They contain prescriptions for daily sacrifices, seasonal festivals and prayers. The Hurrian texts include sacrificial lists, sacrificial aÀr ¢ld hymns and perhaps incantations: 1.2.3.1

Monthly rituals through the year

yr¢ ri“yn KTU 1.41||1.87 = RS 1.003+, 18.056 and partial duplicates 1.39 = RS 1.001.2–10||1.41 = RS 1.003+.11–9, 1.126 = RS 24.276.18ff.||1.41.44–9; yr¢ sm['t] KTU 1.87.54ff.||1.46+ = RS 1.009+ [D 1984, 69ff.] and partial duplicates 1.109 = RS 24.253||1.46+.10–32, 1.130 = RS 24.284||1.46+.11–21, 1.58? = RS 1.047, 1.134? = RS 24.294; yr¢ n[ql ] KTU 1.138 = RS 24.298; yr¢ ib'lt KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266; yr¢ ¢yr KTU 1.105 = RS 24.249, 1.112 = 24.256, 1.132 = RS 24.291 (partially Hurrian, continuation of 1.112? = RS 24.256), 1.148 = RS 24.643 rev?; yr¢ gn? KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+, partial duplicates 1.134 = RS 24.294 obv., 1.171 = RIH 78/16. 1.2.3.2

Related texts with daily rituals and lists of sacrifices

KTU 1.48 = RS 1.019, 1.49 = RS 1.022, 1.50 = RS 1.023, 1.53 = RS 1.033, 1.57 = RS 1.046, 1.58 = RS 1.047, 1.76 = RS 6.215, 1.81 = RS 15.130, 1.91 = RS 19.015, 1.104 + 7.133 = RS 24.248+24.305 (D 1998, 280–2), 1.110 = RS 24.254 (Hurrian

 

144

with Ugaritic gloss b“b' pamt), 1.111 = RS 24.255 (obv. Hurrian); 1.134 = RS 24.294, 1.136 + 1.137 = RS 24.296, 1.146 = RS 24.253, 1.156 = 24.656, 1.159 + 1.160 = RS 28.059, 1.162 = RS [ Varia 20], 1.165 = RIH 77/04 + 77/11, 1.170 = RIH 78/11, 1.171 = RIH 78/16, 1.173 = RIH 78/04, 7.46 = RS 1.042, 7.177 = RS 24.653; id yph/ydb˙ mlk: KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+.50 –5, 1.90 = RS 19.013||1.168 = RIH 77/10+77/22, 1.115 = RS 24.260, 1.164 = RIH 77/02+, 1.139? = RS 24.300. 1.2.3.3

Procession rituals

km t'rb GN(N ) bt mlk: KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005, 1.148 = RS 24.643.18– 22, 1.139? = RS 24.300. 1.2.3.4

Occasional sacrificial festivals

KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015 obv. a catalogue of royal festivals; spr db˙ Ωlm KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126; db˙ il bldn KTU 1.162 = 1.91.6 (= RS [Varia 20], RS 19.015.6); db˙ ßpn KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643.1–12, 1.91.3; db˙ '∆trt qrat.bgrn (partially Hurrian) KTU 1.116 = RS 24.261; a lung model with ritual and sacrificial instruction KTU 1.127 = RS 24.277. 1.2.3.5

God lists

KTU 1.47 = RS 1.017, 1.74(?) = RS 6.138, 1.102 = RS 24.246, 1.113 = RS 24.257 (deified kings), 1.118 = RS 24.264+. 1.2.3.6

Expiation rituals

KTU 1.40||1.84||1.121 + 1.122 + 1.153 + 1.154 + 7.162? = RS 1.002||17.100[]+ || 24.270[] + 24.650 + 24.652+ + 24.652?. 1.2.3.7

Hurrian rituals

KTU 1.26 = RS 1–11.[048], 1.30 = RS 1–11.[046], 1.32 = RS 1.[066], 1.33 = RS 1.[067], 1.34 = RS 1.[076], 1.35 + 1.36 + 1.37 = RS 1.[069 + 070 + 071], 1.42 = RS 1.004, 1.44 = RS 1.007, 1.51 + 52 = RS 1.027 + 1.028+, 1.54 = RS 1.034+, 1.59 = RS 1.[049], 1.60 = RS 2.[006], 1.64 = RS 3.372, 1.66 = RS 5.182, 1.68 = RS 5.200, 1.110 = RS 24.254, 1.111 = RS 24.255 (rev.

 

145

Ugaritic), 1.116 = RS 24.261, 1.120 = RS 24.269+, 1.125 = RS 24.274, 1.128 = RS 24.278, 1.131 = RS 24.285, 1.132 = RS 24.291, 1.135 = RS 24.295, 1.148 = RS 24.643.13–7, 1.149 + 150 = RS 24.644 + 24.644[], 4.669+ = RS 19.174. Administrative texts quite often also contain information about rituals, in particular when they deal with the distribution and allocation of wine, food and other commodities for the cult, e.g. ¢m“ yn.bdb˙ mlkt bmdr' ‘five (kd ) of wine for the sacrifice of the Queen in the sown land’ (KTU 4.149 = RS 15.039.14–6, see further KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015, 4.168 = RS 15.082, 4.182 = RS 15.115, 4.213 = RS 16.127.24, 4.219 = RS 16.179.2–3). Most ritual texts stem from the High Priest’s house and the house of the Hurrian Priest (PH rooms 10–11) and just a few from Ras Ibn Hani. 1.2.4

Religious texts in literary prose

There is quite a large group of smaller texts and fragments which may be classified as literary religious texts, if not myths. Some of them were clearly composed as poetry (e.g. KTU 1.10 = RS 3.362+, 1.12 = RS 2.[012], 1.92 = RS 19.039+, 1.96 = RS 22.225 and 1.100 = RS 24.244), but some may be fragments of myths and incantations in prose or a kind of poetic prose (KTU 1.9 = RS 5.229, 1.24 = RS 5.194, 1.25 = RS 5.259, 1.45 = RS 1.008+, 1.65 = RS 4.474, 1.82 = RS 15.134, 1.83 = RS 16.266, 1.96 = RS 22.225, 1.107 = RS 24.251+, 1.151(?) = RS 24.647 and 1.169 = RIH 78/20). There are also occasionally prayers, one in poetic form (KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266.26–36), but also in prose (KTU 1.65 = RS 4.474 and 1.123? = RS 24.271), a blessing or dedication (KTU 1.77 = RS 6.411), a small collection of fables (KTU 1.93 = RS 19.054) and, perhaps, a wisdom text (KTU 2.2||2.5? = RS 3.334, 1.020). With this group, we may also mention the few Akkadian “iptu-prayers in Ugaritic alphabetic script (KTU 1.67 (+) 1.69 = RS 5.199 + 5.213, 1.70 = RS 5.156+, 1.73 = RS 5.303bis, 7.50 = RS 5.157, 7.52 = RS 5.196 and 7.55 = RS 5.218). 1.2.5

Other miscellaneous prose texts

Minor groups of prose texts are the juridical texts, medical prescriptions and omens. The juridical texts are mainly found in KTU Section 3, but see also KTU 2.19 = RS 15.125 (manumission of a slave) and KTU 4.659 = RS 19.166 (sales record of a female slave?)

 

146

and the custom licences (or harbour dues?) and caravan licences (KTU 4.172 = RS 15.093, 4.266 = RS 17.074, 4.336 = RS 18.023 and 4.388 = RS 18.113). As sealed documents, the licences can be considered a kind of juridical contract. The distinction between legal documents and administrative records is not always clear. KTU 3.7 = RS 18.118 and 3.10 = RIH 84/33 are rather administrative lists, though they deal with legal charges such as un∆-obligations and debts, as do KTU 4.338 = RS 18.025 and 4.347 = RS 18.035+. Medical prescriptions are found in KTU 1.175 = RIH 77/18. They are sometimes included in other texts KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258.29–32 (an incantation for medical treatment of delirium) and 1.124 = RS 24.272 (an oracular report), and also perhaps the fragment KTU 1.88 = RS 18.107. These prose texts and sections are related to the hippiatric medical text of which four copies have been discovered (KTU 1.71 = RS 5.300, 1.72 = RS 5.285+, 1.85 = RS 17.120 and 1.97 = RS 23.484; C 1996). The large corpus of ancient Near Eastern omen literature was also represented in Ugarit by a dream book (spr ˙lmm KTU 1.86 = RS 18.041), a collection of astronomical omens (KTU 1.163 = RIH 78/14) and birth omens of the “umma izbu type (KTU 1.103+ = RS 24.247+ and 1.140 = RS 24.302: D – L 1990a); also omens inscribed on fields of lung and liver models (KTU 1.127 = RS 24.277, 1.141–4 = RS 24.312, 24.323, 24.326, 24.327 and 1.155 = RS 24.654) and a report of an astronomical omen (KTU 1.78 = RS 12.061). There is, perhaps, also a protocol of necromancy with some ritual prescriptions (KTU 1.124 = RS 24.272: D – L 1990a). 1.3

Administrative prose

By far the largest group of prose texts are the administrative texts, which include census lists of persons, guilds and cities, payment rolls, receipts and records of received or distributed commodities. They are a main source for private names and also a lexicographic goldmine, though many words are still poorly understood. For the structure of the language they are less informative, since their syntactical structure and style is often very simple. Many texts only have a simple label as heading mentioning a guild (˙r∆m ‘ploughmen’, KTU 4.65 = RS 11.602, 4.122 = RS 13.012; ∆nnm a kind of soldier, KTU 4.66 = RS 11.656; mrynm ‘knights’, KTU 4.623 = RS 19.049[]; nqdm, ‘sheep breeders’, KTU 4.681 = RS 19.180; m≈rÀlm ‘guards?’, KTU 4.751 = RS 29.096; khnm, ‘priests’, KTU 4.761 = RS 34.123)

 

147

or a village/city/gentilic. These guild markers themselves are listed as such too (KTU 4.29 = RS 3.320, 4.38 = RS 8.272, 4.47 = RS 10.043, 4.68 = RS 11.716.60ff., 4.99 = RS 11.845, etc.); likewise geographical markers in topographical lists (KTU 4.63 = RS 10.052, 4.232 = RS 16.355, etc.). Both serve as headings in texts which contain persons grouped by trade, profession or provenance (KTU 4.35 = RS 8.183+, 4.69 = RS 11.715+, 4.71 (+) 72 = RS 11.721, 11.722, 4.103 = RS 11.858, 4.183 = RS 15.116, 4.412+ = RS 18.251 and 4.633 = RS 19.086). The different parts of these simple syntactical structures are: (1) heading (with or without introductory spr); (2) lists of persons, towns, etc. (together with number, commodity, etc.); (3) summary or total (with or without tgmr). These sections are often extended by descriptive, or restrictive remarks in relative clauses. The style is usually concise in the extreme, leaving out self-evident terms and phrases (e.g. ∆ql, kbd, dd, tgmr, etc.). From such texts, only a few prose sections can be gleaned, in particular from texts such as KTU 4.145 = RS 15.034, which is a small report revealing the poor condition of the king’s chariotry: (1) ∆mn.mrkbt.dt. (2) 'rb.bt.mlk (3) yd.apnthn (4) yd.˙Ωhn (5) yd trhn/ (6) w.l.∆t.mrkbtm (7) inn. u∆pt/ (8) w.∆l∆.ßmdm.w.˙rß (9) apnt.bd.rb.˙r“m (10) d.“ßa.˙wyh Eight chariots, which entered the royal palace with their wheels, their axles(?), their bearings(?), but two chariots have no quiver; and of three two-horse carriages(?), the wheels are in the hands of the chief smith, who took (them) out for repair.

It is a good example of the descriptive style found in administrative texts (also KTU 4.136 = RS 15.013). The nature of the documents is often indicated by the word spr, while the subject matter may be persons, trades and professions, or commodities, tribute, rations and fields under these headings extended with different types of relative sentences: spr np“ d.'rb bt.mlk w.b spr.l.“t, ‘List of people who entered the royal palace, but who were not put into the list . . .’ (KTU 4.338 = RS 18.025.1–3). Usually, clusters with construct nouns do not exceed three nouns or names, such as spr argmn “p“ (KTU 4.610 = RS 19.017); spr ksp mnny (KTU 4.791 = RIH 84/04); but cf. spr ¢pr.bn“.mlk (KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016), spr ˙r“ q“t ip∆l (KTU 4.215 = RS 16.130). Documents often have no heading and start in medias res. Commodities listed and other entries are occasionally extended by descriptive relative noun clauses or participles: ktn.d.ßr.p˙m.bh, ‘. . . a robe

148

 

that has a string(?) of carbuncles on it’ (KTU 4.132 = RS 15.004.4); w.lp“. d sgr.bh, ‘. . . a garment that has a fibula’ (KTU 4.166 = RS 15.078); ∆l∆ mrkbt ßpyt.b¢rß [.]'“r[.] ßmdm.trm.d[.l.ß]py/w.trm. a˙dm. ßpym/∆l∆ mrkbt d.l.ßpy, ‘Three chariots covered with gold, ten pairs of tr which are [not co]vered and a double(?) set of tr covered, three chariots that are not covered . . .’ (KTU 4.167 = RS 15.079.1–7), but also verbal clauses: yn d.ykl.bd.k[hnm] (2) b.db˙.mlk, ‘Wine that is delivered into the hands of the pr[iests] for the sacrifice of the king’ (KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015.1–2; T 1991b, 355); qm˙. d.kly.kß˙.ill≈rm bd.zlb[n], ‘Flour that was completely spent according to the order(?) of Ill≈rm into the hand of Zlb[n] . . .’ (KTU 4.362 = RS 18.052.1–2), ksp.d.“lm.yrmn.'l.bt, ‘Silver that Yrmn paid for (the mortgage on?) the house . . .’ (KTU 4.755 = RS 31.080; also KTU 4.95 = RS 11.836+, 4.166 = RS 15.078, 4.213 = RS 16.127, 4.290 = RS 17.297 and 4.348 = RS 18.036) and . . . pr≤ qm˙ d n“lm, ‘. . . a prs-measure of flour that has been paid for’ (KTU 4.328 = RS 18.008.1). In relative noun clauses the expression for existence i∆ is often added (KTU 4.235 = RS 16.369, 4.422 = RS 18.293, 4.617 = RS 19.044, 4.752 = RS 29.097 [S 1982, § 55.7]), and the usual negation in such relative noun clauses is in(n) (KTU 4.53 = RS 10.090, 4.180 = RS 15.105, 4.214 = RS 16.128 and 4.379 = RS 18.098). Ugaritic scribes seem to have used two conventions to sum up the totals of their administrative documents, either by writing the totals (”U.NÍGIN = nap¢aru/gabbu) in cuneiform Sumero-Babylonian shorthand (KTU 4.48 = RS 10.045, 4.63 = RS 10.052, 4.68 = RS 11.716, 4.69 = RS 11.715+, 4.71, 4.72 = RS 11.721, 11.722, 4.90 = RS 11.797, 4.93 = RS 11.776+, 4.100 = RS 11.850, 4.102 = RS 11.857, 4.165 = RS 15.076, 4.219 = RS 16.179, 4.232 = RS 16.355, 4.299 = RS 17.345, 4.308 = RS 17.386, 4.340 = RS 18.027, 4.435 = RS 18.[306], 4.610 = RS 19.017, 4.704 = RS 21.002, 4.745 = RS 25.417, 4.754 = RS 31.043, and 4.784 = RS [Varia 38].2;  S, 1995, 485–6) or in Ugaritic tgmr, and sometimes even both ways (e.g. “b'.mat ∆∆m kbd/7 me-at 60 ›I.ME”, KTU 4.340 = RS 18.[027]). As with the headings, the pattern of such totals is not consistent. Usually the tgmr of the commodity received or distributed, or the group or city is mentioned first (e.g. KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015, 4.67 = RS 11.714, 4.156 = RS 15.053, 4.269 = RS 17.106 and KTU 4.151 = RS 15.044, 4.179 = RS 15.103, 4.777 = RIH 83/07+ respectively), but it may also follow the total amount (KTU 4.230 = RS 16.341, 4.764 = RS 34.176 and 4.137 = RS 15.015+, 4.141

 

149

= RS 15.022+ and 4.173 = RS 15.094 respectively), but the word tgmr is also often left out (KTU 4.164 = RS 15.075, 4.344 = RS 18.030, 4.427 = RS 18.299, 4.163 = RS 15.073.15ff., and 4.174 = RS 15.095 respectively). The style of these texts is basically descriptive and strongly paratactic. Complex syntactic structures with subordinate clauses are almost absent. 1.4

Literary prose of incantations, stories and reports

Everybody knows, or rather thinks he knows the difference between prose and poetry (W 1984d [1995] 44). The problem is to establish sound criteria. We cannot deal here with this question in extenso (see P 1993a). The criteria often used to distinguish prose from poetry in Hebrew literature, namely the absence or rarity of prose elements such as the relative marker "a“er (less often the relative pronoun), the definite article, the object marker and the narrative waw, are not very helpful for Ugaritic prose. The existence of a narrative waw discourse in Ugaritic is still disputed and indeed, if it is not to be found in the context of the incantation KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244.67–8: mÀy.˙rn.l bth w (68) y“tql.l˙Ωrh, ‘Horon reached his house, and he entered his court’, it occurs, perhaps, in a few prose texts such as, for instance, the report about a necromantic inquiry (KTU 1.124 = RS 24.272): ky mÀy.adn (2) ilm rbm.'m dtn (3) wy“al.m∆pt.yld (4) wy'ny.nn.dtn (5) t'ny . . . wymÀ (11) mlakk.'m dtn (12) lq˙ m∆p† (13) wy'ny.nn dtn . . .’ When the Lord of the Great Gods came to Ditanu and asked for the boy’s (oracular) decision, Ditanu answered him: “You will answer . . . and your messenger to Ditanu arrived after he received the (oracular) decision.” Then Ditanu answered: . . .’ As long as no vocalized narrative texts are available, the question will remain undecided. On the other hand, the use of parallelism or parallelizing style in Ugaritic texts is not confined to poetry. As in the Hebrew Bible, it is also found in many prose texts. The greater use of relative pronouns and particularly, a set of demonstratives (hnd-hnk/hndt-hnkt/hnhmt, including the definite article hn-, R 1971, 160; C 1983b) and interrogative pronouns (mn(m)-mnk(m); mh-mhkm, etc.) in prose texts such as economic texts, letters, contracts, etc. (W 1984d [1995], 62) is a fairly clear criterion, but not the only one. Several texts show a mixed style of prose and poetry. It is hard to say whether these literary texts are prose containing poetic elements, or a kind of poetry in which the rules of poetic parallelism are weakly

150

 

used. There can be no doubt that major works from Ugarit such as the Ba'al Cycle, the legends of Aqhat and Keret, the astral myth of Shahar and Shalim were composed as oral poetry, in which inserted prose elements clearly stand out in their context. Some minor myths and incantations were also composed in the concise prosody of the major works (KTU 1.10 = RS 3.362+, 1.12 = RS 2.[012], 1.83 = RS 16.266 and 1.92 = RS 19.039+), but a few are in prose, or have prose sections alternating with mythical passages in poetry. For instance, KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+ clearly opens with a mythical poem (KTU 1.107.1–14), but the poison-expelling charms on the reverse are in prose (KTU 1.107.32–45). The incantation text KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134, so far as it is readable and understandable, is also couched in prose. Its sections are marked by quick changes of subject and by subordinate clauses in persuasive style, but no clear parallelism can be traced: [y]m¢ß.b'l [´´]y.tnn.wygl.wynsk.'d [´] [´]´y.larß[.id]y.alt.l a˙“.idy.alt.in ly [´]b/dt.b'l.˙Ω.r“p.bn.km.yr.klyth.wlbh [´´]´.pk.b Àr.∆n.pk.b¢lb.k tgwln.“ntk [´´]w“ptk.l t““y.hm.tÀrm.l mt.brtk [´´]¢p.an.arnn.ql.“p“.˙w.b∆nm.u¢d.b'lm [wa]†m.pr†l.l ri“h.˙m∆.†m∆. Let Ba'al smite the breed(?) of Tunan and reveal and pour out the . . . (2) . . . on the earth. Then I shall not feel the curse, then the curse will not for me be (3) harmful(?). The archer Reshef (is) between the two of you. He will shoot at his kidneys and his heart. Let your mouth . . . in the lowland, let your mouth resound in the woods, when you grind(?) your teeth (5) [against him]. And your lips will surely rejoice, if you keep until death your covenant. (6) [I shall . . . . .] myself, I shall ring out with the Sun’s voice: the life of the serpents I shall take away, O Ba'al, and nail down the iron pole on his head . . . . . . (KTU 1.82.1–7)

Likewise the minor myths of Yarikh and Nikkal (KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194), Astarte the Huntress (KTU 1.92 = RS 19.039) and El’s drunkeness (KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258) show a mixed style of prose and poetry. Of the last text the medical prescription is entirely in prose (KTU 1.114.29–31). The first text has a narrative framework in prose, whereas some of the speeches are couched in verse. This may also be true of the fable KTU 1.93 = RS 19.054 (D 1994, 125):

 

151

(1) ar¢ td.rgm.b Àr (2) b py.t'lgt.b l“n[ y] (3) Àr.∆yb.b np“y.rg[m] (4) hwt.b'l.i“tm['.y Àr ? ] (5) “m' ly.y p“. i[k(?)] (6) ˙kr[.b]“ry[ ] . . . The Cow let out a cry against the Mountain: ‘In my mouth is stammering, on [my] tongue is agitation, in my throat rolls “thun[der]”. Heed the word of Ba'al [O Mountain!] Listen to me, you braggart! Why this distress of my [bo]dy . . .? . . .’

KTU 1.92 and 1.114 contain prosodic phrases and epic formulae borrowed from the major myths (D 1994, 116), but the narratives are basically prose compositions despite this poetic flavour. For KTU 1.92, one has to assume that many verses have been shortened to monocola, if it was a piece of narrative poetry. In KTU 1.114, the sequences of perfect (with inversion of the subject) and imperfect forms suggest the transformation of poetically structured verses into prose sentences (so also KTU 1.96 = RS 22.225.1ff.). Consider il db˙ . . . ß˙ . . . tl˙mn.ilm.wt“tn . . . After El slaughtered . . . called . . . the gods ate and drank . . . b il.abh.g'r. y∆b il . . . After he rebuked El his father, El sat down . . . il.y∆b.b mrz˙h y“t . . . After El sat down at his marzeah, he drank . . . il.hlk l bth . . . y'msn.nn . . . After El wanted to go home, they carried him . . .

A similar mixed style is also present in the ritual KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126, the incantation KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20 and the prayers KTU 1.65 = RS 4.474, 1.108 = RS 24.252 and perhaps 1.123 = RS 24.271. We observe in these texts a certain repetitive style, even chains of adverbial clauses and comparisons: k q†r.urbtm.k b∆n. 'mdm (3) k y'lm.Ωrh.k lbim.skh, ‘like smoke from a chimney; like a snake from a pillar; like a mountain-goat to the hill-top; like a lion to a lair’ (KTU 1.169.3–4); il ¢“ il add (10) b'd ßpn b'd ! (11) ugrt (12) b mr˙ il (13) b nit il (14) bßmd il (15) b d∆n il, etc., ‘O El, hurry! O El, stand up, on behalf of Saphon, on behalf of Ugarit, with the javelin of El, with the spade(?) of El, with the span of El, with the threshingsledge(?) of El, etc.’ (KTU 1.65.9–15); b mrmt (8) b miyt.bΩlm.b qd“, ‘. . . on the heights, in the lowland, in darkness and in the sanctuary’ (KTU 1.169.7–8); b 'z (22) [rpi.] mlk.'lm. b ≈mrh.bl (23) [anh].b˙tkh.b nmrth . . ., ‘in the safety [of the Healer], the eternal king, in his protection, in his strength, in his dominion, in his benevolent power . . .’

 

152

(KTU 1.108.21–3; also 1.108.4–5). Compare also the chain of adverbial phrases and “lm-greetings KTU 1.161.22–6 (with t˙t), 31–4 and the chain of epithets in KTU 1.100.1: um p˙l p˙lt bt.'n.bt.abn. bt.“mm.wth . . ., ‘The mother of the he-ass, the she-ass, daughter of the spring, daughter of the stone, daughter of heaven and flood . . .’. Similarly, the chains of epithets and participial predicates in the liturgical prayer KTU 1.108.1ff. They are all instances of poetic prose with repetition and even occasional parallelism within a prose context. Despite these poetic elements, such passages as KTU 1.65.9ff. and KTU 1.108.1ff. form one extended prose sentence, bursting the bounds of an originally poetic structure. Even the small fragment KTU 1.83 = RS 16.266, perhaps part of an incantation ( M 1987, 181–2), shows this mixed style: . . . [tß]un. b arß (4) m˙nm. ∆rp ym (5) l“nm.t¬hk (6) “mm. t∆rp (7) ym ≈nbtm. (8) tnn!. l “bm (9) t“t. trks (10) l mrym lbnm* (11) pl. tb∆n. yymm* (12) hmlt. ¢t. ynh*[r] (13) ltph. mk* [ ] (14) t˙mr. [ ] . . . (text newly collated by P 1998, 263 . . . [She we]nt out into the land of Mahanayim to vanquish(?) Yam with the forked tongue that licks the sky. She vanquished Yam with the forked tail, Tunan she muzzled. She bound him onto the heights of Lebanon (saying): You swill no longer humiliate me, O Yam. Mankind may be scared, O River (but) you will not see [me] collapse. You may foam [. . .]

Related to the persuasive prose style of incantation is the prose of letters and an occasional wisdom text such as KTU 2.2 = RS 3.334 (|| 2.5? = RS 1.020), perhaps dictated as a scribal exercise: (1) (2) (3) (4)

[l ] r*i“.r'y.y“ [al ] [“ ]lm.bn“.y“l[m.m] [s]gr.l “lmt.“l[m] b*th.p “lmt.p* “lm

(5) b*t.lbn“.trgm*[?] (6) l “lmt.l “lm.b[tk] (7) by.“nt.mlit.t[mla] (8) (9) (10) (11)

ymÀyk.bnm.ta[r“ ] bnm.wbnt.ytnk* [b]'l.bny.“˙t.w[´´] [w“ ]˙*t.msgr.bnk[ ]

(12) [wh]n.t˙m.b'l[ ]

First of all, my friend, one should a[sk] for [p]eace. A man should keep the bolt(?) secure. (If ) it is not safe, will its house be at peace? When it is safe, then the house will have peace. To a man you should say: ‘It is not safe, so [your] house will not be at peace!’ Believe me, after a full year has surely [passed] children you asked for will come to you. Sons and daughters will Ba'al give you. My son, spoil (it) and . . . you will have [spoi]led the bolt(?) of your children. [And lo]ok, the word of Ba'al . . .

  1.5

153

The prose of letters

Letters form the most interesting group in which to study the syntax of Ugaritic prose in the latter days of its floruit. We shall not deal here with the well known formulae of sender and addressee (t˙m X rgm l Y ), the airs and graces ( y“lm lk, ilm tÀrk t“lmk, with its variants), the prostration formula (lp'n PN [“b'd “b'd/∆nid ] mr˙qtm qlt/qlny), enquiries about health (“al “lm formula), requests for an answer (wrgm [t]∆∆b l/'m-PN), to reply or to pay attention to the message (wb'ly . . . yd' [rgmh]), or even the closing remark to reassure somebody (wap mhkm b lbk al t“t, etc.). These have all been thoroughly and properly studied in the past (A 1973; K 1977; P 1984; P – W 1987; C 1983a, 1989a). Here attention will be paid to the larger passages of prose only in so far as they are preserved and help to give a glimpse of late colloquial Ugaritic. Characteristic of this Ugaritic 12th-century written vernacular is the increased use of plene writing with -y in prepositions by, ly, ky, iky; construct state: ily ugrt and verbal forms tmÀyy, etc., but also an increase in enclitic -y as a marker of direct speech, in particular in letters (T 1994d, 474–5). The difference between plene written -y and enclitic -y is not always easy to detect (T 1994d, 480–1). Other changes in vocalization and phonology include the quiescent aleph, “b'd < “b'’id, yr“ < yar“, etc., though also incidentally found in poetry, 'bdnn < a'bdnn; 'dbk < a'dbk (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ ii 21; 1.18 = RS 3.340 iv 22); ytmr < yitmr (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ i 22), the shift of ’ < h, for instance in im < hm (KTU 2.15 = RS 15.007.8; 2.72 = RS 34.124.9, 10, 17; 3.9 = RS [ Varia 14].6; T 1989b, 421–3); vowel harmony ulp (*ullupi ) < alp (*allupi ) ; i¢y and u¢y < a¢y; ibr (*ibbiru) < abr (*abbiru). See further below § 8.1. The grammar and syntax of this late Ugaritic prose are enriched by the use of the article and demonstrative element hn, rarely independent in hn 'r/“, KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002 (perhaps also 1.114 = RS 24.258.28 and in assimilated form in KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093.15–6, w.˙wt (16) hbt, ‘and I repaired the house’), but frequently as part of a set of demonstrative pronouns: masc. hnd—hnk; fem. hndt—hnkt pl. hnhmt. Morphological developments may include the loss of diptotic plural and the occurrence of imperatives with prothetic aleph i: ibky, i“¢n (KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126; T 1993a, 391–2); iÀr (KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402.1); or aleph a: add (KTU 1.65 = RS 4.474.9). Furthermore, we may note the wider use of the absolute infinitive

154

 

with separate personal pronoun to continue a finite verb or imperative, wtb' ank (KTU 2.17 = RS 15.098.6); w.∆∆b.ank (KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031.23); wrgm hw/ank (KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113.19, 25); hb∆ hw (6) ¢rd w.“l hw (7) qrt, ‘. . . it eliminated the guard and pillaged the city . . .’ (KTU 2.61 = RS 19.011.5–7); w.ybl.hw (KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124.27 and passim), though this is incidentally also attested in poetry (S 1984, § 64.42). The variation in the use of the conjunction p(m)- is significant, and greater than in poetry ( M 1969, 201–2; KTU 2.2 = RS 3.334.4, 2.3 = RS 1.013+.19, 2.10 = RS 4.475.12, 2.14 = RS [ Varia 4].12, 2.15 = RS 15.007.7, 2.23 = RS 16.078+.17, 2.26 = RS 16.264.7, 2.33 = RS 16.402.28, 2.70 = RS 29.093.27, 2.71 = RS 29.095.11 [ pm], 2.72 = RS 34.124.11, 22, 42, 2.73 = RS 17.434.14; W 1990e, 1994e) and the occurrence of pl and pn ‘lest, you may not’ (KTU 1.83 = RS 16.266.11, 1.114 = RS 24.258.12). Also new, specific verbs such as d˙l, ‘to be afraid’ (KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008.12, 2.31 = RS 16.394.21); hb†, ‘to knock down, eliminate’ (KTU 2.4 = RS 1.018.19, 2.47 = RS 18.148.16, 2.61 = RS 19.011.5), or verb forms like “tn 'm/l ‘put something at the disposal of PN’ (KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+.6, 13, 2.45 = RS 18.140.19, 2.50 = RS 18.287.16, perhaps also 2.32 = RS 16.401.7, 10, 2.39 = RS 18.038.35, 2.79 = RIH 77/25.3), presumably a ”-stem of y/ntn; ”-stem ’¢r ‘to withhold, keep back (things)’ (KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113.11, 2.79 = RIH 77/25.4) and the Gt-stem “al ‘to make a request, enquire’ (2.17 = RS 15.098.15, 2.42 = RS 18.113.23, 2.70 = RS 29.093.12, 2.71 = RS 29.095.10). Further, we may note the continued use of bl in compounds like bl ym, ‘never’ (KTU 2.45 = RS 18.140.23; 4.272 = RS 17.118.7), bl bn“, ‘nobody’ (KTU 2.45 = RS 18.140.25), l.bl.˙rb || lbl ks, ‘without a knife, or cup (KTU 1.96 = RS 22.225.4–5) and bl ßml (KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20.7), though also used in poetry: bl spr/hg (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ ii 37–8); blmt, ‘immortality’ (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] vi 27, etc.), the increased use of the perfect or participle Nstem n∆kp (KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475.14); n“l˙ (2.34 = RS 17.139.13); n“k˙ (2.38 = RS 18.031.15); nmkr (KTU 2.48 = RS 18.285[].5); npl† (2.82 = RIH 78/12.4, 11); also in administrative and legal texts: nkly (KTU 4.213 = RS 16.127.24, 4.230 = RS 16.341.15; 4.280 = RS 17.236.6, etc.); nlq˙t (KTU 4.659 = RS 19.166.1) and n“lm (KTU 4.328 = RS 18.008), but also a new preposition like ml( y), ‘opposite (me)’ (KTU 2.50 = RS 18.287.12; 2.75 = RS 34.148.11). There is no

 

155

clear evidence that a special subjunctive mood was maintained in prose texts (T 1991b, 353–5, pace V 1988). The deictic or anaphoric use of -n, in particular in the apodosis of omens (D – L 1990a, 104; T 1994c, 466–7), but also elsewhere (KTU 1.124 = RS 24.272.14, 2.37 = RS 17.438.10, 2.39 = RS 18.038.21, 2.42 = RS 18.113.6, 10, 26) may suggest influence of the Hurrian ‘article’ -ni (but see T 1993b, 468). It is inherent in the nature of letters that we find narrative parts (reports using the perfect, e.g. KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031) and prescriptive sentences (instructions); but the fundamental convention is that of an oral message exchanged between parties. This means that the mode of discourse in letters is usually persuasive, a mode of discourse couched in a kind of virtual verbal exchange between sender and addressee, but from the temporal perspective of the writer. A mode of discourse that varies with the field (diplomacy, international commerce, royal bureaucracy) and tenor (grade of social relationships between parties, see also P – B 1992, 711). Letters are essentially a verbatim account of verbal exchanges between parties who argue their case. As part of the discourse the words of the other party are quite often quoted or referred to (D 1987). This style of persuasion is marked by statements accentuated with particles or adverbs such as ap/ p/ hn, emphatic use of the separate personal pronouns, interrogative particles and pronouns, such as ik, ‘how’, lm, ‘why’, my/mn(m), ‘who(ever)’, mnd', ‘whoever knows, perhaps’, rhetorical questions and other turns of speech introduced by ht, ‘now’, hm . . . p/w/zero, ‘if . . . then’, etc. If we are aware of the sequence of inferences and thrust for persuasion made coherent by a set of characteristic phrases and other cohesive devices in grammar and style, the letters are essentially a genre of persuasive discourse, even if stories are told, oaths are sworn and instructions are given within such a persuasive mode of discourse. Unfortunately only a few of the more elaborate letters are complete or have a passage that allows for coherent translation and rhetorical analysis. Any translation given below admits that other translations are possible in some instances, but I am concerned here only with the mode of discourse and the general thrust of a given passage. An example of such a dialogical discourse of persuasion including an oath is KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475.5–15, . . . trÀds (6) w.l.klby (7) “m't.¢ti (8) n¢tu.ht (9) hm.inmm (10) n¢tu.w.lak (11) 'my.w.yd (12) ilm.pkmtm (13) 'z.mid (14) hm.n∆kp (15) m'nk

156

  . . . from TrÀds and Klby I have heard that we suffered a heavy defeat. However, if we did not suffer a defeat, send me a message and, as for the hand of the gods, it will indeed be as strong as Death (against you) if your answer be negative(?).

Letters often include reports. A good example is the letter from the king of Tyre to the king of Ugarit about the shipwreck of a Ugaritian fleet sent to Egypt, but there are also short reports such as KTU 2.17 = RS 15.098, 2.30 = RS 16.379, 2.33 = RS 16.402.4ff., 2.40 = RS 18.040, 2.61 = RS 19.011 and 2.75 = RS 34.148. We often find here as a typical report marker the formula ‘the king my lord may know it/his word!’ (KTU 2.17, 2.33, 2.40, 2.75; perhaps also 2.35 = RS 17.327), or advice not to fear or to worry too much about the reported developments (KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008, 2.30, 2.38 = RS 18.031 and 2.71 = RS 29.095). (10) anykn.dt (11) likt.mßrm (12) hndt.b.ßr (12) mtt.by (14) g“m.adr (15) n“k˙.wrb.tmtt (17) lq˙.kl.≈r' (18) bdnhm.w.ank (19) kl.np“ (20) klklhm.bd.rb.tmtt.lq˙t (21) w.∆∆b.ank.lhm (22) wanyk.∆t (25) by.'ky.'ryt (26) w.a¢y.mhk (27) b.lbh.al.y“t This fleet of yours, which you sent to Egypt, was shipwrecked at Tyre. It was hit by a heavy storm. And the master of shipwrecks took all the cargo from their holds. However, I in turn took all their cargo, all the livestock for their provision from the hand of the master of shipwrecks and returned it to them. And your second fleet is in for repair(?) at Acre, but my brother should worry about nothing. (KTU 2.38.10–27).

In particular, the mode and tenor of the discourse in international diplomatic letters becomes very persuasive, if not suggestive. In many instances we are here perhaps dealing with drafts and translations of official letters, of which the originals were sent and received by the royal chancelleries in official Akkadian. They negotiate about tribute, settle border disputes and deal with conflicting interests and loyalties. Consider the following anthology: ky.likt.bt.mlk.t˙mk.hln[ y] (6) [¢]rß.argmny[.]'m.“p“.“tn.[ank] (7) [w.]at.m[¢]r.k[´] ∆.d.“tt.b.mß[mt] (8) [ht].tqdm.udh.mÀt.wmlkn.[´´] (9) [m]˙rt[.]n∆b.'mnkm.l.qrb.[´´] (10) [´].i[´]t.w.at.'my.l.mÀt.[´´] (11) [w.]mla[k]tk.'my.l.likt (12) [´]´.km.“knt.ly.ht.hln.¢rß.[´´] (13) [´´´].“tnt.'my.'m.“p“.“tn[t] When you sent your message to the royal palace (saying), ‘Herewith I put the gold of my tribute at the disposal of the Sun’, [as for] you, the equivalent of the . . . as was settled in the trea[ty], you should present it now! Its payment(?) is due. And the king [said?], ‘Tomorrow we shall return to you to deliver the . . ., but you have not come to me [. . . nor] did you send your embassy to me. [Now was this] as

 

157

arranged with me? So, the gold [of your tribute that was] put here at my disposal, I shall put (it) at the disposal of the Sun. (KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+.5–13) l.i[t˙]dn.“p“ (6) ad[nh.' ]bdh.uk.“kn (7) k.'[bdm.]sglth.hw (8) w.b[nh].uk.nÀr (9) rg[mh.l ]adny.l.y¢sr (10) w.[ap.y]d'.l.yd't (11) ht[.hm].l.“p“.b'lk (12) 'b[dm.]sglth.at (13) ht[.hm].“p“.b'lk (14) yd'm.l.yd't (15) 'my.“p“.b'lk (16) “nt.“ntm.lm.l.tlk Did not the Sun his father and his servant make an agreement(?) either that he would record that he and his sons would be servants of his own property, or that he would keep his promise (saying): ‘My father will not lack anything’ and [also]: ‘I acknowledge you fully’. Now, if to the Sun your lord, you are servant of his own property, so then, if you recognize the Sun your lord fully, why did not you come to the Sun your lord for one, for two years? (KTU 2.39 = RS 18.038.5–16)

Likewise KTU 2.23 = RS 16.078+. The tenor of such letters is often haughty, if not aloof on the part of the Great King, his queen and his officials. The Great King speaks about himself in the third person, the greetings are curt and there is no love lost, whereas the attitude of the vassal king is submissive and the airs and graces are elaborate, if not exhaustive. More than half the letter from Ammi∆tamru to the Egyptian Pharaoh is filled with the repeated string of royal titles: “p“.mlk.rb.mlk.mßrm.mlk.n'm.mlk.ßdq.mlk.mlkm.b'l.kl.˙wt mßrm . . ., ‘. . . the Sun, the great king, the king of Egypt, the benevolent king, the righteous king, the king of kings, lord of the whole country of Egypt . . .’ (KTU 2.81 = RIH 78/03+; see somewhat less tediously KTU 2.23 = RS 16.078+, 2.76 = RS 34.356.1–2, 9–10 [a draft?]). All along, the writer repeatedly praises his overlord as benevolent king, trying to negotiate a lower tribute: [m∆n.r]gm.b'ly.n'm.hn.ksp.d.“s'n (25) ['bdk.b“ ] nt.qdm.alpm.mznh (26) [ht. 'bdk.] yir“.snp.ln.dym.hw, ‘. . . Another matter, O my benevolent lord. Look, the silver which [your servant] has paid for many years, two thousand (shekels) is its weight. [Now your servant] asks, will two thirds be sufficient for us? . . .’. Another flower of such submissive speech is KTU 2.23 = RS 16.078+.15–24: w.an[k.'bdk.]d (16) ar“ [.˙ym.l“p]“ (17) mlk.r[b.b'l ] y.p.l. (18) ˙y.np[“h. a]r“ (19) l.pn.b'[l.] ßpn.b'ly (20) w. urk.ym. b'ly (21) l.pn.amn.w.l.pn (22) il.mßrm. dt.tÀrn (23) np“.“p“ [.]mlk.rb.b'ly . . . And I am [your servant] who begs [for life to] the Sun, the great king, my lord. Then do I not pray for the life of his soul before Ba'al Saphon my lord, and length of days for my lord before Amun and

158

  before the gods of Egypt who protect the soul of the Sun, the Great King, my lord?

In the exchange of messages between the king and officials, we sometimes find such elaborate phrases in addition to the usual formulae of submission, ankn.rgmt.l.b'l.ßpn. (7) l.“p“.'lm.l.'∆trt (8) l.'nt.l.kl.il.al∆y (9) nmry.mlk.'lm, ‘. . . I pray to Ba'al Saphon, to the eternal Sun, to Astarte, to Anat, to all the gods of Ala“ia for the splendour of an everlasting kingship!’ (KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113.4–9). Not only are developments reported, but problems are also discussed and instructions given in the same persuasive sort of style. The Ugaritian king reports violations of his territory by Egyptian caravans, and the Hittite queen, probably in consultation with the Hittite deputy-king of Carchemish, instructs him to direct them past Qadesh through the valley of the Orontes (KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+ .16ff.; D 1989, 142–4). An interesting instance is the letter from General Iwri-∆arruma (KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402), reporting an attack by the kings of Mugi“¢e (Alalakh) and, perhaps, Nu¢a““i against Niqmaddu II. After some explanations about the course of strategy taken, he comes with amazing eloquence to the subject of reinforcements: w.mlk.b'ly (23) lm.“kn.hnk (24) l.'bdh.alpm.≤≤wm (25) rgmt.'ly.∆h.lm (26) l.ytn.hm.mlk.'ly (27) w.hn. ibm.“ßq.ly (28) p.l.a“t.a∆ty (29) n'ry.∆h.l pn.ib (30) ht.hm.yrgm.mlk (31) b'ly.tmÀyy.hn (32) alpm.≤≤wm. hnd (33) w.mlk.b'ly.bn“ (34) bnny.'mn. (35) mlakty.hnd (36) ylak.'my (37) wt'l.∆h.hn (38) [a]lpm[.]≤≤wm (39) [´].l.[ y´]´ß/l.w.∆b And the king my lord, why did he assign such a thing to his servant? Two thousand horses, you said, would come soon! Why has the king, my lord, not provided them yet? Look, the enemies are pressing me hard, but I cannot put my womenfolk and children just in front of the enemy! Now, if the king my lord orders it, they will arrive here, those two thousand horses. And the king my lord may also send to me mediators(?) with this my embassy. And let them come up soon hither, the two thousand horses [and] let him not [. . .] and withdraw! (KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402, 22–39)

Fragments of such eloquent pieces of prose, in which someone is pleading his case, are also found, for instance, in KTU 2.41 = RS 18.075, 2.42 = RS 18.113, 2.45 = RS 18.140, etc., but unfortunately they are too broken for their lines of reasoning to be followed in detail. In KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093, we find a complaint and a request. Obviously one of the senders of this letter is a woman (as also KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315):

 

159

hlny.bn.'yn (12) y“tal.'m.amtk (13) lak.lh.wk˙dnn (14) w.ank.˙r“ (15) lq˙t.w.˙wt (16) hbt.wlm.∆b (17) bn.'yn (18) w.lqh.∆qlm (19) ksp.bd.amtk ∆n.'bdk (21) ∆mt.'mnk (22) k l ttn.akl.lhm (23) w.k t“al (24) bt.'bdk (25) w.kymÀy (26) 'bdk.l “lm (27) 'mk.p.l.y“b' l (28) ¢pn.l b'ly (29) mnm.i∆.l 'bdk Here, the son of 'Yn came to request (silver) from your handmaid. It was sent to him, but he hid it. I enlisted a contractor and I repaired the house. Why has the son of 'Yn returned to take the two shekels of silver from the hand of your handmaid? And two of your servants are there with you in order that you may give food to them. Now if your servants ask for accommodation and if they arrive in peace to you, will not then a handful satisfy them? To my lord belongs everything that your servants own. (KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093.11–29)

Letters evidently often react to messages received about information, allegations of disloyalty, requests for help or neglect to pay outstanding debts and tardiness in fulfilling obligations. There is nothing new under the sun! Many of the letters refer to messages received and even quote from them (examples in D 1987a, 38–9 to which KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+ passim, may be added). lm.tlikn.¢p∆.hndn (11) p.m“m't.mlk (12) inn.im.bn.qln* (13) im.bn.alyy.im (14) m“m't.mlk (15) wtlkn.∆n. ∆nm (16) 'my.wt∆brn.lby (17) wl˙t.bt.amr (18) ky.tdbr.umy (19) l.pn.qrt (20) im.ht.l.b (21) mßqt.y∆bt (22) qrt.p.mn (23) likt.ank.l˙t (24) bt.mlk.amr (25) ybnn.hlk (26) 'm mlk.amr (26) w.ybl.hw.mit (28) ¢rß.w. mrdt.l (29) mlk.amr.w.lq˙.hw (30) “mn.b.qrnh (31) w.yßq.hw.l.ri“ (32) bt.mlk.amr (33) mnm.¢†[at.brt] Why did they release these two, as if they were not subordinate to the king? Either being the son of Qln, or the Son of Alyy, or a subordinate of the king, these two should have come to me together and should have broken my heart. As for the letter about the daughter of the king of Amurru—when my mother speaks on behalf of the city: ‘If now the city will not go on to live in anxiety, who then must I send with the letter about the daughter of the king of Amurru?’ Let Yabninu go to the king of Amurru and let him bring a hundred (shekels) of gold and the repudiated woman(?) to the king of Amurru and let him take oil in his horn and pour it on the head of the daughter of the king of Amurru. Whatever sin [she] committed [she will be free?] . . . (KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124.10–33)

It is characteristic of this mode of prose to construct complicated sentences in an elaborate rhetorical, often conditionally phrased style. For instance, the passage quoted from KTU 2.39 = RS 18.038.11–6 is probably one long sentence. Sentences introduced with conditional

160

 

hm, temporal k( y)- (preceded or followed by the conjunction p(m)-, but often also simply the copula w-, KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475.9–10, 2.31 = RS 16.394.16ff., etc. or without connection, KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402.30–1) are numerous, as are statements and conditional sentences emphasized with hn, ht and ap (e.g. ht hm . . . KTU 2.10.8–9, 2.33.30, 2.39.11ff.; wap ht . . . 2.3 = RS 1.013+.20; wap.ank . . . 2.11 = RS 8.315.13, 2.33.15, 2.41 = RS 18.075.19), and rhetorical and real questions with or without ik( y), mh(y), e.g. w.k t“al bt 'bdk w k ymÀy 'bdk l “lm 'mk pl y“b' l¢pn, ‘And if your servants ask for accommodation and if they reach you safely, would not a handful be sufficient?’ (KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093.23–8, also 2.23 = RS 16.078+.17ff. and perhaps, 2.39.5ff.). Quite often in the prose of letters and elsewhere (e.g the narrative KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258, the ritual KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256.6–7) the preferred word order VS is changed to SV: wum t“m¢ mad . . ., ‘and my mother should rejoice greatly . . .’ (KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008.10); whn.ibm. “ßq.ly . . ., ‘And look, the enemies are pressing me hard . . .’ (KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402.27), perhaps for emphasis (other examples T 1994c, 467–70). A related interesting phenomenon in this mode of prose is casus pendens or nominative absolute (W – O’C 1990, § 4.7), e.g. in the oath-sentence: wyd ilm p kmtm 'z mid hm n∆kp m'nk, ‘as for the hand of the gods, it will indeed be as strong as Death, if your answer is negative(?)’ (KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475.11–5); note the incongruity of yd (f.) and 'z (m.), but this seems to be the idea ( pace P 1987; W 1990, 81–2, 1994, 495); [w].b.ym.k.ybt.mlk (15) [∆ ] ydr.w.ap.ank (16) [i ]¢d.lÀr. amn, ‘[And] as for today, if the king stays in [Ô ]ydr, I for my part took hold of Mount Amanus . . .’ (KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402+.15–6; for the geographical name ∆y[n]dr, see D – L 1994, 65–7); wmlk b'ly lm “kn hnk l'bdh ‘and as for the king my lord, why did he assign such a thing to his servant?’ (KTU 2.33.22–4); hn.mr∆ d “tt a“ßu b ldtk, ‘Look, the patrimony which was (legally) settled, I shall release after you have given birth’ (KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139.32–3); 'my “p“ b'lk “nt “ntm lm ltlk, ‘to the king your lord, why did you not come for one or two years? (KTU 2.39 = RS 18.038.15–6); wl˙t akl ky likt 'm “p“ b'lk ky akl b˙wtk. inn. “p“n tubd, ‘As for the tablet about food, when you sent to the Sun the message that there is no food in your country, the Sun was indeed disheartened . . .’ (KTU 2.39.17ff.). There are many other examples, for instance, in administrative texts: mlb“.∆rmnm (6) k.y∆n.w.b.bt (7) mlk.mlb“ (8) ytn.lhm, ‘. . . As for the clothing of the

 

161

∆rmnm-gods when it is old, then in the house of the king clothing should be given to them’ (KTU 4.168 = RS 15.082.5–9). 1.6 Performative and prescriptive prose In this group I would include the medical texts, omens, rituals and contracts, though a distinction from other prose texts is not always easy. For instance, the protocol of necromancy through the medium Dtn, one of the royal deified ancestors, contains as a report an amalgam of narrative discourse, ritual and medical prescriptions (D – L 1990a, 212, 216). The Ugaritic liturgical prayer KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252 is an interesting amalgam of performative ritual language and descriptive hymnic prose with occasional parallelism. Though the style of contracts is basically performative and very formal, lym hnd RN mlk ugrt ytn bt/“d . . ., ‘On this day, RN the King of Ugarit gave the house, the field . . .’ (KTU 3.2 = RS 15.111; 3.5 = RS 16.382); lym hnd iwrkl pdy . . ., ‘On this day, Iwrikalli redeemed PN . . .’ (KTU 3.4 = RS 16.191+), we occasionally find instances of persuasive style complete with metaphor: . . . l.yi¢d ߆q“lm (2) b un∆.km.“p“ (3) d brt.kmt. (4) br ߆q“lm (5) b un∆ 'd 'lm, ‘No one shall take ͆q“lm in corvée-service. As the Sun who is free, so ͆q“lm is free from corvée-service for ever . . .’ (KTU 2.19 = RS 15.125). The largest category in this section comprises rituals. They are written with an exasperating concision (P – B 1992, 709). Many of the ritual texts look like administrative texts: a list of gods and the sacrifices administered to them. Some of them are even simple onomastica of gods (KTU 1.47 || 1.118; Akkadian RS 20.24, N, 1968, 42–64), perhaps a kind of canonical list of gods. Excerpts from this list and others, are extended in the rituals by sacrifices administered to them. This may happen by simple juxtaposition of name and sacrifice, e.g. b'l “, a∆rt “ ∆kmn w“nm “ 'nt “, r“p “, etc. (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+.15–6, with parallels), but also with a dative l (w∆n “m lb'lt bhtm, 'srm lin“ ilm, KTU 1.41.5, see also 1.81 = RS 15.130; in Hurrian texts dative -d/-da, plural -∆t/-a“ta). These lists can be preceded by date formulae of months and days: byr¢ ri“ yn. bym˙d∆ . . . b∆l∆t '“rt, ‘In the month Ri“yn (First Wine) on the day of the new moon . . . on the 13th day . . .’ Occasionally, and often interspersed between this lists of sacrifices, we find references to processions and other cultic rites to be performed. A basic question remains as to whether these rituals were meant to be ‘prescriptive’

162

 

or ‘descriptive’ (L 1963; P – B 1992, 709). My own preference is to see the references to ritual activities as habitual. This is consonant with the frequent use of imperfects indicating an incomplete action, if not an action to be performed, i.e. a jussive mode, or a prescriptive imperfect (P – B 1992). This prescriptive nature of the rituals is also consonant with the fact that some rituals have complete or partial duplicates. The ritual prescriptions usually mention or imply the king and the priest as officiants: b∆l∆t '“rt. yrt¢ß. mlk.brr, ‘on the 13th day the king shall wash himself clean’ (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+.3 and passim); wynt qrt y'db l 'nt walp w“ l il wb urbt ytk gdlt ilhm, ‘and he shall prepare a city-pigeon before Anat, a cow and a sheep for El and in the chimney he shall pour out (the blood of ) the cow for the ancestor-gods(?)’ (KTU 1.41.10 and passim); wtl˙m. a∆t . . . kl lyl˙m bh . . ., ‘. . . a woman may eat (from it) . . . nobody should eat from it . . . (KTU 1.115 = RS 24.260.8, 10).; . . . y“t.rpu.mlk.'lm. wy“t (2) [l] g∆r.wyqr . . wt“t.'nt.g∆r . . ., ‘. . . let the Healer, the eternal king, drink and let [the god] Ga“ru-and-Yaqaru drink . . . and let Anat of Ga“ru drink . . .’ (KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252.1–2, 6). This prescriptive prose style is particularly clear in the ritual where the king and the officiant priests celebrate together: id[.yd ]b˙.mlk l.prgl.ßrqn.b.gg (51) ar[b]'.arb'.m∆bt.azmr.bh.“.“r[ p] (52) al[ p.]w.“.“lmm.pamt.“b'.klbh (53) yr[gm.]mlk.ßbu.“p“.w.˙l.mlk (54) w.l[b“ ]n.ßpm.w.m˙[ y pn]h.t[∆]∆bn (55) b.b[t].w.km.i∆ y“ [u.l.]smm. yd[h] Then the king shall sacrifice to PRGL ÍRQN on the roof, on which there are four by four dwellings of foliage: a sheep as a burnt offering and a cow and a sheep as a peace-offering. Seven times the king shall say whole-heartedly (the prayer): ‘Host of the Sun and army of Maliku’. Clothe him with covers(?) and wipe his face, and let him return to the temple; and when he is present, he shall raise his hands to heaven. (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+.50–5) . . . [ ß]l[m.u“ ]¢ry ylb“ (23) mlk.ylk.lq˙.ilm (24) a∆r.ilm.ylk.p'nm (25) mlk.p'nm.yl[k.] (26) “b' pamt.lklhm . . . [the] sta[tue of U“]hari one shall dress. The king shall proceed to accompany the gods, people shall go behind the gods barefoot. The king shall also go barefoot, seven times for both(?) of them. (KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005.22–7)

Another instance of performative style in ritual, but in the second person plural, is the sacrificial ritual of the ancestor cult (KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126). The perfective forms have been understood as prescriptive narrative (as also in the Hebrew Bible Lev. 8–9;  M

 

163

1976, 335; H 1978b, 85), but I would suggest that they are performative or precative perfects: spr db˙ Ωlm (2) qritm.rpi.a[rß] (3) qbitm.qbß.d[dn] (4) qra.ulkn.rp[a] . . . tqdm 'ßr (31) “lm.“lm 'mr[ pi ] (32) w“lm.bnh!.“lm.∆ryl (33) “lm.bth.“lm.ugrt (34) “lm.∆Àrh Book of the Sacrifice of the ‘Shades’: You shall now invoke the Healers of the Earth, you shall now summon the Assembly of DDN: ‘Invited be ULKN, the Healer . . .’ You shall approach the festive assembly by saying the peace: Peace to Ammurapi; peace to his sons; peace to Ôryl; peace to his house; peace to Ugarit; peace to its gates.

Performative imperatives and jussive imperfects 2nd person sing. and plur. also occur in rituals: b t“' '“rh (2) trbd.'r“ [.]pd-(3)-ry.b “t.mlk . . . (25) l pn ll.tn'r (26) 'r“ . . ., ‘On the 19th day, you shall prepare the nuptial bed of Pidriya in the suite of the king . . . before the night, you shall shake up the bed . . .’ (KTU 1.132 = RS 24.291.1–3, 25–6). Note also the poetic prose incipit of the prayer in KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266: k gr 'z.∆Àrkm.qrd (27) ˙mytkm.'nkm.lb'l.t“un, ‘When a strong one attacks your gates, a warrior your walls, you shall raise your eyes to Ba'al (saying:) . . .’ (R.P. G 1991, 161–3). Such performative style is characteristic of Ugaritic rituals, just as for ancient Near Eastern rituals in general. A last good example is the expiatory ritual KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002 found in several mutilated copies: And present a young he-ass to obtain the release(?) of the Ugaritians and the expiation of the sojourners within the walls of Ugarit, the expiation of Yman, the expiation of 'rmt, the expiation of Ugarit and the expiation of Niqmaddu. Whether your faithfulness departed from the Qatian clans, the Dadmian clans, the Hurrian clans, the Hattic clans, the Ala“ian clans, the clans of Ãbr, the clans who robbed you, the clans of your faithful(?), the clans of Qrzbl—whether your faithfulness departed either because of your anger or because of your impatience, or because of the quarrels you had, whether your faithfulness departed for sacrifices and oblation, our sacrifice we should sacrifice. This is the oblation we oblate, this the offering we offer. Let it rise to the Father of the gods, let it rise to the family of the gods, to Ôukman and ”unam, this he-ass. (KTU 1.40.26–34)

The omen texts show a fixed pattern of prose sentences and syntax, like their Mesopotamian counterparts. Obviously, this type of literature derived from Babylonian tradition. Fragments of a dreambook (KTU 1.86 = RS 18.041) and a collection of astronomical omens (KTU 1.163 = RIH 78/14) have been preserved. The birth omens are represented by two main groups: the “umma izbu ‘If an abortion’

164

 

(KTU 1.103+ = RS 24.247+) and the “umma sinni“tu (. . .) ulid ‘If a woman gives birth to a . . .’ omens (KTU 1.140 = RS 24.302). The former is the better preserved collection and shows the well-known protasis-apodosis k tld X . . . Y(-n) structure. Characteristic of omens is the subject (+n) verb order in the apodosis (T 1994c, 469–70): Omens of small livestock. [If ] a ewe(?) bears a stone, then the majority in the land will fall victim; (if ) a snake follows after it, the young of its cattle will be weak, (if ) also a . . .; famine will be in the land, (if ) it has no . . ., the country will be destroyed; and (if ) [its belly] is open, a famine will be in the land . . .

Certain omens were checked by a second opinion of the haruspex (KTU 1.78 = RS 12.061), but inspection of the omina also drew forth ritual activity to eliminate the effects of bad omens. The lung model KTU 1.127 = RS 24.277, for instance, reveals an interesting instance of relationship between omen interpretation and ritual. It may have been an instruction model, but this is far from certain, since parallels are still lacking (M in D – L 1990a, 270–1). Nevertheless certain parts are marked by ‘borders’ containing small texts with ritual instructions, seemingly derived from omina observations. The most interesting instance is the instruction of a scape-goat rite to eliminate the danger of a city taken or a plague (D – L 1990a, 32–38, 270–1): hm qrt tu¢d.hm mt y'l bn“ (31) bt bn bn“ yq˙ 'z (32) wy˙dy mr˙qm If a city is besieged (and) if plague attacks a man, the citizen’s household will take a goat and banish it to the remotest parts. (KTU 1.127.30–2)

However not many other examples of such characteristic prose can be gleaned from the rituals. The style is often extremely concise and many phrases are still poorly understood, for instance 'rb.“p“. w˙l.mlk (KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056.56–7; 1.46+ = RS 1.009.9–10, 44, 1.112 = RS 24.256.9, 1.119 = RS 24.266.4, 23–4, 1.126 = RS 24.276.23?, 1.132 = RS 24.291.27–8), variant ßbu “p“ (w˙l ym 'rb “p“ ) w˙l mlk (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+.47–8, 53–4, 1.112.14–5), also ∆∆b rgm (bgn) w˙l mlk (KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+.23–4, 33). The context suggests a kind of morning or evening prayer spoken by the king.

2

U P

W G.E. W

2.1 2.1.1

Introduction

Scope

Almost from the very beginning of Ugaritic studies, account was taken of the verse component,1 but as yet there has been no fullscale description of Ugaritic poetry nor has there been an exhaustive examination of the principles involved, although several partial surveys are available.2 The best and fullest account so far is P (1989, 7–98)3 while a very detailed analysis of parallelism including phonological features in only one short passage (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ i 2–25) has also been completed (P 1988c, 1–67). In view of this state of affairs, the presentation here is not systematic; instead, it sets out a number of related topics under several headings. First, though, some account is required of the nature of the material under consideration and the problems it entails. 2.1.2 The texts The corpus of Ugaritic poetry is fairly easy to define: it includes all the mythological and epic texts, which are mostly in narrative verse, and excludes letters, legal and economic texts as well as most of the ritual texts as non-poetic.4 Some texts, however, are borderline, e.g. KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266:28–36); KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126 (P 1993a) and some verse texts contain prose elements (C 1974) e.g. KTU 1.113 = RS 24.247:1–11 = verse; 12ff. = prose list. Some 1 D 1935, 1936 (19412); G 1933, G 1936, O 1936, as well as C 1946, P 1944, Y 1948, 1949, etc., though inevitably the relationship to Hebrew poetry was to the fore. 2 UT § 13, K 1966, 172–6; G 1965 passim; S 1979; 1983; 1984, 109–10;  O L 1981, 31–62; A 1994, 13–25. 3 For a critique cf.  O L 1990, esp. 190–4. 4 ‘Features known as parallelistic may also occur in prose texts. Some Ugaritic epistolary formulae exhibit parallelism, and even some of the expressions in the body of the letters are arranged in parallelistic structures. This criterion alone cannot determine whether the text is poetry or prose. The other distinguishing feature of a poetic text is its division into prosodic units of approximately the same length’ (S 1979, 730).

166

 

speech introductions are extra-colonic but others comprise an integral part of the verse (see § 5.2.4.1). Thus, the corpus includes the Baal Cycle (KTU 1.1–6 = RS 3.361, 3.367, 3.346, 2.[014]+, 2.[008]+, 2.[022]+, 2.[009]+); the ‘Stories’ of Keret and Aqhat (KTU 1.14–16 = RS 2.[003]+, 3.343+, 3.325+; KTU 1.17–9 = RS 2.[004], 3.340, 3.322+); the Rapi’uma texts (KTU 1.20–1.22 = RS 3.348, 2.[019], 2.[024]); a wedding poem (KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194); incantations (KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134; KTU 1.96 = RS 22.225; KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244; KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+); a prayer (KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266:28–36; see  O L 1987, W 1996); a mythic marriage ritual (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002; cf. W 1994a); a funeral ritual (KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126; see P 1993a) and various fragments.5 A broad distinction can therefore be made between longer texts (mostly narrative) and relatively short texts (the remainder), with KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244 occupying a mid-position. On the whole problem see § 5.1.4. 2.1.3

Problems in studying Ugaritic verse

Apart from the poor condition of some tablets which makes many readings uncertain as well as leaving large gaps in the poetic texts, and the fact that the corpus is relatively small, certain specific difficulties combine to make the analysis of Ugaritic verse problematic. • Principally, for most of the tablets the stichometry is uncertain or at least not made clear.6 Exceptions include KTU 1.10 = RS 3.362+ (and to some extent KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002), where the verse-line corresponds to tablet line (cf.  O L 1991a, 463 and n. 3, W 1983 and W 1982). Occasionally, stretches of text are written with correct stichometry (e.g KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 1–23, with 23 consecutive verse-lines which match the lines on the tablet) and some of the worst sections are in Aqht. • At times, the vocabulary poses difficulties (e.g. gmn in KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ i 19ff.). Generally, this is not particularly an obstacle to determining poetic structure. However, when whole passages which are repeated are not entirely understood, (e.g. KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 14–7 and par.) problems do arise. 5 E.g. KTU 1.8 = RS 3.364; KTU 1.83 = RS 16.266—see P 1998,  O L 1996; KTU 1.92 = RS 19.039+—see  M 1985, D 1994, M 1989b; KTU 1.93 = RS 19.054—see D 1986. 6 See L 1976, 1986, K ‒ L 1987.

 

167

• The lack of vocalization and in general the absence of a tradition of pronunciation (although syllabic spellings are of some help where available) mean that we do not know how this poetry was recited or sung and there is no indication of metre (see below), especially as it is not known for certain where the stress lay. • There are several scribal mistakes; in addition, very often lines appear to be omitted (as is apparent from comparison of nearparallel passages)7 but it is not always clear when this was intentional (see § 5.7 on expansion/contraction) and when not (see  M 1978a, 130–1). • Almost all Ugaritic narrative is in verse, with no strictly comparable material in prose. Exceptions are the letters and to some extent the ritual texts, but these have their own special styles and to some extent Akkadian influence is evident in the letters, some of which were translations (see, e.g. M R 1992). It is, for instance, difficult to describe ‘normal’ syntax and then compare it with the syntax of poetry, due to the lack of material (S 1997, 210) (however see § 5.2.3.3 and § 5.2.3.5 below on verb forms and ellipsis). 2.1.4

Approaches

On the positive side, some assistance is provided by the tablets and several factors make study of Ugaritic verse easier. Quite often, as has been noted, whole passages of verse are repeated. Sometimes the correct stichometry is used and as has been said, the corpus is reasonably well-defined. Enough of the texts is understood for a degree of certainty in describing their poetic aspect and information from similar traditions (Akkadian, Hebrew, Phoenician) can be of some help. Also, text editions with translations now tend to include comments on poetic structure.8 M.S. Smith, who provides vocalization, semantic parallelism, word-count, syllable count, comments: Some remarks bearing on various sorts of parallelism—syntactic, morphological and sonant . . .—often follow the presentation of cola, although syntactic parallelism is not treated according to any specific system. Rather, it has been my interest to indicate how these sorts of

7

See, e.g. R 1939.  O L 1991, P 1988a, S 1994a, W 1998c, etc.; see also M 1980b (with the critique by  O L 1983) and M 1989a. 8

 

168

parallelism may bind and contrast cola, especially in the absence of apparent semantic parallelism (M.S. S 1994a, xxxiv).9

2.1.5

Metre

It is now generally accepted that Ugaritic verse is not metrical. Young discussed the possible existence of metre in Ugaritic verse and concluded: ‘If there is any metric [i.e. metrical] system in Ugaritic, it should show itself in some regular manifestation observable in the texts themselves without our trying to fit any system into them’ (Y 1950, 124). Two factors led him to this conclusion: (1) ‘there is no consistency in the sequence of similar stich combinations within a poem or within sections of a poem, much less a consistency of an accent-per-word pattern for the successive stichs themselves’ (Y 1950, 124) (2) ‘if an accentual meter existed at Ugarit, it might be seen in consistency between parallel passages within single poems, if meter were important to the composer, singer, or reciter of the poetry. No such consistency is found’ (Y 1950, 128). He added: ‘A poetry in which the outstanding feature is parallelism of thought; a poetry written in a language in which the majority of words are of one, two, or three syllables, and in a language in which almost any clause can be couched in from two to four words, is a poetry which naturally lends itself to the creation of lines of uniform metric length’ (Y 1950, 132). His conclusions have been accepted by Pardee who states that since there is no ‘regular, predictable or at least observable recurrence’ of rhythmic units in Ugaritic poetry it has no metre (P 1981, 116) and P (1989, 9–10) provides additional arguments.10 It has been suggested by de Moor that Ugaritic verse is written in free rhythm to match its musical accompaniment. Such music was probably led by a soloist and would fit the short stichoi of ancient West Semitic poetry. The fact that consecutive lines had a degree of regularity can be explained by the poets’ ‘pursuit of symmetry’ ( M 1978a, 132). Ultimately, ‘parallelism was the primary structural principle of Ugaritic poetry and . . . length

9 The aspect of literary translations of these texts cannot be discussed here; cf. S 1979, 738, P 1990 and L 1996. 10 M 1975, 1995, 215; endorsed by Z 1983 (but cf. P 1981–2, 259–72). H 1973, argues that the word-divider had a metrical function, but cf. S 1979, 730 (on KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194) and W 1983.

 

169

of line was only prescriptive in the general principle of approximation’ (P 1981, 126). 2.2 Language In general, the language of Ugaritic verse is archaic (P 1981–2, 267) and to some extent it also has its own vocabulary (see above). In respect of verb forms, the rules followed are unlike those for prose. The use of the qtl (or qatala) form in Ugaritic verse is distinctive: ‘While *qatala constitutes the characteristic form for past narration in the prose texts, its poetic usage is more restricted; the prefix forms [ yqtl, etc.] are the norm for poetic narration’ (M.S. S 1995, 789, following F 1973).11 Besides being used for the stative, reporting the past, continuing other perfects, the pluperfect, subordination and the performative, there are three usages specific to Ugaritic verse. These are ‘contrast with prefix forms’, ‘report of action commanded in the imperative’ and ‘delimitation of a section’ (M.S. S 1995, 790, with further references). Different or identical verb forms can occur in parallel lines (see § 5.2.3.3). Little research has been carried out on syntax, but for the Story12 of Keret, it has been shown ‘that word and sentence order remains completely unaffected by the type of verbal form present’ (W 1982, 31).13 2.3 Parallelism and the verse-line 2.3.1 General The basic component of Ugaritic verse is the verse-line which can be divided into two (parallel) half-lines or provided with a parallel line to form a bicolon. It is generally accepted, then, that parallelism is a fundamental component of Ugaritic verse, and it differs from prose precisely because parallelism is so prevalent.14 There are several 11

However, cf. § 4.4.2.5. According to G 1975, Keret is a myth and Aqhat a folktale. On literary forms in Ugaritic cf.  O L 1984b. 13 W (1982, 31) concludes: ‘Such interchangeability of verb forms with no appreciable effect on word order or sentence structure may well indicate a “frozen” state for some poetic passages, in which word order is fixed and immovable. Such passages could be inserted at any point of a narrative with only the necessary change of verbal form in the new context’. See also S 1997, 210–4. 14 ‘There is little disagreement that the most obvious and pervasive convention of the Ugaritic poems is parallelism’ (P 1989, 7, cf. 10). 12

 

170

types of parallelism, depending on meaning (i.e. semantic parallelism which can be synonymous—including numerical parallelism, antithetic or contrasting, alternating), syntax (grammatical; nominal and verbal; chiastic) and the lines (or parts of lines) comprising parallelism can have various degrees of separation (standard or near, internal, and distant) and can be grouped into bicola, tricola, etc. These types may or may not overlap. 2.3.2

Semantic parallelism

There are various sub-types of semantic parallelism. 2.3.2.1

Synonymous parallelism

This is the standard form of parallelism,15 where line A and line B say virtually the same thing: tmgnn rbt a∆rt ym (A) They ply with gifts Lady Athirat of the Sea, tÀ Ωyn qnyt ilm (B) they implore the Progenitrix of the gods (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ iii 25–6)

2.3.2.2

Numerical parallelism

Since numbers have no synonyms, synonymous parallelism involving numbers takes the form of n || n + 1 (where n is an integer), as in hm ∆n db˙m “na b'l ∆l∆ rkb ' rpt db˙ b∆t wdb˙ dnt wdb˙ tdmm amht (KTU 1.4 iii 17–21)

For two sacrifices Baal hates, three, the Cloud-rider: a sacrifice of shame and a sacrifice of prostitution and a sacrifice of handmaidens’ lechery

There are several other examples.16 2.3.2.3

Antithetic parallelism

Although relatively rare, contrasting or antithetic parallelism does occur,17 e.g.

15

P 1974, P 1988b, S 1984, 109. See the bibliography in W 1991b, 241, n. 2 and 242, n. 3, esp. A 1973 and 1981 and L 1973. 17 W 1986 = 1994b, 468–77. 16

 

171

“t “pt larß “pt l“mm set a lip to the earth, a(nother) lip to the sky (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002:61–2)18

and, in spite of the missing text: [g]m tß˙q 'nt [Al]oud did Anat laugh, wblb tqny [. . .] but in her heart she was hatching [a plot?] (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] vi 41–2)

2.3.2.4

Alternating parallelism

More problematic is the existence of what appear to be non-parallel bicola (S 1983, 300). Such non-parallel lines can be explained in several ways. For example, a line such as hm i∆ l˙m wtn wnl˙m, ‘If there is food, then give so that we may eat’ appears to be prose, but in view of its counterpart, the lines are evidently in alternating parallelism (indicated by A/A’ and B/B’): hm [i∆ l]˙m (A) If there is food, wtn wnl˙m (B) then give so that we may eat hm i∆ [yn] (A’) If there is wine, [w]tn. wn“t (B’) then give, so that we may drink (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002:70–2).19

Elsewhere the overriding pattern of parallel couplets tended to generate non-parallel couplets. 2.3.3

Grammatical and syntactical parallelism

A complete match in grammatical terms is evident in “l˙m ““qy ilm Give food, drink to the gods, sad kbd hmt wait on, honour them (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] v 19–20).21

VVO20 VVO

The verbs in the parallel lines of a couplet can be in various ‘tenses’, giving rise to types such qtl || qtl, qtl || yqtl, yqtl || qtl and yqtl || yqtl etc.22 On qtl in Ugaritic verse see above. Note also that a verbal clause can be in parallel with a noun clause: 18

See M 1996.  M 1993, 204 adduces KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iv 46–50. 20 V = ‘verb’; O = ‘object’. 21 Parallel to KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] v 29–30, perhaps with hendiadys here. 22 C 1971, F 1969, 1973, H 1962, 1965, M.S. S 1994, W 1989 = 1994c, 240–9. 19

 

172

al t“rgn ybtltm Do not delude me O Virgin, dm lÀzr “rgk ¢¢m for your delusion to a hero is sheer rubbish. (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004]+ vi 34–5)

Perhaps chiastic parallelism belongs here, as in sb ksp lrqm turned had the silver into sheets ¢rß nsb llbnt the gold had turned into bricks (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ vi 34–5)

where the components of line 1 are switched around in line 2.23 On chiasmus see W (1974).24 2.3.4

Parallelism based on degree of separation

Internal or half-line parallelism occurs when only one line is involved, for example: rgm 'ß l¢“t abn Word of tree and whisper of stone (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 22–3 and par.).

Here, the two halves of the line are in parallel.25 Standard or near parallelism is none other than the couplet formed by adjacent lines (see above). In distant parallelism, which serves to bind together longer sections of text, there is a gap between the lines involved (P 1988c, 193–201, esp. 199–200). In general, the standard verse pattern comprises two sequential lines, as if parallelism were the accepted norm, although it is not always present. Quite often couplets can be formed from two (formulaic) monocola (P 1989, 23). 2.3.5

Ellipsis and ballast variant

Ellipsis (or gapping) is the absence of one or more elements (e.g. a verb) from a line which would be expected but is or are understood to be present.26 For example, the verb tbl (+ suffix) is taken to be present in the second line of tblk Àrm mid ksp May the mountains bring you plenty of silver, «tblk» gb'm m˙md ¢rß the hills «bring you» choicest gold27 (KTU 1.4 (= RS 2.[008]+) v 31–3) 23 24 25 26 27

See W 1983c,  M 1993, 193. Note also ‘gender-matched parallelism’ (on which cf. W 1981a). See W 1984b, 1985, 1988b = 1994b, 104–44. K –  M 1998, 11. See S 1997, 215–6. The ‘missing’ element is indicated by « » ( M 1993, 200).

 

173

A ballast variant is the use of a longer expression (usually in the second line) for its corresponding and evidently shorter equivalent (usually in the first line) and is related to ellipsis. ‘The principle of ellipsis in poetry is the converse of (and goes hand in hand with) the principle of ballast variants.’ (UT § 13.105). For example: wykn bnh bbt Sired be a son for him in the house, «wykn» “r“ bqrb hklh «Sired be» a scion within his palace (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 25–6 || 42–3)

Here, the ballast variant of bbt in the first colon is bqrb hklh in the second colon, which compensates for the the ellipsis of wykn in the second colon Similary, zbl b'l arß is the longer equivalent of aliyn b'l (matching the ellipsis of wid' ) in: Then I shall know that Mightiest Baal lives, «I shall know» that the Prince, Lord of the Earth, exists. (KTU 1.6 iii 8–9; also KTU 1.17 i 36–7; KTU 1.18 iv 17–8). wid ' k˙y aliyn b'l ki∆ zbl b'l arß

Ellipsis in the first colon is rare, occurring almost exclusively in ‘staircase parallelism’ (see § 5.2.4.2): ht ibk b'lm «tm¢ß» Now, your enemy, O Baal, «do strike», ht ibk tm¢ß Now, your enemy strike etc. (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 iv 8–9)

As A (1985, 23–6). has explained, such ellipsis frees space in the second line for some elaboration of a parallel item in the first line and also isolates the expanded topic for attention.28 2.4

Verse paragraphs

Lines of verse can occur in relative isolation (monocola) or clustered in sets varying from two (couplets) to seven or more. These combinations of cola29 are described here.

28 See also G 1983. S ‒ Y (1998, 404–5) discuss ellipsis of a single word in KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 i 20–1; KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iv 5; KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ iv 42–3; KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 11–2; KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] i 21–4, and ellipsis of an expression in KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 iv 6; KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iv 39–40. 29 S 1983, 302; 1984, 108 § 71.32.

 

174 2.4.1

Monocola

Although the standard strophic form is the couplet, single lines or monocola occur very frequently. They appear as introductory monocola drawing attention to speaker and in this form are prose, e.g. “m' lm∆t ˙ry ‘Listen, O Lady Hurriya’ (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 16–7). When expanded to a bicolon or tricolon (see section on expansion/contraction), they are verse. Several are speech-openers. It is sometimes difficult to determine whether a line of verse forms part of a longer unit (bicolon, tricolon, etc.) or is entirely separate, e.g. 'd l˙m “ty ilm While they ate the gods drank. (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ vi 55)

Is this line a monocolon or an introduction to the next two lines? The function of the monocolon is to open and close sections of verse. They can also mark a climax, as in ßÀrthn. abkrn The youngest of them I shall make the firstborn (KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 16).

Some monocola exhibit inner parallelism30 and so conform to the prevailing feature of Ugaritic verse. An example is the standard formula balp “d rbt kmn by the thousand “iddu, the myriad kumànu (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iv 38 and many times elsewhere).

2.4.2

The tricolon

True tricola, where all three lines are in parallelism (AA'A"), are rare, e.g. l ys' alt ∆btk Surely he will l yhpk ksa mlkk Surely he will l y∆br ¢† m∆p†k Surely he will (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 27–9

remove the prop of your seat, upset the throne of your kingship, smash the sceptre of your rule. (and par.).

Some comprise a monocolon followed by a bicolon (ABB'): t'db imr bp¢d She prepared a lamb in flour lnp“ k∆r w¢ss for the appetite of Kothar-and-Hasis lbrlt hyn d˙r“ ydm for the craving of Hayin, skilful with both hands. (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] v 22–5)

30

See W 1984b, 1985a, 1988b = 1994b, 104–44.

 

175

or, have the reverse formation (AA'B): ydd wqlßn He stood and insulted me, yqm wywp∆n He got up and spat on me, btk p¢r bn ilm right in the gathering of El’s sons (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ iii 12–4).

A special type of tricolon, called ‘staircase parallelism’, where the initial line is interrupted by a vocative and then repeated in complete form, occurs several times,31 e.g. ir“ ˙ym laqht Àzr Ask for life, O Hero Aqhat, ir“ ˙ym watnk Ask for life I and I shall give it to you, blmt wa“l˙k for non-death, and I shall grant (it) to you. (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] vi 26–8)

One function of tricola is to slow the pace of the narrative which then requires more attention (P 1989, 16). 2.4.3

The quatrain or tetracolon

There are various forms of the four-line strophe, including AA'A"A' " adnh y“t mßb mznm Her father set the beams of the scales, umh kp mznm her mother, the trays of the scales. i¢h y∆'r m“rrm Her brothers settled the pointer, a¢th labn mznm her sisters, the stones of the scales. (KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194:33–7) AA'BB' t“m¢ ht a∆rt wbnh Let Athirat and her sons now rejoice, ilt wßbrt aryh the goddess and the throng of her kin, kmt aliyn b'l for dead is Mighty Baal, k¢lq zbl b'l arß expired has the Prince, the earthlord (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ i 39–43)

Some are formed when one couplet is inserted into another, as in dnil ysb palth Daniel went round his blighted land, bßql yph bpalt he saw a stalk in the blighted land, bßql yph byÀlm he saw a stalk in the weeds, bßql y˙bq wyn“q he hugged and kissed the stalk. (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ ii 12–5).32 31 See A 1972, G 1974, 1977, L 1969 = 1980, 281–309. ‘Staircase parallelism’ is more correctly analysed as apostrophe plus epanalepsis (W 1982). 32 As identified by D ‒ L 1973a (but cf. 1973b) and  O L

 

176 2.4.4

The pentacolon

An example is: bh p'nm t†† On her, her feet quake, b'dn ksl t∆br behind her, her loins burst, 'ln pnh td' above, her face perspires, tÀß pnt kslh the joints of her loins quiver, an“ dt Ωrh the muscles of her back. (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ ii 16–20; || KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 32ff. || KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ ii 44ff.)

Again, much like the quatrain (see above) pentacola arise when a tricolon is inserted into a bicolon, as in dy“r wydmr Who sings and plays bknr w∆lb with lyre and flute, btp wmßltm with drum and cymbals, bmrqdm d“n with ivory castanets b˙br k∆r †bm in the company of sweet(-voiced) Kothar. (KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252:3–5)33

2.4.5

Longer sequences

Hexacola are relatively rare in Ugaritic (cf. L 1989). The following comprises an introductory line and a five-line speech: ∆m ydr krt ∆' i∆t There Keret the votary vowed a gift:34 a∆rt ßrm wlilt ßdynm ‘Oh, Athirat of Tyre, and goddess of Sidon, hm ˙ry bty iq˙ if I take Hurriy to my house, a“r'b Àlmt ˙Ωry and bring the damsel into my dwelling, ∆nh kspm atn twice her mass in silver shall I give, w∆l∆th ¢rßm and three times her mass in gold!’ (KTU 1.14 = RS 3.343+ iv 36–43)

Other hexacola may be KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 3–8a; KTU 1.3 iv 48–53 (|| v 39–44 || KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ i 12–8; iv

1981a, 34 and  M 1978a, 137, n. 41. Other examples in W 1997a, 30–5 and 1997b. 33 For another example cf. D ‒ L 1982. 34 The meaning of ii∆t (= i + i∆t?) is disputed (cf. DLU, 1 and 60); here I follow W 1998c, 200–1; see esp. nn. 115 and 117. Another possible translation is ‘The gift of ‘A∆iratu of Tyre, the goddess of Sidon (is this):’ (P 1997a, 336). For yet another translation cf. M 1997.

 

177

50–7); KTU 1.12 = RS 2.[012] ii 58–61; KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] vi 43–5.35 Other sets are heptacola, KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ v 11–9 and its near-parallel KTU 1.6 ii 31–5,36 the eight-line sequence KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ i 14–22 and the nine-colon set KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+ 38–44. 2.5

Strophe and stanza

A stanza is ‘a fixed . . . or variable . . . grouping of lines that is organized into thematic, metrical, rhetorical, musical, or narrative sections’ (M ‒ S 1989, 288), though whether this definition would be recognised by the poets of Ugarit is a moot point. The only poem with an apparent sequence of strophes or stanzas37 is KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244 which is divided into 14 sections by ruled lines. Of these, sections 2–11 have the same number of verse-lines (i.e. 10) due principally to almost wholesale repetition. The first section (KTU 1.100:1–7) has 14 lines because the initial couplet has been expanded to a quatrain (see W 1997a, 35).38 The last two sections differ completely from all the others. Thus, although these sections are actually marked off on the tablet, as P (1978, 104) comments: ‘this is unquestionably owing . . . to the extra-poetic structure of the text and the comparable length of the sections is owing to the repetition within this structure’ and ‘any attempt to find strophes in Ugaritic poetry as a prosodic or poetic element . . . is doomed to failure’. 39 Analysis is limited to identifying shorter or longer sets of verse-lines (couplets, tricola, quatrains, etc., as above), with no regularity or predictability.40 Even so, this remains a useful exercise, and Ugaritic poetry can be segmented into sections based on content, sometimes marked off by features such as certain particles (apnk, etc.) K ‒  M 1986, 190–1 = 1988, 30–1. See previous note. Cf. W 1998c, 135 n. 83 and 141 n. 108. 37 The terms ‘strophe’ and ‘stanza’ as denoting lines of verse grouped into sets are used almost interchangeably (cf. C 1992, 915–6, 921), although stanza is more correct. On strophe, M ‒ S 1989, 291 note: ‘In contemporary usage, the term usually refers to any stanzaic unit containing irregular lines’. 38 Each ‘stanza’ has 10 lines (= 1 + 9); the first has 14 (4 + 1 + 2 + 7). 39 See also P 1993a, 208, n. 2 (ruled lines do not mark off ‘strophes’). 40 A very interesting attempt at dividing the Story of Keret into (three) chapters, each further subdivided into 6 cantos of 5 canticles or strophes, has been made by S 1988, although the incomplete form of the original text precludes cast iron conclusions. See also L 1966. On a smaller scale cf. D ‒ L 1978, H 1995, K 1988. 35 36

 

178

a tricolon, peculiar syntax ( M 1993, 197–200), speech introductions and the like, though these generally reinforce what has already been indicated by the meaning of the passage concerned (see, for example, the headings in  O L 1991a, 158–235, etc.).41 2.6

Repetition

Repetition takes on various forms. Repetition of sound takes the form of end-rhyme, alliteration, assonance and wordplay and is discussed below (§ 5.2.10). Repetition of words can occur at the beginning of a line (anaphoric), at line end (cataphoric), as immediate repetition of words (epizeuxis), and in the form of identical word pairs42 (or repeated over several cola, as keywords). Sometimes whole lines (or sets of lines) are simply repeated, which in terms of strophe and stanza, results in envelope figure and refrains. Lastly, complete passages recur, sometimes unchanged, sometimes in altered form (see § 5.2.7; P 1989, 26–52). A selection of these types of repetition is considered here.43 2.6.1

Repetition of words

For example, repetition of one word at line-initial, as in idk al ttn pnm Then you shall set off 'm Àr trÀzz towards Mount TrÀzz, 'm Àr ∆rmg towards Mount Thrmg, 'm tlm Àßr arß towards the two hillocks at the edge of the earth (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ viii 1–4)

The function here is apparently to depict a long journey. Repetition of a word consecutively occurs rarely and most examples come from a single text (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002). One function may be to demand attention or convey urgency: y nÀr nÀr pt˙ Hey! Watchman! Watchman! Open! (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002:69–70)

Similarly, y mt mt, ‘Oh, husband, husband!’ (KTU 1.23:40 and 46); y ad ad and ad ad, ‘Father, father!’; um um, ‘Mother, mother!’. More

41 For an attempt along these lines cf. S ‒ K 1971, although their scheme was much too rigid. 42 See especially B 1970. 43 On repetition in Ugaritic see Z 1987 and H-P 1992.

 

179

striking is the repetition of six consecutive lines beginning tld pÀt . . . ‘She shall bear a girl . . .’ (KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 7–12).44 2.6.2

Repetition of lines

ytlk llbnn w'ßh They went to Lebanon and its trees, l“ryn m˙md arzh to Siryon (and) its choice cedars; hn llbnn w'ßh Yes, Lebanon and its trees, l“ryn m˙md arzh to Siryon (and) its choice cedars. (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ vi 18–21)

Again, the purpose of the repetition, perhaps, is to depict a long journey. 2.6.3

Repetition of passages

Ugaritic narrative poems are constructed using passages which are repeated, sometimes verbatim, sometimes with slight variations.45 Sets that recur several times include the list setting out the six duties of the model son (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 26–33 and par.; H 1995); the ‘gift-list’ in the Keret Story (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ iii 22–5 and par.; H-P 1992) and the ‘peace-offering ritual’ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 14–7). Typically, a passage comprising a ‘command’ is then repeated for the ‘performance’ or fulfilment of that command, e.g. KTU 1.14 ii 6–iii 19 and KTU 1.14 iii 52–iv 31, or else an invitation (KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] iii 2–4) and its acceptance (lines 5–8; see  O L 1981a, 58–60) It is significant, perhaps, that segments of verse (couplets, etc.) could occur in different sequences, for example, in KTU 1.14 v 40–2 (restored) || vi 10–2, the couplets A

wng mlk lbty r˙q krt l˙Ωry B al tßr udm rbt wudm ∆rrt C udm ytnt il wu“n ab adm

And depart, O king, from my house, go far, Keret, from my dwelling! Do not besiege Greater Udum, or Lesser Udum; Udum is a present of El and a gift of the father of Man

come in the sequences ABC (KTU 1.14 iii 27–32), BCA (KTU 1.14 v 40–5) and ACB (KTU 1.14 vi 10–5) and in addition, the word 44 According to P 1997a, 338, n. 51 this may be a list of the daughters’ names, now lost. 45 Cf.  O L 1991a, 58–62, P 1989, 26–52.

 

180

pair ng || r˙q is inverted the last two texts. Unless due to dictation error, this indicates that verse was composed in formulaic passages, perhaps orally. 2.7 Expansion and contraction In Ugaritic the poets were free to expand single lines to bicola and in turn form tricola from bicola. The process could also be reversed, with longer strophes becoming shorter. It is certainly the case that a line can be expanded to a couplet, as in: “m' m' laliyn b'l Listen, please, O Mightiest Baal! (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ vi 4)

which becomes “m' laliyn b' l Listen, O Mightiest Baal, bn lrkb 'rpt understand, O Cloud-rider! (KTU 1.4 v 59–60)46

A single line can also be extended to a tricolon. For instance, Pughatu’s core epithet is ∆kmt mym ‘(she who) shoulders water’, and it can occur alone (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iv 28); it can also be expanded by two further epithets: ˙spt l“ 'r †l, ‘scooping dew from the barley’ and yd 't hlk kbkbm, ‘knowing the course of the stars’ (cf. M 1989a, 364–5). The prose formula wrgm lkrt ∆' t˙m pbl mlk,47 ‘And say to Krt the Noble, “Message of King Pbl” ’ (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ v 32–3), which derives from everyday usage, is expanded by applying parallelism to each half to form two bicola: wrgm lbn ilm mt And say to divine Mot, ∆ny lydd il Àzr Repeat to El’s beloved, the hero t˙m aliyn b'l “Message of Mightiest Baal, hwt aliy qrdm The word of the Mightiest warrior”. (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[014]+ viii 29–35)48

However, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a poet has intentionally added or omitted a line (or lines) or whether these are accepted variants. For example, in

46 47 48

See L 1980a = 1992, 230–9,  M 1978b, 1980. Restored from similar formulae. L 1980b, 256–61.

 

181

ß˙ ¢rn bbhtk Call a caravan into your house, 'dbt bqrb hklk merchandise into the midst of your palace. tblk Àrm mid ksp The rocks will bring you much silver, gb'm m˙md ¢rß the hills attractive gold. yblk udr ilqßm let the quarries bring you choice gems. (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ v 15–6 and KTU 1.4 v 38–40)

The last line is present in the two parallel passages but has been omitted in KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ v 31–3. Is this a mistake or a deliberate contraction? Since it is of little significance, it was probably left out unintentionally. However, in the two club-naming passages, it is only when the command line yprs˙ ym wyql larß May Yam crumple and fall to earth (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 iv 22–3)

is given to the weapon that it is effective and achieves the intended result (line 26); this line does not appear either in the previous naming or in the unsuccessful previous attempt, which indicates its omission there to be intentional. Each case has to be judged carefully because the copyists49 did occasionally leave out lines by mistake but generally speaking the poets could expand or contract as they saw fit. 2.8

Word pairs

It has been noticed that there seems to be a large set of word pairs which recur in Ugaritic verse and that many have equivalents in other verse traditions of the ancient Near East.50 The problem then arises: Did the poets have a sort of ‘dictionary of word pairs’ on which they drew to compose their verse, which was probably originally oral,51 or were these pairs the side-effects of their use of parallelism and of (oral) formulaic language?52 As is evident from the following, the matter is unresolved. In such word pairs, the ‘A-word’ is usually commoner than the ‘B-word’, e.g. klb || inr, ‘dog’ || ‘puppy’ (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i 12; KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258:13) and any particular A-word may 49

See H 1974, 1977, 1979. Cf. A 1984, D 1972, 1975, 1981,  O L 1984a, W 1976. However, see the cautionary remarks of   L ‒  M 1974. 51 See P 1988a, 160, D ‒ L 1980b. 52 Another possibility is that they arose through word association (B 1983), but see below. 50

182

 

be paired with several different B-words (e.g. ib, ‘enemy’ || ßrt, ‘adversary’ or qm ‘one who rises against’ or “nu, ‘hater’). 53 Often a word pair is related to a theme, e.g. arß || “d, ‘earth’ || ‘field’, and is connected with fertility as in n'm larß m†r b'l Pleasant to the earth is Baal’s rain, wl“d m†r 'ly and to the field the rain of the Most High. (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ iii 5–6, 7–8)

as also in KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 16–7 and par., KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ v 18–9; KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ ii 16–7, 19–20. Most word pairs are bound to a formula or formulaic expression with fewer that are non-formulaic and many of these are repeated pairs, as Aitken has shown for the Aqhat Narrative. He comments: This calls into question the notion of the word pair as a compositional device, functioning independently of the formulas and formulaic expressions or of a thematic or/and formulaic context within the tradition. While there are indications that a narrator could ‘learn’ a word pair as a word pair in one context and use it quite independently in another, this was the exception rather than the rule. In the overwhelming majority of examples, the repository of word pairs is the formulas and themes of the narrative tradition, and their appearance in the narrative is a spontaneous reflex of the formulary and thematic habits of that tradition, and not of the production and manipulation of word pairs. Neither spontaneous word association, nor the ‘learning’ and subsequent deployment of ‘generally useful’ word pairs has played a significant part in the generation of recurrent word pairs within the narrative (A 1989b, 38).54

Very rarely, word pairs are reversed, generally to denote some form of reversal of events. Compare al t“t urbt bbhtm You shall not install a window in the mansion, ˙ln bqrb hklm an aperture within the palace. (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ v 64–5 || 61–2; vi 5–6, 8–9)

with the reversal of urbt || ˙ln, which matches the sense, in ypt˙ ˙ln bbhtm Let an aperture be opened in my mansion, urbt bqrb hklm a window within the palace. (KTU 1.4 vii 17–9 || 25–7).55

53 54 55

Cf. A 1984, 344–9 and S 1984, 108. See also K 1981, 27–40. See W 1981b = 1994b, 262–6.

 

183

Word pairs, then, were an integral part of the poet’s composing technique and the very traditional character of versification in Ugaritic resulted in most pairs remaining ‘fixed’. 2.9 2.9.1

Formulae and formulaic patterns

Formulae

The Ugaritic poems were composed using traditional formulae, sometimes with modifications or complete transformations.56 A common type of formula is the one which introduces speech and it can take many forms. Typical examples are wy'n l†pn il dpid Answer did Lutpan, kindly god (KTU 1.1 = RS 3.361 iv 13)

where the slot l†pn il dpid could be filled by the appropriate name or epithet, and y“u gh wyß˙

He raised his voice and exclaimed

which can be altered to suit gender and number where necessary. There is a whole range of such formulaic introductions.57 It was also accepted convention that such introductions could occasionally be omitted, either because they were implicit or for dramatic effect.58 2.9.2

Formulaic patterns

The formulaic patterns to portray the passing of time are of two types. The first has as its core two expressions, one denoting time and the other an activity, as in the single line: hn ym yßq yn Behold, for a day they pour wine (KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] i 17)

and either or both expressions can be extended to cover more time (up to a sequence of seven days) or further activity (cf. KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 21–4; KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] ii 30–40). In the second pattern, the time expression denotes a period of days, months or years and activity is continuous, e.g. 56

See W 1981, also M 1986. W 1983a = 1994b, 414–24; 1992a. Some of them had elaborate preambles; cf. W 1994d. 58 W 1990 = 1994b, 425–30. 57

 

184

ym ymm yt'qn A day, two days elapse, lymm lyr¢m from days to months, r˙m 'nt tng∆h Maid Anat (still) looks for him. (KTU 1.6 = RS 5.180+ ii 26–7).

Once again these patterns can be extended. They are used for themes such as making a journey (KTU 1.14 iv 31–5), preparing a banquet (KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] i 21–6) or to depict a ruling monarch (KTU 1.6 v 5–10; KTU 1.16 vi 21–4). They also have other functions within the wider framework of the narratives.59 2.10

Sound patterns

In spite of the lack of vocalization, some idea of the patterns of sound exploited by the poets can be gained from the texts and a few examples are provided here. 2.10.1

Alliteration

Particular words and forms were often chosen for reasons of alliteration although this feature should not be exaggerated.60 First comes the simple word-initial type, as in ap ank a˙wy aqht Àzr I too shall revive Hero Aqhat (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] vi 32–3).

Quite often consecutive lines of verse began with the same letter which may indicate they were intended to be read as well as performed. An example, with line-initial i- twice, is in b'l bbhth Baal is not in his mansion, il hd bqrb hklh the god Hadd, in his palace. (KTU 1.10 = RS 3.362+ ii 4–5)

(W 1980 = 1994c, 431–4). In addition, multiple alliteration seems to have played a part in longer sections of verse as has been shown by P (1988c).

59 A 1987. See also L 1965 = 1980, 192–209, P 1989, 46–52 (‘Repetition with a numerical framework’), T 1995 and W 1969. On theme cf. A 1990, 1991a, H 1973, L 1990 and on motif, W 1984a. 60 M 1975, 310–3, 1979, 1980a.

  2.10.2

185

Wordplay

Undoubtedly, plays on words formed part of Ugaritic verse but because our knowledge of the language is limited, many puns escape us.61 A few examples can be given, however. ytt n˙“m mhrk I hereby give you a snake as your bridal gift bn b∆n itnnk a serpent’s son as your present. (KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244:75–6)

Here, the use of the rare word itnn is apposite as it evokes tnn, the mythical serpent monster, and the wordplay between itnn (‘present’) and n˙“ || bn b∆n, both denoting ‘serpent’ is transparent. Another example is 'z ym lymk Yam was strong, he did not sink. (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 iv 17)

The play between Ym (probably pronounced yammu) and the verb form ymk (yamukku) is self-evident. Another verb such as yql, ‘he fell’, would have been less effective.62 2.11

Figurative language

Ugaritic poetry is relatively rich in figurative language and includes similes, metaphors and metaphorical expressions, personification and apostrophe63 as well as imagery. Occasionally it is difficult to know where to draw the line between mythological language (as in ‘the rain of the Cloud-Rider’, which refers to Baal) and extravagant expression (e.g. ‘rain with which the stars anointed her’). Here, examples are provided under appropriate headings, though it is not always easy to make clear-cut distinctions.64 2.11.1

Simile

In similes, the particle k (or km), ‘like’, is used, as in t“t kyn udm't She drinks tears like wine (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ i 10)

61 62 63 64

For a complete survey see W 1999. ‘Janus parallelism’ is another form of wordplay; cf. N 1995. See, e.g. W 1984c = 1994b, 460–4. See, in general, K 1990.

 

186

though it can be omitted through ellipsis. Similes rarely come singly, as they are mostly in sets of two, for example: He was clothed like a mantle in his brothers’ blood, km all dm aryh like a cape, in his kinsmen’s blood. (KTU 1.12 = RS 2.[012] ii 46–7)65 klb“ km lp“ dm a¢h

or in sets of three: t˙th kkdrt ri[“ ] Beneath her like balls were hea[ds], 'lh kirbym kp above her like locusts were palms, kqßm Àrmn kp mhr like grasshoppers in a swarm, warrior palms. (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ ii 9–11)

and once, a set of four: KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20:3–4. Similes can be drawn out at length (as extended similes), indicative, perhaps of an oral, improvising style, e.g. km tdd 'nt ßd Just as Anat hurries to the chase, t“tr 'pt “mm (and) sets the birds of the skies soaring away, †b¢ alpm ap ßin (so) they butchered oxen as well as sheep, “ql ∆rm wmri ilm felled bulls and the fattest of rams, etc. (KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] i 10–4).66

Only one cumulative simile has been identified: klb ar¢ l'glh Like a cow’s heart for its calf, klb ∆at limrh like a ewe’s heart for its lamb, km lb 'nt a∆r b'l so is Anat’s heart after Baal. (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009] ii 6–9)

2.11.2

Metaphor

Metaphor is little used in Ugaritic verse. For example, fertility is expressed metaphorically as “mm “mn tm†rn Let the heavens rain oil, n¢lm tlk nbtm the wadis run with honey. (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ iii 6–7)

Many metaphorical expressions are used such as dm 'ßm ‘blood of trees’, for grape juice and †l “mm ‘dew of heaven’ for rain. In some metaphors the mythological meaning may be muted, e.g. wytn qlh b'rpt, ‘and may he (Baal) give his voice in the clouds’ (KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ v 8). 65 66

For another example cf. W 1991a. See also I 1983, but cf. P 1988a, 127–9.

 

187

However, ‘the lack of comparable contexts in Ugaritic prose makes the recognition and evaluation of these and other poetic figures difficult and uncertain’ (S 1979, 733). 2.11.3 Imagery Besides expressions such qr 'nk ‘the well of your eyes’ (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i 26) to denote tears, weapons are said to fly off and strike like birds of prey (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 iv 13–7), a tree stands for descendants (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iii 53–4; cf. P 1997a, 354, n. 121), Mot’s domain is described as being a town (qrt) called ‘Miry’ (hmry), in a land called ‘Filth or Mud’ (¢¢: KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ viii 12–4 || KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ ii 15–6), a mountain weeps (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i 7) and so on. Occasionally the imagery is obscure due to our lack of knowledge (e.g. KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 57–8; KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] vi 36–7). Hyperbole also occurs (W 1979 = 1994b, 452–60). The use of abstract for concrete is extremely rare, perhaps only ßrt, ‘adversary’ (see above) and t'dt ‘legation’67 (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 i 22; cf. G 1965, 22, n. 6).68 2.12

An example

In order to illustrate some of the poetic structures, rhetorical techniques and expressive language described above, a passage is set out here in tabular form, with analysis, comments and discussion. 2.12.1

A king is chosen (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ i 43–65) keyword ||m

description

text

line translation

introd. to sp.

43

01 02

Aloud shouted El to Lady A.Y.

non-par. bicolon

03

“Listen, O Lady A.Y.

monocolon

Give (me) one of your mlk sons so I can make him king!”

monocolon

44

speech: El

gm yß˙ il lrbt a∆rt ym

“m' tn

67 68

45

46

lrbt a∆rt ym

a˙d bbnk amlkn 04

As aptly translated by M.S. S 1994a, 266. For an example of imagery cf. W 1992b.

 

188 (table cont.)

keyword ||m

description

text

line translation

introd. to sp.

47

wt'n rbt a∆rt ym

05

And Lady A.Y. replied

48

bl nmlk yd ' yl˙n

06

‘Shall we not make a person of intellect king?’

49

wy'n l†pn il dpid

07

And El, merciful god, replied

monocolon

‘One feeble of strength cannot run (or) like B. release the javelin like the son of Dagan. . . . .’

tricolon

monocolon

speech: Athiratu

introd. to sp. speech: El

introd. to sp. speech: Athiratu

narrative

dq anm lyrΩ

08

51

'm b'l ly'db mr˙

09

52

'm bn dgn ktmsm

10

53

w'n rbt a∆rt ym

11

And Lady A.Y. replied

54

blt nmlk '∆tr 'rΩ

12

55

ymlk '∆tr 'rΩ

13

‘Shall we not make Awesome Athtar king? Let Awesome Athtar be king!’

56

apnk '∆tr 'rΩ y'l bßrrt ßpn

14 15

57

58

y∆b lk˙∆ aliyn

p'nh ltmÀyn ri“h lymÀy introd. to sp. speech: Athtar narrative

60

59

16

hdm

17

b'l

61

apsh

18

monocolon

lamlk bßrrt ßpn

20

‘I shall not be king in the heights of Íapùnu’

63

yrd '∆tr 'rΩ

21

Awesome Athtar came down, came down from the throne of Mighty Baal, and was king in all the vast earth.

65

wymlk barß il klh

23

mlk

bicolon

62

22

bicolon

his feet did not reach the footstool, his head did not reach its extremity. And Awesome Athtar said:

lk˙∆ aliyn b'l

mlk

monocolon

tricolon

19

64

mlk

Then Awesome Athtar went up to the heights of Íapùnu, he sat on the throne of Mighty Baal;

wy'n '∆tr 'rΩ

yrd

monocolon

mlk

monocolon tricolon

mlk

  2.12.2

189

Comments

The following selective remarks are set out in the sequence of topics adopted above, and there is a brief overall evaluation (on the whole passage see now X 1996a). General The passage is a combination of speech and narrative, linked by the formulaic introductions to speech which are all monocola (except for 01–02 which is a non-parallel bicolon). Stichometry In 13 of the 23 lines, the verse-line corresponds to the line on the tablet (i.e. 05–16, 09–15 and 20–23). Lines 14–18 could be analysed in several other ways (e.g. monocolon + two bicola) or one could argue that they form a pentacolon.69 On the other hand, although amlkn (04) could be a single-word separate line, it would seem to belong to tn a˙d ba¢k amlkn, like the corresponding expression tn a˙d ba¢k ispa (see below). Similarly, some scholars argue that ktmsm (10) comprises a separate line,70 although this view has not been accepted here. Others argue that 08–10 comprises a couplet.71 Language Difficulties are caused by the lack of a clear translation, especially of 08–10 (survey:  O L 1984, 77). The expression barß il klh has been translated in various ways.72 The epithet yd ' yl˙n, perhaps ‘he knows, he understands’, may be a hendiadys and occurs only here. Also unique is aps, ‘edge’ and the form nmlk is found only here (twice);73 on blt, see below. The verb form amlk is used elsewhere only in KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 37, 53, also in the context of a failed would-be usurper to the throne. The formula tn a˙d ba¢k, ‘Give (me) one of your brothers (so that I may . . .)’ occurs later in this text (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ v 19–20, where Mot is speaking to Baal), but nowhere else.

69

According to M (1980b, 143), lines 01–13 are all ‘monostichs’. See e.g. G 1994, P 1997a, 269, n. 246. 71 K ‒  M 1986, 180 = 1988, 12. For a different approach see E 1965, 441–2. 72 E.g. ‘la terre dont il est maître’, by X 1996, 387, discussion 390–1. 73 The first occurrence (06) could be an N-stem, but this verb form is rare and here it is causative, probably D (S 1997, 116.135). 70

190

 

Parallelism The best examples are 12–13 and 17–18. In many ‘couplets’ it is absent (eg. 01–02); ‘staircase parallelism’ is present in lines 21–23. Antithetic, distant parallelism is effected by lines 16 and 22 ( y∆b lk˙∆ aliyn b'l—yrd lk˙∆ aliyn b'l ) and lines 20 and 23 (lamlk bßrrt ßpn—ymlk barß klh). Strophes and stanzas The strophic sequence of monocola, bicola and tricola is unpredictable,74 and inasmuch as there is any demarcation into stanzas or sections, these seem to be 01–06, 07–13, 14–18 and 19–23. The only clear division is signalled by the combination of apnk and a tricolon (14–17). Repetition The title rbt a∆rt ym, ‘Lady Athirat Yam’, occurs 4 times in 23 lines, '∆tr 'rΩ, ‘Awesome Athtar’, occurs 5 times, but mlk occurs 6 times. In view of the content, which primarily concerns kingship, the keyword here, then, is mlk, ‘to rule, be king’. Crucially, it is missing from the first narrative section (14–18), where Athtar attempts to sit on Baal’s throne and fails miserably (mlk = Ø). However, in the second narrative section, where he actually rules over the earth, it does occur, only once but to effect. It is interesting that when bl is repeated it takes on a form with enclitic -t which is found only here (A 1974, 27).75 Sound patterns Consecutive lines beginning with the same letter are 09–10 (' ), 15–16 ( y) and 21–22 ( y again). Alliteration also occurs in the name + epithet sequences, notably '∆tr 'rΩ, and perhaps in the obscure yd' yl˙n; see also ßrrt ßpn. There is probably wordplay between 'rΩ and yrΩ. Word pairs These include p'n || ri“ (found only here) and the repeated pairs l || l, mlk || mlk, mÀy || mÀy and 'm || 'm. Figurative language Apart from the comparisons in the difficult tricolon where the wouldbe king is compared to Baal, there is virtually no figurative language, but Athtar does perform a symbolic act (descent from the throne). 74 It is possible that lines 20–23 form a split couplet with inserted bicolon; cf. W 1997a, 31. 75 For a similar usage in respect of enclitic -m see W 1992c, 238–9.

  2.12.3

191

Discussion

The passage demonstrates the difficulties caused by uncertain stichometry and obscure language, especially in 06 and 08–10. Also, it is not always clear how lines were grouped together to form couplets or higher units. However, overall the structure is quite evident and there are no textual problems to complicate matters. The mix of speech and narrative is fairly typical and the use of repetition and stock formulae is offset by the presence of rare vocabulary and grammatical forms. The interpretation of the passage is quite clear (no suitable successor to Baal has been found)76 and is reinforced in particular by the keyword (mlk), while of course the passage forms part of a larger whole (the Baal Cycle). 2.13

The character of Ugaritic poetry

Much of the above is concerned with techniques and rhetorical devices,77 but this does not mean that the aesthetic dimension is absent. Even though we do not know who the poets of Ugarit were nor for whom they composed their verse, it is evident that they were masters of the language and well able to manipulate it in a variety of ways, attracting and holding the attention of their listeners or readers.78 To do justice to such aspects would require detailed study of each composition for which there is no space here.79 Enough has been provided, one hopes, to whet the appetite for closer reading. As in some other ancient Near Eastern verse traditions, perhaps the most salient feature of Ugaritic poetry is its unpredictability, a feature which runs right across the board from prosodic structure to complete compositions. This means in effect that, with a few exceptions, length of line, whether two lines will be parallel or not and if so, the type of parallelism adopted, whether a speech will or will not have an introduction and whether the introduction will comprise one line or several, sequences of bicola, tricola and so on, how

76

For a nuanced approach cf. W 1998c, 132, n. 75. Though the survey has not been exhaustive, e.g. rhetorical questions have not been considered (cf. H 1969). 78 See, for instance, W 1988a = 1994b, 434–45 on delaying devices in Ugaritic verse. 79 For examples of close analysis see H 1989–90, M 1989a, T 1986, V 1987. 77

 

192

many lines there are in a ‘strophe’ or ‘stanza’, etc., are all completely variable. Generally speaking, studies of Ugaritic poetry pay considerable attention to similarities with other verse traditions, particularly ancient Hebrew (e.g. A 1994, P 1989). While this is useful, especially when features from other traditions can throw light on Ugaritic, it is also of interest to determine in what respects Ugaritic differs from such verse traditions. The question to be asked is: what is unique or special to Ugaritic verse? According to S (1979, 731), ‘The most prominent feature of Ugaritic poetry is its parallelistic structure. It can be said that no other literature of the ancient Near East, Semitic or non-Semitic, exhibits such consistent application of this structure’. Other features which could be mentioned include the use of verse for narrative (which though rare or virtually unknown in Hebrew or Phoenician, is common in Mesopotamian tradition) and a general lack of hymns (though this could be due to chance). In addition, there is a tendency to alter repeated (parallel) passages slightly. Special verse patterns such as ‘staircase parallelism’, and its combination with anadiplosis (notably in KTU 1.10 = RS 3.362+), the use of word pairs in fixed sequences, with variation and inversion rare, the use of chiasmus to show two or more individuals acting as one (e.g. KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] v 10–1) and the split couplet80 all seem to be peculiar to Ugaritic. Also, unlike Hebrew and Akkadian verse, there is no clustering of similes or of lines with inner parallelism.81 However, descriptions of actions as preludes to speech and lengthy introductions to speech are commoner in Ugaritic than in Hebrew verse, whereas abrupt or unmarked speech is rare.82 ‘If there is a specific contribution made by Ugaritic to a poetic tradition . . . [it] seems to lie in injecting originality into a well-worn, stereotyped body of versification . . . The single copies of the Ugaritic tablets that have been found are, perhaps, the work of a single school which re-worked stock and static verse and made it sparkle with new life’.83

80 81 82 83

W W W W

1997a, 1997b. 1985b = 1994b, 157. 1994d, cf. W 1990 = 1994b, 425–30. 1983b = 1994b, 68.

CHAPTER SIX

THE UGARITIC LITERARY TEXTS

1

T M T J C.L. G 1.1

1.1.1

The Baal cycle

The tablets

The Baal mythological cycle is the largest text from ancient Ugarit, taking up six tablets (KTU 1.1–6: 1.1 = RS 3.361, 1.2 iii = RS 3.346, 1.2 i–iv = RS 3.367, 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+, 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+, 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+, 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+) and comprising in its surviving portions around fifty per cent of the contents. Each tablet is written on both sides and usually has six columns, although 1.2 has only four and 1.4 has eight. KTU 1.6 has the heading ‘of Baal’ and, although the other tablets have their tops missing and it remains a conjectural point, this was probably written on them all and is the title of the whole composition. KTU 1.4 has a note on the edge, ‘The scribe is Ilimilku, the master, Niqmad being king of Ugarit’, while KTU 1.6 has at the close a full colophon, giving the information that Ilimilku was not only the scribe but a student or assistant of a high religious officer of King Niqmad, probably the second of that name. So the composition was officially approved. At a banquet scene in KTU 1.3 i there is talk of chanting and singing and of a minstrel (n'm). This suggests a possible Sitz im Leben in the royal palace, though equally possible is some festival in the temple of Baal, in the library of which the tablets were inscribed. No doubt the king himself was often present. For a translation and full bibliography consult W, 1998c, 33–146. 1.1.2

The contents

The plot or story-line centres around a contest (under the overall supervision of El) for the kingship over gods and men, and divides itself usefully into three parts, each consisting roughly of two tablets.

194 1.1.2.1

  Baal and Yam-Nahar (KTU 1.1–2)

The first part leads up to Baal’s defeat of his rival Prince Yam (sea), also called Judge Nahar (river), with the help of two maces constructed for him by the divine craftsman, Kothar-and-Hasis, a story told in the last column of 1.2 (iv). The evidence of what happened prior to the battle is, however, not at all so clear, since 1.1 is very imperfectly preserved. But near the beginning (1.1 ii) a message is sent from the supreme god, El, to Anat, Baal’s sister, calling on her to perform what seems to be some kind of ritual, which involved setting an offering of war in the earth (perhaps the burying of weapons) and, following this, offerings of love and peace. This ritual may originally have had to do with ceremonies for the cessation of hostilities; but it was not, as far as we can tell, performed by Anat, so it is more likely that the passage uses ritual language to express a wish on El’s part that the notorious goddess of war and love should abandon her more savage ways and, in particular, not employ them in her brother’s support. It is an important indication of the way El desires things to work out. Thereafter in 1.1 iii Kotharand-Hasis is summoned to El’s distant abode, perhaps as an ally of Baal, to be given a similar warning; for clearly Yam-Nahar is at this point being favoured by El, since in 1.1 iv he accords him royal status in a kind of ceremony of coronation. By 1.2 i, however, Yam-Nahar is worried; for he sends an embassy to the divine assembly, complaining that Baal has been reviling him and demanding his surrender. El appears to sympathize but Baal, who is present, objects strongly and sends an angry reply back to Yam-Nahar. In 1.2 iii, a large fragment (perhaps out of place in its present position), El instructs Kothar-and-Hasis to build a palace for Yam-Nahar, and the claims of a minor rival, Athtar, are dismissed. When, after a sizeable gap, the text resumes, the battle between Baal and Yam-Nahar is joined, Baal with the encouragement of Kotharand-Hasis wins and, though it is not according to his plans, the supreme god has presumably to accept that Baal is now king. 1.1.2.2

The Palace of Baal (KTU 1.3–4)

These tablets concern the building of a palace for Baal, from which he may exercise his newly achieved kingly power. After a victory banquet (1.3 i), the goddess Anat resumes her warlike ways and

  

195

mercilessly slaughters the inhabitants of two unnamed towns, thereafter repeating the process with a number of soldiers and guests in her own mansion (1.3 ii). At the beginning of the next column (1.3 iii) she sings of her affection for her brother, but Baal, perhaps like El before him, perturbed by her behaviour, sends messengers to her requesting her to perform the same ‘ritual’ for peace as El had previously asked for, but also tells her to visit him and help him search for the secret of the lightning. She has to be reassured that YamNahar and his cohorts, whom she had worsted in the past, had been finally dealt with and were no longer a threat to Baal (1.3 iv); but she decides to call on him to find out for herself what is really worrying him. It transpires that what Baal has set his mind upon is to have a palace like other gods, and she herself goes to El’s abode to press Baal’s suit, which she does in too threatening a manner and apparently has it turned down (1.3 v). A new plan has to be concocted, the working out of which takes up the last column of 1.3, all of 1.4 i–iv and half of 1.4 v. This involves the preparation of gifts for El’s consort, Athirat, and the enlisting of her intercession with the supreme deity. Though we know from elsewhere that she is no friend of Baal’s, she persuades him to let Baal have his palace. Anat takes the good news to Baal, and he immediately summons Kothar-and-Hasis to build a palace for him on his sacred mountain Saphon (1.4 v 27ff.). At the end of of column v the divine craftsman suggests that it should have windows in it, but at the beginning of column vi Baal refuses to entertain the idea lest, it seems, his old enemy Yam-Nahar may gain entrance and again wreak havoc on earth. The house is soon finished and a celebratory feast held (1.4 vi). Column vii tells how Baal then marches through the surrounding territory, annexing a large number of cities and towns and thereby forming an empire for himself. Returning home flushed with success, he puts away his former fears and resolves that after all he will have windows in his palace. He thunders out of them; the earth reels and people far and near are terrified, his enemies cling to the rocks in dismay, and he openly taunts them: would anyone, prince or commoner, now dare to resist his royal power? Column 1.4 viii nicely leads into the third main division of the cycle as Baal sends messengers to the underworld abode of Mot inviting him to a feast to acknowledge his sovereignty.

 

196 1.1.2.3

Baal and Mot (KTU 1.5–6)

Mot’s embassy back to Baal dismisses this invitation contemptuously (1.5 i). Rather Baal, just as he once transfixed Yam-Nahar, will soon be descending to Mot’s subterranean domains where he will be swallowed down and torn limb from limb by him. Baal, now in dread of Mot, sends an abject reply (1.5 ii). In 1.5 v (after two very poorly preserved columns) Mot’s messenger is advising Baal to take his wind and cloud and his other attendants down to the underworld and assume the condition of the strengthless dead. Baal obeys, but on his way he has connexion with a heifer, who is delivered of a boy whom Baal clothes in his own robe. 1.5 vi relates how the substitute’s dead body was found at the edges of the earth and El, on hearing the news in his mountainous home, descends from his throne and wallows in sackcloth and ashes, wondering what will now become of Baal’s followers. In KTU 1.6 i Anat and the sun-goddess Shapsh together bury the surrogate corpse, and Anat goes on to the abode of El to inform Athirat and her brood that they can now rejoice because Baal is dead. A short interlude follows in which Athirat proposes Athtar for the vacant kingship, but on proving unfit to take Baal’s place he resigns. In KTU 1.6 ii Anat, seemingly now aware of what has happened, goes to the underworld to search for the real Baal. She confronts Mot and summarily slays him, and then (1.6 iii) returns to El to inform him that Mot is no more. She invites El to have a dream, in which he sees the heavens raining oil and the valleys running with honey; this shows that Baal still lives. In 1.6 iv Anat is invited by El to speak to Shapsh, and they make plans for Baal’s return. KTU 1.6 v and vi tell of Baal’s restoration to full vigour in the world above, and also of Mot’s recovery after seven years. They argue threateningly with each other, at least some of the time on Mt Saphon, and finally fall to fighting. They butt and gore like wild animals, and both fall exhausted to the ground. At this juncture the goddess Shapsh arrives to warn Mot that fighting with Baal is useless, for El is now on Baal’s side. Mot, at last afraid, picks himself up and declares that Baal is rightfully king. 1.1.3

Interpretation

Since the early days of Ugaritic research the Baal cycle has nearly always been interpreted as a ritual and seasonal text, either enacted

  

197

dramatically at Ugarit’s New Year festival in the autumn or, more broadly, as reflecting ritual events that took place at certain points of the Syrian agricultural year (see e.g. H 1962 [1938], G 1950,  M 1971, 1972). Such views, in various shapes, are still influential in ancient Near Eastern, including Old Testament, studies, but over the years they have been increasingly and quite severely criticised (F 1966, G 1976, M.S. S 1986, W 1996a, 1998a). Few would argue today that where we have a myth, a ritual basis must be assumed or that the proper ordering of the seasons and their role in natural, or even human fertility were the only or even the chief interests of Ugaritic mythology. A good example of an agrarian meaning being read into a passage is the description of Anat’s destruction of Mot in KTU 1.6 ii 31ff., which speaks of her threshing him with a ‘blade’, winnowing him with a sieve, burning him with fire, grinding him with millstones, and then throwing his remains into the open fields for the birds to eat. Commentators have seen in this a mythological counterpart of a ritual ceremony held each year at the time of the grain harvest. How Mot’s discomfiture at this time is to be equated with his normal role later in bringing about the summer dryness, or with his ongoing role in swallowing human bodies, is not said. Much more likely is the view that the whole scene is metaphorical (L 1972); cf. the not dissimilar language used of the destruction of the golden calf in Exodus 32:20. In other words, Anat destroys Mot thoroughly; there is nothing more to it than that. Of late it has been argued (e.g. by W 1996a, 1998a) that some of the themes in the Baal cycle, notably the Chaoskampf, are much more archetypal than merely agricultural, and that they may really be referring to issues of kingship and the exercise of power in the ancient world. The way the gods behave is a mirror image of the way rulers in this world behave or should behave. Approaches along these lines could be much more fruitful. The part played in the story of the cycle by the supreme god El is particularly revealing here (see further G 1984). The three great deities (and one minor candidate), whose exploits fill the cycle, are battling essentially for supremacy over the earth. The kingship to which they aspire is, as El’s viceregent, to control the earth, YamNahar through the waters which surround it and are the source of its streams and rivers, Baal through his rains and thunder and the air which people breath, Mot through the droughts and dryness he

198

 

can cause. Baal is the victor in the contest, becoming the ‘prince, lord of earth’ (KTU 1.3 i 3–4; 1.5 vi 10; 1.6 iii 9; 1.6 iv 29), holding at bay the unruly waters from outside and bringing the dry season to an end by his rains. But there is much more than these naturalistic roles to the three of them. Yam-Nahar also engenders moral chaos or evil in the lives of mankind, Mot eventually finishes everyone off, while Baal by his control of the atmosphere can be regarded as the life-force in the world of Ugarit. He did not only secure year by year the ordered succession of the seasons, but every day of every year he had to wage a constant battle against evil and death in the lives of humanity, so that the one did not cause too many depredations or the other gain too many victims too soon. That was really why Baal became the favourite god of the people of Ugarit. But he became this in the last resort under the supervision, indeed by the connivance of El reigning from his distant abode beyond the earth. From the standpoint of people on earth, looking around them in fear and trembling, the encounters between the negative and positive forces in their environment were tense and awesome affairs, and Baal’s victory was always in the balance and never certain. But the people of Ugarit could also take comfort from their belief that beyond the squabbling powers that impinged so insistently on their everyday lives stood a remoter but by no means disinterested figure, the god El, who had fathered the gods, the nice and nasty both, and had created the universe, contrary powers and all, who must therefore have planned it that way and built both good and evil into its very fabric, and who could for that very reason be trusted to uphold its equilibrium. For all his mistakes, his choosing the wrong side, his blustering, his pleading, his changes of mind, his putting up with impertinence from his underlings, his—if you will—lack of power, he was the one ultimately in charge, whom the other gods had to visit for approval whenever they had an enterprise planned, and whose was the final decision, which, however reluctantly, they had to accept. And perhaps most remarkably of all, he masterminded the balance he sought, not by calling on openly superior force but by relying upon an engaging mixture of diplomacy and conciliation, sharpness and persuasion. He arranged it so that usually good and life triumphed, but even evil and death were his ‘darling’ and ‘beloved’ children (KTU 1.1 iv 20; 1.4 viii 23–24) and had, as it were, their rights too. This is the view of reality espoused by the people of

  

199

Ugarit, their explanation of the divine ways with the universe and with human beings, their estimate of power and the manner it is exercised; it is, for all the fancifulness with which ancient peoples in their myths expressed themselves, mature and not lacking either faith or irony. It may have involved naturalistic reasoning, but it involved a great deal more besides. 1.2

Other mythological texts

There are in KTU quite a few other mythological texts or at any rate partly mythological texts, that is, passages embedded in legends, hymns or rituals. The larger of these, like Keret (KTU 1.14–16 = RS 2.[003]+, 3.343+ and 3.325+) and Aqhat (KTU 1.17–19 = RS 2.[004], 3.340 and 3.322+) which some may prefer to call legends or sagas, or the Rpum texts (KTU 1.20–22 = RS 3.348, 2.[019] and 2.[024]), are given separate treatment later in this chapter (§§ 6.2–4 below). Many of the rest are mere fragments, e.g. extracts from the Baal cycle used probably for scribal practice (KTU 1.7 = RS 5.180+, KTU 1.8 = RS 3.364, and KTU 1.133 = RS 24.293). I concentrate here on the most intriguing and (relatively) well preserved texts. They are all commented on, with up-to-date bibliography, in W, 1998c. 1.2.1

Baal and Anat (KTU 1.10 = RS 3.362+)

This tablet has three columns of text on one side of the tablet only. Of the first column little readable text survives, but at the beginning of the second Anat calls on Baal (also called Hadd) in his palace. On being told that he is out hunting in the Shamak marsh, she follows him there, and is warmly welcomed. She sees a cow giving birth and is apparently seized with passion, as is Baal who mounts her before returning to his sacred mountain. As a consequence she gives birth to a bull and, on her taking the news to Baal, he rejoices. Some scholars attach the tablet to the Baal cycle, but it is more likely that it belongs to a series recounting his dalliances with his sister (e.g. KTU 1.11 = RS 3.319 and KTU 1.13 = RS 1.006). It is not obviously theogonic, ritualistic or seasonal. 1.2.2

The Devourers (KTU 1.12 = RS 2.[012])

This difficult text survives in two columns. The first tells of the conception of monstrous creatures by the handmaids of the deities Yarih

200

 

(the moon-god) and Athirat (the wife of El), who complain to El that they are being caused distress by carrying them. The head of the gods, doubtless their begetter, is amused by this, and instructs the handmaids to go into the desert to bear their offspring. In his naming of them they are likened to bulls and steers. Baal is present, and he expresses a great interest in them, perhaps for hunting purposes. In the second column, after a long gap, the offspring, called the ‘devourers’, set upon and destroy Baal, who falls into a swamp, after which the earth suffers a drought for seven or eight years. He is eventually found by his brothers and and restored. At the end of the text a few lines tell the king to perform a water ritual, presumably to guard against the disaster caused by the ‘devourers’. This disaster cannot be a seasonal disaster but is a long-lasting one. The real point does not seem to be about Baal but about El fathering such dangerous creatures. 1.2.3

Hymn to Anat (KTU 1.13 = RS 1.006)

A hymnic text, interesting mythologically for its portrayal of the complex character of Anat, called the ‘virgin’ in the Baal cycle, and in the final lines here described as voracious to bring forth, although her womb had not known conception. There is no need to connect the hymn with any specific ritual, e.g. an incantation against infertility. 1.2.4

The Gracious Gods (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002)

A quite substantial text, written on both sides of a single column tablet and nearly complete. It is clearly a cultic tablet, most of the obverse consisting of little hymns, blessings on the king and queen and the ministerial personnel, instructions about repeating certain lines, about niches for the gods, about incense offerings, and so on. There are also citations from a few mythological texts, in some cases merely a heading, but in two cases rather fuller; in ll. 8–11, there is a short excerpt about Mot-and-Shar (‘death and the prince’, a byname of the god of death), and in ll. 30–76 a longer story about El’s seduction of two women (perhaps the goddesses Athirat and Anat), who give birth to Shahar and Shalim and then to the gracious gods as a whole. Mot-and-Shar holds in his hands the sceptres of bereavement and widowhood, and is felled by the ‘pruners of the vine’. His removal from the scene makes it possible for El,

  

201

the progenitor of the gods, to father offspring on the two women. It is interesting that the first deities to be born are Shahar and Shalim, whose names mean ‘dawn’ and ‘dusk’; we may compare the beginning of Genesis where the division of day and night is the first act of creation. But it is the behaviour of the gracious gods after birth that is worth remarking on. They open their mouths greedily to swallow the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, and are sent off by El with their mothers into the desert where for seven or eight years they hunt for food. They eventually come upon someone called the ‘watchman of the sown land’ who invites them in to continue their eating and drinking. Is the meaning of this myth that the gods are not satisfied with the natural provision of the open country, but require in addition the offerings of the cultivated land which human beings bring them? It is unlikely that such a profound observation, in effect that though mankind are clearly dependent on the gods, they in their turn are dependent (or at least partially so) on mankind, would be confined to one particular ceremony, agricultural, fertility-angled or otherwise. Doubtless this myth found expression on numerous liturgical occasions at Ugarit. It is a not untransparent theogony or explanation of how and why the gods came into existence. 1.2.5

Nikkal and the Kotharat (KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194)

The mythological portion of this text, written like the last one on two sides of a single tablet, relates how a deity called Hirhib, king of summer, who behaves like a typical eastern marriage-broker, arranged the betrothal of a lunar goddess Nikkal to the moon god Yarih. It is probably, like the second narrative in the previous text, an extract from a fuller theogonic myth. This tale is preceded and followed by hymns of praise and invocation to Nikkal, Hirhib and the Kotharat, who are the sages-femmes of the Ugaritic pantheon. In the first hymn the Kotharat are summoned to oversee the birth of a son to the two moon deities. The last lines of the second hymn with their allusions to incantations to the Kotharat, betray the purpose of the whole poem, which is to secure for a human girl Prbht the same blessing and protection in her forthcoming marriage as had been enjoyed by the goddess Nikkal in hers. Probably, with the necessary change of the girl’s name, the text was regularly recited at ceremonies of engagement and courtship.

202 1.2.6

  Shapsh and the Mare (KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244)

This is a long and excellently preserved but difficult text containing in the opinion of most commentators a charm against snake-bite. The daughter of the sun-goddess Shapsh (or perhaps simply a mare, as her name may be translated) calls on her to carry a message to El, Baal and various other deities in order to obtain help from them in curing the malady. Only when the god Horon (apparently a chthonic deity) is approached is a positive response forthcoming. According to others, however, the text is chiefly a mythical narrative, not a charm and the serpent mentioned represents some cosmic disaster which is removed by Horon. 1.2.7

El’s Banquet (KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258)

This is description of a banquet to which El invites the other gods and at which he falls outrageously drunk. The last lines on the reverse contain an incantation for the cure of a disease or perhaps, as has been suggested, a hangover. The texts assembled here, some of recent discovery, give us a glimpse of the diversity of Ugaritic mythology but, apart from the Baal cycle and other larger texts like Keret and Aqhat, their extent is not very great. We have some way to go before a comprehensive account is possible. Perhaps the only things we can say is that myths are not always, if much at all, connected with ritual, and especially that Near Eastern, including Ugarit, mythology is not always, if much at all, obsessed with matters of seasonal agriculture or fertility.

2

T L  K B M

2.1

The history of the text: discovery, publication, editions

2.1.1 The poem of Keret is one of the three major literary works which gifted Canaanite poets of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500–1200 ) bequeathed serendipitously to 20th century civilization. Excavated at modern Ras Shamra on the northern Mediterranean coast by a French archaeological team in the early thirties (1930–31), the poem was published in three unequal instalments by the Assyriologist V, beginning with a monographic study in 1936 and concluding several years later with a series of articles in the periodical Syria (vols. 22–23) published during the war. Accordingly, only the monograph was widely known and accessible before 1945, although a great deal of interpretation, much of it fanciful, was current in the interim. 2.1.2 After the war, the text was republished or re-edited several times. Gordon reproduced Virolleaud’s text in the successive editions of his Ugaritic Grammar. A new and critical edition was published by H in 1963. This much acclaimed two-volume work consists of all the alphabetic texts, literary and other discovered in the thirties, together with photographic plates and autograph facsimiles. Generally abbreviated as CT(C )A, this edition established the by-now standard numeration of the Keret text as 14–15–16, corresponding to Virolleaud’s IK-IIIK-IIK respectively. 2.1.3 CT(C )A was followed by a new edition published in 1976 by a team of Ugaritic specialists affiliated with the University of Münster (Westphalia) headed by Oswald Loretz. Entitled Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (KTU ), it contains (in transliteration only) all the alphabetic texts discovered up to 1970. In this edition the Keret poem appears as KTU 1.14–15–16 = RS 2.[003]+ 3.343+ 3.325+, the initial cipher indicative of its classification as a literary-poetic text. A revised edition appeared in 1995. It too has the transliterated text only. 2.1.4 The text of the poem, labelled krt by the ancient scribe after the royal hero of the story, is distributed over three rectangular clay

 

204

tablets of similar size (21×17 cm; 15×17 cm; 23×17.5 cm). Each tablet comprised originally six double-ruled columns, three on each side, and altogether contained approximately a thousand lines of compactly written text. Of the three, only KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ is relatively well-preserved, and with the aid of the many duplicate passages in this portion of the poem can be restored nearly to its pristine state. Most Ugaritic specialists hold that the extant tablets never comprised the entire poem and assume that one or more tablets have been lost, especially at the conclusion (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi); this despite the colophon at the end of KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi naming the scribe Ilumilki who committed the poem to writing (spr). 2.1.5 Since its discovery, Keret has been translated many times and into several languages, either as part of an anthology of Ugaritic literary texts or more broadly of ancient Near Eastern texts. 2.1.5.1 The major translations, and the most widely cited, are the ones by (a) G, first in his ASOR monograph (1946) and subsequently as part of P’s anthology (ANET ); (b) G.R. D (1956) later substantially revised by G (1978); (c) H, in a work jointly produced with C and S (TO1) in 1974, and (d)  O L in 1981, where the Spanish translation is accompanied by extensive analytical discussion and a unique synoptic presentation of alternative translations.1 2.2

The history of (mis)interpretation

2.2.1 The history of the poem’s interpretation during the past sixty years can be divided into three phases. Initially it was the subject of extravagant claims of historicity and ‘biblicization’.2 The hero was thought to have been a Phoenician king whose legions, including members of the Israelite tribes of Asher and Zebulon, waged war in the Negeb region of Palestine and in Edom. Progeny or devotees of the biblical Terah, the father of Abraham, were also thought to be involved. However, rapid progress in Ugaritic philology put a 1 Also noteworthy are G 1977, 34–59;  M 1987, G 1997, 9–48; L 1997 and P 1997a, 333–43. See also W 1998c, 175–243. 2 Uncannily reminiscent of the Eblaite euphoria some 40 years later; plus ça change. . . .

   

205

quick and merciful end to this euphoric era and to the fata Morgana of biblical persons and tribal entities. Of the alleged geographical allusions, only the shrine of Asherah in the environs of Tyre and Sidon would survive the debacle; and even this determination was destined not to go uncontested (Cf. A 1973, 29–39). 2.2.1.1 Still, there is wide if not consensual agreement today that two fundamental insights of this early era in Ugaritic studies retain their validity, viz., (a) Late Bronze Age Keret, like Aqhat, reflects a literary genre qualitatively different from the mythological tales of Baal, Anat, and the members of the Ugaritic pantheon generally—this notwithstanding the prominent roles of divine actors in both poems; (b) the main works of Ugaritic literature—Baal-Mot, Keret and Aqhat— are ‘classics’ of Late Bronze Age Canaanite civilization and culture and as such were known in Iron Age Canaan generally and in ancient Israel specifically. 2.2.2 A second and similarly fleeting phase in the interpretation of Keret was introduced by the Scandinavian, secondarily British, Myth and Ritual School, represented—at its most extreme—by the publications of Engnell and Mowinckel. The former considered the poem ‘a ritual for the Ugaritic sukkot festival’ (E 1967, 149) The wedding party for Keret and his bride described in KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ is characterized as ‘originally the [i¢rÚw gãmow] of the god and goddess, celebrated annually and co-experienced by the participants as they watched the cult-drama and also when indulging in sacral prostitution’ (E 1967, 148). For Mowinckel, on the other hand, the poem exemplified myth attenuated as legend; behind the portrait of the hero as a Phoenician king stands the figure of Adonis: ‘[in Keret] the god is . . . strongly anthropomorphized; the original god has become the dynastic founder, the mythic first ancestor of the royal family . . . the poem is no longer a real myth, but a mythic hero-legend.’3 2.2.2.1 If the shortcomings and misconceptions of the French historical school were the result of inadequate philology, those of the myth-ritualists were the product of faulty methodology. By means of

3 M 1941, 142–3, as translated by E 1967, 148. See further M 1954, 52–5.

206

 

careful selection and tendentious interpretation of certain model texts, ‘evidence’ is created proving the existence of ‘an organic [ANEastern] culture . . . whose special feature is the domination throughout by the divine kingship idea’ (E 1967, 2). This ‘pattern’ is then applied to other texts assumed a priori to reflect this ‘pattern’. The explanatory value of this theory is commensurate with its (non-)falsifiability. Basic to this approach, which breathed its last in Ugaritic studies with G’s monograph in the mid-fifties,4 is the axiom that any ancient Near Eastern literary text, be it myth or legend, is necessarily ‘functional’, and almost invariably so in the cultic sphere where the ancients are presumed to have spent all their leisure time. In Gray’s words, ‘the text . . . was not an aesthetic exercise’—presumably the author’s understanding of literary creativity—‘but served a practical purpose in the community where it was current to achieve some desired end or to conserve . . . all the social conventions and the social order’.5 2.2.2.2 It is also typical of this approach that its advocates do not feel constrained to demonstrate precisely how this ‘conservation of values’ is actually implemented in the poem or how an audience might infer such a conclusion. It never occurs either to Engnell or to Gray to query whether the story might not be understood by at least some readers or listeners in a quite different, even opposed, manner, e.g., as underlining the perilousness of a social order predicated on the health of an individual, mortal king supported in turn by a bunch of rather inept gods; or that the author of Keret, far from preaching the doctrine of divine kingship, might in fact be condemning it by means of a lethal dose of parody. In the final analysis, the failure of the Myth and Ritual school lies in its denial of the literary ontology of the text.6 4

G 1954, revised and attenuated in G 1965. G 1954, 4–5. In all fairness it should be noted that he concedes that the poem ‘was not deliberately [so] designed’ (ibid., 5). But nowhere are we informed what this ‘original’ design may have been, since it surely was not a mere ‘aesthetic exercise’. This concession, however, contradicts the Myth-Ritual postulate of a cultic ‘Sitz-im-Leben’ for all texts with divine characters and in fact heralds the school’s demise. 6 Contrast the astute observation of  L 1958, 131, citing B (1941, 89–91) that ‘aesthetic interests stand side by side with religious interests’ in the Ugaritic literary texts. However, very few specialists in Ugaritic have taken this admonition to heart, either before or after. This is true even of B (1956), who is at pains to criticize—very successfully—the Myth-Ritualists but whose own 5

   

207

2.2.3 2.2.3.1 One cannot take leave of the ‘pre-historic’ era of Ugaritic studies without taking note of the important study by the Danish Semitist P. Published in 1941 with only V’s monograph at hand (1936), Die Krt Legende is probably the only study of this era whose influence abides to the present. This influence has unfortunately perpetuated a basic misconception in the interpretation of the poem. 2.2.3.2 P, to his credit, rejects outright the Myth-Ritual interpretation of Mowinckel—E’s study (1967) had yet to appear—when he states categorically that Keret ‘ist nicht der Ausdruck kultischer Vorgänge und ist kein Mythus’ (P 1941, 64). Methodologically he stands close to the French School. He assumes that we are dealing with a historiographic work whose historical kernel is heavily overlaid with legend—‘wie der israelitischen Passahlegende’ (P 1941, 64). The hero ‘ist ein Urkönig, Gründer einer Dynastie’ (P 1941, 65)—in reality, not just in the plot; and the principal theme is ‘die Sicherung der Dynastie durch Nachkommenschaft’ (P 1941, 64). In other words, Keret is at heart a work of propaganda commissioned by a royal house and executed by a poet with the soul of a priest. 2.2.3.2.1 The theme of divinely sanctioned dynastic kingship, moreover, is deemed to reflect a society ‘deren Königsgeschlecht schon als eingewurzelt betrachtet werden kann’, analogous to the Israelite society which spawned the Davidic royal ideology: ‘hier wie dort handelt es sich um Legenden welchen den festen Bestand der herrschenden Dynastie bestätigen und begründen’ (P 1941, 104). The author of Keret is so to speak a ‘kept woman’ of the political authorities. His hand is free to write but his soul is in bondage. One does not normally take the work of such writers seriously, whatever their technical virtuosity. 2.2.3.3 This view of the Keret poem as a work of royal propaganda—by implication if not explicitly, by the ruling house of the position is merely a re-statement of P’s: ‘Richtiger wird man jedoch von einer Bestätigung der Erwählung der Keret-Dynastie sprechen’ (ibid., 119). This is the raison d’être of a political manifesto, not a work of art.

208

 

kingdom of Ugarit whose dynasty Keret is presumed to have founded— is very widespread in contemporary Ugaritic scholarship; and it is hugely mistaken.7 2.2.3.3.1 The curious omission, on these assumptions, of any reference to Keret—or his son and heir Yaßßib—as king(s) of Ugarit has long been noted. It is reinforced by a similar omission in the so-called ‘Ugaritic king list’ (KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257). However, the real shortcoming of this view is that it fails to distinguish the substance of the plot from the authorial intention, the creation from the creator. The statements placed in the mouths of the characters are naïvely taken as the author’s own point of view.8 2.2.3.4 In fact, a close, methodologically unbiased scrutiny of how the author of Keret depicts his characters must surely lead to the conclusion that far from endorsing sacral dynastic kingship the poet actually ridicules it. The opening scene, for example, portrays the king as a hapless soul who has gone through seven wives—the first of whom simply ‘walked out’ (tb' ) on him!—and who can think of no better expedient than, like a baby, to cry himself to sleep (only the soothing lullaby is missing . . .). Subsequently he will conscript all the men of his kingdom—including the disabled and the newly-wed— for a ‘historic’ military campaign to the Bashan for the grand purpose of . . . obtaining a wife! It is inconceivable that this entire scenario should have evoked from a contemporary audience anything but gales of laughter.9

7 Cf. e.g., B (1956, 120): ‘der text [steht] in enger Verbindung mit der durch Keret begründeten Herrscherdynastie . . . und [ hat] als Tendenzdichtung die Aufgabe . . . die besondere göttliche Erwählung gerade dieser Dynastie ganz augenfällig darzustellen.’ Cf. also above, n. 6. 8 Thus, even if it be true ‘dass wir in Keret einen typischen Vertreter des altorientalischen Sakralkönigtums vor uns haben’ (B 1956, 116), it does not follow that this is an ideology which the author either espouses or wishes to propagate. Can one legitimately infer from the detailed description of the Persian monarchy in Esther that the author is desirous of propagating an ideology of oriental despotism? Indeed, but for the strong nationalistic motives attributed to its (supposedly) Jewish author, the book of Esther might well have been understood as political satire. 9 The fact that the latter stratagem is concocted by Keret’s divine patron—with Baal nowhere in sight!—does not make it more ‘respectable’; it merely adds to the scope of the ridicule. El in Late Bronze Age Ugarit is a museum piece and a soulbrother of Shakespeare’s Falstaff.

   

209

2.2.3.5 But the most telling refutation of the dynastic interpretation comes from the final scene of the poem (a scene unknown to Pedersen at the time of his essay) in its portrayal of Yaßßib, the king’s eldest son and divinely-ordained (as well as politically confirmed) heir. It is difficult to imagine a less favourable comment on dynastic kingship or a more incongruous endorsement of a royal line supposedly founded by Keret. 2.2.3.5.1 In short, there is altogether too much comedy and parody in Keret for it ever to have served as propaganda for anything but the joy of living. For the author of Keret, not even the gods are sacred, much less the political institution of kingship. His love and devotion are given unconditionally only to his art.10 2.2.4 2.2.4.1 G’s short monograph published in 1946, inaugurated a new era in the poem’s interpretation—or rather, explication. One of his severest critics, Gaster, hailed it as ‘a marked and revolutionary advance in our understanding [of the text]’ (G 1947, 385). Ginsberg’s was the first study to have addressed the material in its (extant) entirety: KTU 1.14–15–16 = RS 2.[003]+ 3.343+ 3.325+, are fully at his disposal and will be so henceforth for the scholarly world to study and analyse. It is Ginsberg’s contribution to have been the first to establish the narrative coherence of the text. However, Gaster—a dues-paying member of the Myth and Ritual school—took Ginsberg to task for ‘his obvious lack of acquaintance with common facts and methods of comparative religion, anthropology, and folklore . . . This leads . . . to an egregious disregard for the cultural context and background of the narrative.’ (G 1947, 286–7). 2.2.4.1.1 But Ginsberg consciously and deliberately eschewed ‘metaphysical’ interpretation; he was a devout positivist. His strength lay 10 In a recent interview to a Montreal newspaper on the occasion of his 85th birthday (The Gazette, Mar. 7/97), Irving Layton—Canada’s (unofficial) poet-laureate— offered the following assessment of his life in the service of his art: ‘Poetry never let me down. My worry is, have I ever let poetry down? I should like to think that I’ve never dishonoured poetry or turned my back on it. . . . A world without poetry would be just intolerable. Unbearable.’ One cannot mistake the (unintentional) piety of this inveterate God-baiter and iconoclast. The ancient Canaanite bard would surely have given this credo his unqualified assent.

210

 

in his philological dexterity at the level of grammatical analysis. He was primarily interested in words and how they combine to form grammatical structures. The ideational content is secondary and the literary craftsmanship incidental. Nevertheless, Ginsberg took a definite stand on several ‘metaphysical’ issues (without however making them a part of his discussion or interpretation). He considered it ‘probable’ that the story ‘contains a certain core of history’; he also deemed it ‘probable’ that text KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ was preceded ‘by one or more lost tablets’. Probability becomes certainty on the question of the poem’s alleged non-conclusion in KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+.11 2.2.4.2 For all his skill in explicating the text, Ginsberg either misconstrued or overlooked several key elements in the plot, beginning with the mistaken notion12 of Keret as the victim of the catastrophic loss of countless children deemed to have perished in bunches: a third, a fourth, a fifth, etc.13 He is completely unaware that the real reason for convening the nobility of Bêt-›br (KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iv–vi) is to confirm Yaßßib as Keret’s successor. In fact, Ginsberg’s translation of KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ v–vi lacks the thread of narrative coherence. This in turn leads him to wonder whether KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i is the direct continuation of KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+. 2.2.4.2.1 There are also some incongruities in Ginsberg’s rendering of KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+. The phrase pnh. ∆Àr. yßu (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i 52–3), referring to the king’s daughter ‘Octavia’ as she emerges from the gateway of her (convent) residence, is under11

The assumption of a story with large gaps before, within, and after the extant tablets is very useful for the philologist operating exclusively with the microscope of comparative grammar. If we possess only a half of the original work, then we obviously are severely handicapped, if not outright precluded, from interpreting it macroscopically on the metaphysical level. It is also something to fall back on when one’s interpretation of a given section, at the philological level, seems literarily vapid or even inconsistent with that of a preceding or following section, whether in terms of characterization or plot. It is not without irony that one notes the common ground shared by Ginsberg and the myth-ritualist: neither takes seriously the poem of Keret as literature or its author as artist. Both approach the text as so much grist for the grinding. 12 Corrected early on by Cassuto but ignored by Ginsberg, even in his later work. 13 Here too one senses how the lack of esteem for the pagan as poet enables the Western scholar to attribute to him such a literary inanity, not to say moral obtuseness, in so quantifying human beings. Surely the biblical prejudice of the idolatrous Canaanite and his ‘debased’ culture is here subverting the scholarly enterprise.

   

211

stood to mean ‘Its sheen (i.e., of brother Il˙u’s lance [mr˙]) lights up the gateway’. He makes no effort to translate KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ ii 24–34, although the text is quite well preserved; and he passes over in silence the sudden appearance of Octavia in her father’s bed-chamber in lines 50–1. In col. iii, 8–9, the language ∆nnth . . . ∆l∆th does not evoke in Ginsberg’s mind the association with Keret’s vow in KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+, and his understanding of the ”a'tiqat episode (v 28–vi 14) is both faulty and incomplete; especially curious in his failure to render yqrß, while citing the analogy with Gilg. I ii 34 and its reference to †ì†a iqtariß. Finally, the curse which concludes KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ (vi 54–8) is deemed by Ginsberg to be ‘unintelligible’, in which case one wonders at the certitude which informs his opinion as to the non-conclusion of the poem at this point. 2.2.4.3 The foregoing critique, be it noted, is based not on Ginsberg’s early translation (G 1946) but rather on his contribution to P’s anthology, first published in 1950 and subsequently (unrevised!) in 1955 and 1969. The authority of Ginsberg’s name— he was widely considered to be the ‘doyen of Ugaritic studies’ in the fifties and sixties—and the popularity of Pritchard’s anthology, which soon became a standard reference work for biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies, go a long way towards explaining the rather limited progress made subsequently in the elucidation of the poem at the most basic level of narrative explication. The unspoken if not also unconscious assumption is that short of a windfall discovery of additional copies, Ginsberg’s translations of the major Ugaritic poetic texts (KTU 1.1–6 = RS 3.361, 3.367, 3.346, 2.[014]+, 2.[008]+, 2.[022]+, 2.[009]+; KTU 1.14–16 = RS 2.[003]+, 3.343+, 3.325+; KTU 1.17–19 = RS 2.[004], 3.340, 3.322+) have defined the limits of what scholars can ever hope to know of them. 2.2.5 2.2.5.1 A new phase in the study of Keret is introduced by M’s short essay (1968), marking the first serious attempt to deal with the poem as a literary œuvre and providing the inspiration for an important essay by P (1977) nearly a decade later. 2.2.5.2 ‘The hypothesis of this paper’, writes Merrill, ‘is that the poem . . . points to the ‘house of Keret’ as the basic issue. Every part

212

 

of the narrative finds its focus and delineation in this motif.’ (M 1968, 7). The story, it is supposed, ‘begins with the ruined and impoverished house of Keret. The king stands alone, without heir, wife, or progeny.’ (M 1968, 9). By the end of KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+, ‘the narrative of the king who has lost his ‘house’ and regains it appears to be complete in itself. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end . . .’; and with mild surprise, ‘yet the story continues’ (M 1968, 9–10). The ‘fact’ that the story continues beyond its ‘logical’ conclusion leads Merrill to the conclusion—taken up and elaborated subsequently by Parker—that the unfulfilled vow to Asherah, and her ensuing wrath, ‘become the basis for the addition of the other ‘narratives’ which are woven around the central concern for the ‘house of Keret’ and find their sub-themes in the three areas of fertility, salubrity, and sovereignty.’ Keret, on this hypothesis, is a composite work, although Merrill stops short of assuming multiple authorship. 2.2.5.3 It is the merit of Merrill’s essay to have dealt with the story in its own terms and with a vocabulary drawn from the field of literary criticism rather than comparative religion or Semitic linguistics. Implicit at least is the assumption of an author who has something interesting, perhaps even important to say, and who commands the necessary tools of the trade which he employs with the skill and imagination worthy of an artist. This approach also implies an audience who can appreciate such a work, not as a cultic libretto or a catechism of theological-political indoctrination, but as an artistic endeavour, which, like good wine, is to be savoured and enjoyed. 2.2.5.3.1 But for all the freshness and originality of its approach, Merrill’s essay, like Parker’s subsequently, goes astray in its effort to determine what the author is trying to say, as well as the specific techniques which he has chosen for this purpose. The hypothesis of a composite work, and a fortiori of multiple authorship, is symptomatic of a basic misconception, or rather, misperception. 2.2.5.4 The view of an ancient work of Semitic literature as composite comes easily to scholars trained primarily in Old Testament exegesis, as their partiality to myth-ritualism and cultic solutions generally tends to reflect their roles as (practising) theologians in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. But it is nonetheless a view quite unfounded

   

213

here in Keret and in Ugaritic literature generally.14 There is no evidence for a ‘history’ of any of the major Ugaritic poems, although such is not to be precluded a limine.15 2.2.5.4.1 The vow-to-Asherah episode, it must be insisted, is absolutely central to the plot of the story for the simple reason that it alone supplies the story with its dramatic quality. Without the vowepisode the story is a tale not worth the telling, much less the price of admission to its performance. The absence of a corresponding instruction in the dream-episode does not prove the vow to be secondary: if someone were intent on tampering with the original by ‘grafting’ on the vow episode, he would have had little difficulty making the necessary emendation in KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+.16 2.2.5.4.2 The omission, on the other hand, speaks volumes for the authorial intention. There is nothing more characteristic of the (male) dramatis personae in Keret than their personal shortcomings and imperfections—including most definitely the head of the pantheon who (like  in the Garden-of-Eden story) fails to anticipate his clientservant’s initiative.17 2.2.5.4.3 However, there is a second and more basic problem in Merrill’s theory, viz., his initial assumption that the well-being of 14 It would be inappropriate in this connection to cite in rebuttal the complicated history of the Gilgamesh epic for obvious reasons related to the chronological spans of the respective works. 15 One should also not wish to deny the existence of ‘parallel traditions’ in Ugaritic literature, notably the stories dealing with the construction of Baal’s palace (KTU 1.3 || 1.4). However it has yet to be demonstrated (though often assumed) that 1.3 and 1.4 belong to a single literary work or that they constitute a consecutive narrative. 16 To be noted in this connection are the ill-preserved conversations of the Udumite king, first with his wife Na'amat (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ v 14–23) and subsequently with his messengers, commissioned to scale Mt Inbb and offer sacrifice to the gods (ibid., 24–9; cf. Margalit, 224–31), both of which are unforeseen in Keret’s dream. Since no authorial design can be discerned in their omission from the dream, and since nothing in the sequel would seem to presuppose these conversations, the theoretical possibility of a ‘second hand’ can be entertained here. However, as presently constituted the scene has the positive effect of ‘humanizing the enemy’, a sentiment very close to the (original) author’s heart, as is evident from the emotional departure-scene which follows shortly at the beginning of KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+. 17 It should not be overlooked that once Keret awakes, El ‘disappears’ from the story. He will return as a guest at the wedding reception, but he cannot be supposed to have monitored his client’s actions in the interim.

214

 

Keret’s dynasty stands at the centre of the poet’s concern and creation. It is simply not true that the king is portrayed at the beginning of the poem as impoverished—note how easily Keret dismisses El’s offer of ‘silver and gold’ in the dream, and the king of Udm’s bribe subsequently during the siege. He lacks progeny, but not for having been bereaved; like Dan"el, he lacks a male heir for not having sired one! Now just as the birth of a son in Aqhat does not signal the completion of the story but more nearly its commencement, so too does the birth of Keret’s offspring provide the impetus for moving the story to its climax. The truly important developments in the story come after the birth: in the case of Aqhat, the lad’s treacherous murder by the goddess Anat and her Sutean mercenary, followed by the homicidal act of blood-redemption by the hero’s sister. In the case of Keret, the ‘meat’ of the story is the king’s illness and the behaviour of his offspring in response. Two of them, without aspirations to the throne, are devoted, loving, and obedient. The third, predestined by birth as heir-apparent, is the spoiled-brat antithesis. The attempted putsch by Yaßßib and the thunderous curse called down on his head by his enraged father (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi) bring the story full circle as it drives home the principal message: Keret is miserable at the beginning of the story for want of a son and heir; he is equally miserable at its conclusion precisely because of his son and heir. If the curse were not so funny—Yaßßib examining his teeth in the cup of his hand—the ending would indeed be sad. This is the essence of the poem as tragi-comedy, mixing the tears of laughter with those of pain. 2.2.5.4.4 The fate of the ‘house of Keret’ is thus of no particular interest either to the poet or his audience. The real ‘star’ of Keret is neither the king nor the gods but the invisible Moira who like the poet delights in irony and makes the human life-experience at once fascinating and unpredictable—the very qualities required of a good story! 2.2.6 2.2.6.1 For P (1977, 167), the poem of Keret is a conflation of three originally independent stories executed by different poets at different times and with variable degrees of editorial skill. ‘Our conclusion . . . is that the first section [= A] of Keret originally stood on

   

215

its own, and the material dealing with Keret’s sickness [= B] was attached to it by the insertion of the promise [= vow] passage into the journey to Udm . . .’.18 Up to this point Parker is echoing Merrill. But he goes further in positing multiple authorship and in his understanding of the Yaßßib episode (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi) as an ‘originally independent story . . . tacked [sic] onto section B’ (P 1977, 169). 2.2.6.1.1 The alleged ‘third story’ (C) is of course quite incomplete, and is assumed to have continued on (a) no longer extant tablet(s). It follows accordingly that ‘we are scarcely in a position to speak of the theme or function of the whole work’ (P 1977, 174). Here too (cf. critique of Ginsberg above) the assumption of incompleteness serves as a safeguard against criticism based on literary considerations; the ‘answers’ to difficult questions can be conveniently assumed to lie in the unattested and empirically unverifiable ‘hereafter’. 2.2.6.1.2 E.g. it would be most surprising if a literary work which had evolved in this ‘tacky’ way could be shown to have a unifying theme or structure. Yet according to Parker, the combination of story A and the ‘neatly grafted’ story B yields, remarkably, a unified theme described by him as ‘the vulnerability and helplessness of the king on the one hand, but also the benevolent power and wisdom of El on the other.’19 2.2.6.2 We have discussed earlier some of the weaknesses in Merrill’s argument for the secondary nature of the vow episode. In his monograph P (1989) tries to meet one of these objections, but in so doing actually reinforces it. 2.2.6.2.1 Parker acknowledges that (a) the reason for suspecting the vow is its absence from the list of detailed instructions in the dreamtheophany of KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ which the king subsequently

18

‘The poets [sic!] who thus extended the poem . . .’, (P 1977, 167). P 1977, 174. In P 1989 he claims to have discovered significant structural differences between A and B. But at best these differences do not necessitate a distinction of authors. They are certainly consistent with the stylistic versatility and literary virtuosity of a single writer. 19

216

 

carries out to the letter and which include, incidentally, a sacrifice to the god Baal, presumably to enlist his support for the venture; (b) a good ‘grafter’ would accordingly have encountered little difficulty in making the necessary adjustment. Therefore (c) the omission was motivated ideologically, viz., by reverence for El’s reputation. The grafter did not want to make El responsible for the subsequent debacle. 2.2.6.2.2 Setting aside the conjectural and suspiciously ad hoc nature of this latter supposition, it is surely clear that it effectively undermines the case for multiple authorship. The same pious concern for El’s reputation could as easily have motivated the original author of the poem! In other words, the vow-episode loses through this ‘explanation’ its entire value as an empirical indication of multiple authorship.20 2.2.6.3 The case for viewing the Yaßßib episode as secondary— Parker’s own contribution to the hypothesis of a composite work— is devoid of even the prima facie evidence supporting the secondariness of the vow episode. One suspects that the very idea owes its birth to the widely held view of the poem as lacking, in its extant form, a conclusion, and hence needs have been continued elsewhere. It seems improbable that Yaßßib would make his one and only appearance at the end of the story. The missing conclusion, it is supposed, will have described how Yaßßib was punished for his insolence by forfeiting his claim to the throne in favour of his younger sister Octavia, the favourite of El and the gods (ßÀrthn. abkrn. etc.). 2.2.6.3.1 Were such a denouement actually attested, it might well be taken to support a theory of compositeness and multiple authorship, for it would totally contradict, in substance and spirit, much of what has transpired in the poem up to this point. 2.2.6.3.2 The fear is however unfounded. In point of fact, the role of Yaßßib is much more firmly rooted in the story than is readily apparent from his single appearance in KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi. Parker’s hypothesis appears to antedate the realization that the baro-

20 Here too the influence of O.T. scholarship is readily apparent. Bible scholars commonly assume ‘pious glosses’ in the text originating with ‘pious Jews’ of the post-exilic era.

   

217

nial council in KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ v–vi was only ostensibly convened to ‘weep for Keret’, and that its agenda was secretly political: to confirm Yaßßib as successor in the event of Keret’s demise— a decision ultimately taken, albeit after stormy debate.21 With this ‘certificate’ in hand, Yaßßib has no reason to challenge his father during the latter’s illness (as Parker suggests he ought to have done if his role were original); he need but bide his time until the king’s imminent demise. It is only when his expectations are frustrated by Keret’s miraculous recovery that he makes a pathetic attempt to unseat him. Yaßßib, for whose confirmation so much energy had been expended but whose true character the author has skillfully concealed up to this point in the story, is now revealed at the conclusion for the ‘wimp’ that he is! 2.2.6.4 There are two points to be emphasized in connection with Parker’s hypothesis: (a) that story B—the king’s illness—is securely tied to the figure of Yaßßib and his succession and can never have existed independently thereof; (b) that the case for the Yaßßib episode as an independent story C hangs entirely on the assumption that the poem is not concluded at the end of KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi. 2.2.6.5 The final point to be made against Parker’s case is the catastrophic consequences which the deletion of the Yaßßib episode has on the literary structure and message of the poem. 2.2.6.5.1 If Keret were a typical ‘happy ending’ narrative, the story (Parker’s story B in particular) ought to have ended with the king’s recovery (much as Merrill’s ‘original story’ ought to have ended with the wedding reception in KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+!). For if at the beginning (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+) the king is alone and in tears, and then subsequently, facing death, he is tearfully embracing—possibly for the last time—his beloved ‘blossom’ Octavia (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ ii 50ff.), he is surely smiling from ear to ear, surrounded by his faithful wife and adoring children, at the feast described (laconically) in KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 15–21; and his resumption of 21 The language of the council’s decision can be presumed identical with the resolution presented by its president, the “rk-il (KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ v 18–21): 'rb. “p“. lymÀ19 krt/ßbia. “p“ 20 b'lny/wymlk 21 [ y]ßb(.) 'ln ‘When Keret arrives at the western horizon (i.e., dies)|Our lord, at the setting sun|Then will [Ya]ßßib rule over us’. Cf. M 1982, 425; 1995, 252–2.

 

218

work as king of Bêt-›br (ibid., ll. 22–4) ought to have been greeted with much fanfare and public celebration. 2.2.6.5.2 The ‘addition’ of the episode of filial infidelity—a sin punishable by death in the Bible and which the very name ‘Aqhat’ (lit., ‘the-obedient-one’) attests to as heinous in ancient Canaanite society—turns this would-be happy ending on its head at the same time as it brings the story full-circle to tragi-comic conclusion. In KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ Keret is miserable for want of a son and heir; at the end of KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi he is miserable for having obtained a son and heir. Nothing more can or need be said. 2.2.7 2.2.7.1 But a word should be said, in conclusion of our critique, on vestiges of the historical approach to the poem still current. 2.2.7.1.1

Parker writes:

I would see the origin of the poem in a story about a king who undertook a campaign against another king to claim the king’s daughter as his bride. Negotiations between the king resulted in the ceding of the woman in question, and hence in the marriage of the two and the birth of children. . . . It is this much that forms the most solid basis for those who claim that the poem reflects historical events . . .’ (P 1989, 39)

2.2.7.2 This statement, I submit, is as true (or false) of Keret as it is (mutatis mutandis) of Hamlet, Julius Caesar, or Antony and Cleopatra, none of which can be considered ‘historical’ works reflecting historical events. They are works of the imagination, pure fiction, in which historically attested personal and geographical names, scraps of history, social and religious customs are expertly utilized as trappings for the plot and its characters by craftsmen minutely knowledgeable in historical arcana and—all importantly—masters of disingenuity in the service of artistic integrity. 2.2.7.2.1 But even if the poet be inspired by a ‘real event’—which in the case of Keret one is entitled to doubt—this determination is no more consequential for understanding the poem and its author, than is the Danish chronicle which inspired Shakespeare’s Hamlet. At most, such knowledge can produce some learned footnotes to the text, enhancing its appreciation by cognoscenti but irrelevant and boring for poet and audience alike.

    2.3

219

The story in outline, the message in detail

2.3.1 Although there is no hard evidence to indicate that the poem of Keret was ever the subject of dramatic presentation in a theatre or like setting, it is useful, and certainly not misleading to summarize its contents as if it were. The material is most amenable. 2.3.1.1 The ‘prologue’ in the opening lines of KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+, now largely defective, introduced the hero, Keret, as king of Bêt-›br, situated ‘[by the se]a’. The king is a man of valour ([ gbr. ˙yl ]) and a devotee of El ( Àlm. il ) who is his ‘patron’ (ab); but he is wretched for want of wife and children to fill his ‘naked’ ('rwt) palace. Seven times was Keret wed, but each marriage ended abruptly, for the most part tragically with the death of the spouse; in one case, in childbirth. The absence of a (male) heir apparent causes his seven brothers to cast greedy eyes on his throne. Comment: (1) ‘Bêt-›br by-the-sea’ ([gblt. y]m) is a pseudonymic riddle to be solved by the audience in the course of the poem/play. (2) By presenting the king as a devotee of El—in contrast to the Baalworshipping poet and his audience—the author conveys the message that the story is about a historical figure of long-ago, the era of the ancestors.22 Keret is thus a ‘patriarchal narrative’. The members of the hero’s clan (lim || umt) are to be found roaming the steppelands between the (Phoenician) coast and the Euphrates ([ ' ]d. nhr). (3) Except for the royal backdrop, the scene is uncannily reminiscent of

22 For the author of Keret, this ‘patriarchal era’ began with Ditanu (Ug. dtn, var. ddn) cited obliquely in KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 2–3 || 13–5) thought to have lived in the early MBA (ca. 2100 ; cf. K 1977, 131–42; H 1981, 1–10) and developing into an eponymous ancestor. It needs be emphasized however that Keret’s Ditanu-ancestry does not make him a direct ancestor of the Ugaritic kings Niqmaddu and Ammi∆tamru (KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126). Like Abraham, Ditanu is ‘the father of many [Amorite] nations’. This much however can be said: the city-state kingdoms which speckled the Phoenician and north-Syrian coastline in the early 2nd millennium  were all ruled by classes of Amorite stock. The dynastic houses of Byblos and nearby Ugarit in particular could accordingly have been related by ties of blood and/or marriage, and both of them to clans residing in Bashan (cf. KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252: 23–4). The phrase qbß. dtn, roughly ‘union of Ditanu’ (KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 2–3 || 13–5), like its parallel rpi. arß (ibid.; KTU 1.108) denotes the transnational aspect of this consanguinity, the word arß ‘land’ contrasting with socio-political terms like qrt ‘city’ and mlk ‘kingdom’. (This usage of arß [Heb. "ereß] survives in the Hebrew Bible in the phrase 'am-hà-"àreß, denoting an institution of landed gentry who can ‘make or break’ a king. Cf. provisionally M 1995, 255–6.)

 

220

the El-worshipping, Harran-based patriarchs of the Bible, one of whom complains bitterly that he is without (legitimate) heir and who subsequently sends his trusted servant to obtain a wife for his son in the ‘old country’. 2.3.2

Act 1, Scene 1

2.3.2.1 The curtain rises on the king about to retire for the night to his sleeping chamber which he enters shedding tears of self-pity. Curled up in bed in a foetal position, he falls asleep. His patron deity now appears in his dream, having heard the heart-rending sobs of his valiant servant. Wise but not omniscient, El inquires as to the cause of the king’s distress. Ever the jester, he speculates whether Keret, dissatisfied with the modest extent of his kingdom, has designs on his own; or perhaps, he wonders aloud, the king is short of money to cover his regal expenses. In reply, the king assures his patron that he wants for nothing material, and that his only wish, and the panacea to his pain, is to sire a family, sons in particular. 2.3.2.2 El is sympathetic; and the remainder of the dream (and scene) is devoted to divine monologue wherein the deity issues a series of detailed instructions as part of an elaborate plan for the hero to realize his ambition. At the centre of the plan is the full mobilization of the kingdom for a military expedition to the (Bashanite) kingdom of Udum(u), to be followed by a siege and ultimatum to its king: surrender your eldest daughter, the fair Óry, to be Keret’s wife (or face the consequences). 2.3.3

Scene 2

2.3.3.1 The King awakens with a start, but with total recall of the dream which he immediately begins to implement to the letter. He attends first to his person—washing (for cleanliness) and rouging (for war)—then to the gods to whom he offers sacrifice, and then to the business of war. Comment: (1) El’s oneiric theophany is part and parcel of nomadic/ Amurritic religion centering on El and his consort Asherah. El resides in the subterranean fresh-water deep which feeds the palm-trees of the oasis where the nomad pitches camp. When the latter retires for the night and sets his sleepy head down to rest, he is lulled to sleep

   

221

by the gurgling stream nearby. It is both logical and natural that El, residing close by, should pay him an occasional visit in his dream, especially when the nomad is troubled. (2) Again, the correspondence with the biblical tradition-complex (in its E and P versions particularly) is uncanny. The El(-Shaddai)-worshipping patriarchs receive their divine visitations in nocturnal dreams. The same is true of the Elworshipping Aramean clairvoyant Balaam of the DAPT. Y, by contrast, never appears in a dream to his servant Moses,23 and there are no dream-theophanies in the Hexateuch outside Genesis and Num. 22–4. (3) The characterization of both El and his protégé is parodical. The valiant warrior of the prologue is totally deconstructed by the pathetic king crying himself to sleep like a baby. Crying is womanish (2 Sam. 1:24; Lam. 1:2, etc.) and a sign of weakness in men except in well-defined special circumstances. It never occurs to the biblical author to depict Abraham as weeping in Gen. 15; nor does the son-less Dan"el weep when petitioning for a son (1.17). Both are in contrast with the similarly situated Hannah (1 Sam. 1:10). The proverbially wise El (by dint of age and experience) is parodied by means of the patently ridiculous plan which he concocts: the total mobilization of the kingdom, including the sick, the blind, and the newly-wed normally exempt from military draft, and a strenuous and very expensive seven-days march to the hinterland region of Bashan for no better reason or exigency than to obtain (yet) a(nother) wife for the king. Were this not enough, the poet will subsequently inform us that Pbl, the king of Udum(u), is himself a devotee of El, and his kingdom a ‘gift’ (u“n) from this same deity (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ vi 12–4). All El need have done was to send an oneiric message to Pbl and the fair princess would have been on her way to Bêt-›br.24 This contrasting of exaggerated means utilized for trivial ends is of course a staple of comedy and burlesque (cf. the Marx

23

Cf. Num. 12:6–8. A later tradition, no longer familiar with the religio-historical presuppositions of the patriarchal faith, attributed this fact to the uniqueness of Moses’ prophetic status. 24 He could also have spared Udum the pains of siege, and its monarch the pangs of uncertainty, by revealing himself in a dream to Pbl and thereby confirm Keret’s ultimatum as indeed inspired and supported by divine degree. But then El would be seen to be truly wise and compassionate rather than the comical dotard intended by the poet.

 

222

brothers), a contrast further accentuated here by the disparity between the normally peacable and compassionate El (l†pn. dpid ) advising, and devizing, a strategem of war.25 (4) The use of parody at this early stage in the story must be understood as setting the tone for all that ensues. It is the dramaturgic equivalent of Shylock’s ‘poundof-flesh’ bond contracted (ostensibly) ‘in a merry sport’, and to the over-reaction of foolish king Ahasuerus (Est. 1) to the queen’s refusal of a royal summons (itself a parody of a king ‘ruling from India to Ethiopia’). It serves notice that the poem of Keret is a species of ‘mock epic’, perhaps the oldest of its kind in recorded history. 2.3.4

Scene 3

2.3.4.1 The army of Bêt-›br marches in battle array to Udm (= Udumu in the land of Garu [EA 256]). The march is broken up into two more or less equal segments: 3 days from Bêt›br to Tyre, where Keret pays an unscheduled (or at the least unanticipated in the dream) visit to the shrine of Asherah, El’s wife, where he takes a vow (cf. Gen. 28) that if his mission be successful (one senses clearly the insecurity of this valiant warrior) he will pay to Asherah’s shrine ‘twice [his bride’s] weight in silver, thrice in gold’. 2.3.4.2 Three days later, on the seventh day of the campaign, Keret’s army arrives at Udum and camps outside its walls after having cleared the countryside. There follow the futile efforts of Pbl, king of Udum, and his queen Na'amat to relieve the siege, first by offering Keret a bribe of silver, gold, three horses and chariot (with attendant squire), and, simultaneously, sending messengers to offer sacrifice atop nearby Mt. Inbb, the mythological abode of the (war-)goddess Anat. To no avail; Keret is adamant (and the gods, by implication, unresponsive): only the surrender of beautiful Óry— in the description of whose (as yet unseen) beauty (he has only El’s word for it) the king waxes poetic—will suffice to remove the siege (cf. mutatis mutandis 2 Sam. 20:14–22). The scene concludes with Óry taking tearful leave of her family and friends as she sets out for Keret’s camp and her new life as queen of Bêt-›br.

25 One may note the uncanny if fortuitous resemblance of El’s plan with that of Portia’s ‘virtuous father’ (The Merchant of Venice), mocking the ‘holy men [who] at their death have good inspirations’. El’s plan is similarly ‘inspired’.

   

223

Comment: (1) On the identifications of Udm and Mt. Inbb respectively, cf. M 1995, 225–43. (2) Although formally a married couple, El and Asherah do not live together (cf. KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ iv).26 (3) The fact that the king’s initiative, for all its good intentions, eventually lands him in hot water could—if Keret were a ‘serious’ piece of literature—be taken as implying the futility of human endeavour and the advisability of resignation to divine will. But if, as I maintain, Keret is tragi-comical, then the crisis precipitated by the king’s ill-fated initiative (the result, be it recalled of his absentmindedness) can and should be seen as contributing to his portrayal as a pathetic figure, a ‘Schlemiel’ or ‘Sad-Sack’ who can do no right, a master bungler. Keret, like Dan"el, is a ‘talker’, not a ‘doer’. (4) This characterization of the king is underscored by Pbl and Na'amat’s reluctance to become Keret’s in-laws. After all, such an attitude is not self-evident given Keret’s credentials. A king of the backwater kingdom of Udum would normally have given his eye-teeth for a liaison with the royal house of Bêt-›br, alias Byblos. However, Keret’s reputation as a matrimonial ‘jinx’ has preceded him to Udum. 2.3.5

Act II

2.3.5.1 Scene 1. The reception celebrating the marriage of Keret and Óry is attended (i.a.) by the gods, including El and Baal. Asherah is conspicuous by her absence. During dinner, Baal prompts El to toast the newly-wed couple. El is glad to oblige: raising his wineglass, his blessing consists of a promise that Keret’s wife will bear him multiple offspring (cf. Gen. 15:5, etc.): seven || eight boys and a like number of girls. The eldest of the boys, to be named Yaßßib, will be Keret’s heir (poetically, he will be nursed by goddesses); the youngest of the girls, ‘Octavia’, will be El’s favourite (bkr, literally, ‘first’). Comment: (1) The senior gods arrive at the party in pairs; the ‘assembly’, consisting of the minor (younger) and anonymous gods, 26

The separation of El and Asherah on the mythopoeic level is surely a reflection of the transformation of their originally pastoral-nomadic cult following the sedentarization of their worshippers. El is put out to pasture in the Upper Jordan Valley, his domain extending from the foot of Mt Hermon near Dan as far as the Sea of Galilee. But his consort starts up a new career among Tyrians as rbt. a∆rt. ym ‘Lady Asherah-of-the-Sea’ where she is presumably worshipped as the patroness of fishermen (cf. her attendants qd“. wamrr described (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ vi 10–1; KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ iv 2–4) as dgy. rbt. a∆rt. ym ‘fishermen of Lady Asherahof-the-Sea’.

224

 

arrive in threes. The absence of Asherah is accentuated by pairing El with Baal. Anat (here labelled ‘R˙my’ [Heb. re˙em]) is accompanied by the similarly bellicose Reshef. Kathir-and-›asis, sporting a binomial name, escorts himself (our poet is a ‘kibitzer’). (2) The choice of R˙my as an alias for Anat is motivated by two considerations: (a) the alliteration with R“p; (b) the synonymity with (')Anat, both referring to the female genitalia.27 2.3.5.2 Scene 2. The scene shifts to the (unspecified) domicile of Asherah. Seven years, and several birth-days, have elapsed and Keret’s pledge is still unpaid. With the king now in default, Asherah takes her own vow: to make Keret pay . . . with his life! Comment: ‘Heaven has no rage . . . nor hell no fury, like a woman scorned’. Cf. also Ps. 50:14, Eccl. 5:3. 2.3.5.3 Scene 3. A party in Keret’s home—more precisely, his a∆r— for the nobility of Bêt-›br, its ‘Bulls’ and ‘Stags’ in the poet’s saucy language. In preparation, the king instructs his queen to ‘dress-up like a maiden’ (km[.n]'rt) by hiding her bulges, doing up her hair, and manicuring her fingernails. The ostensible purpose of the party is to ‘weep’ (ritually) for the ailing Keret. But the secret agenda is political, viz., to confirm the juvenile Yaßßib as heir and successor to the throne of Bêt-›br upon the king’s supposedly imminent demise. Once this political purpose is made known to the guests at the party, a furious debate erupts, accompanied by shouting and clenched fists, in the course of which the ‘president’ (“rk. il, lit., ‘chief member’) stands up to speak and pledges the support of the assembly for the young prince. The ailing king replies. Invoking the private parts of the president’s wife, he blesses him for his support. He then informs the council that he expects to die within the month, blaming his misfortune on Athirat’s abiding hatred for his kingdom. His personal fault he passes over in silence. However, the king’s remarks, far from stilling debate, add fuel to its fire, in the course of which both the king and his queen are forced to intervene to restore order. The king accuses his opponents of ‘drinking his blood’, while the queen reprimands her guests for their indecorum as well as for their insin27 Cf. D 1978; M 1995, 241–2. The basic meaning of 'nh is ‘open up’, normally of speech. Its use with sexual activity (cf. Ex. 32:18b) reflects a perceived symmetry between oral and vaginal anatomy (cf. Prov. 30:20).

   

225

uation that the king might be feigning illness in order to obtain an endorsement of the crown-prince as successor to the throne. Óry assures the noblemen that Keret’s illness is, unfortunately, neither dream nor fantasy; and he has the body sores and fever to prove it! The conclusion of the scene is lost, but a political victory for the royal family is a necessary inference.28 From this moment on, Yaßßib is heir-apparent in fact as well as in theory, and his enthronement evidently a matter of days. Comment: (1) The location of the banquet—in a tent (¢mt) set up in the family a∆r or burial-ground (cf. KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i–ii)— points to a kispum or mrz˙, i.e., a feast associated with the cult of the ancestral dead (db˙. Ωlm). This would furnish a convenient pretext for convening the nobles and a suitable occasion for ‘beweeping’ the sick king. It also is consistent with the all-male guest list as well as the king’s instructions to his wife to dress appropriately (cf. KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ iii 10–22). This banquet is definitely a ‘stag affair’. (2) The scene implies the existence of a political group whose authorization the king requires to transfer power to his son and thus establish a dynasty. This council of barons is a feudalistic body whose duties, and prerogatives, are to ‘advise and consent’. Neither servile nor rubberstamping, it can make or break a king. A residue of tribal confederation, this group of grandees may be seen as the sociopolitical equivalent and 2nd-millennium precursor of the biblical 'am-hà"àreß. (3) It is further implied in this scene that while the legitimacy of the dynastic principle is acknowledged, its cultural roots are shallow indeed. The tribal tradition of charismatic leadership, understood in terms of military prowess, is still very much alive, and it goes far towards explaining the fierce opposition to the blankcheque endorsement of the king’s son, still very young and untried in battle and leadership. (4) Keret is in all likelihood (portrayed as)

28

The spirit and circumstances of Keret’s speech are strongly reminiscent of the speech delivered by Hattusili“ before the panku“-assembly: ‘Behold I have fallen sick. . . . Behold, Mursili“ is now my son . . .’ It may not be too venturesome to suggest accordingly that the missing portion of Keret’s speech may have been formulated in a vein similar to the continuation of Hattusili“’ address: ‘In the hour when a call to arms goes forth . . . you . . . must be [at hand to help my son]. When three years have elapsed he shall go on a campaign. . . . If you take him (while still a child) with you on a campaign, bring [ him] back [safely].’ (Translation apud G 1990, 171).

 

226

the first member of his family to have occupied a throne, which he may well have seized by overthrowing an incumbent ruler. His rise to power—and this is probably the extent of the story’s historicity (which in any case is only presupposed by the narrative)—would have been a model Idrimi who, with a band of ruffians and outlaws, conquered Alalakh and set himself up as king. Like Keret’s El-religion and his affiliation with a clan dispersed in the Syrian steppeland, the present scene reflects the political ethos of an earlier epoch, viz., the formative stages of Amorite settlement in Phoenicia and N. Syria and the struggle to establish the legitimacy of dynastic kingship in a society barely weaned from non-hereditary charismatic leadership and tribal organization. 2.3.6

Act III

2.3.6.1 Scene 1. As the scene opens, preparations are underway for Keret’s funeral (although the king is still quite alive). The sound of caterwauling women—the poet prefers the comparison with howling dogs and coyotes—fills the royal mansion. Overcome emotionally by these depressing sounds and by the realization which they spur of his father’s imminent demise, the loving and devoted son Il˙u approaches the king’s bedside. With tears rolling down his pubescent cheeks, he queries his father in disbelief (in the process giving expression to the current ideology of divine kingship in Canaan): ‘Is Keret, the divine offspring of El and Athirat, not immortal?! Do gods die?!’ 2.3.6.1.1 The compassionate Keret responds with words of comfort to his distraught son; and by way of occupational therapy counsels him to set out on a mission to sister Octavia, residing elsewhere, and to bring her home. To spare her sensitive feelings, the pretext is to be an invitation to a family feast rather than a funeral. (But since Keret’s funeral will doubtless be followed by a lavish wake— cf. KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ i 18–31—the lie is truly lily-white.) Il˙u obediently complies and takes his leave. Comment: The text at this point is in disarray, resulting in the dismemberment and dislocation of Il˙u’s speech. The awareness of this disturbance by a subsequent copyist led to its rewriting; but the corrected version unfortunately found its way into the second column of KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+, causing yet another disturbance. (2) We are not informed here either as to the reason for Octavia’s residence away from home or its location. If this information was not forth-

   

227

coming in a no longer extant part of the preceding text (e.g., at the end of KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii), the poet left it to the audience to fathom the answers from the continuation. 2.3.6.2 Scene 2. After climbing a mountain and praying there (to Baal!) for a safe journey, Il˙u sets out. Arriving at Octavia’s convent-residence (˙m˙), he squats on a nearby hillock, with the gateway-entrance in view, to await his sister. As she emerges from the gate, on her way to fetch water, Octavia espies her brother. In her excitement, she drops (more likely, hurls) the encumbering vessel in her hand and makes a dash to embrace Il˙u, her head now nestling tenderly in his shoulder. But it does not take long for Octavia to collect herself and to sense that brother Il˙u has not just droppedby for a chat. Her female intuition tells her that something is awry, possibly relating to her father. To her query, ‘is father ill?’ Il˙u replies that, of course, all is well with the king, and that he has come to invite her to a family party. Sensing her incredulity, Il˙u unfolds his cover-story with lavish improvisation: it will be a sumptuous affair, attended by the gods and the who’s-who of Bêt-›br; musical entertainment will be provided by nubile lasses singing songs ‘to set one on fire’. He himself, Il˙u continues in his prevaricating best, was asked by the king to go out and trap birds as delicacies for mother Óry and brother Yaßßib; ‘and since father knows that my hunting would take me near where you live, he thought it might be nice to extend you an invitation. So here I am!’. 2.3.6.2.1 Octavia’s response leaves no doubt as to her incredulity. First she asks her brother to pour a cup of wine from his portable jug. After removing the plug, Il˙u obliges. She now turns to her brother and, in a tone mixing hurt pride with barely concealed anxiety, she asks: ‘Why do you make a fool of me? How long has father been ill?’ 2.3.6.2.2 Faced with such precocity, Il˙u breaks down and proceeds to tell his sister the sorry truth. Upon hearing this, the heartbroken Octavia cries out and shudders (√ ¢l ); she commences a funereal song-and-dance around her brother. She then repairs with him to the parental home. 2.3.6.2.3 Upon arrival, Octavia enters, silently and abashedly, her father’s bed-chamber. Approaching his bed, she kisses him affectionately

228

 

on his feverish forehead. She is his little ‘blossom’ (ib). She leaves shortly thereafter, heeding her father’s request to climb a mountain and pray there for his recovery.29 Comment: (1) Though not expressly stated, it is a reasonable inference from this portion of the narrative that Octavia has become a nadìtu-priestess, or nun, residing in a cloister and in the service of the sun-goddess, Shapsh. Among other things, this hypothesis will explain (a) why Octavia is residing away from her parental home; (b) why Il˙u does not even consider entering the gateway to notify his sister of his arrival. As a female retreat, it is presumably off-limits to men. (2) Octavia’s funereal song-and-dance, encircling her brother, is described in language similar to that used by Il˙u to describe the wailing-women in Keret’s house. This may help to explain the intrusion here of extraneous material originating as a (corrected) version of Il˙u’s plaintive speech to his father. (3) It is typical of Ugaritic epic literature to portray women as superior in intellect and/or courage to men;30 and the present encounter of brother and sister is certainly no exception. El compares unfavourably with Athirat, Dan"el with his daughter Pughat, and Il˙u with Octavia.31 2.3.7 2.3.7.1 Scene 3. The text of this scene is very fragmentary, and its contents consequently are obscure. The king’s illness, like Aqhat’s murder, has resulted in drought, and the stocks of grain, wine, and oil are depleted. A set of obscure ritual acts, intended presumably to induce rainfall, is followed by a delegation of farmers to the king, presumably (since the continuation is lost) to apprise him of the situation and to ask for help. 29 A considerable part of the text summarized above is missing, and the summation at certain points presupposes the correctness of the restorations. Cf. the discussion in M 1995, 264–89 for this and other matters relating to this passage. 30 It is also not uncommon in O.T. literature: Adam is clearly inferior in intellect to wife Eve (which is why the ‘wily’ snake takes her on first). The same holds true for Isaac and Rebekkah, Barak and Deborah, Sisera and Jael, Haman and Esther, etc. A notable exception is David and Michal. The latter is possibly the most ‘trag(ed)ic’ figure in the entire Bible: bright, beautiful, and courageous—and an habitual ‘loser’. 31 Anat is only seemingly an exception: for while nominally female, she acts and dresses like a (violent) man, and is therefore the villain of Aqhat. She contrasts both with her virtuous brother Baal and the heroine Pughat; and the poet does not stop short of ridiculing the penis-envy of this self-hating goddess by depriving her of the coveted bow once acquired (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ i).

   

229

Comment: We have here another expression of the ‘ideology of divine kingship’: the illness of the king induces a paralysis of Nature. However, there is no more reason here than in the previous instance to assume that this ideological stance reflects the authorial point-ofview. Like the portrait of the sick hero, and (shortly) the inept gods, this ideology is also subject to satirization, as if what is true of the great Baal (KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ ii 5–7) is true of the pathetic king of Bêt-›br. 2.3.7.2 Scene 4. The desperate situation created by the king’s illness sets the stage for a curious development: the artisan god, Kathirwa-›asis, whose wisdom (say the gods) is second only to El’s, is approached by a delegation of the divine assembly—‘El’s sons’ ('dt. bn. il )—and asked to take an urgent message to a hitherto and otherwise unknown character named Il“ and his (characteristically unnamed) wife, bearing the title ngr(t) of the House/Temple of El, (var. Baal). In the message promptly delivered by the hobbler Kathir-wa›asis—described by the poet as running with the grace of an ass— Il“ is instructed to go up to the tower and to shout at the top of his lungs—‘like a waterfall || like a bull’—to the inhabitants of the city. The sequel is lost, and with it presumably the statement of purpose, viz., a call to prayer and supplication on behalf of the dying king and the drought-imperiled kingdom. Comment: The present scene, if correctly interpreted, brings the satirical tone of the poem strongly to the fore; indeed, the satire comes close to becoming farce. El is in deep trouble: his plan for his protégé has miscarried, and the protégé himself and his famished kingdom are teetering on the brink of disaster. El’s distress signal (which one may presume to have been lost in the lacuna at the beginning of KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ iv) has been picked up by the assembly of his sons which now goes into (pathetically ineffectual) action. In their infinite divine wisdom they turn to the wise but crippled Kathir to deliver an urgent message to the temple crier (ngr) or mu"a≈≈in32—and for good measure, to his wife—to summon the 32 The semantic correspondence of Ug. ngr and the Arabic mu"a≈≈in (< "≈n (II) ‘cause-to-hear, announce’) is very close indeed. The Ugaritic term is cognate with Akk. nagaru ‘Ausrufer, Herold’ (AHw, 711). The translation ‘herald’ in the present context is, however, misleading in that it implies a palace functionary charged with making public pronouncements. Il“ is rather a temple functionary; and since his job is to summon the faithful to prayer, he is necessarily (a) mortal, and (b) a BronzeAge Canaanite precursor of the Islamic mu"a≈≈in.

230

 

faithful to prayer and supplication, without which the gods can do nothing to save Keret and his kingdom. From here it is surely but a small step to the conclusion that the ‘sons of El’ (notably excluding heroic and virtuous Baal) can do nothing because they are good for nothing. 2.3.7.3 Scene 5. The race is on to save Keret’s life, for which purpose El has convened the divine assembly in emergency session. El arrives accompanied by wife Athirat. He opens the session with a plea to his consort to spare Keret’s life. Asherah replies that the king’s life ‘is in the hands of his wife Óry’: she (now that the king is incapacitated) has to pay Athirat ‘twice her weight in silver, thrice in gold’ (with the interest waived) if Keret is to be cured. 2.3.7.3.1 Even El cannot apparently raise such a sum, much less Keret, whose kingdom is down at the heels. The ‘father of man’ turns accordingly to his sons for help; but they remain deafeningly silent, either because they are cowed by the presence of their mother or they are simply at a loss for ideas. El is now left with no choice but to deal personally with the problem. 2.3.7.3.2 His solution: to create a female exorcist named ”'tqt (< 'tq ‘(cause to) remove’), the details of which are obscured by the tablet’s poor state of preservation. But they are not beyond recovery. El creates his creature, in primordial fashion, from (red) clay (cf. Job 33:6), inserts snake-poison into her vagina (to thwart reproduction?), christens her over a cup of sanctified wine, and then brings her to life by ‘pouring’ into her mouth ‘[the soul] of a god and the blood of a [human]’. Fortified by El’s blessing and directed by his detailed instructions, ”'tqt flies off to Bêt-›br. Comment: (1) The divine assembly, as we learn from KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ ii, is made up of the minor deities consisting of the sons—not including daughters—of El. It corresponds, one may assume, to the ‘council of princes’ reflected in 1 Kgs. 12:8ff. The presence of Athirat is thus a breach of protocol warranted by the emergency as well as by the divine mother’s direct responsibility for creating it. (2) Athirat’s offer at first sight seems to hold the key to a satisfactory resolution of the crisis. However, it must be remembered that after fifteen births and nursing periods, the once streamlined Óry is now bulging at both waist and bosom (cf. above, § 2.3.5.3 [= KTU

   

231

1.15 = RS 3.343+ iv 10–3]). (3) The echoes of cosmogony in this scene are part of the parody. Like the exaggerated mobilization in KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+, the creation of ”'tqt is a case of mockheroic ‘overkill’. What ”'tqt does for Keret could, and would, have been done by any run-of-the-mill exorcist in Bêt-›br. El, says the poet, may be very wise (who else knows how to create life?); but he is sorely lacking in common sense. 2.3.7.4 Scene 6 describes how ”'tqt saved Keret’s life. Upon arrival, she immediately gets down to business. She fastens a string to the patient’s navel and places a wreath of medicinal leaves on his feverish head, while repeatedly wiping his brow of sweat. She then opens his mouth and forces him to eat—we are not told what—and presto! the king is well. A rejuvenated Keret promptly orders wife Óry to slaughter a fatling lamb for dinner to celebrate his recovery. Comment: The poet’s feminist bias finds expression here once again. Just as the woman Athirat foils the male El’s plan, so the female ”'tqt saves the day (while foiling the foiler). But woman’s superior intelligence, courage, and enterprise are, alas, not enough to alter the existential ‘female condition’: ”'tqt, like Athirat, is subordinate and subject to El. The ‘tree’ of Athirat cannot exist without El’s fertilizing water, and ”'tqt will die, without fruit, once her mission is accomplished, as will Pughat, whose heroism is recounted in a tale named for her brother (in marked contrast to the ‘book of Esther’). 2.3.7.5 Scene 7. The crown-prince and heir-apparent, whose birth, heralded by the gods, fulfilled his father’s most fervent wish, makes his first—and last—appearance in this scene, as if to say: if you meet him once, it is enough for a lifetime. Obviously displeased and disappointed by his father’s dramatic recovery—Yaßßib, be it recalled, is still an adolescent!—he decides to act. Encouraged by ‘the fiend at his elbow’, he enters the throne-room where his father is seated and orders him to step down, on grounds of incompetence in the discharge of his royal duties. Keret’s reaction is a mixture of rage and anguish; and as the curtain falls there resounds a curse, at once fearsome and funny, called down by the king on the head of his perfidious son. Comment: (1) Keret’s recovery obviated a tragic end to the story; but the finale is its tragi-comic equivalent. For upon hearing his son’s

 

232

words, the king might well have wished he were dead. (2) Yaßßib is ‘instructed’ (√ wsr) by his jinn (Ug. ggn)—he is a school-boy listening to the wrong teacher. (3) The charges laid by Yaßßib against his father are instructive for the insight they provide to the Canaanite view of kingship. The most important task of the king is not to lead in battle (which is precisely what Keret does in KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+) but to administer justice fairly and compassionately (something he is never seen to do).33 The Canaanite king is first and foremost a ‘judge’, in contrast to his Amorite counterpart whose claim is based on personal charisma as a warrior proven in battle ( gibbôr ˙ayyil ). In this sociological sense, Aqhat is older than Keret, in that the former describes its (male) heroes, young and old, in terms derived from the military lexicon. Keret is a mlk,34 Dan"el a Àzr. (4) In addition to ferocity and hilarity, the curse also contains the most important clues, suitably and cleverly embroidered into the finale, to the identity of pseudonymic Bêt-›br, lit., ‘House-of-Union’.35 The king calls on ‘Astarte-name-of-Baal’—i.e., Baalat—and Yaßßib’s dislodged teeth are to fall out ‘altogether’, for which the poet chooses the rare (b)gbl (Palmyrene-Aramaic gbl = ‘community’, MHeb. gbl ‘to mixtogether (as porridge)’, which plays on the original form of ‘Byblos’, i.e. GBL/Gubla (Heb. G^∫al ). 2.4

The moral of the story (in sum)

2.4.1 The moral of the story is clear, a proud and praiseworthy testimonial to the venerable Stoic tradition commanding the allegiance of the wise throughout the ages:

33 Contrast the description of the (non-royal!) judge Dan"el! For all their impudence, Yaßßib’s words thus contain a germ of truth. This motif of ‘truth from the mouth of babes’ is especially prominent in Aqhat (cf. M 1989, passim). Noteworthy too is Absalom, like Yaßßib motivated by a desire to depose his father, who sets himself up as a judge in the gateway, intercepting his father’s ‘clients’, in order to establish his credentials for kingship. 34 As well as ∆' (Heb. “ô'a) a title which he (presumably) shares with the other members of the Bêt-›br nobility. 35 Cf. Akk. ¢ibru(m), a Canaanite loanword denoting ‘clan’ (OB) and ‘in gathering (of fruit)’ (LB)—cf. AHw, 344. In the 11th cent. Egyptian Wen-Amon story, ¢-b-r denotes a joint commercial venture (ANET 27, n. 17). √¢br and √gbl are thus fully synonymous terms.

   

233

2.4.1.1 Grand the plans of gods and man, But when the day is done— Bones broadly scattered dry in the sun, For ironic Moira the fray hath won. And nought remains for Apollo’s progeny, But to sing her praise In comic agony. 2.4.2 ‘Life’, not ‘kingship’, stands at the centre of Keret as it does in Aqhat and Baal-Mot. But whereas Baal-Mot focuses on the uncanny dialectic of Life and Death on the (awesome) cosmic plane, Aqhat and Keret focus on the (absurd) human-life condition, the former on its tragic aspect, the latter on the tragi-comic (‘if it weren’t so funny, it would be sad . . .’). If Aqhat is a Canaanite Hamlet, Keret is a Canaanite Merchant of Venice. Like his great English counterpart, the Canaanite bard is a master at manipulating emotion; but to mistake him for a ‘politician’ (or a ‘preacher’), and his art for propaganda (or a sermon), is at once an insult and a betrayal. 2.4.2.1 Our poet—indeed any poet (of integrity)—writes (or sings) for an audience which is ‘free’, not ‘captive’. He is by nature the foe of tyranny, be it of the body or of the mind. He is anathema equally in Plato’s Republic and in Augustine’s ‘City of God’. He kneels (only) in the Temple of Moira, at the feet of Apollo.36

36 What J. H (Homo Ludens) has said of ‘play’ is equally true of writing poetry: ‘all play is a voluntary activity. Play to order is no longer play; it could at best be a forcible imitation of it. By this quality of freedom alone, play marks itself off from the course of the natural process. It is something added thereto and spread out over it like a flowering, an ornament, a garment.’ (Beacon ed., 1955, 7). Elsewhere (ibid., 132) he rightly observes that poetry as such is a form of play.

3

T S  A (KTU 1.17–19) N W

3.1

Introduction

Tablets RS 2.[004], 3.340 and 3.322+349+366, discovered in the ‘High Priest’s House’ on the acropolis at Ras Shamra-Ugarit in 1930 and 1931,1 were quickly established as constituting the same literary work.2 The mention of Danel by name in another third-season find from the same location, RS 3.348 (IV D = 1 Rp = UT 121 = CTA 20 = KTU 1.20), led to the initial incorporation of this tablet in the series, but its successor Rpum tablets were never thus regarded, and for practical purposes it too was eventually discarded from the sequence.3 No authorship is mentioned on any of the tablets. However, the lower edge below KTU 1.17 vi reads [ ]prln, (KTU 2 prln) and is generally restored on the basis of KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 54–5 as [spr.ilmlk.“bny.lmd.atn.]prln, thus restoring the name of Ilimilku, the scribe to whom KTU 1.1–6 = RS 3.361, 3.367, 3.346, 2.[014]+, 2.[008]+, 2.[022]+, 2.[009]+ and KTU 1.14–16 = RS 2.[003]+, 3.343+, 3.325+ are attributed (with colopha at 1.4 viii lower edge, 1.6 vi 54–8 and 1.16 vi 59 lower edge). RS 92.20164 (as yet unpublished) also apparently bears the name of Ilimilku. In the case of the published tablets, the script is similar in all the tablets at-

1 See B – P (1989, 26, 30–32). The most widely used numbering systems for the texts are as follows:

RS 2.[004] 3.340 3.322+

V 2 D 3 D 1 D

G 2 Aqht 3 Aqht 1 Aqht

H CTA 17 CTA 18 CTA 19

D – L – S KTU 1.17 KTU 1.18 KTU 1.19

The tablets are located as follows: KTU 1.17, 19 in the Louvre (AO 17. 324 and AO 17.323 respectively), KTU 1.18 in the British Museum (AO 17.325 = BM L84). 2 Published by V 1936a (Editio Princeps). 3 Typical expressions are ‘clearly at least one further tablet must have followed’: G 1975, 66. ‘At least four tablets’:  M 1987, 224. P 1992, 99, 134–5, still evidently had a fourth tablet in mind, but refrained from identifying it with KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348. See also P 1997, 49. 4 Provisionally KTU 9.432. See C 1992, B 1995a, 2.

   

235

tributed to Ilimilku, so that the identification is reasonable.5 As will be clear from the synopsis below, considerable portions of Aqhat are missing. KTU 1.17 is a tablet originally of six columns, of which two are entirely missing, while the beginning and end of the four surviving columns are missing (an estimated twelve or so lines in all on the recto, and on the verso, with a shearing break down the upper surface, perhaps twenty or so), with the wedgeshaped breaks on columns i and vi resulting in even further loss. KTU 1.18 is a tablet of four columns originally, of which two are entirely missing. Again, the beginning and end of the surviving columns are missing (some twenty-five lines or so), and wedge-shaped breaks further reduce the surviving text, with no complete lines in col. i, and only nine complete in col. iv. KTU 1.19 is the best preserved of the three; the only substantial losses here result from friable edges along the three sections into which the tablet has broken, with the additional loss of a central section in col. i, the bottom right hand corner of col. ii, the top corner of col. iii, and a small vertical section in the lower part of col. iv. The surface is also eroded at the beginning of col. i and in the upper central section of col. iv. At a rough estimate, from these three tablets slightly over half the lines are missing, say approximately 430 from an original 840 (fourteen columns of ca 60 lines each), or fifty-one percent. While these figures are not set in stone (or clay), any adequate interpretation of the text must remain provisional, having to take into account the fact that it can never tell more than half the story. 3.2

Synopsis of the story

Substantial portions of the text are missing, as we have noted. The following narrative sequence can however be understood. 17

i

Danel has no son and so performs devotions to obtain divine assistance. For six days he sacrifices to the gods, apparently spending every night in the temple. On the seventh day Baal intercedes for him, asking El to provide a son who will perform all the filial duties necessary for a father to be blessed. El blesses Danel and promises . . .

5 For recent discussion on the programme of Ilimilku see W 1997, 1998a and below in this chapter. I also enlarge on his significance at § 13.4.2 below.

 

236 ii

a son. The son is probably born in the missing section between the columns, and news is brought to Danel, who rejoices and holds a feast in his palace for the goddesses of childbirth. iii missing iv missing v Kothar arrives, bringing a composite bow as a gift. He is feasted,6 and the bow is given to Aqhat . . . vi A feast is apparently taking place. Anat asks Aqhat to give her the bow. He tells her to take the raw materials to Kothar: he will make her one. She persists in her demand, and offers him immortality. Aqhat tells her to stop lying, and says that a bow is in any case a man’s weapon. She departs to El in a rage, accusing Aqhat of impiety. 18

i

ii iii iv

19

i

ii

iii

Anat threatens El that she will be violent if she does not get her way, and he gives her a free hand. She approaches Aqhat, seemingly mollified, inviting him to go hunting with her. missing missing After a successful hunt, Anat summons Yatipan, instructing him to assume the form of a falcon, and pounce on Aqhat, killing him. He does so . . . and the bow falls into the river and is shattered. Anat mingles regret for the bow with a savage assault on Aqhat’s corpse, which she tears in pieces. Back in his capital, unaware of what has happened, Danel sits to dispense justice; Pughat sees the withering of the plants, and sensing a disaster, rips Danel’s cloak. He utters a curse. Danel, still evidently not appreciating the situation, wishes that his son would harvest the now shrivelling grain. Two messengers arrive and tell of Anat’s complicity. Danel . . . then curses the falcons. As each falls from the sky in turn he examines its entrails. Those falcons found to be empty are healed. Finally he finds Aqhat’s remains in Sumul’s stomach, and buries him. He then goes round the country,

6 This is the folk-tale idiom for worship with sacrifices, but uses the figure of face to face, person to person, communication between deity and devotee.

    iv

237

cursing all the villages in the vicinity of the murder. Aqhat is mourned for seven years, Danel concluding the rites with a sacrifice. Pughat then dons armour beneath her woman’s clothes, and sets off to find Yatipan. Already half drunk, and thinking that she is Anat, he demands wine, and while she plies him with it boasts of his exploit . . .7

As can be seen from this synopsis, there are tantalizing gaps in the narrative. Particularly unclear—and consequently open to variations in reconstructive guesswork—is the sequence of events in KTU 1.18. The synopsis above represents this author’s reading of the story. Again, the last column of KTU 1.19 breaks off at the most inopportune moment. It is commonly supposed that Pughat went on to kill Yatipan, which would provide a relatively satisfying dénouement, but would leave Anat, the true villain of the piece, unscathed. On the other hand, as pointed out below,8 this is to apply our moral expectations to a divine power, and may misread the author’s intention. Whether or not KTU 1.20–22 = RS 3.348, 2.[019], 2.[024] have any close relationship with Aqhat must remain an open question. But while they are narrative in form (and they appear to be three versions of substantially the same narrative, though Pitard opines below—§ 6.4—that tablets KTU 1.21 and 1.22 = RS 2.[019], 2.[024] may be two parts of one whole), we cannot assume that the mention of Danel proves a link, since a number of stories may have been attached to the same figure.

7

The following translations have been published: V 1936a, G 1936, 1937, 1938, 1950, 257–313, 1961, 316–76, C.H. G 1949, 84–103, 1977, 9–29, F 1955a, D 1956, 48–67, J 1962, 115–36, A 1964, 65–82, G 1969, 149–55, C – S 1974, 401–58, C 1976, 50–69, X 1976, 1982, 193–216, G 1978, 103–22, C 1978, 27–47, M 1989a,  O L 1981a, 327–401,  M 1987, 224–66, A 1990, B 1996, 333–65, P 1997a, 343–56, P 1997, 49–80, W 1998c, 245–312. Other studies include C 1938, B 1940, S 1943, G 1945a, 1945b, O 1946, H 1949b, G 1957, 73–91 = 1965, 106–26, E 1966, K 1967, K 1969, 70–82, H 1973, D –  M 1975, D 1975, 1979, 1983, G 1975, W 1976, X 1976, D 1979, M 1981a, 1983a, 1983b, 1984a, 1984b, 1989a,  O L 1984a, 115–42, C 1985, 1987, 1990, P 1987, 1989, 99–144, C 1988,  M 1988a, A 1989a, 1989b, 1990, H 1995, 1996. For a fuller bibliography down to 1988 see M 1989a, 503–6. 8 See § 13.3.2.1.

238

  3.3 History of interpretation9

V (1936) published the editio princeps of the Aqhat tablets. He accepted Ilimilku’s authorship of the present narrative, whatever their antecedents,10 and dated the tablets to the mid-fourteenth century (1936, 82). On genre he was imprecise, referring to ‘legends’ (1936, 83) and to ‘mythological texts’ (1936, 85), or even both together (1936, 109) without demur. By ordering them as he did (n. 1) he inevitably missed the logical progression which was subsequently recognized. Many of his explanations of the vocabulary have had to be revised, but his study is not to be underestimated as important pioneering work, however much may now be of primarily historical interest. An interesting instance is his discussion (1936, 87–96) of the names of the characters. He concluded (p. 96) that Aqhat is ‘a member of the family of the god of death; he is, in effect, one of the gods who dies . . .’; he resumed this argument later (p. 110), claiming that Mot ‘personifies the ripe ear of wheat’, with the result that Aqhat is also supposed to be ‘the harvest-genius’. There was an unfortunate tendency to draw conclusions of this kind in early Ugaritic scholarship, which it took decades to escape. Everything was allegorical! The result was the wholesale application of various permutations of the seasonal interpretation (a variant on the myth-and-ritual theme) to all the larger compositions, with a consequent delay in the recognition of more balanced assessments. Virolleaud also understood the terms q“t (‘bow’) and qß't (‘arrows’) to mean ‘chalice’ and ‘vases’ respectively,11 which rather destroyed the symbolic centrepiece of the whole story. C 1938, in a brief note on the text, placed the tablets in what is now regarded as the correct order, and recognized Aqhat’s human nature. B 1940 drew attention to the apparent links

9 There is insufficient space to offer a complete survey here, and much of the earlier discussion is in any case now outmoded. I shall therefore merely outline one or two salient features of early discussion, and concentrate on later work. For literature before their respective publication dates see also the surveys in C – S – H 1974, 401–15,  O L 1981a, 327–401, and M 1989a, 3–92. 10 He writes of them being ‘redacted in the fourteenth century’ and of a considerable lapse of time between their original formation and reduction to writing by Ilimilku (V 1936a, 83). This dating is now in course of modification. See P 1997c, 376 n. 2, and below, § 13, nn. 284, 289, 311. 11 V 1936a, 117, 203–5.

   

239

of the narrative with the Galilee region,12 while G 1945a, 1945b, recognized that Danel was a king, and in his detailed treatment of a number of key passages broadly set Aqhat studies in their present mode. Gaster developed his views through a number of articles and two editions of Thespis (G 1936, 1937, 1938, 1950, 257–313, 1961 [1966 printing], 316–76). We may take his final account as his considered view. He treated Aqhat as myth, and classified it as ‘the disappearing god type’. It is a purely literary work as it stands, but with its roots in ritual drama: ‘it was, au fond, nothing but an artistic transformation of the time-honored seasonal drama’.13 After offering a synopsis of the narrative, in which the reader may feel uncomfortably that he is being led more by rhetoric than by hard facts, he launched into his interpretation (1961 [1966], 320–7). ‘If our basic approach is correct,’ he averred, ‘this story will go back to a primitive seasonal myth relating how a mortal huntsman challenged the supremacy of the goddess of the chase and how his subsequent execution for this impiety caused infertility upon earth.’

He went on to invoke Tammuz, Osiris, Adonis ‘and the like’. We can see the patterning process at work. Only the prior assumption of some seasonal theory (probably also misrepresenting fundamental elements in these traditions too) could justify a parallel treatment. More substantial, however, was his invocation of the Orion myth. This is indeed a widespread tale (in my view possibly quite independent of Tammuz and company), of the hunter who confronts and insults a goddess or is in some way brought to her attention.14 Unfortunately, Orion is the subject of a large number of myths, and not one of them corresponds very closely to the plot of Aqhat. It requires a synoptic approach to discern any extensive parallels between what are essentially variations on a theme. Furthermore, Orion is inseparable from the constellation of the same name, while Aqhat 12

One of the grounds for considering that the rulers of Ugarit were originally from the Hauran-Galilee region lies in the familiarity of the tradition with the toponyms of the region. See discussion, with further references, in M 1989a, 14–7. 13 G 1961 (1966), 316. 14 G 1961 (1966) 320–6. See also G 1906, i 69–70 (cited Gaster), F 1981, G 1960, i 151–4 (41), and A 1967, 163–75 (discussed below). Graves’ explanation of Aqhat (1960, i 153–4), apart from calling it a Hittite (!) myth, interprets it astronomically.

240

 

has no obvious links with the stars;15 and while it would be nice to find them, we should beware of assuming them on the basis of ‘parallels’ some centuries younger. But Gaster’s work on this aspect deserves more extensive re-evaluation as our knowledge of the stellar dimension to Ugaritian religion, now known only fragmentarily, develops further. But even establishing a stellar basis does nothing for the explication of a text from which any such putative elements are now clearly missing.16 D (1956, 8) gave only a slight treatment of the significance of the story. He stated that the theme of Aqhat ‘is a righteous king’s need of a son’, but a couple of paragraphs later wrote that ‘the main theme of the myth is clearly the death and resurrection of Aqhat’, thus introducing a new perception of what concerned the narrator, before concluding that in view of the damaged condition of the material ‘no satisfactory interpretation of the myth is possible’! This final assessment is certainly the most cautious. But it should be noted that Driver raised two interesting issues: the problem of whether Danel was a king, and the death and resurrection motif. A (1967, 163–75) referred to Gaster’s treatment of Aqhat in relation to Orion, but, without discounting it and noting its Mesopotamian antecedents, argued that a much closer figure for fruitful comparison is the Greek Actaeon. He noted that Actaeon’s mother Autonoë was daughter of Cadmus and Harmonia, thus evincing a Semitic pedigree, since Cadmus and the whole Boeotian tradition reflect West Semitic influence. He argued (p. 165) that the two names, Aqhat and Actaeon, are related, and that not only are both torn asunder, one by ‘eagles’ (rather falcons),17 the other by dogs (falcons and dogs are animals in the service of hunters), but (p. 167) that in both stories there is a seasonal element, the fifty hounds of Actaeon representing the cycle of the year, while Aqhat’s death provokes a severe drought. Like Gaster, he went on to suggest a stellar element behind the Orion parallels (p. 168), and noted that the latter’s name, too, is susceptible of a Semitic etymology (√’ôr, ’ûr) and may even appear in the form aryn as an Ugaritic personal name.18 15 G’s (1961 [1966], 322) linking of the bow with the constellation of Canis major is certainly intriguing! 16 The only hint at a richer background is Pughat’s epithetal yd't hlk kbkbm, ‘who know(s) the courses of the stars’, KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ ii 2–3 etc. 17 W 1998c, 284 and n. 151. 18 Cf. G 1967, 27, 220, 365. ‘Hurrian?’: DLU, 54.

   

241

He further argued for a link between Sumul (ßml ), ‘mother of the eagles (falcons)’ and Greek Semele.19 C – S (1974, 409) drew attention to the incomplete state of the text and advised caution in interpretation. Critical of mythological and seasonal interpretations, they insisted (p. 413) that the story was neither history, not historical epic, nor myth, and was not the subject of seasonal, national or exceptional recital. They found a definition of its genre elusive, but compared it with Gilgamesh, Adapa and Etana, ragarding it as an Ugaritic ‘classic’ (conveniently vague!). They did not use the term, but to judge from their treatment (p. 414) appear to have assessed it as wisdom literature.20 G (1975) set out to clarify thinking on the nature of myth and other genres. Noting that one of K’s (1971, 268) features of myth was the fantastic dimension, he noted such features in Aqhat (and Keret), but added that ‘a speculative or perhaps better, an ideological bias’ (p. 62) should be present for a narrative to qualify as myth. But he denied any link between the present narrative and Ugaritian royal ideology. The scenes such as the confrontation between Anat and Aqhat, which he considered to have an ideological dimension, he regarded (p. 67) as ‘secondary, supplying for all their vigour only the backcloth against which Daniel’s piety is put to the test’. He further opined that the bow too was a secondary feature, and that in a putative fourth tablet Aqhat was finally restored to life. I (1978, 76–78) dealt briefly with Aqhat in the broader context of ancient Near Eastern tales. Her treatment was too cursory to contribute much to the discussion, but she served the useful purpose of highlighting the conventional folklore motifs to be found in the story.21 In his edition of the texts,  O L 1981 offered an extensive analysis of Aqhat. He classified it as ‘epic’, along with Keret, and ran through the scenes, analyzing the literary sub-type of each episode, drawing on parallels in biblical and other ancient Near Eastern literatures. In reverting to a general statement of the text’s ‘sense and function’ (pp. 354–64), he reiterated its epic nature, judging it however

19 A read the DN ßml at KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001.14, but this is now discounted. 20 M 1989a, 58, characteristically summed up their exposition as an account of ‘a pastor or a priest . . . [who] teaches platitudes’! 21 She identifies them according to T 1955–8.

242

 

more ‘mythical’ than Keret, since the deities are more involved as dramatis personæ, and not merely invoked in conventional religious terms. ‘The gods avenge themselves’ in response to Aqhat’s insolence, he stated (p. 355), discerning a general theological argument here, and the supreme god ‘has to yield to the caprice of an inferior deity’.22 This theological quality makes it difficult to estimate a historical basis for the story, as though that were desirable. Del Olmo Lete attempted to give a serious theological account, but his assessment of ‘the caprice of the gods, their amoral conduct’ (p. 356) seems to me to misconstrue the significance of mythological23 action. He later (p. 358) drew attention to another theological point, the contrast between Danel who is obedient to the gods and receives a positive response, and Aqhat who confronts them and is accordingly rebuffed. But while this is true in terms of narrative device, and of psychology and pastoral theology, it perhaps disguises the real problem on a purely metaphysical level, which is that the different deities encountered in the story are quite differently motivated in their relationships with humans. That is, the deities as reifications of certain metaphysical principles are credited with their own motivation, which operates independently of immediate human motivation. Anat is after all, as goddess of war and hunting, by nature vicious, pitiless and scheming. That is the role she is constructed to play. We are left feeling that no amount of diplomacy on Aqhat’s part would have saved him. Certainly no amount of piety on Danel’s part does him any good. Margalit has written a number of studies on Aqhat, culminating in his large-scale commentary (M 1981a, 1983b, 1984c, 1989), the first study on a single narrative from Ugarit on this scale.24 This is extremely thorough, but is a very difficult volume to work with, in view of its division into separate blocks dealing with the same 22 For my slightly different assessment of the general theological principles at work see below, § 13.3.2.6. 23 I am writing here of the mental disposition rather than the literary genre, though the two naturally overlap. As though grappling with this issue, del Olmo Lete (p. 356 and n. 90) writes that Aqhat is ‘nearer “myth” than the “epic of Kirta”’, and (n.) ‘[Aqhat’s] intermediate position between saga and myth is recognized’. ‘Caprice’ is also a term appearing in de Moor’s assessment (below). For further observations on the adequate assessment of myth see § 13.4 below. 24 The studies on the Baal cycle by  M (1971) and  Z (1972a) are not formal commentaries in the same sense, and in any case the Baal material is altogether more heterogeneous than Aqhat or Keret.

   

243

materials from different perspectives and no adequate cross-referencing aids. Trying to achieve this during use is a taxing occupation. It begins (pp. 3–92) with a useful survey of previous work, though this is perhaps excessively negative, not to say waspish, in its assessment of others’ efforts.25 There follows a prosodic analysis (pp. 93–105), separated by nearly four hundred pages from the appendix on the principles of Ugaritic prosody (pp. 495–502). It is fair to say that Margalit has ploughed a lonely furrow on this topic, for few have expressed support for his approach, or are as optimistic as he that he has solved the considerable problems the topic raises. Following the initial position-statement on prosody, he offered a textual analysis (pp. 107–14), followed by a text layout (unvocalized, pp. 117–41); this is followed in turn by a translation (pp. 143–66), then by textual and epigraphic notes (pp. 167–246), and finally by a literary commentary, prefaced by short units of the unvocalized text (again!) and punctuated by excursi on various topics (pp. 247– 469), before an exegetical overview, a brief statement on Ugaritic literature and the Hebrew Bible and the final appendix. Two theoretical positions dominate the work, the non-royal nature of Danel (on which see further below), and the so-called ‘Kinneret hypothesis’, according to which the narrative is at home in the Galilee region. He even considered the Kinneret to be an actor in the drama (p. 411: ‘the personified Kinnereth, “unwilling” to disclose the identity of the assailant, must be punished as “accessory after the fact”’). This seems a trifle excessive. Parker has written two studies (P 1987,26 1989, 99–144) on Aqhat. In the former, he deplored the atomistic nature of previous philological approaches to the poem, and the patternistic bias of religious approaches. The time had come for a literary approach. While caution must be urged in view of the fragmentary nature of the text, a useful approach, on essentially form-critical terms, was the establishment of the types of traditional material employed.27 ‘Hypothetically

25 The treatment of K 1969 encapsulates this rather well: ‘Author (sic) states at the outset (p. 70): “The Aqht text is still an enigma, and so far no satisfactory solution of its problems has been found”. Had he limited himself to this statement, the net balance of author’s contribution would have been more positive than it is in fact.’ Some put-down! 26 Published in the M.H. Pope Festschrift (M – G 1987). Given as an SBL paper in 1980, and discussed briefly in M 1989a, 71–6. 27 Cf. discussion of del Olmo Lete above.

244

 

any consistent thrust uniting those peculiarities may be treated as the theme of the whole’ (p. 71). He isolated five main sections, and treated each in turn. These are as follows, in his treatment. A), the birth of Aqhat, deals with the familiar theme of the childless hero who appeals to the god for help; the god responds, and the child is born. The Egyptian tale of the Doomed Prince and the Hurrian Appu story, the story of Hannah and Samuel in 1 Samuel, and the Ugaritic Keret story, are cited as comparable examples of the type. B), the bow of Aqhat, describes the making and delivery of the bow. The account of Kothar’s visit has analogues in Genesis 18:1–16 and 19:1–16. Sharing certain traits is 2 Kgs 4:8–17, and a modified version of the form appears in 1 Kgs 17:9–16. C), the death of Aqhat, describes Anat’s coveting of the bow, her overtures to the hero, and confrontation with El when rebuffed, culminating in her being given a free hand in accomplishing Aqhat’s death with Yatipan’s help. Comparison is made with the hero with Ishtar in Gilgamesh, both episodes deriving from an older Vorlage, and also with Anat’s dealing with El in KTU 1.3 v = RS 2.[014]+.28 D), the consequences of Aqhat’s death. Parker noted that the narrative movement almost comes to a standstill in this section, apart from describing a number of ritual activities which accompany the inevitable environmental consequences of Aqhat’s murder. Awareness of Aqhat’s death (as the cause of drought) dawns only slowly, and then Danel’s curses are directed towards the birds who have devoured his son,29 and to the cities held responsible for unresolved homicides in their neighbourhoods. No similarly extended parallels from ancient near eastern literature are cited. E), Pughat’s mission of vengeance. Comparisons scholars have made with the stories of Judith and Jael and Sisera are noted. While the latter connection is discounted, extensive similarities with the former are discussed.

28 P 1987, 77, notes that while the language in Baal and Aqhat is remarkably similar, the theme of the goddess’ insubordination before the high god is far less apposite in the former. He adduces a closer relationship between Aqhat and Gilgamesh. 29 P 1987, 79, appears to hold the father of the raptors responsible. In fact it is their mother, Sumul, who is so described, in KTU 1.19 iii 28–39. The birds are identified as vultures, p. 78. For the present author they are rather falcons.

   

245

Parker concluded that Aqhat would have originally ended with an account of the fulfilment of Pughat’s vengeance, and a return of fertility to the land,30 but with no reference to Aqhat’s restoration to life. He ended with an assessment in which the mythological emphasis drawn by previous scholarship was played down, while the social dimension was highlighted as the main theme of the author’s intention. He made some interesting observations on gender roles, contrasting Anat’s ‘innate and blatant masculinity’ with Pughat’s ‘assumed and concealed masculinity’ (p. 82). his conclusion raises a number of questions (expressed rhetorically) rather than providing answers for them. He saw the possibility of a critique of the values of the contemporary monarchy and administration. Useful as this analysis of the structures and congeners of the Aqhat story are, it does not actually tell us much about the moral or ideological dimensions which may lie behind it (that is, the author’s intention). If his final questions had been answered, we might have some clear idea where Parker stood. Margalit, though too harsh in his judgment,31 is perhaps justified in complaining that this tells us more about comparative literature than about Aqhat. It certainly shows the relatively sterile nature of analysis which gives no account of why an author works in this or that way, beyond the fact that it all boils down to ‘traditional themes’. Parker returned to the topic in a further study (P 1989). Here he set out the broad characteristics of Ugaritic narrative verse, as it was evidenced in particular in the Keret and Aqhat stories. He then turned to Aqhat itself (pp. 99–144), and outlined much the same discussion as above. His conclusion was extended to a demonstration of how, while drawing on common mythic and legendary themes, the author(s) (‘composers’) have, ‘by adopting, transforming and combining several different traditional narratives, produced a larger work of striking unity’ (p. 142). Again he emphasized the familial values promoted in the story, as distinct from conventional mythological themes, raised the question of authorial motive, and now suggested that as a piece of ‘classical’ literature in Ugarit, Aqhat may 30 Does he mean an element of the ‘fertility cult’ here? He does not say. At most, what can be said is that fertility represents divine blessing, while sterility is the outcome of a curse, and in broad terms fertility also has to do with royal power and its effective implementation. The loss of a prince is a threat to a kingdom. However, P notes (1987, 83) the lack of overt emphasis on royal issues. 31 M 1989a, 72.

246

 

have afforded its readers and hearers the opportunity of seeing themselves mirrored in the world of the story, ‘a satisfying portrayal of life in an idealized past era, a life with its own tragedies, but also with its own orderly and beautiful institutions that in the end prevailed’ (p. 143). In his translation of the texts,  M 1987, 224–66, made a number of comments on the literary features of the story. In keeping with his broader assessment of Ugaritian theology,32 he saw Aqhat as dealing ‘with life and death, and with the fate of man who all too often appears to be the victim of divine caprice’. Read in the light of his earlier and later treatments of Ugaritic theology, this is not a perspective to be taken seriously, since he appears to have envisaged a culture incapable of the moral insight to question its own bankrupt theology. The authors are thus as benighted as their literary characters. At best Ilimilku reflects a disillusioned and pessimistic outlook supposedly typical of the Late Bronze Mediterranean world.33 Into this scenario  M (1990, 97 = 1997, 99) wove an argument developed some years earlier ( M 1988a), discerning in Aqhat a further outworking of the seasonal pattern he had previously argued to be the foundation of the Baal Cycle ( M 1971). In the 1988 article he expressed the principle thus: ‘Ilimilku . . . deliberately wove a seasonal pattern into the Legend of Aqhatu out of his conviction that life on earth revolves according to a circular pattern that had been laid down in the pristine age of myth’ (p. 61). He then proceeded to fix episodes in the narrative in sequence through the calendrical year in the same manner as had been done for the Baal cycle. The substantial objections raised by some scholars to the seasonal interpretation were dismissed as of no consequence ( M 1988a, 75 n. 6). A (1990)34 offered a very thorough analysis of the narrative from a folk-literature perspective, drawing on the work of Propp, Dundes and Dole≥el. He saw the narrative structure in terms of a series of different thematic levels, and of alternating patterns; ‘lacks’ 32 D M 1986b, 1990, 42–100 (= 1997, 41–102). For my views on this issue see § 13.3 below. 33 See  M 1990, 99 (= 1997, 101). In my view the observations made here result from a mistranslation of KTU 1.19 ii 34–36. For my translation see W 1998c, 301. 34 This is the published form of an Edinburgh PhD dissertation from 1978. The latest entries in the bibliography are from 1984.

   

247

being ‘liquidated’ (not the most apposite term in view of Aqhat’s liquidation!) as desires were met or situations reversed (e.g. a son for the hero, a bow for the hero, the bow for Anat, and so on) or a status quo maintained. Among the oppositions a set of equivalences (called ‘the synonymous sequence’) is also developed, and periodic repetition (e.g. searching the falcons’ gizzards for the remains of Aqhat maintain tension and development to a climax. Aitken was able to achieve this, quite legitimately, in spite of the considerable gaps in the narrative, and showed the tight construction of the surviving text, and, as he put it (p. 206), ‘of the skill and artistry of its narrator, the Ugaritic teller of tales’. 3.4

Some recurrent and unresolved issues in Aqhat

A number of individual episodes and themes in the story have been the subject of particular discussion. 3.4.1

The Incubation theory

Like O (1946), Gaster interpreted the temple episode (KTU 1.17 i) as an incubation scene,35 as did Gray,36 del Olmo Lete37 and Parker.38 This view has however been persuasively challenged by M 1989a, 260–6, and by H 1992, 29–62, 1996, 93–5, who marshall substantial arguments against the incubation interpretation. Margalit, citing H’s (1906) study, observes that none of the conditions required is fulfilled: chthonian gods are not involved, no illness is involved, there is no reason to think that Danel’s sleeping is part of the ritual, there is no direct theophany, and no cultic personnel are involved. Furthermore, no other ancient Near Eastern candidate fulfils the conditions either, and we are left with a late hellenistic institution with no obvious points of contact. Husser’s original discussion was complex and extended, taking Obermann on at every juncture. His later paper summarized his main findings, broadly in accord with Margalit. He noted that it was gaps in the text, filled out in academic imagination, which appeared to justify the incubation interpretation. Furthermore, it was not to Danel 35 36 37 38

G 1961, 316. G 1969, 296. D O L 1981a, 332–3, 1984a, 119–20, 1984b. P 1987, 72; 1992, 100.

248

 

that Baal drew near (in a theophany), but to El, to whom he speaks about Danel in the third person. If ‘incubation’ is to be used to describe the scene, it requires a considerable extension of the classical meaning of the term. 3.4.2

The occasion of Aqhat’s birth

When was Aqhat born? The conventional interpretation of KTU 1.17 ii has been that it is part of the build-up to the account of the birth of Aqhat, which must have been narrated in the gap following. This is explicitly stated, for instance, by M 1989a, 147, and in some other discussions appears to be assumed, though not spelt out (e.g. P 1987, 73). But a convincing case has been made by Caquot – Sznycer, and developed further by Husser, that the birth must have taken place in the gap between the end of col. i and the beginning of col. ii.39 The later presence of the Kotharat is to be understood, no doubt, as for that purpose, but they evidently delay for some days after, perhaps to confirm a safe birth and the healthy state of the child. On this alternative interpretation, the arrival of the Kotharat and the counting of days and months in KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] ii refer not to conception and pregnancy, but to the immediate post-natal period and the child’s infancy.40 3.4.3

Aqhat’s encounter with Anat

The encounter between Anat and Aqhat in KTU 1.18 i (in particular l. 24) has also given rise to much discussion. The key part of the text reads at.a¢.wan.×[ ]. It has been frequently restored, to read at.a¢.wan.a[¢tk].41 Was there a sexual encounter between Aqhat and Anat? This was asserted by A (1944, 33–4), but rejected by G (1945b, 19). The best argument against the common view, i.e. that there was, is that of D 1979, followed by X 1984b. I have accepted this view.42

39 C – S 1974, 405, 425 n. f., H 1996, W 1998c, 262 n. 50. 40 Note the pluperfect sense of 'rb bbth ktrt, ‘the skilful goddesses had entered his house’, in KTU 1.17 ii 26: H 1996, 91–2, W 1998c, 264 and n. 61. 41 Thus KTU 2. 42 Instead of ‘You are my brother and I am your sis[ter]’, the passage is to be read ‘Come, brother, and I shall [ ]’. The putative reading a[¢tk] is impossible. See W 1998c, 279 and n. 132.

    3.4.4

249

Danel’s social status

There has been some debate as to whether Danel is a king. G (1945a, 4 n. 6) noted that Danel sits at both threshing-floor and city gate to dispense justice, citing 1 Kgs 22:10, 2 Chr. 18:9 as parallels, and also noting the widespread ancient Near Eastern use of the royal theme of caring for widows and orphans. G (1975, 66) remarked that ‘Danel is only once called a king’, as though apologizing for the author’s loose use of language! He preferred to see in Danel a patriarch of the Joban or Abrahamic kind. The formal royal view has not gone unchallenged, as noted above. M (1989a, 253–4, 278, 292–3, 309, 361–2, 410, 424–7) in particular has been most persistent in arguing that Danel is not to be seen as a king. His arguments (1989a) were as follows, though the case was made more by assertion than by demonstration. A premonarchical society was envisaged by Margalit (p. 309), in which ‘notables’ dispensed justice. Danel’s ‘political status is that of unus (doubtfully primus) inter pares. He is one of the “city elders” . . . ’ (p. 361). Finally, he did not recognize the sense ‘king’ of mlk in KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iii 46. He construed it (1989a, 163, 410) as ‘your down-course’ (Ar. mayl ). In view of Gibson’s comment, it is worth noting that with substantial portions of the text missing, not too much should be made of the apparent hapax appearance of mlk here. Margalit’s case can hardly be said to be very strong, and much rhetoric and repetition can hardly substitute for reasoned discussion. The counter-arguments are as follows. Firstly, the title mt rpi, however it is taken, has a royal significance. In my translation (1998c, 250 n. 5) I have taken it in the sense ‘man (i.e. ruler) of Rapha’. The alternative sense is to take it as a promise of Danel’s later ( postmortem) incorporation into the rpum (deified dead kings of high rank). To this cf. the element in the blessing of Keret which foresees his inclusion among the rpum, KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 2–4, 13–5). Secondly the blessing formula restored at KTU 1.17 i 34–6, on the strength of KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ ii 16–20, is to be construed as explicitly royal in its object. As Jackson and Dressler have noted, there is a close affinity between the scene described and the Ugaritian royal seals.43 Within this formula, the form 'bd reappears ( pace Margalit), with reference to Danel, at KTU 1.17 i 36 (previously 43

J – D 1975. See also W 1997, 787–9.

250

 

misread as .bdh, with preceding word-divider), and this too is an explicitly royal title.44 Thirdly, Danel also performs an action reminiscent of El himself at KTU 1.17 i 10–11, in placing his feet on his footstool. This is to be understood as an accoutrement of royal rank (cf. Ps. 110:1). Fourthly, the description in KTU 1.17 i of Danel ‘enrobed’ (uzr) for the performance of his devotions may be an allusion to the ritual garment in which Ugaritian kings are shown robed in various representations.45 Fifthly, as already observed by Ginsberg (above), Danel’s sitting at the city-gate to judge, at KTU 1.17 v 4–8, 19 i 19–25, and particularly the reference to widows and orphans as the beneficiaries of his dispensation of justice (a cliché for royal justice throughout ancient Near Eastern literature; contrast Keret at KTU 1.16 vi 33–4, 45–50!) is the fulfilment of a specifically royal duty. Margalit’s attempt to democratize this is without substance. Sixthly, the use of hkl at KTU 1.17 i 26, 43, ii 25, is most reasonably to be construed as denoting a royal palace. To accept it as less is to require that the term is used as a sustained hyperbole. The former alternative is altogether the more natural. While it is of course the pair-word to bt, it is used elsewhere in the Ugaritic corpus only of kings’ and gods’ ‘houses’, that is, palaces in the first instance and temples in the second. Finally, the form mlk occurring at KTU 1.19 iii 46 is most reasonably to be taken to mean ‘king’, with reference to Danel himself, as the subject of the verb in the sentence. The syntax raises no problems, and an appeal to Arabic cognates is unnecessary. These pieces of evidence represent a prima facie case for Danel’s kingship, and it can only be the prior assumption that he is not a king which can challenge their cumulative force. On the other hand, the anti-monarchical case requires the demolition of the whole argument, point by point. The royal status of Danel is not necessarily an essential element in the broad interpretation of the story, for the heroes of tales are often kings or the sons of kings, and it merely adds an aristocratic gloss to the narrative; but it also lends some support to the view expressed below that the story has been given 44 A king is 'bd DN, ‘servant (or “gardener”—W 1990b) of DN’. Thus with Judahite kings 'bd yhwh, ‘servant of Yahweh’, or ‘gardener of Yahweh’. 45 See W 1998c, 251 n. 6.

   

251

an ideological twist by Ilimilku. Quite apart from its interpretative significance, the fact remains that Danel’s kingship appears to be taken for granted. 3.4.5 The bow Dressler and Hillers have both drawn attention to the significance of the bow in the story of Aqhat. It is evidently of some considerable importance, since the desire for it motivates Anat to murder the hero. In the broadest sense it is a symbol of power. But what else is it? H (1973) argued that it was in effect a phallic symbol. Its theft by Anat would constitute an act of emasculation. He read into this a number of modern psycho-literary insights. D (1975) countered that much of Hillers’ argument centred on damaged text (and its restoration), hardly a sound basis for far-reaching hermeneutical claims. The bow was indeed a masculine symbol, but not a phallic one. That is, it pointed to manly virtues, but without explicitly sexual innuendo. He drew attention to H’s (1966) discussion of gender-symbols in defence of his own restrained view, and rebutted each instance of an ancient literary allusion to bows, arrows and quivers in which Hillers had discerned a sexual innuendo. 3.4.6 What becomes of dead men? The retort offered by Aqhat to Anat’s offer of eternal life in exchange for the bow has long puzzled scholars. M (1989, 307–10), while having nothing to say on the specific matter of post-mortem existence, presents Aqhat’s observations in KTU 1.17 vi 36–38 as an allusion to the Neolithic liming of skulls attested at Jericho. The idea that a LBA text would be preserving ritual details of a very specific kind (and long discontinued, to judge from mortuary evidence throughout the intervening period) seems most unlikely to me, and may be discounted. The further idea that LBA people might discover such ancient skulls (lying in shallow deposits) and contemplate their meaning (p. 309), while a charming idea, is scarcely a sufficient basis for postulating a systematic anthropology of death. The more general issue of the nature of beliefs regarding the afterlife has been dealt with at some length by S (1986), who takes a maximalist line, much in the tradition of D (1970), who cited the present passage in

252

 

his argument for a positive view of the afterlife, and even attributed a firm belief in a beatific vision to the psalmists. The following translation of KTU 1.17 vi 36–3846 represents my rather less fulsome view of the matter. The key word in the problem of translation has been ˙rß occurring in l. 37. I have explained it as representing perhaps a misspelling of the more common ¢rß, ‘gold’. D –  M (1975, 190) offered the same explanation, considering ˙rß however as a parallel form.  M (1987, 239) later abandoned this view in favour of ‘potash’, but I consider that his initial insight was to be preferred. Man, (at his) end, what will he receive? What will he receive, a man (as his destiny? Silver! will be poured on his head, gold on top of his skull, [and] the death of all I shall die, and I shall surely die.

As I read this, Anat does indeed voice the possibility of a life after death, probably based on the beliefs held regarding dead kings, all of whom are ‘divine’ in some sense (cf. KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257. 13–26, where each RN is prefixed by il ). Some dead kings (though to judge from the evidence, legendary rather than historical figures, since no members of the king-list apparently qualify) are even given the accolade rpum (cf. § 6.4), which I understand to denote dead and deified kings, comparable perhaps to the heroes of the Greek cult. However, while this idea is here broached, and Ilimilku may indeed be floating the idea through the agency of Anat’s speech, he also offers through the medium of Aqhat’s wholly negative answer a sound critique of such unrealistic views. 46 Cf. W 1998c, 274 and n. 115. I have modified the third colon here. The colon begins spsg, translated in 1998c as ‘a precious substance?’, and variously translated as ‘glaze’ (|| ‘quicklime’: G 1978, 109), ‘enamel’ (|| ‘whitewash’:  O L 1981a, 378), ‘glaze’ (|| ‘potash’:  M 1987, 239), ‘a coating’ (|| ‘limeplaster’: M 1989, 151). I noted (1998c, 274 n. 115) that this is reminiscent of Prov. 26:23, where the expression kesep siggîm, was read by G (1945b, p. 21n. 55) as k-spsg[ym], ‘like glaze’ on the strength of the Ugaritic. But this argument may be regarded as circular, in which one unknown is used to interpret another. Perhaps the original kesep is to be retained in Proverbs, and restored to the Ug. text as spsg || ˙rß/*¢!rß. The -sg( ym) remains unexplained in both cases, but that is another issue. But Ugaritic is relatively stereotypical in its use of regular word-pairs, and ksp || ¢rß is fairly commonplace, occurring many times in the repertoire. Furthermore, the Heb. term is pl. in form, while the Ug. is sg., thus reducing the appearance of a seemingly identical terminology.

    3.5

253

New angles on Aqhat

The present author has attempted47 to interpret the work of Ilimilku overall, as motivated in all probability by the concerns of his office as priest and sacrificer of the king. Such a substantial amount of material (KTU 1.1–6, 1.14–6, 1.17–9, perhaps 1.10, and now 9.432 = RS 92.2016, still unpublished as this goes to press) by one named person, however we apportion his editorial and compositional input, is quite remarkable in the Late Bronze, and we may at least ask whether he did not have some broad ideological concern to express. Working on the basis of the view, now under challenge, that the Niqmaddu of the colopha is Niqmaddu II, it is proposed that we have in this substantial opus a legitimization of the new king, whose reign may have begun in inauspicious circumstances (death of a prior claimant? usurpation?), whose claim required every kind of support available in a hearts and minds campaign. The place of Aqhat in this hypothetical programme was almost circumstantial, since the weighty arguments were already spelt out in the Baal myths and in Keret. But it would tend to reinforce some features of the Keret story: thus the restitution of the blessing episode to the text would tend to confirm the author’s view that Danel is indeed a king. This in turn would highlight the significance of the magnificent bow, fit for a god, and of course of its function as a royal weapon (the king as hunter is an analogue of the king as warrior), and thus attach a peculiar importance to Aqhat, the hapless recipient of this wonder. While not in the same form as the search for Baal and the allusion to it in searching for help for Keret, Danel’s search for Aqhat’s remains is perhaps intended to invoke the same theological associations, as though Baal’s death is a type of a king’s, here a future king, with an aspiration to some happy hereafter. This of course is what Anat offers the prince, but which he sharply rejects. Are we to see in the raising of such questions a grappling with issues which tradition has indeed sanctified by habit, but whose answers are no longer regarded as good enough? Ilimilku might thus be seen as one of O’Shaunessy’s poets, the movers and shakers of the world. In attempting to identify the poet’s motivation (as well as to quantify his personal input into a representation of essentially traditional 47 W 1997, 1998a. See also notes to the text in 1998c, 34–6, 176–8, 246–8 (written before 1998a), where I initially explored some of the ideas in question.

254

 

material), I am of course entering into a mode as subjective as that which I have implicitly or explicitly criticized above in other scholars’ work. But there seems to me to be a world of difference—however difficult it may be to achieve it—between attempting to foist on an ancient author one’s contemporary prejudices and discovering what were indeed his own concerns in the matter. In the matter of the ‘caprice’ of the gods, mentioned by two authors cited, I think we have an example of the all too common tendency to allow modern theological values, already commonly imported into the Hebrew Bible, and declared to be resident there, to affect the agenda. Not content with an invented ‘biblical world view’ which is more often that of the post-reformation period, there seems to be an attempt to make Ilimilku himself an early reformer! Yet I see no tension at all in broad matters of metaphysics between Ilimilku and his world. So far as the internal and traditional theology of Aqhat is concerned, and which there is no reason to believe is under attack by Ilimilku, the kind of perspective outlined below (§ 13.4.2) is to be discerned: polytheistic theory at the same time offers a coherent overall structure at the macrocosmic level for the maintenance of meaning and value in the world, and in the interaction of its particular deities accommodates the microcosmic realities of individual problems, individual decisions and their consequences, and the tensions which are bound to exist between the real and the ideal world. Anat’s behaviour is predictable, and in no way a reflection of inadequate or immoral theology. As the embodiment of precisely the dysfunctional aspect of the world, represented by all forms of killing (hunting and war), she is a terrible power to encounter. Aqhat’s brisk rebuttal of her overtures, while commanding our respect, inevitably brings on his own head the whole weight of the traditional sanction on those who blaspheme (sc. question the divinely ordained order of things). There is a degree of tragedy and of awful inevitability, as the sequence of automatic cursing and automatic revenge is set in train, but this does no more than express in graphic terms the principle of accountability. On the matter of genre, there has been much discussion on that of the Keret and Aqhat stories. Are they myths, legends or sagas? When myth is defined as ‘stories about the gods’ (e.g. by Gunkel and Eissfeldt), then the presence of human characters in the story compromises any attempt to categorize the story as myth. Since no such inhibitions seem to affect discussion of mythology in any arena

   

255

other than the biblical one (where also it is arguably an inappropriate basis for classification, since it really belongs to a polemic rather than a detached analysis), it may be regarded as irrelevant to serious discussion of the Ugaritic texts. More to the point is perhaps the matter of authorial intention. If myth be defined, as it is likely to be in social scientific terms, as stories bearing an ideological (which may include a religious) or paradigmatic message to their public, then the issue of the nature of the characters, divine, human, or even animal, is secondary. These elements are important. Fables, folk and fairy tales, though they contain characters drawn from myth, have lost the absolute imperative of the ideological norm, which demands obedience to a conventional set of values, duties and taboos, and effectively authorizes sanctions against non-conformists. But an element of freedom in the development of a tradition exists. Thus the myth (e.g. the Chaoskampf, which is integral to the maintenance of royal ideology) may slowly evolve into other forms, such as ‘St George and the dragon’, which retains vestiges of ideology, and the ‘Celtic dragon myth’, which does not. Thus genre is not absolute, as a given narrative may be developing from one genre to another. We noted above del Olmo Lete’s and Parker’s remarks on the matter of genre. These highlighted, to my mind, the inadequacy of the ‘genre’ approach, in so far as it seeks to establish literary types, each with its own distinctive mental disposition, attitude to history, to religion, and so on. These divisions are part of our need to structure our thoughts on such issues, and all too frequently bring a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Absolute categorizations, of the ‘saga’, ‘legend’, ‘myth’, ‘epic’ kind, are always subjective, if only because no one agrees on definitions, and merely cut off various avenues of retreat from the absolute judgments which each genre is felt to entail. I prefer like many scholars to speak more neutrally of the ‘story’ of Aqhat (and of Keret), noting different tendencies on various issues. This avoids hostages to fortune, and still leaves narrators free to indulge in a degree of eclecticism, perhaps drawing on different, or even hybrid genres, and us free to estimate the broad mental stance of the tradition, unencumbered by the demands imposed by arbitrary classification. The most obvious starting-point for an assessment should be the global one of the LBA Weltanschauung of Ugaritian culture, as established through broad studies of its cosmology, theology, mythology and ritual forms. I am entirely happy to call this ‘mythological’, in

 

256

the sense in which a modern religious response in devotion, scripturereading and cult remains mythological, since it operates on a different level from the purely empirical. ‘Mythological’ is the more useful in that while it relates to myth, it may also denote quasi-mythic features in other genres, such as deities featuring as characters, the suspension of empirical laws for narrative effect, and so on.48 Aqhat is to be seen as a story, built up as Parker showed around a number of motifs, and as Aitken showed around a number of themes, motifs, formulae and word-pairs. The stages of its literary prehistory are no longer recoverable, partly on account of the considerable skills of the tradents, partly because no one motivation seems evident in its construction; but in the hands of Ilimilku there is a case to answer that the poet pressed it into service in the interests of royal propaganda. To this extent it has become an ideological text. And in so far as Ilimilku has brought an ideological element into traditional material, he has blurred the distinction between genres, and produced composite works. 3.6

Some observations on style

A number of commentators have remarked on the ‘patriarchal’ characterization of Danel, undoubtedly with an eye to similarities in the presentation of the patriarchs of the Genesis narratives. There too a domestic, almost bucolic gloss is given to narrative themes which address the most urgent needs of human societies, their very physical survival, expressed most typically in the yearning of a man for a son, who will support him in his declining years and perform his obsequies. There is a surprising tautness to the text (well illustrated in Aitken’s treatment), with no word too many and an action that proceeds deliberately, its pace tailored to the various levels of meaning requiring weaving into the whole. The fourfold repetition of the duties of the pious son, for instance, is no mechanical overkill by a poetaster, but a skilful development of one of the main themes of the story. While it is unprovable, it is worth suggesting that this is one of Ilimilku’s own insertions into the traditional Vorlage, since it is so germane to his own concerns, if my analysis is correct. In KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 26–33 the for-

48

Much biblical historiography is ‘mythological’ in this sense.

   

257

mula is voiced by Baal, interceding on Danel’s behalf with El. In 1.17 i 42–7 (and the missing conclusion) it is repeated by El in his response to Baal. These two narrations therefore take place in heaven, in the divine abode. As 1.17 ii becomes legible in ll. 1–8 the formula is already being repeated in a message by an unnamed deity to Danel, confirming the promise of the birth that has now taken place, and finally, the fourth instance, in 1.17 ii 16–23, Danel himself repeats the formula as guarantee of divine blessing. Not only is this a classic instance of the ‘semantic rectangle’ ( J 1972, 163–7) in use as a literary tool, but it shows a clear progress from an idea deliberated among the gods and only finally, via a revelation, appropriated by the human recipient. The theological weight this confers on the text goes far beyond the merely folkloric. A similar technique is used in the episode of Danel searching the gizzards of the raptors. In the three successive scenes in KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iii (edge and) 1–14a, 14b–28a and 28b–40a we see Danel progressively home in on the place where his son’s remains lie. Firstly a rather unfocussed look among falcon-gizzards in general; then an examination of Hargab’s gizzard, and finally the discovery in Sumul’s gizzard of fragments of the hero. This time there is only a threefold repetition; but this too is masterly, for with the semantic rectangle incomplete it leaves the reader with a sense of tension, of a search not really brought to a final conclusion. This is further heightened by the consequent threefold treatment of the cursing of localities held responsible. Again, the sense of tension. The reason for this is surely that the real culprit is still at large. We may see the problem resolved on one level with the probable vengeance wrought on Yatipan by Pughat, appropriately disguised as Anat, as the final column breaks off. On another level Anat is of course to blame, and yet as a goddess she must remain above formal, or at any rate articulated suspicion. It is on account of no weakness, and certainly of no theological bankruptcy, that the goddess appears to emerge unscathed. While her cruelty is not perhaps to be compared in too facile a manner with Yahweh-El Shaddai’s inscrutability in Job, we are faced with the same fruitless search for the fulfilment of human expectations in the face of the divine nature.49

49

For further comments on Anat’s theological significance see below, § 13.4.

258

 

In both contexts too, in Genesis and Aqhat, we discern ideological concerns either overtly expressed, or simmering beneath the surface. The patriarchs are royal and priestly ancestors, and Danel is a king, whose fecundity determines the future of his kingdom. The domestic flavour is deceptive: in their final form both traditions are pregnant with ideological power.

4

T RPUM T W T. P

4.1

Introduction: the tablets

The so-called ‘Rpum’ or ‘Rephaim’ texts, KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 (CTA 20, UT 121), KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] (CTA 21, UT 122) and KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] (CTA 22, UT 124, 123), are three small fragments of at least two large, multi-columned tablets.1 They preserve in very broken form a portion of a narrative concerning a group of beings called rpum.2 While extremely problematic and ambiguous, these texts have played an important role in the discussion of Ugaritic and Canaanite concepts of death and the afterlife, as well as in the reconstruction of the Ugaritic political and social order. Two of the fragments (KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] and 1.22 = RS 2.[024]) were found during the second season of excavations (1930), either inside the House of the High Priest on the acropolis or in the rubble directly outside the southern wall of the house.3 The third 1 KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 was first published in V 1936a, 228–30, in his editio princeps of the Aqhat Epic. The other two, KTU 1.21 + RS 2.[019] and KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024], along with a reedition of KTU 1.20, first appeared in V 1941a. Besides the transcriptions in the standard collections (CTA and KTU, KTU 2 = CAT ), a recent edition of the texts, with extensive photographs, may be found in P 1992. Major translations include V 1941a, 1–30; D 1956, 66–71; A 1964, 83–86; C et al. 1974, 461–80; G 1977, 29–31; C 1978, 48–51; L’H 1979, 129–59;  O L 1981a, 405–24; S 1986, 163–77;  M 1987, 266–73; D 1988, 35–51; L 1996b, 128–31; L 1997, 196–205; W 1998c, 316–23. 2 The meaning of the word is usually related to the root rp", which means, ‘to heal’. The correct pronunciation of rpum in Ugarit remains controversial. The two most popular proposals are (1) ràpi"ùma, vocalizing it as a participle, which would mean, ‘healers’, and (2) rapi"ùma, a stative form that can be rendered, ‘the healthy, hale ones’. See the discussion of the possibilities in L’H 1979, 215–21; P 1981–82, 266; and N 1995. 3 Unfortunately the inventory lists for the first two seasons were lost, probably during World War II (cf. B – P 1989, 13). It is known that these tablets were registered with topographic points that were marked on ground-plans that still exist. The tablets of the second season were numbered with points 210–64. Unfortunately, excavations that year took place all along the western side of the house, in the street along its southern boundary, in the room to the west of the southern entry, and in a room to the east of the larger interior courtyard. So these topographic points are scattered throughout the house (see the plan in B – P 1989, 25). Because the third fragment and most of the other literary texts were found in the entry room or just outside the doorway, it seems probable that

260

 

was discovered the following year in or near the house’s southern doorway, in the same area where the Keret and Aqhat epics emerged, along with some of the Baal tablets. Of the three texts only KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] preserves some complete lines. KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 contains parts of two columns on one face. The left column is made up of the right halves of eleven lines of text, while the right column preserves somewhat over half of twelve lines. KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] preserves part of a single column on one face (the right two-thirds of thirteen lines), but only the last five letters of one line on the other side. The largest of the three fragments, KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] preserves a left column of twenty-eight lines, twenty-two of which are complete, and a badly broken right column of twentysix lines, with only about one-third of each line preserved. On the other side of the latter tablet are two identifiable letters, plus fragments of two others, each the first letter of a line. We thus have an aggregate of 95 attested lines, only 22 of which are complete, while an additional 24 are somewhat more than half-preserved. KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] and 1.22 = RS 2.[024] may come from a single tablet. The scripts of both appear to have been written by the same scribe, probably Ilimilku, who also produced the other major narrative texts in the archive. On the other hand, KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 seems to belong to the work of a different scribe (cf. P 1992, 75, n. 8), and thus presumably to a separate tablet. Since the literary tablets found in this archive range in size from about 200 to about 500 lines, we may conclude that the 95 lines attested on the rpum texts are probably no more than a quarter and perhaps only one-tenth of the lines that would have existed on the two tablets when intact. In the entire collection of narrative poetic texts from Ugarit few are as obscure and difficult to interpret as the rpum fragments. Rarely have the ambiguities of a vowelless script and the piecemeal preservation of so many damaged lines conspired so powerfully to frustrate attempts at drawing decisive conclusions about a text. The broad context within which the action depicted in these fragments occurs is quite obscure, and only a few things about the events described in the preserved lines can be discerned with certainty. It is clear that the characters called the rpum (also designated with the parallel terms ilnym, ‘godly ones’, and ilm, ‘gods’) are invited to a banquet. At least one invitation seems to be given by the king of the gods, Ilu (KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] ii 8), but virtually identical



RPUM



261

invitations are offered five other times in the three fragments, each in a broken context that does not allow us to confirm whether these come from the same deity. Each invitation seems to be followed by a description of the journey to the banquet.4 Both KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] and KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 seem to describe the arrival of the group at a threshing floor, where the banquet is apparently given, and KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] i 10–25 describes the feast as lasting for a week. On the seventh day, it appears that the god Baal arrives. But his function in the story, and indeed the purpose of the gathering of the rpum for the banquet remains unclear, and the text breaks off at this point. Beyond these few elements of the story, little certainty about the plot of the narrative and its meaning is possible. Not only is the larger context of the fragments lost, but the broken nature of the narrative makes it impossible to ascertain even some of the basic elements of the preserved story line. For example, not only is it uncertain whether all six invitations are offered by the same character, but it is also unclear whether the invitation is addressed to the same set of rpum, or whether different groups of rpum are being invited to the feast. Further, the fragments contain almost no information about the characteristics and identity of the rpum. In fact, about all we can say with certainty about them is that they travel by chariot and that they eat heartily at the feast. One passage in the more complete column of KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] (col. i, lines 4–10), seems to describe a company of rpum who arrive at the banquet, but the text, though completely preserved, is frusKTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] and KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] were discovered either in the street or in the room west of the entry. 4 Four of the five versions of these lines in KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] and KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] appear to read (with the possibility of some variation) atrh. rpum. ltdd | atrh.ltdd.ilnym, while the last version of these lines, which directly precedes the description of their arrival at the banquet, drops the l before the one preserved tdd. This is also the case in KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348, where the lines appear in col. ii 1. The ambiguity of the l has encouraged several interpretations of the lines. Some take it as an emphatic particle, and thus render these lines with the understanding that the rpum are travelling in each case; thus, for example, ‘After him the shades verily proceed’ (G 1977, 30–31). Others propose that the l is a precative particle and that the lines should be translated with jussive force, either as part of the invitation (e.g., S 1986, 169–72: ‘May the rpum flutter to the holy place’), or as an expostulation of the poem’s narrator (e.g., L 1996b, 129: ‘To his shrine, O shades, hasten’). D 1988, 41–43 and others have argued that the l is best understood as a negative particle. They suggest that the rpum refuse to hasten until they are finally convinced by the fifth invitation (thus, ‘After him the shades did not move’).

262

 

tratingly ambiguous. One finds critical words here that may be interpreted either as proper names of the rpum, or as verbs describing actions taken by some of the story’s characters.5 In other cases, one cannot be sure whether certain construct nouns are to be construed as singular or plural. Thus the mhr b'l, mhr 'nt, and rpu b'l, in lines 8–9, may be titles of individual characters (i.e. ‘the warrior of Baal’, ‘the warrior of Anat’, and ‘the rpu of Baal’),6 or they may designate large numbers of persons (i.e. ‘the warriors of Baal’, ‘the warriors of Anat’, and ‘the rpum of Baal’).7 The ambiguity here makes it impossible to use this section to help define the nature of the rpum. Other problems arise. How is one to understand the relationship between the three fragments? Since KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] and KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 both describe the arrival of the rpum at the threshing floor where a banquet is served, is it best to assume that the two fragments are separate versions of the same scene, fortuitously overlapping,8 or are they describing two different banquets? The latter interpretation is possible since KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 depicts the banquet as being hosted by a human, Danel, a character also known from the Aqhat epic, while the banquet of KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] may be hosted by Ilu. Since the former text almost certainly comes from a different tablet, it may actually be part of a completely different narrative that just happened to have a similar convocation of the rpum as a story element. In addition, what is the relationship between KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] and KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019]?9 Do they belong to a single Beyond this problem of interpretation, the translations just quoted also point up another major ambiguity in these lines. The word atrh may be analyzed as a preposition with a suffix, ‘after him’, or it can be understood as a noun, atr, ‘place, shrine’ with a possessive pronoun, ‘to his shrine’, or simply a directional marker, ‘to the place/shrine’. 5 For example, is tmq in line 8 a verb (as translated by D 1956, 69; L’H 1979, 152–53; C 1974, 474–75; S 1986, 171;  M 1987, 272; L 1997, 203) or the proper name of a character (as translated by A 1964, 85;  O L 1981a, 423; D 1988, 47; W 1998c, 321 n. 38)? The same question arises concerning the word y˙pn in line 9. Some commentators take it as a proper name (A 1964, 85;  O L 1981a, 423; D 1988, 47; W 1998c, 321); others as a verb (G 1966, 141; D 1956, 69; L’H 1979, 152–53; S 1986, 171;  M 1987, 272; L 1997, 203). 6 Rendered thus by D 1956, 69; C et al. 1974, 474–75;  O L 1981a, 423; D 1988, 47; W 1998c, 321. 7 Translated thus or similarly in G 1966, 141; A 1964, 85; L’H 1979, 152–53; S 1986, 171;  M 1987, 272; L 1997, 203. 8 E.g.  M 1987b, 267; D 1988, 35–39. 9 See D 1987b for a discussion of this issue.



RPUM



263

tablet, or may they belong to two separate ones, once again overlapping in the part of the story recounted? The latter possibility cannot be ruled out, since the vast majority of the lines in KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] i are repeated in KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] ii. In particular, the former preserves two invitations to the rpum, followed by two descriptions of them making the journey toward the shrine or palace, while the latter has a threefold appearance of the same basic lines. Would such an extraordinary amount of repetition in two small fragments of a single tablet be plausible, or is it better to identify them as duplicates? Again, there is no definitive argument for either interpretation. The amount of repetition is indeed surprising in such a small number of preserved lines. On the other hand, multiple reiterations are well attested in the Ugaritic poems,10 and it is possible to develop scenarios of the story that would allow for so many recurrences of the invitation (e.g., that different groups of rpum are being invited to the feast). And finally, is there a relationship between these fragments and the Aqhat epic? The appearance of Danel in KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 has led a number of scholars to argue that the rpum texts are the remains of a fourth tablet of the Aqhat narrative.11 They interpret the banquet as a preliminary to the restoration of Aqhat to life or some similar dénouement which would have brought the story to its conclusion. The problem with this proposal is that, apart from the presence of Danel in this text, there is nothing in the rpum texts that suggests that the action described in these fragments relates in any way to such a proposed scenario. Others have pointed out that Danel may have been the subject of more than one narrative at Ugarit, and that his presence here does not require that the fragments be related to the other known narrative in which he plays a role.12 At this point it seems best not to insist on a relationship between them and the Aqhat story. 4.2

The Identity of the Rpum

Undoubtedly the biggest hindrance to gaining a proper understanding of these texts is the uncertainty about the nature of the rpum, 10 See for example the four-fold repetition of the duties of an ideal son in the Aqhat epic (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 25–33; 42–7; ii 1–9; 14–23). 11 For example, S 1986, 160–1; C et al. 1974, 463;  M 1976, 332; M 1989a, 464–5; G 1965, 126–9. 12 E.g. P 1992b, 73; D 1988, 36; and L 1996b, 119.

264

 

the primary characters in the narrative. In spite of their appearance not only in these texts, but also in a few others,13 scholars have been unable to reach a solid consensus on their identity. The primary proposals include the following: (1) They are ghosts of the dead, most likely the spirits of deceased kings, and perhaps of the nobility. Several scholars argue that these spirits were thought of as deified. (2) They are a group of deities who join Ilu in special gatherings and who are called upon to protect the king and his city. (3) They are living members of the aristocracy, perhaps an elite group of chariot warriors, or perhaps a group of priests involved in rituals of fertility. In this context the term may be viewed as a tribal name, probably related to another tribal designation, Ditanu, which appears in parallel with rpum in the Keret epic and in KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126. (4) A number of scholars argue that the term may in fact be used to designate more than one of these three groups. 4.2.1

The rpum as spirits of the dead

The most commonly-accepted proposal is that the rpum are spirits of the dead.14 There are several good reasons to support this identification. (1) The cognate of rpum in biblical Hebrew, r epà"îm, has as its primary meaning, ‘spirit of the dead, ghost’. The same meaning attaches to the word in Phoenician. (2) KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126, in which the rpu arß, ‘the rpum of the earth’, and the rpim qdmym, ‘the ancient rpum’, appear in the context of a funerary ritual, suggests that they have a relationship to the dead. In this context they are summoned to take part in the funeral of Niqmaddu III of Ugarit (late 13th century) and perhaps to bless the new king, 'Ammurapi. In the ritual, the summons of the ‘ancient rpum’ is followed immediately by the invocation of the spirits of two identifiable, deceased kings of Ugarit (not explicitly referred to as rpum, however). Scholars have argued that the ‘rpum of the earth’ 13 They are also mentioned in KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126, a funerary ritual text; in the Keret epic (KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 3 and 14); at the conclusion of the Baal cycle (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 46), and perhaps in KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252.23–4 and KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134.32, both of which are damaged. 14 See for example, C 1960; D – L – S 1976c; P 1977; S 1986, 161–96; F 1992; W 1998c, 315 n. 1.



RPUM



265

and the ‘ancient rpum’ are royal ancestors of 'Ammurapi from the distant past. Since the word, arß, ‘earth’, was sometimes used to designate the netherworld, one can render rpu arß, ‘the rpum of the netherworld’. (3) A passage at the end of the Baal epic KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 45–9) contains two bicola in which the four words rpim, ilnym, ilm, and mtm may be understood as synonymous with one another: “p“ rpim.t˙tk | “p“ t˙tk.ilnym | 'dk.ilm | hn.mtm.'dk. This may be translated as ‘Shapshu (the sun goddess), you rule over the rpum, | Shapshu, you rule over the godlike ones. | The gods are your company, | See, the dead are your company’. It should be noted, however, that these interpretations of KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126 and 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ are by no means certain (see below). They cannot be considered decisive for favouring this identification of the rpum. 4.2.2

The rpum as deities

Much of the same evidence can be used to argue that the rpum are better understood as deities, rather than spirits of the dead.15 Some scholars would identify them specifically as minor netherworld deities, closely associated with Baal. Others have proposed that the term may designate any deity, major or minor, who is called upon by Ilu to perform a special function. Arguments for identifying the rpum as deities include the fact that the term rpum is several times paralleled by the term ilnym, ‘godlike or godly ones’, quite plausibly a divine title, and perhaps by the term ilm, ‘gods’ as well.16 Arguments against identifying them as the dead (as described above) and for seeing them as deities instead also include the following: (1) Later meanings of words do not always parallel earlier meanings of the cognates in other languages. Thus the Hebrew and Phoenician 15 See S 1994, 83–92 and L’H 1979, 116–9 for a history of this view. L’H also argues that the rpum of our texts are deities, not spirits of the dead, though in other passages the word may designate such spirits. See ibid. 205–6, 215–30. The idea that the rpum are deities should be distinguished from the view of those who argue that the dead are deified at Ugarit and thus can be identified as both spirits of the dead and gods. 16 The occurrences are: KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 i 1–2; KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] i 3–4, 11–2; KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] ii 5–6; all relatively certain, but all in broken contexts, and in KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 45–9. Parallels with the word ilm, ‘gods’, probably occur in KTU 1.20 = RS 3.348 ii 1–2 and 8–9, both, however, in very broken contexts.

 

266

cognates are far from decisive. The context of a word like rpum within the local literature is more significant for its interpretation. However, nothing in our three rpum texts specifically points to a ghostly identity for the rpum. In fact, there is no hint in any of the fragments that the regular habitation of the rpum is the netherworld. The only clear action tells of the rpum preparing their chariots, travelling to a threshing floor and having a feast, none of which particularly hint that the beings are spirits of the dead. Near Eastern evidence for spirits of the dead travelling from the netherworld in horse-drawn chariots is nil, while such transportation for deities, whether from the netherworld or elsewhere, seems quite reasonable. The lack of netherworld indications in the rpum texts might suggest that, while KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126 indicates a connection between the rpum and funerary activities (see below), their sphere of activity may not necessarily be restricted to that realm. (2) Although the rpu arß and rpim qdmym of KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126 are involved in a funerary context, this does not mean that they are necessarily spirits of the dead. They may also be identified plausibly as deities. The names of the beings specifically identified in KTU 1.161.4–7 as rpum are not attested as royal names of Ugarit (or elsewhere), but in fact resemble divine names more than human ones (see particularly the composite name, sdn-w-rdn, (lines 6, 23) and tr 'llmn (lines 7, 23–4). When the two recognizable, deceased kings of Ugarit are named (lines 11–2, 25–6), each is designated as mlk, ‘king’, rather than rpu. Thus those who are obviously spirits of the dead appear to be given a different designation in the text. In sum, the evidence from this tablet does not compel one to identify the rpum as ghosts. (3) The reference to the rpum in the Baal Epic (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009] vi 45–9), which can be interpreted as equating the rpum with the dead, is in fact ambiguous, because the word, mtm, often translated ‘the dead’ in this passage, could actually be a homonym well attested at Ugarit that means ‘humans’. In this case, the passage may be translated, ‘Shapshu, you rule over the rpum, | Shapshu, you rule over the godlike ones. | Gods are your company, | See, humans are your company’.17 If this is the correct rendering, there would be no direct parallel connection between the first bicolon and the second, as assumed by those who suggest that all four words refer 17

See S 1994, 84–8.



RPUM



267

to the dead. Rather, the two extol the importance of Shapshu in her relations with various elements of the world order—the rpum/ilnym, minor gods, perhaps related to the netherworld; then ilm/mtm, the divine and human spheres as a whole. Although none of the three points made here disproves the identification of the rpum with the dead, they each emphasize the fact that none of the arguments for such identification is fully compelling. On the other hand, while the texts are compatible with the view that the rpum are deities, none of them require that meaning to make sense. 4.2.3

The rpum as living persons

Some scholars have argued that at least certain of the Ugaritic references to the rpum are best understood as referring to living persons.18 In this interpretation, they are usually identified as an elite group of chariot warriors who had strong connections with the king. Those who support this idea argue primarily from the passage in the Keret epic, KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 2–4 and 13–5 in which Keret is praised by Ilu himself: ‘Greatly exalted is Keret in the midst of the rpum of the earth (or land), | in the gathering of the assembly of Ditanu’. Supporters argue that ‘rpum of the earth’ in this passage can hardly refer to the spirits of the dead, since it would be inappropriate in the context of the exaltation of Keret to proclaim his preeminence among the dead.19 The ‘assembly of Ditanu’ (qbß dtn), the phrase that is parallel to rpu arß in the passage, can plausibly be identified as a designation for the leaders of the Ditanu clan. This suggests an earthly, political and social context for the rpum. The military imagery of our three rpum texts (especially the use of chariotry and the appearance of what seems to be a military host in KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] ii 4–10) fits reasonably into this reading as well. Most scholars who identify the rpum as living humans

18 See L’H 1979, 120–7 for a history of this type of proposal. More recently see S 1991, 71–121 for a detailed defence of the argument, including a number of new elements. G 1949 argued that the rpum were elite leaders, perhaps heads of clans, or perhaps priests, who accompanied the king in rituals designed to insure fertility of crops. This view has generally not been followed. 19 Those who believe that the rpum are spirits of the dead or deities dispute this, arguing that since the rpum play an important role in the preservation and support of the king, Keret’s exaltation in the midst the ancestors is a reasonable image to use in the story. See P 1977, 166–7; F 1992, 73–6.

268

 

also assume that even after these chariot warriors died, they continued to be called rpum, so that there were both living and dead rpum. This would explain the origin of the usage of the term for the dead. Note is often made of the fact that the Bible refers to an ancient tribe of giants, located in northern Canaan and Transjordan before the establishment of Israel, as rephaim (Gen. 14:5, 15:20; Deut. 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13; Jos. 12:4, 13:12; 17:15). Known for their military prowess, these rephaim are thought to be a dim memory of the elite warrior class of that name in the Late Bronze Age. So again we find some plausible arguments, but again none of the texts used to support the interpretation provide irrefutable evidence. Plausible, alternative interpretations of each of these passages have been made. Thus in the final analysis, no decisive conclusions about the identity of the rpum can yet be drawn. It is quite possible, as several scholars have argued, that the word had more than one meaning in the Ugaritic texts and that different contexts require different meanings. On the other hand, other scholars have made plausible cases for seeing all the occurrences of the word as referring to a single group of beings, either spirits, gods, or humans. Only further discoveries of texts relating to the rpum are likely to improve the present situation. From the preceding discussion, it is clear that these texts are exceedingly ambiguous and that great caution should be used in drawing upon them to reconstruct aspects of Ugaritic or Syro-Palestinian culture. In many cases such caution has not been employed, so that the rpum texts have been used extensively as the basis for elaborate descriptions of Ugaritic concepts concerning afterlife by scholars who identify the rpum as spirits of the dead.20 A similar situation has also occurred in some of the reconstructions of the Ugaritic military and

20 For example,  M 1976, 329–33 and S (1986, 155–6, 170–4), using KTU 1.22 = RS 2.[024] ii 5–7 and KTU 1.21 = RS 2.[019] i 5–6 as their primary sources, reconstruct an event at the Ugaritic New Year Festival in which the deceased nobility, the rpum, are brought back to life, along with Baal, their patron. But such a reconstruction relies for its foundation upon the identification of the rpum as spirits, which remains uncertain, alongside problematic readings of both key passages. Their interpretation of the first passage is based on questionable renderings of two problematic verbs, the first of which (his ytb“, which occurs twice here) is based on a misreading of the text (the verb is y'b“, instead), and the second, qym, more plausibly rendered as a noun than a verb (see   T 1991, 52). In the second passage, they must reconstruct both of the critical verbs needed for their interpretation.



RPUM



269

its relation to the royal house by those who view the rpum as living elite warriors.21 It is important not to place too much interpretational weight on ambiguous and problematic texts such as these. Before they can be used as sources for dealing with the wider issues of Canaanite religion and society, a clearer understanding of the texts themselves is necessary.

21

See, for example, G 1952, 39–41.

5

T I K S

5.1 Introduction The incantation can be defined as ‘rhythmic or formulaic words of power to accomplish a desired goal by binding spiritual powers’.1 A number of Ugaritic texts written in alphabetic script unearthed in Ras Shamra and Ras Ibn Hani fit, completely or in part, under this heading. In none of these texts, however, do we find a word specifically denoting the incantation, like Akkadian “iptu.2 This word is attested at the end of a syllabic Akkadian incantation found in Ras Shamra ‘against fire’ (RS 17.155).3 We do find the more general indication mnt.4 This has an equivalent in Akkadian minûtu. In Akkadian incantations it is used next to “iptu. It seems to refer in the first place to the act of reciting and repeating the incantation, because it is derived from the verb manû,5 ‘to count’ (cf. Hebrew mnh). In KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194:46–7, mnt denotes the enumeration of goddesses listed in the following lines. It is paralleled by spr, ‘list’. In KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134:20 and KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244 it is used in texts that as a whole can be labelled as incantations. In other ‘pure’ incantations, like KTU 1.96 = RS 22.225 and KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20, this or another general term for the genre is missing. It appears to be impossible to distinguish the ‘Ugaritic Incantations’ sharply.6 Also, the calling of divine beings by their names at the end of KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194 may have had some kind of magical purpose. The same can be said of other parts of some of the mythical or ritual texts. Add to this, firstly, that is often difficult to distinguish 1

L 1987, 151. For the much larger corpus of Akkadian incantations see the surveys by F 1981, 1984 and 1987. 3 Cf. A 1995a. Within the context of the incantations’ ‘fire’ can be regarded as a reference to demons; cf. KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 i 3, where the demoniacal helpers of Yam are described as ‘one, two fires’. 4 See on mnt P 1988, 206–8. According to  M 1987, 248 the masculine mn is attested in KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ i 11. 5 Cf. the expression manû “iptu, ‘to recite an incantation’, in Akkadian, cf. CAD ”, III, 89. 6 Cf. J 1996, 18, facing the same problem with regard to the more general theme of magic and divination. 2

 

271

a prayer from an incantation, in the second place, that as a rule magical and related texts are difficult to interpret, and that, finally, many of the tablets concerned are damaged, then it comes as no surprise that in the editions of and commentaries on Ugaritic texts we find different proposals for classification: • According to Avishur the only texts which ‘can clearly be classified

• •

•

•

as incantations’ are KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244; KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+; and KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20.7 Xella lists under ‘preghieri ed incantesimi’: KTU 1.65 = RS 4.474; KTU 1.123 = RS 24.271; KTU 1.100; and KTU 1.107.8  M comes to five incantations as ‘more or less independent prayers without ritual prescriptions’, next to incantations ‘embedded in rituals’: KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134; 1.83 = RS 16.266; KTU 1.169; KTU 1.93 = RS 19.054; and KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252.9 Dietrich – Loretz come to eight alphabetic texts that in their view are representative of this ‘Gattung’, leaving out two thematically related but heavily damaged texts. They subdivide these eight texts into four categories: (1) ‘Evokationen königlicher Ahnen’: KTU 1.124 = RS 24.272 and KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126; (2) ‘Beschwörungen gegen Krankheit, Unfruchtbarkeit, Dämonen, Folgen von Trunkenheit und Totengeistern’: KTU 1.13 = RS 1.006; KTU 1.82; KTU 1.114; KTU 1.169; (3) ‘Beschwörung gegen Schlangengift’: KTU 1.100; (4) ‘Beschwörung gegen die schädliche Naturkräfte’: KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002.10 Caquot lists KTU 1.82; KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258; KTU 1.100; KTU 1.107; and KTU 1.169 under the heading ‘tablettes mythicomagiques’.11

7

A 1981, 13. X 1981, 207–50. 9 D M 1987, 175–90. 10 D – L 1988b, 328–7. In KTU 2 the following texts are also marked as possible incantations: 1.20–22 = RS 2.[024], 2.[019], 2.[024]; 1.65 = RS 4.474; 1.86 = RS 18.041; 1.96 = RS 22.225; 1.107 = RS 24.251+; and 1.123 = RS 24.271. Apparently, these belong to the ‘damaged’ or ‘related’ texts referred to by Dietrich – Loretz. 11 C 1989, 51–123. It is remarkable that he pays no attention to these texts in his survey in C 1979b. 8

272

 

• In his description of Ugaritic religious practices in daily life del

Olmo Lete mentions as ‘conjuros’: KTU 1.100; KTU 1.107; KTU 1.82; KTU 1.96; and KTU 1.169;12 and as ‘recetas mágicas’: KTU 1.124 = RS 24.272:13–5 and KTU 1.114:29–31.13 • A recently published survey of documents from the biblical world contains as examples of Ugaritic incantations: KTU 1.100; KTU 1.169; KTU 1.114; and RS 92.2014.14 Apparently the old Ugaritic texts on these matters cannot be clearly classified. It is better in this situation not to put too much weight on our modern definitions and choose a more general approach to the Ugaritic texts about human efforts to have an influence upon the supernatural, from raising one’s hands in prayer to binding hostile spiritual powers by magic. This means that the boundaries between ‘literary’ and ‘cultic’, and those separating ‘myth’, ‘incantation’, ‘ritual’, and ‘god lists’ are not always as clear as editors of a handbook might want them to be. 5.2 Speaking to the gods in hymns and prayer The genre of prayer appears to be rare in the texts of ancient Ugarit.15 One should not, however, conclude from this that the people of Ugarit did not have deep religious feelings or that they were reluctant to address their gods directly. The lack of separate hymns or prayers is simply due to the fact that praising the gods or seeking their favours is usually set in a larger context. Recitation of the great myths can be seen as a means of expressing respect for the gods and their glorious deeds. For instance, telling each other about Baal’s victory over Yam and Mot with the words of the myth of Baal expresses one’s confidence in the power of the supreme god over chaos and death. The hymn addressed to the sun-goddess Shapash at the end of the myth (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 45–53) is put in the mouth of Anat, but it is also a way in which the people of Ugarit thankfully praise the sun-goddess for watching over the boundaries between night and day, the world of the living and the world of the dead. Hymnic elements can also be found in the second part 12 13 14 15

D O L 1992a, 241–60 = 1999, 359–87. D O L 1992a, 261 = 1999, 388. H 1997, 295–8; 301–5; and 327–8. Cf. W 1984a, 360 and M 1988.

 

273

of the much debated text KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252,16 which is discussed below together with texts related to necromancy. Hymns also seem to have formed a standard element in Hurrian prayers accompanying incense offerings (KTU 1.44 = RS 1.007; KTU 1.51 = RS 1.027; KTU 1.54 = RS 1.034+; KTU 1.128 = RS 24.278; KTU 1.131 = RS 24.285).17 In the legend of Aqhat we hear of his father Daniel praying (Ug. ßly) for rain (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ i 38–46). He calls on the name of Baal, as ‘rider of the clouds’, and on his ‘delightful voice’, that is of the thunder heralding coming showers. In a subsequent scene, Daniel beseeches (Ug. ßly)18 the gods that the small stalks in the dry land may shoot up (KTU 1.19 ii 15–25). It is more common for prayer to be part of ritual actions, as we can see in the legend of Keret. The command to raise the hands (in prayer) is paralleled by a reference to a sacrifice to El (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ ii 22–3). We can also find this combination in the ritual text KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+, with prescriptions about the annual celebration of the grape harvest in the month ‘First of the Wine’. The text ends with the same call for prayer as in the legend of Keret. In KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056, a copy of KTU 1.41, these last lines containing the reference to the king’s prayer are missing. The action described in KTU 1.41:50–5 is situated in another place: not in the temple, but on its roof; and it refers to a sacrifice offered to an unknown deity ( prgl ßqrn). This is probably a deity of Hurrian origin. So the expansion of the text can be explained as due to later Hurrian influence upon an older Ugaritic ritual. The king is said (or prescribed) to offer a recitation ( yrgm mlk), but we hear nothing of its contents. Perhaps building on the assumption of Hurrian influence one should think here of something like the Hurrian incense prayers mentioned above. These texts all follow a similar pattern: after the heading we read the names of the gods to whom the prayer is addressed, together with a short hymn. The gods are asked to come and receive the offerings and then to do something on behalf of the suppliant. The texts end with mention of the messenger and in some 16 A 1994, 297–8 even speaks of the entire text as a ‘hymn in honor of El’, because of the striking similarity with Hebrew psalms and its vocabulary being reminiscent of that found in hymns. 17 Cf. D – M 1994. 18 Cf.  M 1987, 252, n. 190 and M 1984b, 140–1; for a different interpretation of "a˙l see  O L – S 1996, 16.

274

 

cases with promises of new offerings and a final doxology. The words spoken by the king according to KTU 1.41:53, on the roof of the temple, could have been something like this calling up the gods and asking their favours. Because the tablet is damaged here, it is not clear whether this invocation is accompanied by the king wiping his face (m˙ pnh)19 or by clapping his hands (m˙ ydh).20 The reference to prayer in line 55, back in the temple, could be related to the closing hymn in the Hurrian incense prayers. In the older secondary literature KTU 1.65 = RS 4.47421 has been interpreted as a prayer to El and the assembly of the gods.22 More recently commentators of the text appear to be reluctant to classify it. Xella points to the resemblance of the first lines (naming El, the sons of El, the family of the sons of El, the assembly of the sons of El, and ∆kmn-w-“nm) with the repeated address of the ritual text KTU 1.40 = RS 1.003+. He assumes as a working hypothesis that KTU 1.65 is some sort of prayer.23 Dietrich – Loretz take this text as a scribal exercise.24 In his elaborate study of this text Avishur also concludes that the old view (of H.L. Ginsberg) that this text is a prayer, seems to be closest to the truth. Comparison with the Qumran War Scroll (chapters 4–6 and 9, about names with ’l as a second element to be written on banners and weapons) leads him to classify it as a list of war banners.25 Because these banners are ‘battle cries intended to arouse the deity to assist the warriors’, this text resembles a prayer. Although much remains uncertain, one should not rule out the possibility that this is indeed the text of a prayer, related to sacrifices as mentioned in KTU 1.40, calling up the gods (lines 1–5), appealing to the consideration of the supreme

Cf.  M 1987, 159, 165, and  T 1989, 154, 159. Cf. L –  T – R 1997, 299, 301. On the clapping of hands serving ‘to intensify the accompanying words and perhaps even to effectuate the action’ see F 1995. 21 Cf., for instance, B 1975, 239–40: ‘Bittgesang an El und die Versammlung der Götter’. See on this text A 1994, 308–9, who also lists and discusses previous research. 22 Cf., for instance, B 1975, 239–40: ‘Bittgesang an El und die Versammlung der Götter’. 23 X 1981, 213: ‘almeno come ipotesi di lavoro, una sorta di “preghiera”’. 24 D – L 1981, 64–7; in their translation of this text in 1988 they call it ‘Opfer für El und seine Repräsentanten’; note also the problems with classifying this text in KTU 2, 91: ‘scribal exercise?, invocation of Il?, prayer?, incantation?’. 25 A 1994, 326, 525, 19 20

 

275

gods by referring to their noble character (6–9) and naming places and divine attributes in and with which these words have to be recited (lines 10ff.). Del Olmo Lete sees it as a ‘cultic invocation of the divine panoply and to its apparent presence in the sanctuary’.26 In his opinion this primarily concerns Baal’s weapons, celebrated in mythology. A more generally accepted example of a prayer in alphabetic Ugaritic is the end of the ritual text KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266.27 This text starts as a common prosaic ritual prescription about the right time, place, and sort of sacrifice to the right god. In line 26 there is a transition to a direct address to Baal by referring to the problem of a strong foe attacking the gates of the city. The style changes here from prose to poetry.28 The prayer (ßlt, line 34; cf. the verb in KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ i 39) is introduced by the command: ‘raise your eyes to Baal’ (line 27). The request to drive away the enemy is accompanied by a number of vows and sacrifices by the suppliant, in exchange for Baal’s help. The text ends with the statement, repeating the words at the beginning, that Baal will hear the prayer. KTU 1.123 = RS 24.27129 is probably best described as a benediction,30 because of the repeated “lm in the opening lines, followed by a number of divine names. The text seems to end in a similar way, the last word being again “lm. Lines 14ff. mention righteousness and mercy. This is reminiscent of KTU 1.65 and can be interpreted in the same way as expressing the hope for and confidence in a positive attitude of the gods towards the one saying these words. However, any interpretation of this text in its present severely damaged state must remain uncertain.

26 D O L 1992c, 255; cf. also  O L 1992a, 228–9 = 1999, 341–3 and W – W 1997. 27 See on this text X 1981, 25–34; W 1984d, 360–2;  M 1987, 171–4; M 1988;  O L 1989;  O L 1992a, 197–205 = 1999, 292–306; P 1993, 213–7; A 1994, 253–6; W 1996b. 28 On this phenomenon see especially P 1993a. 29 Cf. X 1981, 216–3, with references to the older literature. 30 D M 1970 312; R 1974, 191. C 1979, 1404 and D – L 1981, 74–5, suggest that it is a scribal exercise. KTU 2, 135, gives as the possible genre: ‘prayer, liturgy?, scribal exercise’.

 

276 5.3

Binding hostile supernatural forces by incantations

The texts discussed under this heading are the ones that best fit the narrow definition of an incantation given at the beginning. It concerns independent texts with words of power used against evil forces from the realm of gods and demons. The interpretation of these texts is very difficult, not only because of the state of conservation of most tablets, but also because of the genre of the texts, with unknown vocabulary and often without a clear structure or line of thought. The best example of an Ugaritic incantation is KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20.31 Although there is much difference of opinion among the interpreters about many details, it is generally accepted that we are dealing here with a spell to drive off evil powers causing sickness, with the help of Baal, Horon and Ashera. It is not clear which disease is meant here,32 nor which power is causing it; according to some it is indicated by dbbm in lines 1 and 9, although it is translated in different ways: ‘flying demons’ (de Moor), ‘tormenters’ (Pardee), or ‘accusers’ (Fleming). Others (Dietrich – Loretz, Caquot) relate it to Akkadian dabàbu, ‘word’, and interpret it as a reference to the words spoken to expel the (unnamed) demon. This difference of opinion returns in the interpretation of k“pm (line 9) as ‘sorcerers’ indicating the black magic of demons, but according to others the magic with which one can expel the forces of evil.33 There is more consensus about the verbs used in connection with the expelling magic: ydy (line 1), ‘to drive off ’, and gr“ (line 9), ‘chase away’. Both are used in the legend of Keret in the repeated question ‘who among the gods is able to cast out ( ydy) the disease, to expel ( gr“ ) the illness?’ (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 10–28). In line 10, in close connection with k“p and gr“, we find the root ˙br. This is reminiscent of the use of ˙br in the Hebrew Bible and Akkadian abàru, ‘to bind’, in Mesopotamian incantations. Avishur points to Deut. 18:10–11 and to Isa. 47:9 with the word pair ˙brym || k“pym, ‘enchantments || spells’, and to a similar pair in the Akkadian Maqlû-

31 Cf. A 1981;  M, 255–7;  M 1987, 183–6; D – L 1988, 333–6; C 1989, 53–60; F 1991;  O L 1992a, 259–60 = 1999, 385–6; P 1993, 211–3; F 1997; W 1998c, 442–9. 32 D M 1980b, 257, and 1987, 184, n. 13, assumes that the patient suffered from a ‘cataleptic or epileptic seizure’, Pardee thinks of ‘male sexual disfunction’. 33 According to J 1996, 67–8, one can leave open both possibilities.

 

277

incantation.34 So here ˙br would denote the negative influence of evil spells. Avishur translates: ‘Horon will expel the binders and the Youth soothsayers’, relating the last word (d'tm) to Hebrew yd'ny. Dijkstra interprets these terms in a similar way, but he assumes a positive meaning: ‘Horon be the enchanter, and the Young Man the one who provides knowledge.35 In the hymn at the end of the Baal myth this word pair ˙br || d't (KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 49–50) would have the same meaning. Most commentators, however, prefer the more common meaning of ˙br, ‘friend’, and d't, ‘intimate’.36 In the text we hear of the one who has to recite the incantation: ‘the ∆'y-priest’ (line 3). This title is also used in the colophon of the Baal myth (KTU 1.6 vi 57) and seems to refer to a high-ranking teacher.37 In KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002:32 we find the related verb parallel to db˙, ‘to sacrifice’. According to some interpreters this officiant used a staff as a magic device,38 but the meaning of the word ¢† denoting it (line 5) is, again, disputed.39 This person executing the incantation by word and probably also by gestures and other ritual activities can be compared to the Mesopotamian incantation priest called à“ipu. It is interesting to note that this exorcist is often mentioned in the colophon of the incantation texts as a scholar who wrote and checked the tablet.40 Other correspondences with Mesopotamian incantations are the use of similar metaphors, especially the spirits being said to leave ‘like smoke’41 and the naming of gods acting on behalf of the oppressed against the evil spirits. In some Mesopotamian rituals the incantation priest even says that it is not he himself who speaks, but that it is an incantation of Ea42 or Ninkilil, ‘lord of the incantation.43 This 34

A 1981a, 22–3. D 1985, 150. 36 Cf.  O L – S 1996, 126–7 and 172. D – L 1988b, 335 translate ‘Genossen || Komplizen’. According to J 1996, 33 both suggested meanings of ˙br are related: ‘comrades can be linked together by sworn words, oaths and the like’. 37 Cf.  S 1988 and F 1991, 146. 38 Cf. F 1991, 148–50. 39 Cf.  O L – S 1996, 202–3. 40 See the texts mentioned in CAD A, II, 434, s.v. à“ipu a. 41 See, for instance, Maqlû V:166–169 (translation by F 1987, 265). Cf. A 1981, 18; F 1991, 146; and W 1994b, 405–6. 42 Cf. CAD A, II, 431–2, s.v. à“ipu a.2; CAD ” III, 90, s.v. “iptu e.2’. 43 Cf., for instance, the recently discovered incantation against Lama“tu, discussed by M 1997. 35

278

 

can be compared to KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20 beginning with the statement that it is the breath of Baal which drives out the evil spirits. Unfortunately, the text is broken here. Next to Baal a special function seems to be reserved for Horon (lines 9–10) and Ashera (line 16). A number of these basic elements of KTU 1.169 are also found in another clear example of an incantation in alphabetic Ugaritic script: KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134.44 This seems to be a collection of six different incantations, to be recited on different occasions, but also sharing common elements (such as the reference to the snake in lines 6 and 35). The fourth part is explicitly introduced as an incantation with the technical term mnt (see p. 270) in its first line (= line 20). Like KTU 1.169, this text is difficult to interpret, but it gives us more information about the gods invoked to help and especially about the demons to fight. The benign gods are Baal (lines 1 and 6), his consort Anat (line 11 and twice in line 39), and the sun-goddess Shapash (line 6). The evil forces they have to destroy are: • Tunnan (line 1), known from the myth of Baal (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 40) as a monstrous helper (dragon) of Yam, the god of the sea, one of Baal’s prime opponents. According to the myth Tunnan is slain by Anat. He also seems to have been mentioned in the small fragment KTU 1.83 = RS 16.266, next to Yam, ‘bound (by 'Anak?) on the heights of Lebanon’.45 This reference to Tunnan, however, is uncertain, not only because of the poor state of conservation of the tablet, but also because it is based on a correction of the text in line 8, reading tnn instead of t"an.46 • Reshep (line 3), the god of pestilence, who is mentioned next to the ‘lads of Yam’ in the legend of Keret as the god who caused the death of one of the king’s wives (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ i 19). • Mot (line 5), the god of death. Next to Yam he is the other powerful opponent of Baal (KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+).

Cf.  Z 1972, 1974, 1975;  M – S 1984; C 1988 D – L 1988, 336–9; C 1989, 61–70;  O L 1992a, 251–5 = 1999, 373–9. 45 Cf. P 1998;  M 1987, 181–2 assumes that this text was part of an incantation. 46 C 1989, 28–30 states that tnn is the key term of the text, but he ignores the fact that for this interpretation the text has to be changed. 44

 

279

• Serpents (lines 6 and 35), who are the prime object of another Ugaritic incantation (KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244 and KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+; see below). • Creatures of Horon (line 13). This reading is uncertain, but the name of Horon, who is the lord of the demons, returns in lines 27 and 41. Horon is mentioned in the legend of Keret as a threatening power in a curse: ‘may Horon break your head’ (KTU 1.16 = 3.325+ vi 56–7; this phrase can also be restored in the broken text KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 i 7–8). In the Ugaritic incantations Horon plays an ambivalent role: on the one hand he is a fearful threat, on the other hand he can be called upon to take the demonic threat away (cf. KTU 1.100 and KTU 1.169). • In the second part of the text the evil forces are indicated more ‘poetically’ as ‘creatures of agitation’ (lines 18 and 41), ‘creatures of insanity’ (line 18), ‘sons of disease (or: terror)’ (line 23), ‘legions(?)’ (line 26; cf. Mark 5:9), ‘flies (or: accusers)’ (line 26), ‘those of the flood(?)’ (line 27), ‘stupor(?)’ (line 28), ‘the fugitive’ (line 38; cf. KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ i 1, where it is used as epithet of a seamonster related to Yam). It is not clear what is precisely the nature of the distress caused by these evil forces. In the first lines there seems to be reference to problems of a girl with her menstruation, that is with her fertility. The names of the demons in the second part of the text point in more general terms to disease and insanity. What is clear is that these evil forces have to be driven out (gr“, lines 12 and 40; see also KTU 1.169:9) or have to be bound (rky, lines 10 and 38). Both verbs are common terms in this genre. For the place of this and other incantations within the religion of Ugarit it is important to note the close relation with the myth of Baal. The battle described there of Baal and Anat, supported by Shapash, against Yam, Mot and their helpers does not appear to be something from a distant past. It has its repercussions on daily human life. The victory over the forces of evil has to be gained time and again. As was remarked above, Horon takes a central place in KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244.47 Fortunately, this text is well-preserved. It is in itself not 47 See on this text especially the elaborate study of P 1988, 193–226, with references to previous studies. Cf. also  M 1987, 146–56; D – L

280

 

a pure incantation, but can be classified as a ritual in mythological form. It contains, however, a number of brief incantations indicated as mnt. The text tells of a mare, ‘the mother of the stallion’. She is probably a goddess acting on behalf of her worshippers. We are told that she seeks support from the great deities of the Ugaritic pantheon against venomous serpents. The sun-goddess Shapash is indicated as her mother and acts as an intermediary. Each request ends with the same incantation in order to charm (l¢“ ; cf. the use of Akkadian la¢à“u, ‘to whisper’, together with “iptu, ‘incantation’,48 and the use of Hebrew l˙“, specifically related to the charming of snakes in Jer. 8:17; Ps. 58:5–6; Qoh. 10:11; and Sir. 12:13), expel ( ydy) and bind ( y∆q) the snake and its poison. Apparently, this incantation was repeated eleven times, each time on the basis of another authority. The twelfth, Horon, responds in a different way. With a magical rite, using among other things a tamarisk and ‘the tree of death’, he succeeds in letting the poison ‘become weak and flow away’. This climax of the text is, as is appropriate in magic texts, described with a number of puns.49 The text ends with a dialogue between a groom and a bride; apparently these are Horon and the ‘mother of the stallion’. They speak about marriage with the serpents (a phallic symbol?) as bride-price. A clearly related text is KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+.50 Here the snake is called ‘devourer’, a common designation of demons (lines 10 and 20).51 In the more elaborate mythological part of the text Shapash plays a more active role.52 There can be no doubt about Horon being viewed here in a positive way, be it that he is clearly not the first choice. The eleven incantations preceding the final invocation seem to be meant to show that no other choice was left than to go to Horon’s ‘fortress’, probably an indication of his hardly accessible residence in the nether1988, 345–0; L –  T 1988; C 1989, 79–94; P 1997a and W 1998c, 378–87. 48 Cf. CAD ”, III, 90, s.v. “iptu A.e.3’. 49 Cf. G 1994 and P 1997a, 298, n. 26. See on this phenomenon in Mesopotamian incantations F 1986. 50 Cf. X 1981, 241–0; P 1988b, 227–56; and C 1989, 95–100. 51 Cf.  M 1981–2, 110. He refers, among other things, to the clear representation on a Phoenician amulet from Arslan Tash (seventh century ) of a demoniacal man-eater. 52 On this part of the text and a number of resemblances with the story of the Garden of Eden according to the Hebrew Bible, see  M 1988b.

 

281

world. One can compare this to Jesus being accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons (Mark 3.22). It is also important to note the combination of myth, incantation, and ritual. This appears to be a common feature of the Ugaritic liturgy. One of the new Ugaritic texts discovered in 1992 is the incantation RS 92.2014,53 which is in many respects similar to KTU 1.100, KTU 1.107, and KTU 1.169. As in KTU 1.169 the offending evil force remains unnamed: dy lyd', ‘the one not known’. He is presented as a foaming snake and as a scorpion and is exorcised in a magic rite with ‘bits of sacred wood’. This is reminiscent of the action taken by Horon against snakebite according to KTU 1.100 and KTU 1.107. In this way he prevents the serpent from coming up ('ly) and the scorpion from standing up (a new Ugaritic root qnn). The second part of the text (lines 8–13) is an incantation against dbbm and k“pm. These words are also used in KTU 1.169. In RS 92.2014 they are mentioned next to r“', ‘the evil man’ and bn n“m, ‘son of man’, which seems to be an indication of all possible men. The incantation is directed against any evil word spoken: ‘may they pour it to the earth’. The incantation is dedicated to Urtenu, the holder of the archive to which this tablet belongs: ‘for his body (gb), for his members (tmnt)’. These two words also occur in KTU 1.169:5–6. The incantation has a function in securing the physical well-being of Urtenu. One final text to be mentioned within this framework of independent incantations is KTU 1.96 = RS 22.225. This is usually interpreted as a short mythological text about Anat literally or, what seems to be more likely, figuratively devouring Baal.54 The reference to Anat was found in the first word of the tablet. New collations, however, show that the first letters are 'nn, not 'nt.55 In the first edition of KTU it was suggested that 'nn is a scribal error for 'nt, but in the second edition this ‘rectification’ was left out. A number of scholars now suggest that 'nn is related to the repeated reference to 53 It is briefly described by B – P 1995, 28 and 31; a first translation was offered by P 1997a. 54 Cf.  M 1987, 109–10; and A 1988, with a survey of previous research. 55 See now L 1996a, with excellent photographs and drawings.

 

282

'n, ‘eye’, in lines 5–13 and explain the text as an incantation against the evil eye.56 This is a well-known object of incantations in Mesopotamia.57 A clear example is also found in a later Phoenician incantation against ‘the coming of the big eye’ and with many other descriptions of the evil eye, just as in the second part of KTU 1.96.58 Even more interesting within this comparison is that on the tablet of the Phoenician incantation we see a drawing of a demon devouring the one he attacks. In the heading the demon is called mzh, ‘sucker’, namely of blood. This has a counterpart in KTU 1.96:4–5 which states that the demoniac power eats the flesh and drinks the blood of his victim. 5.4

Conjuring up the spirits of the dead

The demons to be driven out with the help of incantations are associated with death and the netherworld. As we have seen above, some of them are represented as helpers or satellites of Yam and Mot (cf. KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134:1, 5, 27, 38). It is very likely that as in Mesopotamia the people of Ugarit feared the influence of malign spirits of the dead.59 From Mesopotamia we know many incantations with the object of expelling them. In Ugarit we hear more of their positive counterpart: invoking the dead to ask their advice and help.60 This was also an act of veneration. By offering their sacrifices and honouring them by calling their names, they hoped to prevent hostilities from the dead towards the living. The interpretation of the texts concerned is a matter of much dispute. According to some scholars there is not enough evidence to speak of a cult of the dead. In their view there was probably no more than a funerary cult intended to offer a good burial for the deceased, helping them on their way to the netherworld; which is to be clearly distinguished from any belief in supernatural power of

56 Cf.  O L 1992a, 255–9 = 1999, 379–84, and 1992b; his interpretation is accepted by W 1992b, 367, n. 5; W 1994b, 237; L 1996a, 118 and W 1998c, 375–7. The suffixed -n is usually explained as a deictic element, comparable to Hurrian -ne; cf. D – L 1990a, 104. 57 Cf. T 1992. 58 On this seventh century incantation from Arslan Tash see  M 1981–2, 111. 59 Cf. B 1983 and 1993. 60 Cf. S 1986, 145–206 and L 1993, 287–30.

 

283

the dead.61 This is not the place to enter that discussion. Many of these texts are already discussed elsewhere in this handbook. Within the present context the survey can be confined to the elements related to the incantation texts. KTU 1.161 = RS 34.12662 is a ritual text associated with the burial of a king of Ugarit. It reports the invocation of all possible ancestors, with many names of former kings, but also with more general indications such as ‘rephaim of the earth’ and ‘rephaim of old’. Apparently, one was anxious not to forget any of the important deceased ancestors. This can be compared to a similar phenomenon in the ‘Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty’63 listing all spirits of the dead that are considered important to the well-being of the living king: the royal dead, the heroes and also the spirits who might become hostile, namely ‘any dynasty which is not recorded on this tablet, and any soldier who fell while on his lord’s service, princes, princesses, all humanity, from the east to the west, who have no one to care for them or to call their names’.64 The idea behind this was that the dead who remained unnamed and uncared for could become a threat to the living. So especially the unknown spirits of the dead (cf. dy lyd', ‘the unknown one’ in RS 92.2014) were feared. Also the fact that in KTU 1.161 of the great gods only the sun-goddess Shapash is mentioned, is reminiscent of the incantations. She appears to be the most important intermediary between the living and the dead. The Rephaim texts (KTU 1.20–22 = RS 3.348, 2.[019], 2.[024]), only partly preserved, seem to describe a similar invocation and actual gathering of the spirits of the dead. The state of the tablets hardly allows any conclusion on their function.65 The relation with the legend of Aqhat suggests that the rephaim may have been called up by the father of Aqhat on the occasion of the burial of his son. The fact that the rephaim come together on the threshing floor may indicate that they could be of help in restoring the fertility which was lost at the death of Aqhat. 61

Cf. S 1994, 47–131 and P 1996a. See on this text especially B – P 1991, 151–63, and also the recent study of T 1993. A survey of recent research can be found with L 1993, 296–300. 63 Cf. F 1966. 64 Cf. on this part of the text also L 1968. 65 Note the call for a ‘minimalist’ approach by P 1992a and L 1996b. 62

 

284

KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252 can be regarded as an example of the belief in ancient Ugarit that the spirits of the dead could be invoked to help and bless the living.66 Baal seems to be presented here as the first of the rephaim. Together with Baal and other gods these spirits of the dead enjoy a banquet presented to them in order to propitiate them. In KTU 1.124 = RS 24.272 we may find another way in which the spirits of the dead could support the living.67 Through a mediator they give precise advice on how to cure a sick child. If this interpretation is correct, it would offer a good illustration of the spirits of the dead acting according to the probable meaning of their name: rp"um, ‘healers’. 5.5

Elements of incantations in other texts

We have already come across the phenomenon of incantations embedded in other texts. Some of these also deserve our attention. KTU 1.13 = RS 1.006 is interpreted by Dietrich – Loretz as an incantation against infertility:68 a hymn to Anat is followed by a prayer for fertility, which is answered by a mythological fragment about Anat and Baal solving a similar problem. In particular, the urgent call for supernatural assistance (lines 23–29) can be regarded as an incantation. Note also the special role in this context of ‘messengers from heaven’ (ml"ak “mm, lines 21–22). They belong to the class of divine beings who, standing in between humans and the great gods, often play a prominent role in incantations, either as helpers or as offenders. A combination of myth and ritual can also be found in KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002. Although there is no consensus about the interpretation of this text, there can be no doubt about the relation to the question of fertility.69 The text is associated by Dietrich – Loretz with the incantations because of its beginning: "iqr"a, ‘I invoke (the

66 See for a survey of previous research on this ‘Zankapfel der Ugaritologen’ L 1993, 293–5; cf. also P 1988b, 75–118, and A 1994, 277–307. 67 See on this text D – L 1990a, 205–40; L 1993, 289–93; and, for a different interpretation, P 1988b, 179–92. 68 D – L 1988b, 339–42 with a reconstruction of the ritual; cf. also  M 1980a. For a different interpretation see  O L 1981b and M 1995, 231–8. 69 Cf. S 1985 and  M 1987, 117–8.

 

285

gracious gods)’. In their opinion it is an incantation against malign forces of nature.70 Also the part of the text dealing with mt w “r, ‘death and evil’ (lines 8–11) resembles the incantations; in particular the reference to the binding (ßmd, line 10) of the demon-like god points in this direction. KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258 is labelled by Dietrich – Loretz as an incantation for the medical treatment of drunkenness.71 The text describes El drinking himself nearly to death and two goddesses finding a remedy to cure his sickness. The remedy seems to be described in the last lines as a recipe for humans with the same problem.72 This and similar texts (cf. KTU 1.23; KTU 1.100; KTU 1.107) can teach us something about the use of myths in the daily life of ancient Ugarit. Apparently, it was believed that reciting the right story on the right occasion, combining it with the right prayer and cultic acts, had magical power. Interpreted in this way, KTU 1.114 is related to ‘pure’ incantations. To this can be added that in lines 19–20 we hear of a demon-like figure threatening El in his drunkenness (lines 19–20). This ˙by is described as ‘the one with two horns and a tail’. The name itself can be translated as ‘crawler’ and seems to refer to a scorpion.73 In Ugaritic incantations this is a common indication of the evil force to be expelled. In the myth about the moon-god Yarikh obtaining his bride Nikkal (KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194) we find some elements related to the incantations in the second section of the text (lines 40–50), which is separated from the rest of the text by a horizontal line. It concerns a hymn to goddesses called the Kathirat, daughters of the new moon Hilal. They are described as birds settling down on the trees. The singer calls them by their names, stating that ‘their list’ (mnthn; cf. the use of mnt in KTU 1.82:20 and KTU 1.100) is on his lips. According to this text the Kathirat can be regarded as lower goddesses who are especially related to marital affairs. Their status is comparable to that of demons and (deified) spirits of the dead, who just like the Kathirat, are often compared to birds.74 Calling their

70

D – L 1988b, 350–7. D – L 1988b, 342–5; cf. also P 1988b, 13–74; P 1997a; and C 1996; W 1998c, 404–13. 72 Cf. W 1990a. 73 Cf. C 1996, 5. 74 Cf. S 1986, 100. 71

286

 

names at the end of the myth about a divine wedding probably functioned as a way to invoke their blessings on the occasion of a human wedding. For the sake of completeness another two texts deserve some attention. In the second edition of KTU the genre of tablet 1.86 = RS 18.041 is indicated as ‘myth?, ritual?, incantation?’.75 Recently, it has been demonstrated that it is likely that we are dealing here with a hippiatric text about breeding.76 KTU 1.93 = RS 19.054 is listed by de Moor among the incantations, interpreting it as a prayer to Anat for help in reciting his incantation properly, that is, without stammering.77 If this interpretation of the short and damaged text is correct,78 then it would illustrate the importance of incantations in the religious life of the people of Ugarit.

75 76 77 78

KTU 2, 106. Cf.  O L – M R 1995. D M 1987, 186–7. For other interpretations see C 1989, 37–9 and the literature listed there.

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE UGARITIC CULTIC TEXTS

1

T R

P M – P X

1.1

The problem of the ritual documents

The Ugaritic texts which can be classed as ritual texts or have a ritual background did not at first attract the attention of scholars to the same extent as the mythological texts, on which an enormous bibliography has emerged. The very formal characteristics of these documents have contributed to discouraging any approach to them. They are mostly schematic texts, written in a concise and technical language which proceeds by allusions, using an accurate and precise liturgical vocabulary which cannot be studied with the help of, for example, the parallelism characteristic of poetry. In addition, there is the frequent use of stereotyped formulae, the understanding of which depends on actually identifying the rites to which they allude. Lastly, the focus of the syntax is extremely difficult because ‘prescriptive’ rubrics and ‘descriptive’ sections alternate with no obvious criteria and are accompanied by long lists of gods followed (often asyndetically) by the victims or offerings intended for them. A good stimulus to the study of ritual texts, which have been neglected for so many years (apart perhaps from a couple of specific contributions)1 came from the article by Levine2 on the possibility of identifying prescriptive and descriptive rituals, even if this distinction now seems applicable only to a limited extent. This is either because 1

D G 1955. Cf. also U 1959. L 1963. The distinction he proposes between ‘prescriptive’ rituals and ‘descriptive’ rituals is only acceptable in broad outline since it is clear that even a description is significantly prescriptive in nature (libretto for ceremonies; cf. the use of the imperfect/future). It is, thus, a spurious problem. Cf. also L 1965; 1974, 8ff. and 1983. 2

 

288

several texts do not, strictly speaking, belong to either of the two categories or else because the descriptive texts are also standard and are also often devised and written down as memoranda. However, the situation has improved markedly over the last twenty years, which have seen the first monographs on these documents as well as a series of minor studies devoted to analysing the lexicon, structure and function of the various texts, their implications for the history of religions, the divinities involved in the rites, the typology of the rites, etc. If we limit ourselves here only to wide-ranging works, first of all comes the publication in 1979 of a long and excellent comprehensive treatment of the ritual texts in the Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible written by Caquot.3 Then, at the beginning of the eighties, there appeared the first monographs on the topic by de Tarragon4 (which is more discursive) and by Xella5 (which is more systematic). Besides a large number of other minor studies (which appeared chiefly in Ugarit-Forschungen), a new wide-ranging contribution appeared in the section written by de Tarragon in the book edited by Caquot, de Tarragon himself and Cunchillos (TO 2) which was published in 1989 (although written a few years earlier) even though it did not provide any remarkable new interpretations (in a few rare instances even marking a regression). With del Olmo Lete’s monograph,6 substantial progress has been achieved in spite of the way the author has chosen to present the material (in practice it is a comprehensive study of the religion of Ugarit). In this survey can also be noted the translations made by Dietrich and Loretz of a certain number of ritual texts in the collection TUAT and elsewhere7 as well as the inclusion of several cultic documents in the anthology of de Moor8 and in the study by Pardee of texts which he curiously called ‘para-mythological’.9 1.2

Classifications of form and content

The ritual texts supply direct and extremely valuable information about religious practices (chiefly but not exclusively royal and pub3 4 5 6 7 8 9

C 1979. D T 1980. X 1981. D O L 1992a = 1999. D – L 1988b, 1990a. D M 1987. P 1988b.

 

289

lic) of ancient Ugarit, even if we reiterate that the material is difficult, to be approached with caution, using clear methodological principles. Apart from attempts to consider these documents as a specific ‘literary form’, the main fixed points of departure for analysis are as follows. In terms of the history of religions, they have an undoubtedly cultic character, while in terms of linguistics, they belong to a form of linguistic expression that can be defined as ‘chancellery language’,10 which places them on the same level as the economic and administrative texts and the hippiatric texts. As for their being documents with a religious purpose, the ritual texts have to be studied against the background of all that we know about the beliefs and cults of Ugarit during the Late Bronze Age, with the proviso of also using, to the greatest extent possible, the archaeological data from Ras Shamra and Ras Ibn Hani in order to provide a better framework as to how the rites functioned, and who were their participants and the recipients of the various ceremonies. Of course, local mythology also has to be a constant and fundamental reference point for understanding the rites and their underlying ideology. The objection (which is often raised) that the ‘literary’ texts reflect a stage of Ugaritic religion which is different and older (than the ritual texts) in fact has very little foundation, for it is based only on the formal opposition between poetic language and the nonpoetic or non-literary language11 in which the ritual texts are cast. In terms of the history of religions it is true that in some cases there is a certain divergence, for example between the rank and personality of the divine figures described in the myths and those venerated in the cult. However, the history of religions teaches us that the mythic dimension has its own laws, times and coordinates, such that the actions or features of a god in the mythological narratives need not necessary have an exact equivalent in the ritual universe regulated by man in terms of his own needs (even such banal and practical needs as the eating and [re-]distribution of meat by means of ritualizing immolations and celebrating religious feasts). To cite only one striking case, it is precisely in the ‘later’ ritual texts that the god El—incorrectly considered by some to be in decline with the passage of time—occupies a position of undoubted pre-eminence over all the other deities.12 10 11 12

F 1975. L 1964. Cf. X (forthcoming).

290

 

If, instead, we consider the content of the texts rather than their outward form, mythology and cultic documentation comprise two complementary and fairly organic aspects of Ugaritic religion which, as in all the cultures of the ancient world, is expressed differently at different levels. Lastly, as regards the matter of the relationships between myth and ritual, which are inextricably connected, it is sufficient to remember the existence of texts such as KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002, correctly defined as ‘cultic myth’;13 or, the fact that recitations, prayers, exorcisms and incantations are religious acts which can all be projected into the mythic dimension (while the recitation of a myth is itself a rite!). Besides these considerations, another important fact to keep in mind in the study of the Ugaritic rituals is the comparative dimension within the religious traditions of Syria-Palestine and Northern Mesopotamia. With the increase in our knowledge of the religion and sacrificial system of centres such as Ebla,14 Emar15 as well as Mari (with the requisite changes),16 it is necessary to get away from the usual and repeated references to the Bible in order to reconstruct the religious tradition peculiar to Syria, the consistency and essential continuity of which are perceptible. It should also be remembered that additional and often direct information on the cult and on various rites, both sacrificial and non-sacrificial, can be gained from other types of text, i.e. the economic and administrative texts,17 the letters and the mythological texts. The most famous example in the last category comprises the rites carried out by Keret (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ ii 50ff. and parallels) which, though to some extent awaiting proof, are undeniably connected with cultic practice. However, it is understandable how, faced with a mass of documents sharing a definite (and more or less direct) connection with the cult, but without uniform formal characteristics, specialists have attempted to sort this material, proposing classifications and subclassifications of various kinds. In a monograph written in 1981 (X 1981) one of the authors set out a subdivision of the texts as follows: 1) monthly liturgies and 13 14 15 16 17

D O L 1992a, 15 = 1999, 15. Cf. in general F 1993 and P – X 1997. Cf. especially F 1992 and, for example, D 1990. An excellent synthesis in D 1995. D O L – S 1998. On these aspects see below.

 

291

lists of offerings; 2) divination texts and oracles; 3) prayers; 4) incantations; 5) atonement sacrifices; 6) liturgies for kings; 7) votive texts; 8) lists of gods.18 This proposed classification has largely been followed by G. del Olmo Lete ( O L 1992a = 1999) with a series of additional subdivisions which refine the original grid still further, even for example distinguishing prescriptive rituals into sacrificial or non-sacrificial, pure or mixed, single or multiple, etc.19 The table proposed by the Spanish scholar is undoubtedly a good theoretical grid for classification, provided that it is not taken rigidly as a formal reference point. In this Handbook, which has a more general approach, we shall retain the distinction between prescriptive and recited rituals. Whether the sacrificial action does or does not involve blood is a further classification which, in some sense, cuts across the others and can connote a number of other ceremonies. Likewise, whether the ritual actions are more or less complex, the length of time they take and where they are performed, are factors which do not alter the basic typology. Ultimately it has to be said that our as yet imperfect knowledge of the sacrificial vocabulary of Ugarit and our continuing ignorance of the deep structures of Syrian religion in the Bronze Age should put us on guard against claims of elaborate classification which are too detailed and too systematic. 1.3

Rite and sacrificial material: terminology and typology

As indicated above, to describe or record various actions of the cult, the Ugaritic ritual texts use a series of technical terms which sometimes have a more generic meaning and sometimes are very technical. Even if we are still very far from having resolved all the problems of interpretation, the meanings of some terms have now been determined with enough certainty.20 The word db˙ is a prime

18

X 1981; in fact there is also a section on Hurro-Ugaritic rituals, due only to the bilingualism marking these documents, recently studied in a systematic way particularly by M. Dietrich, W. Mayer and M. Dijkstra in various publications (chiefly UF and AOAT/ALASP). 19 A different approach has been adopted by D – L 1988b, 300ff., which however is also reductive because it is determined by the anthological nature of the series (TUAT ) in which it appears. 20 X 1989;  O L 1992a, 19–22 = 1999, 20 –1; 1995. Nevertheless there are still quite a few disputed or even completely enigmatic cases, for example,

292

 

example of a term to denote the sacrificial ceremony which is both specific and generic at the same time. Of as yet unknown etymology,21 db˙ (generally attested as a noun although it also occurs in verbal form) is a key term in the Ugaritic sacrificial lexicon. It has been suggested that a whole series of terms (for example, ytn, kbd, nkt, np, nrr, n“a, ntk, ql, qrb, “lm, “t (?), ∆'y) should be considered essentially as its synonyms,22 but each of them—apart from proven cases of functional synonymity—is of course distinct and must be investigated separately as a specific element of a highly technical lexicon. In fact, db˙ is a polysemantic term, as noted already by Aistleitner,23 who correctly distinguished between (a) the meaning ‘schlachten/Schlachtopfer’ and (b) the meaning ‘Gastmahl essen/Mahl’. The Ugaritic term is not semantically related to Hebrew zb˙ (verb and noun) but instead to Akk. zìbu, ‘food offering’, which in turn is synonymous with naptànu (originally an accounting term used for food rations, used in the cult but also in non-cultic texts). The so-called polyglot vocabulary of Ug 5 (137 iii 6)24 gives the equivalents  = i-sí-nu = e-[l ]i = da-ab-¢u, from which can be deduced the clear meaning ‘feast’, ‘soirée’. This meaning is abundantly confirmed by the use of the term in the ritual texts. It is a sacrificial meal, i.e. a sacred banquet, as has been proved by several terms which are parallel or actually synonymous to it—dÀ∆, mßd, ∆rm, '“rt. However, the meaning of the word sometimes seems to be more generic (precisely ‘feast’ in general),25 since db˙ sometimes includes not only foodstuffs (for example, cf. oil and honey in KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:20–1) but also objects, clothes or metals. Thus it is an offering in a generic sense even if, as seems to be the case, the gift par excellence to the gods is still food (cf. the implicit equivalence db˙ = kispum in KTU 1.142 = RS 24.323).26 An excellent example of a grandiose and complex db˙ is provided by KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643,27 the db˙ of Íapunu, which seems to

cf. terms such as iyn, m'rb (in spite of its apparently clear etymology), “in, trmt and others as well. 21 F 1965. 22 D O L 1992a, 20–1 = 1999, 21–3, although he notes that the synonymy refers only to the basic meaning of ‘to offer’. 23 A 1974, § 722. 24 Cf. H 1987b, 117;  S 1991a, 303. Cf. § 4.5. 25 Cf. for example the opening line of KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126: spr. db˙. Ωlm. 26 Cf. DLU, 128a for the references. 27 D O L 1992a, 88–91 = 1999, 129 –33. (with previous bibliography).

 

293

include a whole series of different rites within the ceremony. In this case, however, it seems that the “lmm-sacrifice does not form part of the general typology of the db˙, but it cannot be excluded completely that in the first section of this text the offerings are to be considered as performed as a “rp-sacrifice (which was not mentioned because it was implicit). A text such as KTU 1.170 = RIH 78/11 shows that the db˙ included sacrifices such as the “rp, as is also indicated by the semantic field of the Hurrian term a∆¢l, sometimes used as equivalent to db˙ and sometimes as equivalent to “rp.28 If, out of several possible cases, we consider the so-called atonement ritual KTU 1.40 + 84 + 121 + 122 + 154 = RS 1.002,29 significantly, the terms db˙ and ∆' denote the inner cultic sphere in which the Ugaritic homo religiosus has committed sin. Above we have referred to attempts at formal classification of the ritual texts. Without going into over-precise subdivisions, we note that the ritual actions can be simply classed into the following categories:30 ritual blood sacrifices, bloodless sacrificial offerings, processions, enthronements-investitures, cultic meals. To these can be added texts or parts of texts comprising recitation (including prayers). The first category is thus represented by ritual actions involving blood. Among these, the designation attested most often in the rituals of Ugarit is provided by the brace of terms “rp and “lmm, which almost always occur together in close succession. These are two specific terms for sacrifice, the first of which is evidently connected with the action of ‘burning’ the victim (as the root *“rp shows) as is the case in the other Semitic languages (although this does not mean that it was always a holocaust); the second term, “lmm, is possibly to be translated ‘communion sacrifice’ or ‘peace sacrifice’, based on etymology and also on comparison with Hebrew “ elamîm.31 Explicit confirmation that (with the requisite modifications) in Ugarit also it is a communal meal of the offerers, comes from KTU 1.115 = RS 24.260:9–10: “ l il bt “lmm kl l yl˙m bh, ‘a ram to the god of the (royal) house as a “lmm-offering; all eat it’.32 28

D – M 1995, 12–3. X 1981, 251–76;  O L, 1992a, 99–109 = 1999, 144 –60;  M – S 1991; W 1998c, 342–7. 30 D T 1980, 55–129;  O L 1992a, 28–32 = 1999, 34– 40; cf. also  O L 1995, passim. 31 Current views and bibliography in  O L 1992a, 30–1 and n. 81 = 1999, 37– 40 and n. 82. 32 X 1981, 108;  O L 1992a, 177–81 = 1999, 257–64. 29

294

 

Also part of the other actions of the blood ritual is the act of ‘immolation’ (nkt) or ‘slaughter’ (qll ) of the victim. Nevertheless, the ritual texts provide evidence of further types of sacrificial offerings of which the meaning is not always precise, as in the cases of “npt (related perhaps to Hebrew t enûpâ ),33 tzÀ (which may denote either the victim or the rite)34 and also ∆'y, mentioned already, a polysemantic term which also seems to denote an offering connected with the royal cult.35 Besides rites involving blood, the Ugaritic texts also mention bloodless ritual actions. Among the ceremonies which do not involve the sprinkling of blood can be mentioned here the fairly widespread practice of performing ‘libations’ (the verb *ntk or the derived noun mtk), especially of water and wine, documented in several texts (cf. for example, KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:12; KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251:46; KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266:25), although they provide no information about the details of the ceremonies. The bloodless offerings also include, of course, offerings of vegetable food, and of various types of object, metal or cloth, which are amply documented in the ritual texts as well as in the economic and administrative texts.36 A further category of ritual actions comprises the processions, identifiable by a series of terms (for example, yrd, hlk, lq˙, 'ly, 'rb, etc.) and correctly included by G. del Olmo Lete among the ‘non-sacrificial liturgies’.37 The processions mentioned in the Ugaritic rituals have in fact as a central point a series of ceremonial actions in honour of divine statues,38 in which, as usual, the role carried out by the king and his family is completely in the foreground. In this connection, the ritual KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005 can be mentioned which is focussed completely on the procession of divine statues.39 It begins with k t'rb* '∆trt. ¢r. gb/bt mlk ‘When 'A∆tart of ›urri40 enters the gb of the royal palace’, and has the important conclusion (lines 24–26): mlk. ylk. lq˙. ilm || a∆r. ilm. ylk. p'nm./mlk. p*'*nm. yl[k]/“b' pamt. lklhm, ‘the king will go to take (the statues of ) the gods || behind (the stat33

M 1972. X 1981, 39–40. 35 D O L 1988a; cf. also F 1992. 36 D O L – S 1998; cf. in general  O L 1992a = 1999, passim. 37 D O L 1992a, 96 = 1999, 140–1. 38 D T 1980, 98–112; in general D – L 1992. 39 D O L 1992a, 189–94 = 1999, 282–91. 40 Cf. B – X 1996. 34

 

295

ues of ) the gods he will go on foot/the king will go on foot/seven times with all of them’. Further references to ceremonies of transporting statues are also given in KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015, a key text (classed as administrative) which lists concisely various rites which can be identified in more detail in other documents.41 Line 10: k t'rb. '∆trt. “d. bt m[lk] ‘When 'A∆tart of the steppe enters the royal palace’ (cf. KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:18–22) and in line 11: k t'rbn. r“pm. bt. mlk, ‘When the Ra“aps enter the royal palace’ (cf. KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+, as well as KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005:9ff.). KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256:42 6–9, where images of the deities (genuine gods and divinized ancestors) are moved around in various cultic installations as part of the dynastic cult, is not exactly of the same type. Another category of ritual actions is that of investiture-enthronement.43 Here we are referring, for example, to actions described by verbs such as y∆b ‘to sit (down)’ or lb“ ‘to dress/be dressed’ (for the semantic field of clothes or ritual dressing cf. especially azr and npß, as well as other terms) but which, in a religious context, refer to specific ceremonies the details of which are unknown to us. A clear case of royal investiture can be identified, for example, in KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:53–5, ßbu. “p“ w˙l mlk/w l*[b“ ]n. ßpm. w m˙[ pn]h* t*[∆]∆bn/b. b*[t] w km. i∆ y[“u. l.] “mm yd[h] ‘the sun sets and the king is desacralized and, robed splendidly and with his face cleansed, they shall enthrone him (lit. they shall make him return) in the palace and once there, he shall raise his hands towards the sky’.44 Although it mentions the royal throne, the expression ‘and at night the throne is prepared’ alludes to a ritual action which is not completely clear in KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+:26–8 (w lll t'r[k] ksu). Important moments in the liturgies, apparently without involving blood, can be recognized in the invocations, recitations and prayers (cf. for example dn (?), n“a + yd, pt˙ + yd (?), ß˙, qra, “r), in acts of divination and oracles ( phy (?), rgm, “r, ∆∆b + rgm, etc.) and in expiation rites (cf. KTU 1.40 + 84 + 121 + 122 + 154 = RS 1.002, cited already and marked by its peculiar structure and lexicon).

X 1979;  O L 1992a, 173–7 = 1999, 257–64. Rites to be celebrated in the month of ¢yr (likewise KTU 1.105 = RS 24.249). On the passage quoted cf. X 1988. 43 D O L 1992a, 96 = 1999, 141. 44 D O L 1992a, 83–5 = 1999, 122–5. 41 42

 

296

Finally, among the ritual actions, communal meals can be mentioned (cf. what has been said above concerning db˙ and “lmm) which frequently acquire religious significance, and include the consumption of drinks (specified by terms such as kly, l˙m, nßl (?), 'db, '“r, “ty), either as a convivial occasion which joins together men, the gods and the spirits of the ancestors, or else as a ritualized and regulated occasion where food (especially meat) is eaten. As for the sacrificial material,45 in rites involving blood, the offerings of animals were substantially similar to those known in the other religious traditions of the ancient Near East. The animals offered most frequently are bovides (the ox, alp, the bull, ∆r, the cow, gdlt, lit. ‘female head of cattle’), ovines, denoted generically as ßin (the ram, “, the sheep, dqt, lit. ‘head of small cattle’ or ∆at, she-goat, 'z), birds, called generically 'ßr, with the dove, ytnt or the turtle-dove, tr specified. However other kinds of animals also occur such as donkeys, 'r and also fish, dg. Besides complete animals, the various parts of the victim were offered, limbs and entrails (ap, np“, lb, kbd, mtnt are the easiest to identify) as studied in detail by G. del Olmo Lete.46 Animal offerings are certainly not the only ones attested in the Ugaritic rituals and several times gifts were dedicated to the gods either of vegetables such as wine ( yn), oil (“mn), emmer (ksm), flour (qm˙) honey (nbt), or else of precious metals such as silver (ksp) and gold (¢rß) or even objects in common use including articles of clothing and crockery. 1.4

The role of the king

By now it is well known that the king had a role of particular importance within the Ugaritic cult and was by far the principal officiant.47 The texts of Ugarit, in fact, show not only how the palace has control over the personnel appointed to the cult but how the king himself is often the main celebrant within a liturgy and how frequently the ceremonies take place in locations and internal buildings actually within the royal palace. Moreover, the importance of the dynas-

45 Cf., for example,  T 1980, 31–54;  O L 1992a, 32–3 = 1999, 40–2. 46 D O L 1989b. 47 H 1984; Y 1985;  O L 1992a, 115–95 = 1999, 166–291;  O L 1993b; A 1994, 123–92.

 

297

tic cult together with the veneration of the divinized royal ancestors has emerged as one of the most typical aspects which characterize the religion of Ugarit in a peculiar symbiosis between the living and the dead for the common good.48 The high number of rituals found in Ugarit testify to a series of liturgies where the ritual actions clearly refer to the king, expressed frequently by the use of fixed ‘ritual formulae’ which indicate his state of (ritual) purity and refer to special moments in the day.49 The best known and best attested form of ritual action where the king is seen as the protagonist is the one concerning his ritual purification. This must certainly have been achieved by means of special ablutions, expressed by the formula yrt˙ß mlk brr ‘the king washes purified’. This formula often introduces a series of ceremonies in which the king takes part, at the close of which there occurs, connected with nightfall or sunset (ßba/u “p“, 'rb “p“ ) the further formula w˙l mlk ‘and the king is desacralized’. Thus the purification of the king seems to be a prerequisite for him to be able to perform, assist at or take part in the ritual (cf., for example, KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266:4–6; KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256:10–5, etc.). Another series of ‘formulae’ which are quite similar to each other even if not exactly identical, allude to the king’s role in oracle practice (mlk brr rgm y∆∆b/rgm y∆∆b mlk brr, ∆∆b rgm w˙l mlk) probably acting as mediator for the replies and always in conditions of ritual purity.50 There are many other examples of the sovereign being involved in the cult. Among the most important are KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266:13–4 in which ‘the king sacrifices in the temple of El’, or KTU 1.164 = RIH 77/2+ ‘When the king sacrifices in the ¢mn (i.e. the palace chapel)’; the king takes part in processions, as in KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005:23–5, cited already; a cantor has to sing in front of the king, who has his hands spread out: KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+:15–7; the king’s throne is prepared at night, probably to allow him to be seated during the performance of nocturnal rites: KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+:27–8, and so on.

48 Restated by  O L 1992a, 130–4 = 1999, 192–8 (in respect of KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126) and passim, where five whole chapters (3–6) are devoted to the religion and cult of the king. 49 X 1984c. 50 D O L 1992a, 22 = 1999, 24.

298

 

The ceremony described at the end of KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003:50– 5 is particularly interesting; here the cultic role of the king is very obvious: the rite, which is still difficult to identify exactly, is performed in the month of ri“ yn and takes place on the terrace of the royal palace (it is less likely that it was a temple); it exhibits remarkable similarities with the Hebrew ritual of the New Year which was also celebrated on the day of the full moon in the first month of the year, at the season of the wine harvest, with the construction of huts.52 Also worthy of mention is the possible sacred marriage ceremony mentioned in KTU 1.132 = RS 24.291, studied again recently (with new proposals) by Dietrich and Mayer,53 in which it seems that the union of the king with the goddess Pidrayu was celebrated. She was the daughter of Baal and evidently must have embodied the ideal wife at the highest level.54 Besides the rites in which the king took part, the locations where the liturgy took place were often included within the palace complex and the chapels attached to it. One of the places in which ritual actions involving the king’s presence were often performed is the ¢mn, undoubtedly a chapel reserved for the royal and dynastic cult, a raised and covered structure, a sort of earthly projection of the heavenly dwelling, which forms part of the royal palace and was used chiefly for the royal dynastic cult.55 There are other places in which the rituals were performed and probably must have belonged to the king’s residence such as the ‘terrace’ (gg) mentioned above or the ‘garden’ (gn). This second term, which is also a name for a month in the Ugaritic calendar when an impressive number of ceremonies are performed, is already attested in the texts from Ebla56 and denotes a cultic area inside the royal palace which was a sort of cemetery, the location for funerary rites intended for the ancestors and the chthonian deities.57 51

51

Lines 50–55 of this tablet are separated from lines 1–49. Only the latter have a duplicate in KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056. 52 D O L 1992a, 83–5 = 1999, 122–5. 53 D – M 1996a; cf. the new proposal to read bb*t mlk instead of b“t mlk in line 3. 54 D O L 1992a, 143 = 1999, 212. 55 D O L 1984d; X 1991, 169ff. and passim. 56 X 1995c. 57 Cf. for example S 1986; L 1989;  O L 1992a, 149–56 = 1999, 219–32. For a more reserved critical attitude cf.   T 1991.

 

299

The reference to gn brings us to the ceremonial role of the king in his capacity as principal celebrant, a role exercised even more within the funerary cult in honour of the dead and deified kings of the dynasty. This fundamental aspect of Ugaritic religion is attested in a whole series of indications and texts (three, in particular KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252, KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257 and KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126 which, although their general meaning and many details are still disputed, throw considerable light on the phenomenon which seems to be peculiar to the Syrian region). The first of these documents (KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252)58 seems in fact to attribute to the dead king the title of rpu mlk 'lm ‘Rapiu, eternal king’ (lines 1 and 21–22). Unfortunately, the break and the theoretical possibility of attributing the title rpu to a god (in this case Baal) rather than to the king makes the interpretation of the whole text very uncertain. KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257 (see § 7.2) is a clear testimony that the dead kings were considered as divine. Lastly, KTU 1.161 = RS 34.12659 is introduced as is known as the ‘liturgy of sacrifice of the shades [= protective spirits]’ (spr db˙ Ωlm), i.e. a ‘libretto’ of the funeral celebration which was performed to accompany the descent of the dead king into the underworld. The liturgy begins with the invocation of the Rapiuma, the ancestors belonging to the dynasty, after which we are present at a lament with a ritual meal followed by the command given by the goddess ”apa“ to the dead king (here probably Niqmaddu III, line 26) to descend into the underworld. The text then continues with the sacrifice of a bird (probably as an offering for the dead king) performed seven times and it ends with a propitiatory blessing of well-being towards the king, the ruling house and the whole city of Ugarit. It is precisely this final blessing which shows us the purpose of the cult of the ancestors which the Ugaritic kings carried out: it expresses in fact the concern for obtaining prosperity, protection and oracular responses 60 from the Rapiuma, fittingly honoured for that purpose.61 Finally, it can be noted that the role of the royal house in Ugaritic liturgy does not seem to have been strictly confined to the king. 58 P 1988b, 75–118; (C –)  T – (C) 1989, 111–8;  O L 1992a, 126–30 = 1999, 184–92, W 1998c, 395–8. 59 D O L 1992a, 130–4 = 1999, 192–8, with previous bibliography. See also W 1998c, 430–41. 60 T 1989a; L 1993. 61 The ‘minimalist’ position recently adopted by P 1996a, 281 does not seem completely justified.

300

 

Already KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256 studied above shows that the whole royal family took part in ritual actions. In addition, KTU 1.170 = RIH 78/11, even in a broken context, seems to show the existence of a sacrifice carried out by the queen, which is confirmed by the administrative text KTU 4.149 = RS 15.039:14–6 which records quantities of wine for the sacrifice by the queen on sown field.62 1.5 Other cult personnel Besides the foreground role performed by the king as officiant, we also know of other personnel appointed to the cult even if, surprisingly enough, neither khnm nor rb khnm ever feature in the ritual texts, apart from a the doubtful reference to a ‘throng of priests’, ∆l∆t khn[m], in the second broken incantation against serpents’ venom, KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+:18. Otherwise note can be taken of a ‘cantor’, “r, in KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+:15, a qd“ in KTU 1.112 = RS 24.246:21, a category which can perhaps be defined as ‘purifiers’, m˙llm in KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266:23, whereas a certain exorcist termed ml¢“ is the human protagonist in the great incantation against serpents, KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244. All this personnel belongs to the category of dependents of the royal house (bn“ mlk)63 and therefore, strictly speaking, a class of priests independent of the king is not attested in Ugarit.64 The rare mention of personnel with religious functions in the cultic texts is partly completed by references which can be derived from the administrative and economic texts,65 although there is no mention of their cultic duties. In this category of documents we find several references to ‘priests’, khnm (in the Akkadian texts: .“ ); individually or collectively, in ‘community’, dr khnm (KTU 4.357 = RS 18.046:24), with their ‘chief ’ rb khnm (in the Akkadian texts: . sanga), a title which occurs also on the famous hatchets66 and in the colophon to the 6th tablet of the Baal cycle mentioned above. 62

Already noted in X 1981, 149. Cf. for example H 1982, 131–9; L… 1988. 64 According to the colophon of the tablet KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 55–7, even the high priest Attanu-prln was a dependent of king Niqmaddu, albeit at the highest level. The title nqd can be related to the cult only hypothetically. 65 D O L – S 1998, 176–84. 66 See most recently B 1998. 63

 

301

There are also the ‘consecrated ones’, qd“m, for whom a divinatory function has also been proposed, hypothetically,67 and then the ‘singers’, “rm, personnel connected in various ways with music in the cult and perhaps also outside the cult and lastly the ‘water carriers of the sanctuary’, “ib mqd“t, a function which has parallels in the Hebrew world, in Hellenistic-Roman Syria and elsewhere. 1.6

The times of the celebrations

As is almost the general rule in the ancient Near East, the calendar68 of Ugaritic liturgical celebrations is based on the lunar cycle and therefore the days in which the cult takes on greater importance are evidently at the beginning or middle of the month, corresponding to the new moon (ym ˙d∆, i.e. the first day of the month) or the full moon (ym mlat, i.e. the fifteenth day of the month). On these days great sacrifices are carried out, accompanied by the usual rite of purification of the king, as shown for example by KTU 1.46 = RS 1.009, KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253 and KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+. However, there are also other liturgies for other days of the month, often in ‘weekly’ cycles (i.e. a quarter of a month), but also on several other days of the month. And then some rites took place in the evening or at night, as can be deduced from the indications l ll and lpn ll. With regard to the annual cycle of the cult, however, unfortunately we are not yet completely certain of the exact sequence of the months of the Ugaritic calendar since the local names are considerably different from the standard names of Mesopotamian tradition. And comparison with what we know of the months of various Eblaite calendars from over a millennium earlier does not help much either. Some scholars have tried to reconstruct a particular seasonal liturgical sequence on the basis of the mythological texts,69 but this attempt has not been accepted by scholars. As far as the strictly ritual texts is concerned, we know of liturgical texts related to certain

67

D O L – S 1998, 180–1. On the root cf. X 1982. D T 1980, 17–30;  O L 1992a, 22–4 = 1999, 24–7; C 1993, 377–83; A 1993b. For chronological indications to the cult which can be obtained from the economic and administrative texts cf.  O L – S 1998, 186–8. 69 Especially  M 1971. Cf. also  M 1972 and 1988a. 68

 

302

specific months such as the months of ib'lt (KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266:1–17), nql (KTU 1.138 = RS 24.298) and ¢yr, the second month of spring corresponding to April/May (KTU 1.105 = RS 24.249 and KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256). In addition we are acquainted with the ritual of the month of ri“ yn (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003/KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056). This last month (‘first of the wine’) fell in the time of the wine harvest and corresponded to the month September/ October; it was probably the beginning of the cultic year in Ugarit. Its ritual, with an extremely long list of sacrifices, is marked by an initial and highly symbolic offering of a bunch of grapes, undoubtedly to be understood as firstfruits, to the god El. 1.7

The places for the celebrations

The Ugaritic liturgy certainly did not only take place in the temples. In fact the ritual texts mention several sacred places, some of which have been confirmed from archaeology whereas others still remain unidentified.70 For reasons of completeness it is necessary to note, however, that certain ‘cult places’, identified on the basis of archaeological evidence, actually have no equivalents in the specific terms of the ritual texts.71 The temple of Baal, identified with one of the two great temples on the acropolis, takes on a foreground role in the ritual texts (KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266; KTU 1.105 = RS 24.249:19; KTU 1.104 = RS 24.248:13; KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253:11), and also in the mythological texts (especially KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+; but see also KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 31). It is built on a platform which is approached by means of a monumental stairway; it comprises a vestibule which comes before the naos (or inner cella) and, in the southwest corner, is preceded by a structure which can be explained as the holy of holies. In front of the entrance, within the court surrounding the sanctuary to the south, there is a structure measuring 2 × 2 metres, usually explained as an altar (it is thought that it may be the altar 70 The first of these is the so-called sanctuary of the Hurrian gods close to the royal palace, the nature and cultic function of which seem to be certain; the second is the so-called sanctuary of the rhyta, located in the residential area of the city; cf. Y 1996. 71 On cult places in Ugarit cf. generally Y 1984;  O L 1992a, 24–8 = 1999, 27–34;  T 1996;  O L – S 1998, 184–6.

 

303

mentioned in KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:41 mdb˙ b'l ). It is interesting to note that the raised structures mentioned as the ‘tower of Baal of Ugarit’ (KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266:12) and the ‘terrace’ (gg in KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:50), where sacrifices were offered, are probably confirmed from archaeology by the enormous width of the foundation walls of the temple of Baal and in the purported existence of a stairway on the eastern side of the temple. Archaeology has brought to light a second great temple on the acropolis. Due to the finding of the two inscribed stelae KTU 6.13 = RS 6.021 and KTU 6.14 = RS 6.028 in its vicinity, it has been considered as dedicated to the god Dagan. However, unfortunately the Ugaritic ritual texts never mention a temple of Dagan,72 so that it seems more reasonable to attribute this temple to the god El in agreement with the evidence from the ritual texts KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056:42 and KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266:13–4 and with the mythological texts KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004]+ i 31–2 and KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ iv 21. This temple also, like the other one dedicated to Baal, is built on a platform, has massive foundations which suggest the existence of a very high upper storey and is subdivided into a vestibule and a cella. Besides these temples which have been identified archaeologically, the ritual texts also mention the temple of Ilat (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:24 mdb˙ bt ilt ‘altar of the temple of Ilat’) and the ‘temple of the lady of the high temples’ (ibid. 37 [b]t b'lt bt[m rmm]). Unfortunately, nothing worthwhile can be said about these two temples given that the context provides nothing useful regarding their description. From the texts in prose we know of the existence of a temple dedicated to El (cf. above on the hypothesis regarding Dagan), a temple to 'A∆tart (KTU 4.216 = RS 16.165:2), a temple of Ra“apgn (ibid. line 3) and other sacred structures dedicated to Ili“ (KTU 4.781 = RIH 83/28 + 31 + 84/15 + 26:2) and to the unknown deity dml (the letter KTU 2.26 = RS 16.264:6). Besides the temple structures, a whole series of names of other specific places of cult are known. The most important of these is the ¢mn, which has already been mentioned, i.e. the palace chapel dedicated chiefly to the dynastic cult (and comprising perhaps qd“, 'ly and kbm, i.e. a small sacred area, steps and other unidentified 72 Cf. N 1994, and on KTU 1.104 = RS 24.248:13 cf. also the new reading in KTU 2.

304

 

structures). But there are also other places about which nothing certain is known, such as the ‘garden’ (gn) already mentioned, cited for example in KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+:22–3, or else the gb (‘sacrificial pit’?, ‘cistern’ ? or ‘platform’ ?, cf. KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005:1–2), the urbt, the 'gml, the Àb and others as well (such as the ‘tower’ mgdl, the ‘staircase’ (?) m'lt, etc.). In spite of the lacunae and the uncertainties, the combined use of textual, archaeological and comparative data makes the ritual system of Ugarit certainly the best known within west Semitic religions with the prospects of further knowledge in connection with excavations which continue uninterruptedly.

2

T O L   G L G  O L 2.1 Introduction

The ‘list’ as a literary form is well known in the scribal practice of the ancient Near East1 and is well represented in its archives. These provide us with canonical series which comprise a sort of universal encyclopaedic vocabulary arranged by theme, together with other lists of similar origin. These lists, which come from administrative archives, record different products and items that ‘come into’ or ‘leave’ the public warehouses, evidently for the purposes of accounting. In principle, their fate is irrelevant as far as accounting goes, which means that there is no need for a special category for recording products intended to be consumed in the cult as sacrificial victims. In fact, in the archives of Ugarit, such account records occur mixed together with others which have all kinds of destinations ( O L – S 1998). However, we are able to identify them and given their syntactic structure, consider them to be cultic texts. This structure is set out as the attribution of an offering to a divine recipient following various grammatical models ( O L 1992a, 13–20 = 1999, 11–21); such an attribution implies a cultic action even though its model does not need to be made explicit. As a result, in their simplest form these texts appear as a series of two juxtaposed lists, one of offerings and the other of gods. They can be analysed separately or in relation to each other, in both cases providing some information on the development of cultic practice in this community. It is clear that in such a case the ‘list of gods’ determines the origin and arrangement of the ritual, either implying the existence of cultic pantheons or using other pantheons which originated outside the cult. In terms of administration, though, the important element is the record of offerings. However, this concise form of cultic list is not the only one; there are others which supply information about the moment, place or

1

O 1977, 244ff.; L 1957–71, 473–9; C 1980–3, 609–41.

306

 

type of cultic act, even providing descriptions of it, which suggests that at least some of these texts are rather more than mere account ‘records’ ( T 1995a, 104). Even so, in principle the references to the recipient or sacred moment of offering, even to the rite, seem to have the purpose of merely certifying or justifying delivery, issue or expense in the accounts, just like their civil counterparts concerning the moment or method of a business transaction. Thus, they do not seem to be accounts which strictly tabulate items but rather they all seem to be tinged with contextual references. This is possibly connected with the formation and function of the scribe. Quite often the development of these facts takes on an informative value which transcends mere accounts and becomes a more or less schematic description, in space and time, of a complex cultic action. Given the importance of the cult in ancient cultures, it is legitimate therefore to suppose that these texts were produced as meta-economic texts, with their own sacral meaning, and have been analysed as such.2 Keeping this in mind, it is often quite difficult to determine when the text is merely a list for accounts (list) and when it is descriptiveprescriptive (ritual). It all depends on what is implied by the information as a whole. Here we shall discuss basically texts which seem to be pure lists or largely lists, i.e. in which the other information can be considered (merely) circumstantial. Texts which lie outside this frame of reference are left to be analysed as a whole as rituals, i.e. examples of the liturgy of Ugarit, and from them we shall extract here only the series of offerings and divine names they provide. On the other hand, these elements (offering and recipient) which are supplied together in the lists mentioned, could be recorded quite separately. This happens especially in the pantheons or name lists of gods, whereas the possible lists of products or offerings can easily be camouflaged among texts which we consider to be strictly administrative if there is no indication of their use or purpose ( O L – S 1998, 192–4).

2 This has been the approach adopted by us ( O L 1992a = 1999), and earlier by  T 1980 and X 1981.

       2.2

307

God Lists

We shall begin with the lists of gods, given the importance this literary form acquired in ancient near Eastern religion: from the beginning, the principal entities to be listed were the gods. These lists could have functioned merely as templates with which to fill the records of delivery or lists of offerings, but they also undoubtedly had a meaning transcending their practical use. This is suggested by the number of copies that were made and their translation into Akkadian, as we shall see below in connection with List A of the gods. This is a process of systematization which combines profession of faith in the divine person with the invocation of his name, elements basic to all ancient Near Eastern religions. Apart from the ‘List Anu’, which is arranged in the Mesopotamian style and so is foreign, there were at least two indigenous lists, originating in a different period and a different ideology, both translated into Akkadian and occurring together in the cult in the lengthy text KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643 (P 1997b, 67–71). The palace shared in this religious process of systematic theology in respect of the divine universe providing its own ‘pantheon’, also for cultic use. Besides these and other name-lists or exempt lists we shall provide next those to be found in ritual contexts, sacrificial and non-sacrificial. 2.2.1

Lists of divine names

2.2.1.1 The List Anu The Ugaritic fragments of this classic list of Mesopotamian gods copy their model faithfully and are a witness to how venerable and widespread they were throughout the ancient Near East, no doubt together with the school tradition of the literature of lists. However, as such, they provide nothing new or important about the religion of Ugarit. For that topic we refer to the bibliography.3 More important as part of the same scholarly tradition is the information provided by the polyglot vocabularies since they allow us to trace the equivalences made in Ugarit between the Sumerian-Akkadian and

3 On the Mesopotamian list Anu in general cf. the fundamental article by W 1929 and the bibliography provided later by B 1975, III 64–5; also L 1958. For this list in Ugarit cf. N 1968a, 210–30, 246–9, 324. Another new fragment has been published by A 1982a.

 

308

Hurrian pantheons and their own; however little of the text has been preserved (N 1968a, 246–9). 2.2.1.2 List A (KTU 1.118 = RS 24.268+, KTU 1.47 = RS 1.017, KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:1–9, RS 20.24) The basic text of the principal or canonical list (A) is KTU 1.118 = RS 24.268+, whereas KTU 1.47 = RS 1.017 which has the addition of il ßpn at its beginning, is very damaged, and can be reconstructed from the other text. On the other hand, the good condition of the Akkadian text RS 20.24, a version of the previous text, is of inestimable value for determining what the Ugaritic names/epithets mean and their relation to the Mesopotamian pantheon ( O L 1986a, 293–9; H 1985, 115–23; 1988a, 103–12). In turn, KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:1–9 confirms the fixed character of this canonical sequence in the cultic domain: its first nine lines give us a simple listing of the gods of List A, followed by the victim allotted them in the festival of Íapunu (cf. below). This first section is repeated in lines 10–12 as a sort of summary, in accordance with the two sets of offerings required by the “rp w“lmm ritual. RS 20.24

KTU 1.118

 a-bi ilumlum d da-gan d adad be-el ¢ur“àn ¢a-zi d adad II d adad III d adad IV d adad V d adad VI d adad VII d  ù  d sa-sú-ra-tum d sin d ¢ur“an ¢a-zi d é-a d ¢é-bat d a“-ta-bi d ¢ur“anume“ u a-mu-tu[m] a“-ra-tum d a-na-tum d “ama“

ilib il dgn b'l ßpn b'lm b'lm b'lm b'lm b'lm b'lm arß w“mm k∆[r]t [ y]r¢ [ß]pn k∆r pdry '∆tr ©rm w['mqt] [a]∆[r]t 'nt “p“

1.47 il ßpn ilib i[l ] dgn b'l ßpn b'lm b'lm b'lm b'lm [b]'lm [b'l ]m [arß] w“mm [k∆r]t [ yr¢] [ ßpn] [k∆r] [ pdry] ['∆tr] [ ©rm w'mqt] [a∆rt] ['nt] [“p“ ]

1.148:1–9 [il ßpn] [ilib] il [dgn] b'l ßpn] b'lm [b'lm] b'lm [b]'l[m] [b'lm] arß w“mm k∆r[t] yr¢ ßpn k∆r pdry ©rm w'mqt atrt 'nt “p“

       d

al-la-tum i“-¢a-ra d i“tar i“-tar d ilànume“ til-la-ad dadad d nergal d dá-ad-mi-i“ d pu-¢ur ilàni me“ d tàmtum dDUG ... dgi“ ki-na-rum d ..“ d sa-li-mu d

arßy u“¢ry '∆trt il t'≈r b'l r[“ ]p ddm“ p¢r ilm ym u∆¢t knr mlkm “lm

[a]rßy [u]“¢ry [' ]ttrt il t'≈r b'l r“p ddm“ p¢r ilm ym knr mlkm “lm

309 arßy '∆trt u“¢ry il t'≈r b'l r“p ddm“ p¢r ilm ym u∆¢t [k]nr

Leaving out the addition of the reinterpretative title (il ßpn), the structure of this list provides the following elements: a) It begins with a ‘triad’ which to some extent defines the personality of the supreme god under three cultically distinct epithets: ilib, il, dgn (see also KTU 1.123 = RS 24.271:1–3: ab wilm . . . il . . . il “r dgn . . .). Very probably they suppose a development (il as ‘father’ of the divine family) of his personality and an attempt at combining pantheons, as a reflection of myth, portraying Ba'lu as ‘son of Dagànu’ and considering Ilu to be his ‘father’ ( O L 1992a, 56 n. 77 [1999, 74 n. 78] with bibliography). b) A similar process is assumed in the case of Ba'lu and (H )ad(a)du.4 He is the great Canaanite god of the second millennium, the protector of Ugarit (b'l ugrt), defined in principle by the attribute of his residence ßpn, specified by the Akkadian version as ‘(H)Adad, lord of Mount ›azi’. In his sevenfold epithet are concentrated all the many (local) epiphanies (b'l ugrt, ¢lb . . .).5 In KTU 1.118 = RS 24.264+, a line separates this group from the following heading. c) The descriptive series invoking Ba'lu is followed by a group of seven deities, headed by the dual divinity ‘Earth and Heaven’, apparently ‘chthonian-astral’ or cosmic in nature, in chiastic relation (stellar/

4 Akkadian makes a clear distinction between the proper noun Adad (IM) and the common noun be-el, ‘lord’, which are combined in Ug. b'l (cf. line 4: dadad be-el ¢ur“an ¢a-zi = b'l ßpn). The Ug. epithet hd of myth is not used here nor is add of ritual (cf. KTU 1.65 = RS 4.474:9), in spite of the Akkadian translation. But it is possible that dIM was not read as dAdad in Ugarit; the Akkadian version is a Ugaritic interpretation (interpretatio) for ‘foreigners’ (D – L 1981, 67–8). 5 In this context KTU 4.15 = RS 9.469 must be considered, which is possibly a list of local or family epithets (stelae?) of Ba'lu.—On divine ‘heptads’ in Mesopotamia cf. the bibliography given by B, above, n. 2.

310

 

terrestrial deities) with this polar pair which heads the group (k∆rt,6 yr¢, '∆tr || ßpn, k∆r, pdry). d) The next group, again of seven deities, is also headed by the dual name/divinity ‘Mountains and Valleys’. It is combined with six goddesses (1 + 6), apparently arranged hierarchically and related to the male gods of the previous groups. This separation of the sexes confirms the absence of ‘pairing’ in the Ugaritic pantheon. e) The last group is different in each of the various texts. The most complete list is provided by KTU 1.118 = RS 24.264+ and the Akkadian version, whereas the others omit one or other element. Here too the series is introduced by a composite divine name, ‘the helper gods of Ba'lu’. To it corresponds another composite epithet, ‘the assembly of the gods’, equivalent to ‘the family of Ilu’.7 At all events, this last group is somewhat of an appendix and possibly contains later additions. In it is developed the process of ‘divinizing’ objects (u∆¢t, knr) and persons (mlkm).8 The final result is a pantheon of 33 divine invocations, excluding the title added in KTU 1.118 = RS 24.264:1 (and KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:1). The hierarchical principle governing the composition of this ‘god list’ is not clear; they do not seem to be arranged according to ‘personal’ importance. Even so, it is possible to say that the ‘canonical list’ (A) does in fact include the group of principal gods of Ugarit, exactly as they appear in myth and the official cult (KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:1–9]. It represents a mythologizing expansion which tends to make organic distinctions between the gods and at the same time to assimilate other foreign pantheons within its own religious framework, from the multiple cultural influence which affected Ugarit: Amorite, Hurrian, Hittite, Sumerian and Akkadian.

6 This is an overall term for a group of ‘seven’ deities, as we know from KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194:47–50 ( O L 1991, 74–5). 7 Cf. KTU 1.123 = RS 24.271:32 which refers to drm ilm, ‘the two divine families’ (?); KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002:25 and par.; and KTU 1.65 = RS 4.474:2–3, with its invocation of dr/mp¢rt bn il. 8 In the cult a small reduction of the standard list as it has come down to us in its final form, is evident: from a pantheon of 33/34 epithets it has become a group of 28/29, a number which is ‘cultically’ determined in KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:1–9, in all likelihood, by the days of the month, as will be apparent in the fifth section (lines 23–45). One b'lm as well as '∆tr, u¢∆t, mlkm and “lm are omitted and the sequence of u“¢ry and '∆trt is inverted.

       2.2.1.3

311

List B (KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:23–45; RS 26.142)

KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:23–45, instead, provides us with a new list of the il ¢yr, ‘gods of the (month) ›iyaru’. We have no separate Ugaritic version of this text, but it is evidently a fixed and canonical list as is shown by the coincidence of the cultic use with the independent Akkadian version (RS 26.142). As both texts are damaged, we lack a complete list of gods.9 We now set out both texts arranged in order (the Akkadian text follows the recent reconstruction by A 1994, 107–9) and their Ugaritic equivalents: RS 26.142 1. dingir [a-bi] d Ki [ù didim] dingir-[lu 4] d Nin.ma¢ x? [ d 5. Da-gan d U ›al-bi d U d¢ur.sag ›a-zi d ‘I“kur’ tur d [XX]X 10. [d¢ur.]sag ›a-zi [dÉ]-a [dA“-ta-bi: dBe-el ] “ul-ba-ad-da ....................... .......................

15. dingir.me“ gi“.sag.kul dingir.me“ da-ad-me-na

KTU 1.148 23. ilib arß w“mm 25. il a/k∆rt dgn b'l ¢lb b'l ßpn ∆r∆y yr¢ ßpn 30. k∆r

Interpretation ilib Earth and Heavens Ilu Nin.ma¢ [ ] Dagànu Ba'lu of ›alba. Ba'lu of Mount ›azi. Ba'lu the second (?) [Si ]n (?). [Moun]t ›azi. Ea

'∆tr a∆rt “gr wi∆m ..... r“p idrp ]g“r ©l ]mt 35. ..... ..... ..... knr ]m“r 40. il m[ [...] w thmt...... [...]xmr [il ] sk[r] [il.d ]dm

'A∆taru A∆iratu ”agru and I∆mu ? Ra“pu of idrp ? The Damsel ? ? ? Kinàru Mi“àru The god of [...] and Tihàmàtu ...... Gods of the bolt Gods of Dadmena

9 As yet unpublished texts may perhaps help complete and identify them (B – P 1995, 31). P (1992, 167) suggests that KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643 is an incomplete tablet which does not reproduce the full god list RS 26.142.

 

312 DINGIR.ME” la-ab-a-na d dug bur.zi.nì.naga4! d gi“.ZA.MÍM 20. dU d U d U d U d Ma-[lik.me“] 25. dD[I

il.lb[n]n [...] b'lm 45. [....]

Gods of Labana Incense burner (?) Lyre Ba'lu Ba'lu Ba'lu Ba'lu Mali[kùma] ?

In our view this is yet another pantheon used in the cult. As in the case of KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:1–9, it is very probable that this is also a modification of an earlier pantheon, reduced to 28 deities, in line with the monthly nature of the ritual.10 Everything indicates that KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:23ff. is to be considered a ritual connected with the ‘funerary’ cult of the month of ›iyaru, which is older than the ‘festival of Íapunu’ (lines 1–9). 2.2.1.4 List C (KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246; KTU 1.139 = RS 1.001:13–9) We have to consider the list of gods provided by KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246:1–14 along the same lines (exempt list and cultic use). It is a list (C ) used in the cult in KTU 1.139 = RS 1.001:13–9, i.e. this is a standard list not a casual one. Thus, the group of 14/16 deities mentioned there presupposes a selection which in name and number largely agrees with the one provided by the group of texts which we call ‘dynastic’ (cf. below). 1. il bt u“¢ry ym.b'l yr¢ 5. k∆r pdry dqt tr∆ 10. r“p 'nt ¢bly 10 The ‘month’ would only be a pattern, without necessarily implying, on the other hand, a daily celebration in honour of each one of the gods. Also, comparison with RS 26.142:16 suggests correcting k∆rt to a∆rt (nin.ma¢) in KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:25, so written probably because of the sequence “mm w arß k∆rt in list A (but cf. a∆rt in line 31; Pardee reads [-]-rt).

      

313

“p“ pgr iltm ¢nqtm yr¢ k∆y

This ‘list of gods’ contains a group of deities exclusive to the quoted texts (∆rmn, dqt, tr∆ and the epithets 'nt ¢bly, “p“ pgr, iltm ¢nqtm; yr¢(m) k∆y also occur in KTU 1.123 = RS 24.271:7), and also includes the major deities of Ugarit (b'l, ym, yr¢, k∆r, 'nt, “p“ ). 2.2.2 2.2.2.1

Lists of names of divine kings List D (KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246:15–28)

The dynastic nature mentioned above explains why the list of KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246:1–14 is continued on the reverse of the tablet by another (D) of theophoric names, to which in KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001:1911 correspond the references to ©lmt, b'lt bhtm, in“ ilm. This suggests that these theophoric names are also divine names, actually of the kings of Ugarit, of their in“ ilm, ‘divine peoples’, of which KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250:3–5 already provides proof (three: ydbil, yar“il, 'mtr) as recipients of offerings and the colophon KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009] vi 58 assigns one ( yrgb.b'l ) to king Niqmaddu of Ugarit.12 This interpretation, however, has incurred some opposition, although alternative suggestions are not convincing.13 Consequently, we consider KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246 to be one list or single pantheon which belongs to the dynasty with its gods and divinized dead, which as such (in“ ilm, g∆rm, rpum) are only listed globally in the common standard patheon under the official title of mlkm. These divine names are:

11 Understood in this way, KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001 is a ‘generic’ royal ritual which closes by invoking the in“ ilm, specified in KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246:15–28, and as such could be added to it together with the sacrificial element thus supposed, e.g. in KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+:2–5 ( gdlt). 12 On KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246 in general cf. V 1968, 594;  M 1970b, 326–7 (see 1990, 241); H 1978, 3–7; D – L – S 1975b, 545–6; C 1979b, 1404; S 1979, 753–8; X 1981, 328–31;  O L 1986a, 282–5; 1987:43–6; 1992a, 117–20 = 1999, 168–75. 13 Cf. P 1996b, 273–87; S 1994, 71; 1996, 300; the reply by  O L 1996b, and the counter-reply by P 1998b.

 

314 15. y(r)gbhd yrgbb'l ydbil yar“il yr©mil 20. 'mtr ydbil yrgblim 'mtr yar“il 25. ydbb'l yr©mb'l 'zb'l ydbhd

2.2.2.2

List E (KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257)

A supplementary text, possibly with a similar pattern to the one cited, is KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257 on the reverse of which (lines 13–26) we have the list (E ) of the proper names of the (dead) kings of the dynasty of Ugarit.14 It reflects the same royal ideology as supposed in the previous text, providing us with the list of ‘personal’ names of the kings of Ugarit preceded by the determinative il. It is, therefore, a classification of them as ‘divine beings’ or divinized beings,15 as already dead of course, and reigning in the ‘Underworld’, for we have no indications that the kings of Ugarit were deified in their lifetime, in spite of the possible proleptic use of these names while a king was still alive. The reverse seems to be a hymn or evocation, whereas the obverse is a text divided into two columns, as is evident from the traces of a double vertical line before the last lines on the right. The text has been studied in detail by Kitchen and interpreted as a ‘rising’ or 14 Cf. V 1962, 94–5; 1968. 561–2; K 1977, 131–42; X 1981, 288–91;  O L 1987a, 47–9, 68; 1992a, 121–3 = 1999, 176–80; D – L 1983a, 496f.; P 1988b, 165–78; L 1989, 47–52; Y 1997, 356–7; W 1998c, 399–403. 15 An interpretation opposed to the divinization of kings, following an earlier proposal by Liverani, is defended by S 1994, 67ff.; 1996, 289–304; however cf. P 1996, 276. L 1989, 49ff., instead, suggests a weakened ‘divinization’ of the kings of Ugarit which in our opinion does not do justice to all the ritual texts which give abundant evidence of the cult of dead kings and their entry into the ‘pantheon’, though this does not necessarily mean they were worshipped as the ‘great’ gods were; nor were the other ‘minor’ gods of the pantheon worshipped in that way either.

      

315

‘retrograde’ list of the kings of the Ugaritic dynasty, starting with the predecessor of 'Ammuràpì, the last king of Ugarit, under whose command this list of divinized ancestors was drawn up. Inevitably, the various possible reconstructions of the text leave a wide margin for hypotheses and there is no use trying to insist on any particular one. The text is as follows: 12. [ [ [ 15. [ [ [ [il [il 20. [il [il [il [il [ 25. [ [

] ] ] 'm†tm]r nqm]d ar˙l ]b[ nq]mp'[ 'm∆]tmr nq]md ] ] ]p'

]xx[ ] il 'm]†tmr il n]qmp' il 'mpi ! il ibrn il y'∂rd il nqmp' il ibrn i ]l 'mrpi il ] nqmp' il ibrn il nqmp' il ibrn il nqmd il yqr

Elsewhere we have suggested reading this list in descending order. The left-hand column, which ended with the historical sequence Ar-›alba/Niqmepa'/'Ammi∆tamru/Niqmaddu (lines 24–26 are written on the edge) continued with the last three names on the right which corresponded to the last three kings of Ugarit Ibiranu/Niqmaddu/Yaqaru, with the last name applied to the ruling king, 'Ammuràpi, bearer of the dynastic seal inscribed with that name.16 Each king is the ‘new’ Yaqaru,17 in this case the last sovereign of Ugarit. Even so, we do not know the structure of the names in the left-hand column and their possible relationship to those on the right. 16 Cf.  O L 1992a, 123 = 1999, 179. See also the new combined reading of both columns and their comparison with the names of KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246:15–28, proposed by  M 1990, 240–1. For a general discussion of these matters cf. A 1994, 3–11. 17 Cf. N 1955, XL–XLIII; L 1962, 137; C 1978a, 574f.; X 1983, 404; R – X 1979, 155–6.;  O L 1992a, 123 = 1999, 179. This in turn would explain why the determinative il is placed before yqr and not before the personal name of the ruling king, which would imply some ‘divinization’ in his lifetime. The king would undoubtedly be supposed as having divine ‘character’ in his lifetime, at least for reasons of protocol and in anticipation as is apparent from KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i 9–11, 20–3, and from his epithets adn (ilm rbm), b'l (?) and ∆rmn (cf. KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009] vi 58).

 

316 2.2.3

Lists which are litanies of gods’ names

A couple of texts, which seem to be prayers in the form of litanies, each provide lists of divine names which are completely strange in respect of their formal characteristics and the sequence of epithets, which also seem unrelated to each other. Whereas the first list keeps to the list of known deities, the other list has a series of divine names otherwise unknown in Ugaritic literature. Perhaps this is an expression of social religion which lies outside the ‘official’ systematic arrangement. KTU 1.65 il bn il dr bn il mp¢rt bn il ∆kmn w“nm il wa∆rt il ¢“ il add b'l ßpn b'l ugrt il (7)

1.40 ab bn il dr bn il mp¢rt bn il ∆kmn w“nm

1.123 il wilm il il “r dgn wb'l ∆† wkm∆ yr¢ wksa yr¢m k∆y ∆kmn w“nm k∆r w¢ss ∆¢r wbd '∆trt '∆tpr “˙r w“lm ngh w“rr 'd w“r ßdq m“r ˙n bn il dn kbd wnr

ilqd“ mlk kbd dil gd[ mr mnmm brnn aryn aΩ˙n tlyn atdb w∆r qd“ wamrr k∆r ¢ss il bt il ¢st r“p in“ ilm drm ilm

These texts which are prayers in the form of litanies have a set of characteristics in common which are extremely interesting: a) First of all, they all have a clear preference for double invocations, either of the ‘construct’ type (b'l ßpn) or of the ‘copulative’ type (il wa∆rt). This predominant use of a particular linguistic construction possibly has cultic reasons and is perhaps connected with the correct use of the ‘name’ of the god and his proper match as an expression of his particular personality and therefore of his invocation. This match follows criteria which are not ‘matrimonial’, apart from a few exceptional cases (il wa∆rt). Criteria of ethnic and functional origin are more prevalent (b'l-dgn, 'nt-'∆trt, yr¢-r“p . . .). ( M 1970a, 227).18

18 On the possible merging of pantheons implicit in such double names cf.  O L 1992a, 40 = 1999, 52.

      

317

b) In this type of cultic text there is also a marked persistence of fixed sequences. A text such as KTU 1.65 = RS 4.474, possibly also a ‘litany’, begins with the same sequence which forms the concluding invocation, repeated 5 or 6 times, of the long expiation text KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002+. It comprises, undoubtedly, a cultic sequence of prayer or general invocation of the supreme god and of all ‘his family’, the pantheon, in a nutshell, which ends in the first text by the invocation of il wa∆rt, as a suitable literary and genealogical inclusio. More surprisingly, instead, at first is the mention in this series, as a single specific deity (or as separate deities), of ∆kmn w“nm, about whom we have no exact information,19 although, as is clear from this series, they are connected specifically to the supreme god (cf. KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258:18–9.) and to the pantheon in general. Accordingly, the hypothesis can be put forward that they are Ilu’s ‘messengers’ or ‘dioscuroi’, in parallel with qd“ amrr (cf. the reference to both pairs in KTU 1.123 = RS 24.271:26), the messengers of A∆irat according to mythology. 2.2.4 2.2.4.1

Cultic lists of gods Lists of gods in sacrificial texts

Most of the cult texts of Ugarit are provided with rubrics which prescribe or describe the sacrificial ritual to accompany the various festivals or days of the month. The literary plan (cf.  T 1980, 55ff. who analyses the cult vocabulary; for the syntax of the texts and their formulae cf.  O L 1992a, 19ff. = 1999, 11ff.) is extremely simple and it invariably specifies, as said above, the victim of the offering or sacrifice and the divinity to whom it is offered, together with directions for the ritual to be performed on it, but without spelling out the details. These texts, therefore, comprise the best evidence of the cultic and official pantheon of Ugarit and of the catalogue of gods of liturgical practice in its most generic and popular form: sacrifice. The other texts belong to rarer and more specific events (divination, atonement, royal cult). The texts considered here are as follows, omitting a long series of fragments which are inconclusive in this respect and add nothing new: KTU 1.39 =

19 They occur in other ritual texts, but are unknown in mythology and in the Canaanite pantheon; cf. P 1988b, 195–9.

 

318

RS 1.001, KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+, KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005, KTU 1.46 = RS 1.009, KTU 1.48 = RS 1.019, KTU 1.49 = RS 1.022, KTU 1.50 = RS 1.023, KTU 1.81 = RS 15.130, KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056, KTU 1.105 = RS 24.249, KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+, KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253, KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256, KTU 1.115 = RS 24.260, KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266, KTU 1.126 = RS 24.276, KTU 1.130 = RS 24.284, KTU 1.139 = RS 24.300, KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643, KTU 1.162 = RS [Varia 20], KTU 1.163 = RIH 78/14, KTU 1.164 = RIH 77/02B+, KTU 1.165 = RIH 77/04+, KTU 1.168 = RIH 77/10B+, KTU 1.170 = RIH 78/11, KTU 1.171 = RIH 78/16, KTU 1.173 = RIH 78/04 (for other fragments cf. X 1981, 128–68;  T 1989, 222–3). Besides the separate lists reproduced above, these cultic texts of Ugarit have preserved for us stable and repeated sequences which presuppose the existence and persistence, at least in the cult, of fixed series of divine names, transmitted in these ‘lists of offerings’ (cf. below) and are thus indirectly ‘lists of gods’. However, most, of KTU 1.41/1.87 il b'lt bhtm in“ ilm il“ ilhm ym ilh ilhm ilhm b'l a∆rt ∆kmn w“nm 'nt r“p dr il wp¢r b'l “lm ilhm b'lm ßpn ©lmt yr¢ nkl b'lt bhtm in“ ilm ilhm “p“

KTU 1.39 ∆' ∆'m ∆'m21 ilh ilhm ilhm b'l a∆rt ∆kmn w“nm 'nt r“p dr il wp¢r b'l “lm ilhm b'lm b'l ßpn ilt mgdl ilt asrm

KTU 1.41/1.87 'nt il ilhm ∆kmn w“nm r“p r“p ilh ilhm il ∆kmn w“nm ilt bt b'l ßpn ßpn b'l ugrt ilib [a∆rt ] ridn a∆rt in“ ilm b'l ßpn b'l ugrt '∆trt

KTU 1.39 il ilhm ∆kmn w“nm r“p

KTU 1.39:32–6 b'l ßpn ßpn b'l ugrt ilib

b'l ugrt 'nt ßpn

      

319

these sequences of recipients of offerings are not fixed and seem to be somewhat haphazard, although in fact they were not and this impression is due to lack of documentation.20 In any case, it is irelevant now to call it a ‘list’ of gods. Only in a few cases does the repetition of the sequence in different texts or in different sections within the same text prove it to be normative. In fact, several of them must be split up in different series, as they represent different cultic actions or the repetition of the same action on different days. Thus we have in KTU 1.41/1.87 = RS 1.003+/18.056, KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001 and KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253 a significant and important list of divine names (or rather, a set of sub-sets) which we can consider standard in the cult. Apparently, this sequence is related to the ‘communion’ sacrifice (“lmm), which is expressly mentioned. Within this sequence can be noted several repeated sub-sections (e.g. il/h, ilhm, (il ), ∆kmn w“nm || (il ), b'lt bhtm, in“ ilm, (il“ ), ilhm). It is possible that each group or section of the list belongs to a specific ritual. The damaged condition of the texts makes proof difficult. Smaller sections also occur in other sacrificial texts such as: b'l ßpn, rm“, “lm, b'l ßpn, ßpn (cf. KTU 1.46 = RS 1.009:12–5; KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253:5–10; b'l ugrt, ilib, il, b'l, 'nt, ßpn, pdry (cf. KTU 1.46:16–7; KTU 1.109:11–4; cf.  M 1970a, 221); b'l ugrt, b'l ¢lb, yr¢, 'nt ßpn, pdr( y) (cf. KTU 1.130 = RS 24.284:10–5; KTU 1.109:16–8). Yet other sections or even couples are very stereotyped and not very relevant, e.g. the beginning of KTU 1.46 or the end of KTU 1.130. Lastly, some texts such as KTU 1.50 = RS 1.023, KTU 1.81 = RS 15.130 and KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266, have completely anomalous sequences both from the canonical and the cultic points of view. Others again are too broken for any conclusions to be drawn, e.g. KTU 1.48 = RS 1.019, KTU 1.49 = RS 1.022, KTU 1.90 = RS 19.013, etc. As an example of the incongruity of the lists of gods in the ritual texts see some of the sequences provided by the subgroup of texts which, however, as their tenor is royal or of the palace, are to some extent pertinent (KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005, KTU 1.46 = RS

20 Cf. P 1997b, 68: ‘les listes divines que l’on peut tirer des rites sacrificiels . . . sont, potentiellement au moins, innombrables’.  M 1970a, 204–16, provides a table arranging the gods in 38 sets; it is hardly relevant. 21 Other scholars consider the term to denote a generic type of ‘offering’.

 

320

1.009, KTU 1.105 = RS 24.249, KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+, KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253, KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256, KTU 1.115 = RS 24.260, KTU 1.162 = RS [Varia 20], KTU 1.165 = RIH 77/04+, KTU 1.168 = RIH 77/10B+, KTU 1.170 = RIH 78/11, KTU 1.171 = RIH 78/16, KTU 1.173 = RIH 78/04). KTU 1.112 b'lt bhtm in“ ilm '∆trt ¢r g∆rm il b'l ßpn b'l ugrt a∆rt btbt il mßd(?) btbt

1.105 b'lt bhtm b'l 'rkm btbt b'l ßpn r“p bbt in“ ilm r“p mlk b'lt bhtm k∆r

1.106 r“p in“ ilm ydb il yar“ il 'mtr r“p in“ ilm pdry ilm arß arßy

1.43 ('∆trt ) il(m) k∆r (g∆rm) “p“ yr¢ g∆r 'nt “p“ yr¢ g∆r ilt bt g∆rm 'ntm 'ntm “lm(?) u“¢ry(?)

1.115 u“¢r ¢lmΩ bbt il bt ¢lmΩ ql˙ il bt a∆t il bt bbt u“¢r ¢lmΩ ql˙

1.139 ilib b'l il t'∆r b'l '∆trt ©lmt pdry(?)

1.162 ilib i(!)l b'l dgn yr¢ ym il t'≈r b'l 'nt ¢bly a∆(!)rt 22 dr il wp¢r b'l ßpn

There is no fixed order in these sequences of deities, but as in the group seen above, within the same text, some sections are repeated: u“¢r, bbt, ¢lmΩ, ql˙ (KTU 1.115 = RS 24.260); “p“, yr¢, g∆r, 'nt/ilt bt (KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005); and some of two names only: r“p, in“ ilm (KTU 1.105 = RS 24.249, KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+, KTU 1.171 = RIH 78/16); r“p, b'lt bhtm(?) (KTU 1.105; cf. KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015:14–5). The only conclusion in this case is the strong dynastic or palatine nature of these series of deities ( O L 1992a, 44–5; 1999, 58–9.). Here also there is the shortened group of the great gods of the official pantheon, not always in dominant position. Arranged hierarchically, we can set them out followed by the index of their frequency: ilib (4), il (5), dgn (2), b'l (5), b'l ßpn (3), b'l ugrt (1), a∆rt (3), ßpn (3), k∆r (2), “p“ (2), yr¢ (3), 'nt (4), '∆trt (1?), pdry (2).

22 Cf.  O L 1997, 164ff. Note that this list agrees both with List A (beginning: ilib, il, b'l, dgn) and the dynastic List C (where dgn, ym, 'nt ¢bly are specifically mentioned).

      

321

From all this it can be deduced, as was already apparent in the separate lists, that within standard orthodoxy the palace, the royal family, has a special cult of particular or selected deities. Some are dynastic in type and almost all of them are foreign to the original Semitic pantheon of the city; these dynastic gods correspond, perhaps, to what the letters call ‘gods of the king/queen’. Others are ‘tutelary’ deities of the palace and as generic epithets can occur in other rituals as protectors of the ‘house’ of each of the faithful. Lastly, others still are ‘ancestral’ and correspond to the cult ancestors. Turning to the general group of sacrificial texts, their series of divine names have the following features: a) There is consistency in the heading to the texts, in the main occupied by Ilu, in one or other epithet (il, ilib), followed by Ba'lu in one of his epithets (b'l, b'l ßpn, ßpn). b) Starting with the initial position, in any case, the sequence does not always follow the hierarchy expected from mythology (most often it does in the three or four first positions). The order is now determined by different criteria from importance and function in the pantheon; perhaps the criteria are patronage and cult specialization. c) The absence of a vertical order is also corroborated by the lack of a horizontal one: in these lists there are no sequences of divine ‘pairs’, a lack already noted in myth. d) Some local epithets retain their meaning in these texts (b'l ugrt, b'l ¢lb, 'nt ¢lb, 'nt ¢l“ [?]), as well as b'l ßpn, 'nt ßpn from mythology. e) Some deities, who frequently feature in the dynastic and divinatory pantheons in special forms, also appear here (g∆r[m], '∆tr, '∆tpr, bbt[m], b'lt bhtm, in“ ilm), clear testimony to the introduction of the palace cult into the town cult. f ) The absence of Môtu as a recipient of sacrifices may be noted, although he is known as a harmful deity against whom one has to take precautions (cf. KTU 1.127 = RS 24.277:29). Statistically, in terms of their occurrence in various literary genres ( M 1970a, 217; above, n. 20) the principal gods of the culticsacrificial pantheon of Ugarit, those receiving the most offerings are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

il/dgn b'l/hdd 'nt r“p

5. 6. 7. 8.

yr¢ 9. “p“ k∆r 10. “lm '∆tr 11. in“ ilm ∆kmn w“nm 12. b'lt bhtm

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

'∆trt u“¢ry a∆rt pdry arßy

 

322 2.2.4.2

Lists of gods in non-sacrificial texts

Another series of texts of ritual practice refers to non-sacrificial cultic actions, in which the worshipper addresses a divinity with the word or goes in search of it. These actions may be accompanied by sacrifices, although they remain marginal and these texts do not have the form of strictly sacrificial offerings to a deity. As they comprise a uniform category, to a certain extent, due to the language or life-setting which they share, it is worth considering the divine recipient of such rituals, although we shall not analyse them in detail. These texts are: KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002+, KTU 1.65 = RS 4.474, KTU 1.78 = RS 12.061, KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134, KTU 1.90 = RS 19.013, KTU 1.96 = RS 22.225, KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244, KTU 1.103+ = RS 24.247+, KTU 1.104 = RS 24.248, KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+, KTU 1.123 = RS 24.271, KTU 1.124 = RS 24.272, KTU 1.127 = RS 24.277, KTU 1.140 = RS 24.302, KTU 1.141 = RS 24.312, KTU 1.142 = RS 24.323, KTU 1.143 = RS 24.326, KTU 1.144 = RS 24.327, KTU 1.155 = RS 24.654, KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20. Others in this category (divinatory and oracular) do not mention gods, an extremely important fact, which emphasizes the specific nature of magical liturgy in contrast to sacrificial liturgy. The result is as follows, divided into two categories: a) divination-oracle KTU 1.78 KTU 1.124 “p“ adn ilm(?) r“p dtn dtn

b) incantation-magic KTU 1.100 KTU 1.107 ( pl ) ˙rn(3) ( p˙lt) (“p“ ) “p“(3) il il w˙rn b'l b'l wdgn dgn 'nt w'∆trt 'nt w'∆trt yr¢ yr¢ wr“p r“p '∆trt '∆tr '∆tpr ΩΩ wkm∆ ΩΩ wkm∆ mlk mlk b'∆trt k∆r w¢ss k∆r w¢ss “˙r w“lm “˙r w“lm ˙rn

In the divination and oracle texts, as noted above, the scant reference to deities and then basically only in descriptive terms (cf. KTU

      

323

1.124 = RS 24.272:2), as granting omens, not as recipients of offerings, is evident, a datum which highlights the importance of ‘magical liturgy’ in contrast to sacrifice. On the other hand, texts of magic and incantation, like the litanies discussed above, have a long series of double deities in almost the same sequence. The standard double series is given in KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+. This text and KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244 also invoke ˙rn and “p“ in a special way, as the principal deities in incantation. Again, the repetitive sequence (partly reflected in KTU 1.123 = RS 24.271; cf. above) exhibits a fixed cultic structure of curse-prayer with possibly a magical and thus unalterable meaning. Several of these couples are already known in mythological literature (“˙r-“lm, k∆r-¢ss and to some extent, 'nt-'∆trt, b'l-dgn); others occur determined by cultic-magical use (il-˙rn, yr¢-r“p); and others still need to be studied more closely to explain the meaning of the relationship ('∆trt-'∆tpr, ΩΩ-km∆; for mlk-b'∆trt cf. KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252:1–2). Otherwise, apart from these last deities or invocations/epithets, the remainder belong to the mythological pantheon. As a whole, then, the pantheon of these texts is evidently very fixed and sequential, with a preference for ‘double’ and ‘paired’ names, as expressed in KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244 and KTU 1.107 = RS 24.251+. A: T L  H G The influence of Hurrian religious, mythological and cultic tradition in Ugarit is strong and is attested by the many texts written in that language found in various archives (KTU 1.26 = RS 1–11.[048], KTU 1.30 = RS 1–11.[046]?, KTU 1.32 = RS 1.[066], KTU 1.33 = RS 1.[067], KTU 1.34 = RS 1.[076], KTU 1.35 = RS 1.[069], KTU 1.36 = RS 1.[070], KTU 1.42 = RS 1.004, KTU 1.44 = RS 1.007, KTU 1.51 = RS 1.027, KTU 1.52 = RS 1.028+, KTU 1.54 = RS 1.034+, KTU 1.59 = RS 1.[049 ], KTU 1.60 = RS 2.[006], KTU 1.64 = RS 3.372, KTU 1.66 = RS 4.474, KTU 1.68 = RS 5.200, KTU 1.110 = RS 24.254, KTU 1.116 = RS 24.261, KTU 1.120 = RS 24.269+, KTU 1.125 = RS 24.274, KTU 1.128 = RS 24.278, KTU 1.131 = RS 24.285, KTU 1.135 = RS 24.295, KTU 1.149 = RS 24.644) as well as some bilinguals, for

 

324

example KTU 1.111 = RS 24.255 and KTU 1.132 = RS 24.291, in which the Semitic and Hurrian epithets are mixed (X 1981, 303–21; P 1997b, 66ff.). Besides this evidence from liturgical practice, the Hurrian pantheon in Ugarit was also known through canonical lists (?), as shown by texts such as KTU 1.26 = RS 1–11.[048] (broken; note the attributive morpheme -d ) and is included in others of a ritual nature such as KTU 1.110 = RS 24.254 and KTU 1.116 = RS 24.261 (cf. KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:13–7). By combining the various series it is possible to sketch out the following list of the Hurrian pantheon exactly as it was known and used in Ugarit. Little is known about its actual meaning, for which reference may be made to discussion of Hurrian religion.23 It is given here together with a normalized transcription (in Akkadian) (L 1980; W 1982 = 1989; for the Hurrian normalisation cf. D – M 1994, 1997). KTU 1.110

KTU 1.116 KTU 1.132 KTU 1.111 Ugaritic Pantheon in ∆ln/Eni ”alanni '∆trt in ∆ln in atn ilib in atn/Eni attanni ∆u∆k ¢bt il il il/Ilu kz© “bdr t∆b dgn t∆b/Te““ub/p in ¢mn dqt kmrb b'l k∂©/Ku“u¢ nnt ¢dn k∂© yr¢ irw prz/(?) klt ¢dlr in prz mlk kmrw/Kumarw/bi nbdg ¢nn© nkl nkl .... bbt/Bibita nbdg yr¢ yr¢ .... ∆u∆k/”awu“ka in ∆lnn tgn in “ln in atn kld il il .... t∆b ∆tb kmrb ∆u∆k k∂© kmrb kz© iy/E( y)a iy iy a∆tb/A“tabi a∆tb a∆tb '∆trt 'nt/'Anatu in ard in ard ∆mg/”imike in ¢mn ∆mg “p“ 23 Cf. V 1970, 538–66;  S 1965a, 141–215; W 1982, 69–105 (‘Götter, Mythen, Kulte und Magie’) = 1994, 49–76; D – M 1994, 73–112; (1995, 7–42); M 1996, 205–11; P 1997b, 63–80; D – M 1997, 161–81. There is a great deal of material in the first two volumes in the series Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians, Winona Lake, IN 1981/1987.

       nkl/Nikkalu in ard/(?) nbdg/Nubadig

325

nbdg 'nt ∆mg p≈≈p¢/Pi“a“ap¢i ¢bt/›eb/pat dqt/D/Taqitu ¢dn/›ud/tena ¢dlr/›ud/tellura i“¢r/I“¢ara aln/Allani nkl/Nikkalu nnt/Ninatta klt/Kulitta adm/Adamma kbb/Kubaba .....

The first series of the Hurrian pantheon of Ugarit (in ∆ln, in atn, il, t∆b, kmrb, k∂©, iwr prz, nkl, ∆u∆k) corresponds to the beginning of the Ugaritic canon and in fact represents the group of the great Hurrian gods, repeated with remarkable consistency in KTU 1.110 = RS 24.254:1–5; KTU 1.111 = RS 24.255:3–5, 8–10; KTU 1.116 = RS 24.261:11–4, suggesting a certain established sequence in which the position of certain deities can fluctuate and ”awu“ka is not always present. The mother goddess ›ebat is missing. This series, in which Te““ub does not occupy a privileged position, is in fact an adaptation of the classical Hurrian pantheon to the canon of Ugarit. A second series (cf. KTU 1.110 = RS 24.254:6–10; KTU 1.111 = RS 24.255:10–2; KTU 1.116 = RS 24.261:14–7) includes the following deities: iy / Eya a∆tb / A“tabi 'nt / 'Anatu in ard / (?) in ¢mn / (?) ∆mg / ”imegi nbdg / Nubadig

Kô∆aru(?) 'A∆tar(t)u 'Anatu (?) (?) ”ap“u (?)

These two series are completed by the list of gods provided by texts such as KTU 116 = RS 24.261:18–23 and KTU 1.132 = RS 24.291:4–12, already difficult to square with the Semitic pantheon. This is, in principle, a cultic pantheon known from the sacrificial texts. However, the syntax used for listing some of them makes them equivalent to a ‘god list’. We are unable, however, to decide whether

 

326

the lists are canonical or simply functional. The same problem is presented by KTU 1.42 = RS 1.004, a cultic text in which seventeen repeated records list as many Hurrian deities in this sequence: 1. 2. 3. 4.

in atn il kmrb t∆b lb iy k∂©

5. 6. 7. 8.

ddm“ ∆u[k] ]n≈ a∆tb

9. 10. 11. 12.

¢dn ¢dlr ∆gr¢n p≈≈p¢ ∆mg irxxi/hdrp

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

'nt ibnkl pdgl nbdg in k[ ]l/d in tr¢n in a∆t¢n t∆b ¢bt

These are the same gods just quoted but in a different order. 2.3

Lists of offerings

As was noted above, most of the texts labelled as ‘cultic’ or ‘ritual’ are really only ‘lists of offerings’ where the divine recipient is noted. They can thus be considered as administrative accounts which entail descriptive ritual elements. Their classification will be along similar lines to those used before: first we shall consider lists which are independent and then those which form part of more or less complex cultic contexts. We shall only consider data that are certain; disputed or purely hypothetical elements are dealt with in a description of the Ugaritic cult as a whole.24 2.3.1

Lists without offerings

2.3.1.1 Record of sacrificial material (KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015, KTU 1.48 = RS 1.019, KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056) a) Perhaps the clearest and purest example of a ‘list of offerings’, in terms of administration, is provided by KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015.25 The introduction (lines 1–2), specifies the product ( yn) and the occasion of its generic use in the cult (db˙ mlk). Next there follows the only example we have of a ‘record of rituals’ (lines 3–20), referred to by their keyword or brief description of the basic ceremony ( O L 1992a, 174–7; 1999, 259–64, for its identification and comparison with extant rituals). On the reverse (lines 21–34) are Cf. in general  O L 1999, 7–23. Cf. V 1965, 7–10; F 1970, 491ff.;  M 1972/II, 26–8; X 1979, 833; 1981, 335–6;  T, 1989, 174–7; D – L 1988, 321–2;  O L 1992a, 171–7 = 1999, 254–64. 24 25

      

327

noted the places which are to provide the product mentioned, even distinguished as to category ( yn: mßb/˙sp). The final section (lines 35–36) gives the sum total of what has been provided. Although not really a ritual, it provides information about the elements of ritual (time, type, subject, predicate, object/material) and so forms part of the corpus of cultic literature. From it can be deduced clearly, unless the contrary is stated, that everyday wine of ordinary quality, the so-called mßb was used even in the cult. As confirmed by the administrative texts ( O L – S 1998, 192–4), this was a product normally used in the Ugaritic cult and will again be mentioned in other lists of offerings considered here. Wine to be consumed . . . in the king’s ‘sacrifices’: the ‘sacrifice of Íapunu’, ......... lbnm (shall provide) ten (‘gallons’) of wine ¢lb gngnt '' '' three '' '' of wine ......... bir ( '' '' ) ten (kdm) of mΩ[b (wine) and two] kdm of ˙sp (wine) ˙pty '' '' two kdm of mΩb (wine) ......... Total (amount of ) wine . . .''.: sev[enty four kdm], and of ˙sp (wine): two, as one lot. (KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015:1–4, 21–36)

As it is an administrative text, its interest lies in the material and the provider. Even so, it is not possible to be deceived about the value of this type of text. Not only do such texts give information but they also define a fiscal-cultic situation, and as such have prescriptive value, both for what refers to the centres providing material and for its use in the rituals mentioned. As such, the text could belong either to the archive of the civil or palace warehouse, or to the cultic or temple archive. In fact, there was only a single economy in these kingdoms.26

26 The text was found in room 81 of the South-Western archive of the royal palace of Ugarit; cf. V 1965, 7. On the relationship between both administrations in general cf. L… 1979.

328

 

b) Similarly, KTU 1.48 = RS 1.01927 records one material for offering, in this case ‘birds’ ('ßrm), intended for a particular type of sacrificial ritual ([db˙] ∆p˙ b'l ), noting in one case the divine recipient and in others the type of ritual use in it, and also noting at the end a pair of centres which provide it (lines 18–19). It does not preserve, however, the strict nature of a record which the previous text had, but instead is already close to the lists of cultic offerings to be seen below. We do not think, then, that it is a ritual of popular cult, (it was found in the house of the ‘High Priest’), nor is it from a small group with meagre resources (X 1984a, 165–8; P 1988c, 185, n. 19). It is rather an administrative record related to the official cult, determined by the importance which birds had as an offering to the in“ ilm, ‘the divine peoples’ in a sacrifice of a dynastic type (∆p˙ b'l ) (P 1988c, 185;  O L 1987a, 66). The mention of the respective rituals and their divine recipients gives the text its ‘ritual’ character, at least as an ‘agenda’. It is a pity that the poor state of preservation does not permit more definite conclusions. [Book-keeping record] of birds [(for) the sacrifice] of the stock of the ‘Lord’/sovereign:28 three birds for29 the ‘Lady of the Mansions’, three [. . .] for Dagànu, [. . . .] [. . . .]; one ∆p“ “n't game bird, one ∆r bi“t 30 bird whose owner put ¢grn p [ ]rt;31 27 Cf. X 1981, 113–6; 1984a, 165–8; P 1988b, 173–91; 1989, 43, n. 10;  T 1989, 167–8;  O L 1992a, 68–9 = 1999, 89–90. 28 Here, b'l is a royal title whereas in Ugaritic, the ‘family of Ba'lu’ is p¢r/dr b'l. For the empirical meaning of ∆p˙/“p˙ cf. KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ i 24 (= bt, line 7). 29 P, 1988c, 178, 186, suggests the restoration [“ ] before the l. Although not impossible, reference to a ‘ram’ would be strange if our text is understood as a record of ‘birds’. 30 They would be two unidentified types of birds, with feminine adjectives (‘disagreeable’, ‘foul-smelling’), the grammatical gender denoted here by the noun 'ßr; cf. X 1984a, 168; P 1988c, 188. However, reference to a ‘bull’ would be odd in this and the other cultic texts, although the translation ‘a bull which his master placed on the fire (b i“t)’ cannot be excluded; cf.  T 1989, 168, n. 89. 31 Possibly an unidentified type of plant which ‘sweetens’ ‘wild’ birds for offerings and sacred repast. The restoration l[a∆]rt would fit the context but is purely hypothetical; cf. P 1988c, 182, 188.

      

329

two32 [birds] for [. . . .]; one in the ¢mn [. . . .] two(?). On the (very/same) day of the sacrifice of the stock of the ‘Lord’: one for the ‘libation’33 of [. .], one for the offering to the [divine? ]34 mountain, four birds, the ‘estate’ of ∆rmn; one, Sal¢u.

c) It is probable that KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056:58–61 ( O L 1992a, 69 = 1999, 91) is also an account record in which are noted the contributions to the cult made by individuals, although this time we do not know what type of offering was involved. The fact that it is added to text KTU 1.87 (but not however to its duplicate KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+), indicates the purely administrative value put on these texts and allowed them to be supplemented archivally with other notes of similar significance when space on the tablet allowed. d) A list of multiple offerings as a simple record with no divine recipient is also provided by KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:18–22 (cf. below). To complete the picture of pure cultic records, the various administrative texts have to be cited (category 4 in KTU ) which record material for offerings, since they do not differ in genre and scribal structure from those above mentioned; they also mention festivals and gods who receive the offerings (cf. KTU 4.149 = RS 15.039 (wine; cf. KTU 4.213 = RS 16.17:24), KTU 4.168 = RS 15.082 (clothing), KTU 4.182 = RS 15.115 (clothing), KTU 4.219 = RS 16.179:1–3, KTU 4.279 = RS 17.156(?), KTU 4.280 = RS 17.236:13–4 (silver), KTU 4.284 = RS 17.285:5–6(?) (wine and oil), KTU 4.781 = RIH 83/28+:1–2 (oil). However the accepted

32 Cf. P 1988c, 182, 188; cf. G, UT, 43–4, on the ambiguous use of ∆n in respect of agreement of gender. 33 In view of the context and perhaps its parallelism with mkt, the meaning of which is quite definitely ‘immolation’ (cf. KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002:24 and par.; X 1981, 116), I prefer to understand mzy as referring to a type of offering, although difficult to justify etymologically (cf. Akk. mazà"u, ‘to squeeze’, Arab. mazza, in connection with sour or semifermented drinks; cf.  S, AHw, 637; CAD M/1, 439; L, AEL, 2710); see also D 1995. In any case, the presence of a PN here is hardly likely in terms of context and morphology; cf. P 1988c, 188–9. There are several possible restorations for the end of the line; e.g. bn [il(m)/bt ]. 34 Cf. KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iii 29 (btk ©ry il ßpn).

330

 

distribution of the texts obviates that; texts which we have otherwise grouped together and analysed elsewhere ( O L – S 1998). 2.3.1.2 Lists of assigned offerings (KTU 1.90 = RS 19.013, KTU 1.164 = RIH 77/02B+, KTU 1.168 = RIH 77/10B+, KTU 1.162 = RS [Varia 20], KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643, KTU 1.105 = RS 24.249, KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253, KTU 1.46 = RS 1.009, KTU 1.130 = RS 24.284, KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005, KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+, KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056). However most of the lists of offerings are to be found among the texts labelled rituals, the ritual nature of which is generally reduced to listing victims and offerings for each deity, with a generic description (in the heading or beginning of each section) of the cultic occasion and even the place where the offering takes place. This implies that these texts are basically lists of offerings and lists of gods (cf. above). a) As an intermediate stage between pure records of offerings and lists of assigned offerings can be cited a series of texts which in their fragmentary condition give offerings to one or two deities only: KTU 1.90 = RS 19.013, KTU 1.164 = RIH 77/02B+, KTU 1.168 = RIH 77/10B+. They belong to the genre of ‘visits’(?) (id yph mlk) and thus are close to the group of divination texts and oracular consultations in which we have already noticed a reduction in the number of gods mentioned. The king is expressly mentioned as the officiant of the ritual. Otherwise, the texts do not specify the place of worship (KTU 1.164 = RIH 77/02B+ 1: b ¢mn), which has to be assumed, as does its moment in the cultic calendar. As most of the texts come from Ras ibn Hani, it is taken for granted that these rituals are celebrated in the cultic installations of the palace.35 The textual agreement among them is surprising, with only the relevant verb ( ydb˙/yph) changing. The initial, single introductory offering is followed by the double “rp/“lmm ritual, all dedicated to the deity whom the king ‘visits’/ ‘sacrifices’, sometimes accompanied by others in the repetition “lmm: r“p, 'nt, ilib || –, 'nt, in“ ilm, il, “mn(?). There is also great uniformity 35 For a general bibliography on the texts from RIH cf.  O L 1992a, 212 n. 74 = 1999, 316 n. 75.

      

331

in the the distribution of the victims in the parallel sections of these texts: ˙gb/sl¢/Ø, ap wnp“, ksp w¢rß || Ø/˙Ω, alp w“ || “ [ 'ßrm]. KTU 1.164 = RIH 77/02B+, which does not apparently pertain to a visit but to a sacrifice, is the one showing the greatest variation within the same pattern. The bad state of preservation does not allow all the information which these texts provided concerning Ugaritic liturgy in its various rituals to be extracted. Only KTU 1.164 = RIH 77/02B+:19–20 and KTU 1.90 = RS 19.013:20–2 provide the end section, which in both cases seems to refer to the desacralization process and the conclusion of the king’s liturgical activity, a moment whose precise definition was seemingly important. b) One of the most outstanding examples of this type of offering list is provided by KTU 1.162 = RS [Varia 20]. Here, the syntactic structure used (l + DN + X), except in the first offering (to ilib), forces the series of divine names (cf. above) into first position, followed by the list of victims: invariably one ‘ram’ (“ ), except in the first case (‘two head of cattle and two rams’ to ilib) and the last (‘one calf ’, to Íapunu). The beginning and end of the text provide ill-defined ritual elements. Entitled db˙ il bldn, it quite definitely deals with one of the db˙ mlk enumerated in KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015 (cf. line 6: il bldn), possibly known as nskt ql' (cf. line 2) ( O L 1998a, 164–7). c) However an even more striking and complete example of a ‘list of offerings’, sacrificial in type, is provided by KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643, as is shown when set out as a table ( O L 1992a, 89–91 = 1999, 131–3).36 The text is complex and contains several rituals, in the manner of the familiar anthology genre found in other texts of this type. Horizontal lines separate the said rituals. The chief concern of this arrangement of the text into sections and cultic moments is the attribution and recording of the offerings. This does not prevent it from also providing important supplementary information concerning ritual (type of sacrifice, place, occasion . . .). The syntax is asyndetic (DN + X), which gives the ‘god list’ pride of place. 36 Cf. A 1966, 279–82; V 1968, 580–4; L 1968a, 517–518;  M 1970b, 306–12; F 1970, 493–4; M 1977, 23–4; C 1979, 1406;  T 1980, 109–10, 201 (index); 1989, 224–8; X 1981, 91–312; D – L 1988b, 305–8; P 1992, 153–70;  O L 1992a, 88–94 = 1999, 130–8; W 1998c, 427–9.

332

 

The first section, corresponding to the db˙ ßpn (lines 1–9 + 10–12; cf. KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015:3) presents the series of divine names which we call ‘List A’ (cf. above) and undoubtedly corresponds to the principal liturgy carried out by the dynasty in honour of the gods of Ugarit. The corresponding offerings are divided into three groups: ‘one head of cattle and one ram’ (alp w“ ) for the first four invocations, as well as for the following seven of Ba'lu; for the remaining gods of the pantheon, ‘one ram’, with an addition, with no specific recipient, of ‘two head of cattle, two birds and one cow’. The repetition “lmm (lines 10–12) mentions only ‘one ram’ for ilib and ilu, and ‘one head of cattle for the other six b'lm’ (alp, kmm), but the logic of this distribution is not evident. Probably this second section represents only one incipit and the ritual “lmm included identical victims (alp) for the rest of the pantheon.37 The following festival, ‘when 'A∆tartu of the steppe enters the royal palace’ (lines 18–22; cf. KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015:10) provides a simple record of offerings, with no divine recipient, apparently ceremonial rather than sacrificial in nature ( O L 1992a, 93 = 1999, 136):38 articles of clothing and vegetable products. Lastly, the section on the reverse (lines 23–45) is a unit corresponding to the ritual of the ‘gods of (the month) ›iyaru’ and in this case the series of divine names corresponds to list B (cf. above). The victim offered is basically the ‘ram’, alternating with ‘head of cattle and ram’ offered to Ba'lu(?) (lines 26–45). e) Tablet KTU 1.105 = RS 24.249,39 also concerning a ritual of the month ›iyaru, has the clear structure of a ‘list of offerings’. Aside from the possible inverted order of the two faces, it presents a series of blocks of offerings distinguished by place, time and type of offering. However this is not a ‘list of gods’. By the interchange of semantic patterns, victims are assigned to various gods and in particular, many 37 The third section (lines 13–17) is written in Hurrian, which is unusual for a mere account listing offerings, although the Hurrian insertion does not seem to be one. 38 The kind of offerings makes this section coincide partly with the one presented by the ritual of the ‘Entry of 'A∆tartu of the tomb(s)’ (KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005:1–5), although there animal victims were also offered. 39 Cf. V 1968, 588–92; H 1978, 11–5; C 1977, 461–2; 1979b, 1408–9; F 1970, 485–501; 1975, 142–7;  M 1970b, 318–22; D – L – S 1975b, 158;  T 1980, 21–2, 165–76, 201 (index); 1989, 181–4; X 1981, 35–42; D – L 1988b, 314–5;  O L 1992a, 206–8 = 1999, 307–10.

      

333

others are recorded without any specific assignment, in terms of the cultic installation in which the sacrifice takes place. Accounts are thus given for the following victims, according to cultic situation (including the purification of the king) and various recipients: on the day of the new moon, ‘one head of cattle and one ram’ (alp w“ ) to the b'lt bhtm; day 14, two 'rk-m (‘puff-pastry cakes’[?]) to Ba'lu; [the 18th] in the ©b of Íapunu as a tz©-sacrifice, ‘gold and silver’ for ∆', ‘two rams’ for btbt as a holocaust, ‘one head of cattle’ as a peace-offering for Ba'lu, ‘one bird’ for Íapunu, ‘one (piece of ) offal’ and ‘one ram’ for Ra“pu, ‘two birds’ for the in“ ilm and (for another deity) ‘two ewes’; in the ©b of r“p, as a holocaust ‘one ram’ and ‘one white ewe’(?); in the ©b of ›iyaru, ‘38 sheep’ (ßin) and ‘seven head of cattle’; in the temple of Ba'lu, ‘two rams’ (to the same?), ‘one head of cattle and one ram’ (alp w“ ) to Ra“pu, ‘rams’ from three different places to the b'lt bhtm and ‘two rams’ to Kô∆aru as a tz©sacrifice, ‘two rams’ and ‘one bullock’ ( pr) from a specified place. The gods venerated do not form any particular list. The restricted and domestic nature of the deities commemorated is striking. In this respect, the agreement with KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+ and KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256 is impressive: b'lt bhtm, btbt, in“ ilm, on the one hand, and r“p, b'l, ßpn [+ k∆r], on the other. It belongs, therefore, to the range of palatine texts with their own pantheon and in connection with celebrations which are strongly funereal in nature. This was already to be assumed not only from the place of the offerings (©b), but also from the name of the month (¢yr). f ) According to the heading, the Ugaritic text KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253 is a list of offerings made during the full moon in various sacred locations and according to a different type of sacrifice,40 preceded by the well known ritual of ‘purification of the king’. Thus we have in this full moon ritual the well known multiplicity of sacrificial units on the same day in various sacred places, in palace Cf. V 1968, 592–3; C 1969, 505;  M 1970b, 322–6; C 1977, 462; H 1978, 16–221; X 1981, 49–54; D 1984, 69–76; D – L 1988b, 316–8;  T 1989, 188–91;  O L 1992a, 182–5 = 1999, 271–7. The most important study of these texts (KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253 and KTU 1.46 = RS 1.009) is by Dijkstra, who completes it with other fragments (KTU 1.28 = RS 1–11[021], KTU 1.56 = RS 1.044, KTU 1.31 = RS 1–11[022], KTU 1.27 = RS 1.[064]; and perhaps KTU 1.134 = RS 24.294 and KTU 1.160 = RS 28.059); KTU 1.130 = RS 24.284 is a duplicate/partial variant of them. 40

334

 

and town, mostly, also in this case, to the great tutelary gods of the dynasty and with the cult of the ‘dead’ predominant. The text, with alternating syntax (X + l + DN type of sacrifice DN + X), is arranged into two sections, separated epigraphically by a horizontal dividing line and defined by two ‘types’ of ‘generic’ cultic action which incorporate common and known sacrificial actions. The first, of the '“rt type (line 5), includes two series of sacrifices “rp w“lmm (lines 10, 15), identical in one case (kmm) and different in the other. This twofold series, most probably carried out in two different sanctuaries (palace and town), closes with another “lmm-sacrifice (line 23), celebrated in a particular installation in an unknown sacred place (burbt, line 19). Whereas the second section, of the “npt-type (line 24), also includes a repetitive series of “rp w“lmm-sacrifice (line 28, kmm), which in turn is followed by what can be considered a new series of “rp w“lmm (lines 36–7), with an interlude (lines 29–31) in a new cultic installation of unspecified location (qΩrt ∆l˙n, lines 29–31). This ritual symmetry forces us to take into account the specific nature of the generic '“rt/“npt rituals, which should not therefore be placed at the same cultic level as the ‘sacrificial’ rituals. They represent ‘ceremonies of ceremonies’, mixed rituals. Accounts for the following sets of victims are given: as a holocaust (“rp): ‘two cows one month old’ ( yr¢) for Ba'lu of Íapunu, along with ‘two ewes’ and ‘one dove’ for Ba'lu; ‘two loins’ and ‘one ram’ for rm“; ‘one liver’ and ‘one ram’ for “lm; ‘one liver of one head of cattle’ and again ‘one ram’ for Ba'lu of Íapunu; ‘one ewe’ for Íapunu. As a peace offering (“lmm), the same again. Again, as a holocaust: ‘two livers’ and ‘one (piece of ) offal’ (for Ba'lu?); ‘one cow’ for ilib; for Ilu, Ba'lu and Pidrayu, ‘one ram’ each; for 'Anatu of Íapunu, ‘one head of cattle and one ram’ (alp w“ ). As a communion sacrifice: for ilib, Ba'lu of Ugarit, Ba'lu of ¢lb and Yar¢u, one ‘ram’ each; for 'Anatu of Íapunu, ‘one head of cattle and one ram’; for Pidrayu and ddm“, ‘one ram’ each. A new series of communion victims includes: ‘one ram’ for each of the gods ilib, Dagànu, il t'≈r b'l, Ba'lu, 'Anatu and Ra“pu, as well as ‘one head of cattle and one ram’ for Ba'lu. The first series of the “npt ritual includes: ‘one ram’ for Ilu, ‘two rams’ for 'Anatu of ˙l“; and for the g∆rm, ‘the left ©ßb of two head of cattle’ plus ‘one head of cattle and one ram’. The second part, besides ‘thirty rams’ spiced with ‘tamarisk’ for Ba'lu in ‘the burner of the table of the Lady/ies of the Mansions’, includes by double entry (kmm), holocaust and communion: ‘two calves[?]’ ('lm) for Ba'lu of Íapunu; ‘one ram’ for il bt[(?), Íapunu and Ba'lu of Ugarit, one each;

      

335

‘one cow’ for ilib; and for Ba'lu of Ugarit and 'Anatu of Íapunu, ‘one head of cattle and one ram’ jointly. However, the smaller number of deities commemorated in this liturgy is evident, with emphasis on the three great deities: Ilu, Ba'lu, 'Anatu, under various invocations. In the first section they are canonical deities (+ rm“ ), whereas in the second section g∆rm, il bt and b'lt bhtm are mentioned, invocations which place us squarely in the context of the dynastic ancestor cult (on the relationship of this series of gods occurring in these texts, KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253, KTU 1.46 = RS 1.009, KTU 1.130 = RS 24.284, cf. above). g) On the other hand, the fact that the full moon ritual included in KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253:1–14 occurs literally in the sequence of a menology (KTU 1.46+ = RS 1.009+) shows the solid structure of each cultic unit, which remains unchanged. KTU 1.46:10–7 is, then, a word for word repetition of KTU 1.109:1–14, as we have just seen. Instead, the beginning (KTU 1.46 = RS 1.009:1–10) belongs to another cultic unit, indicated by time (new moon) and is, more clearly than the following, a pure list of offerings.41 It tells us nothing, however, about the local situation of the rites. Otherwise, the literary structure and the syntax are like those of the previous text (KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253). On the 1st day we have, apparently, the classic duo “rp w“lmm: ‘one sl¢’ and ‘one (piece of ) offal’ (np“ ) for ∆' and ‘two livers’ for the ‘god of the mansion’ (il bt); equivalently, ‘one ram’ for ilib, Ilu, Ba'lu and Dagànu; ‘one cow’ for '∆tr-'∆tpl and 'Anatu; ‘one ewe’ for Íapunu; several other victims are dedicated to recipients now missing. And also on the 3rd, this time with absolute clarity, and by double entry (kmm): ‘one ram’ for ilib, Ilu, Ba'lu, A∆iratu and Yammu; ‘one cow’ for b'l knp and another missing deity, as well as ‘one ewe’ for Íapunu. On this day in addition, a ‘supplement’ to the standard dual pattern, as was the case in KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253:19ff.: ‘[one ram and] one head of cattle’ for b'l and '∆trt; ‘two birds’ to the in“ ilm; ‘two cows’ to the two bbtm. In the group of deities mentioned in this coda to the 3rd day there occur the in“ ilm, the deified dead of the dynasty, honoured by their habitual offering of ‘two birds’ ('ßrm), corresponding to the g∆rm who occur in KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253:26. Reference to the bbt-m, which follows immediately, also gives the ritual the significance 41 Cf. G 1965, 90–2; X 1981, 55–8; D 1984, 69–76;  T 1989, 164–6;  O L 1992a, 186–7 = 1999, 278–80.

336

 

of royal cult which we had noted in this text, and mention of ∆' (line 1) only corroborates this. h) Unfortunately fragmentary, KTU 1.130 = RS 24.28442 is considered by Dijkstra to be a schoolboy copy of KTU 1.46 = RS 1.009:11–7 || KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253:3–18 and he suggests reading the sides of the tablet in reverse order. The sacrificial sequence of KTU 1.109 supports this. In spite of their variants, these texts are interesting inasmuch as they can throw light on the royal character of these rituals. These texts, then, fix the liturgy of the most sacred days of the lunar calendar, new moon and full moon, carried out in various sacred places of the Ugaritic cult, the urban and palace sanctuary, under the highest officiant, the king. The basic rite described here is that of sacrifice, in its various forms, accompanied as is usual by the purification/desacralization of the officiant. What is not clear in this ritual, as in other rituals, is the principle which determines the choice of deities and their epithets, as well as the relationship between each type of victim and the deity to whom it is offered. i) Another text which is, in fact, a pure list of offerings, apart from the non-sacrificial ritual elements at its close, is KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005.43 The whole text is a single ceremonial procession in honour of various deities ('A∆tartu, the g∆rm) who ‘enter’ the palace where they receive the offerings and a banquet is held ('“rt). This ‘processional’ aspect connects it with KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:18–22, where another rite of the same kind occurs. KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015:10–1 refers to these texts as db˙ mlk rituals and our text could be one of them. The nature of the offerings are in line with this ritual, mostly of the type ‘clothes’ or ‘precious metal’, as we have seen (cf. above), whereas the animal victims seem to be relegated to the background. Because of this we saw a reference to it perhaps in KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015:8 (izr) ( O L 1992a, 175 = 1999, 260).

42 Cf. M 1978, 135–8; X 1981, 101–4; D 1984, 74–5;  T 1989, 216–8;  O L 1992a, 188–9 = 1999, 280–2. 43 Cf. F 1970, 492–4; D – L – S 1975g, 525–8;  T 1980, 98–107, 111, 113; 1989, 161–3; C 1979, 1406; X 1981, 86–90;  M 1987, 168–71; D – L 1988b, 326–7; 1991, 87;  O L 1992a, 189–94 = 1999, 282–91; P 1993, 301–17; W 1998c, 357–9.

      

337

The inclusion of the genre (kt'rb) in KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015 already guarantees its royal character, which is also clear from the actual text as it mentions the place where the rite takes place (lines 2, 10: bt mlk) and from the behaviour of the king at its close (lines 23–26). This ritual colophon provides the situation and defines the ‘genre’ of the preceding cultic actions. They are processions in which the king takes part, ‘following’ and ‘carrying’ the ‘gods’ (statues), going out to meet them and accompanying them as they are moved to the chapel or palace cultic installation, when they ‘enter’ the palace. These, then, are rituals, though we cannot say whether they are successive or separate, of procession or transfer of sacred images from their usual place (the temple) to the royal palace; rituals which are accompanied, as is usual, by sacrifices and other offerings, once the gods have arrived and been enthroned in their new quarters. However, they do not provide us with an indication of the ‘moment’ of this ritual (or these rituals), no doubt well known to those using them as significant moments of the annual liturgical cycle, like Mediterranean pilgrimages and patronal feasts, which need no further specification in the calendar. The structure of the ceremonial supposed in the text is very clear, arranged into two explicit rites and another six which are merely mentioned, presumably partial repetitions of the second (double) rite. Of these eight rituals, the first (lines 1–8) forms a separate unit, with its own final rubric (lines 7–8: repetition ‘seven times’) which marks it off and makes it parallel to the seven other sections, which in turn are given this rubric at the end of the text (line 26: repetition ‘seven times’). It all refers to the g∆rm or 'ntm (the seventh is fragmentary). In its first section (lines 1–8) the ritual supposes three different types of offering-rite ('“r, trmt, “lmm), directed to the (astral) gods and to Kô∆aru (or Ga∆aru), seven times to each of the two groups. It is strange to find that there are also ‘seven’ elements or materials for the offerings indicated here (lb“, ktn, u“p©t, ¢rß, “, alp, ßin), which may not have any special significance, although it could correspond to the series of ‘seven’ offerings, instead of supposing a sevenfold repetition of the whole thing. In that case, the rubric would be explanatory. The ‘time’ ( pam) refers to the action and not to its object, as has also to be supposed in line 26. This way of glossing the sacrificial rite and the listing of its elements in the other rites where they are mentioned should be borne in mind as a peculiarity of these Ugaritic rituals.

338

 

It is most probably, then, a procession ritual which takes place in the cultic installations of the palace when the goddess ‘'A∆tartu of the tomb(s)’ ( O L 1996a, 47–52) makes her ‘entrance’ into them. This invocation, in connection with the following section centring on the g∆rm, as well as the reference to the ‘Temple of the astral gods’ make this text parallel to KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256, with its reference to the ‘ascent’ of the gods and of the royal family to the ¢mn of the palace’ seven times’ (KTU 1.112:6–8), the offering to the goddess ‘'A∆tartu of the tomb(s)’ (KTU 1.112:13; the only two references to this goddess in Ugaritic literature) as well as the appearance of the g∆rm on the day of the full moon (KTU 1.112:18). The second section of the ritual (lines 9–16), also an ‘entry rite’, has a clear twofold structure with respect to the deities (“p“-yr¢, g∆r'nt/ilt bt) and offerings (¢rß, ksp, ap-np“ ). We do not know whether the final sacrificial element (alp w“ ) refers to the previous text, as a complementary peace offering, or to the following damaged text. The first hypothesis seems the more likely. At all events, it is clear that the epicentre of this section focuses on the g∆rm and that in principle there are ‘two’ of them, which occasions the repetition of the ritual. This repetition of the ritual enables us to reach the number of seven cultic actions presupposed by line 26 and also mentioned in the first ritual (lines 7–8). With this it also partly agrees in the ‘material’ for the offerings (precious metals and animals, ¢rß/alp-“ ), besides the peculiarity of the funerary offering typical of holocaust, ap wnp“. However, the type of offering is not specified, and nor of course, is the moment, although it is included as in the previous ritual, in the occasion commemorated (‘When the . . . enter . . .’). Instead, the place remains the palace, i.e. the ritual continues to be royal, as the deities celebrated indicate. In what remains of the lines in the second part of this section (lines 17–21) the repetition of the previous ritual is stated (without elaboration) twice more per pair, six in all (plus the cultic action presupposed in line 21). Finally, with line 22 a ritual of royal behaviour begins (lines 22–26), the third part of the second section of the text, which complements the previous section on offerings. Syntactically, the heading and the ending are predicative in structure, ( T 1980, 98, 110), whereas the central section is of the standard nominal type: X + l, l + X, type + X. This double syntactic pattern agrees with the twofold sacred action or rite which makes up this ritual: procession and sacrifice.

      

339

j) A virtually ‘pure’ list of offerings with a duplicate (a rare phenomenon in Ugaritic literature) is provided by KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+ and KTU 1.87 = RS 15.130, with slight indications of time, place and ceremonial type;44 they comprise one of the clearest witnesses of a monthly liturgy or menology (a sequence of sacred, especially sacrificial, celebrations, corresponding to particular days of one month), which has been transmitted to us among the rituals of Ugarit. It refers to the month of ri“ yn (‘of the first/new wine’) and of course has the format of a firstfruits ritual (‘bunches/clusters are cut for Ilu’) of ‘New Year’ (autumn). However, this aspect is blurred in the sequence of sacrificial rites. Unlike other texts of the same genre, here there is a surprising confusion and mix of the parameters temporal and local by which it is usually organized. Thus, for example, the numerical sequence of days is not followed. The reason here could be that attention has been given to the importance of the rites, which here as elsewhere correspond above all to ceremonies celebrated on the day/night of the ‘full moon’, and these have therefore been placed in first position. Full moon and new moon appear to be decisive dates for the ‘temporal’ parameter, whereas, the computation of the week also retains its significance, as we shall see, as is evident in other menological texts. Within this to some extent temporal confusion, the parameters of time and type of offering acquire special significance for understanding the overall structure of the text. It is divided into 6 sections and 2 appendices, which differ in each text; the one of KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003:50–5 is a sacrificial ritual text; the one of KTU 1.87 = RS 15.130 is, in turn, twofold: lines 54–57, sacrificial ritual, lines 58–62, a record (cf. above). The list of offerings is the following, distributed over the days of the month (is it one of the ˙d∆m of KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015?): on the 1st day: ‘one bunch of grapes (u∆kl )’ for Ilu and ‘two rams’ for 'A∆tartu (cf. line 49; apparently in different ceremonies). The 14th day comprises 4 or 5 sacrificial rites of different type and recipient, accompanied by another group of non-sacrificial cultic actions, with the king as officiant, although the sacred place where they occur is not specified. It opens (lines 4–6) with the ‘offering of the firstfruits’ (ri“ argmn), possibly to the gods in general, 44 Cf. H 1956, 104–12; L 1963, 105ff.;  M 1972, 13–7; 1987, 157–65; D – L – S 1975e 143–6; X 1981, 59–75; D – L 1988b, 311–4;  T 1989, 152–60;  O L 1992a, 72–87 = 1999, 96–128; L –  T 1993, 76–115; L –  T – R 1997a; W 1998c, 348–56.

340

 

or to the supreme god Ilu, and refer no doubt to the products of the season of the year, primarily to wine (cf. lines 1–2: ri“ yn || ri“ argmn). It is accompanied (lines 5–6) by a fourfold sacrificial offering to the same number of deities, according to standard alternating syntax (X + l + DN; X + DN), with a total of ‘six’ victims (‘four rams’ and ’two birds’).45 More significant, however, is the group of these deities: b'lt bhtm, in“ ilm, il“, ilhm (cf. above for their sequence and relationship to what is offered in KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001). If we except il“, who is apparently out of place (? absent in lines 23–39), the other invocations are typical of the ‘palace’ liturgy, and are inserted into the cult of the dead and deified kings and transformed into gods of the palace. There follow two rituals of the king, one of expiation and one of proclamation of this great day of the full moon of the month of ri“ yn, with no ritual of offerings specified. Next we have a new sacrificial act (“rp) in the 'gml and the urbt; the second installation is already known from other texts. The recipients of the sacrificial victims are five or six deities: the great gods (?), Ilu and 'Anatu, on the one hand, and again the ilhm, together with ∆kmn w“nm and Ra“pu, on the other, in two distinct groups, thus forming the same series that appears in KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001:2–4, clearly a palace text. Next (lines 13–17), the corresponding sacrificial action of the “lmm type is introduced, as in KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001:4–8. There follows a simple listing of a series of offerings and recipient deities, using the syntactic patterns X + DN, DN X, which alternate. Once again the most striking aspect is the reappearance in pride of place of the invocation ilh/ilhm, now forming an opening ‘triad’ (ilh, ilhm, ilhm), with five items of offering (‘two ewes’, ‘one head of cattle and one ram’, ‘one cow’). There follows a list of eight deities/invocations,46 with seven victims (‘five rams’ and ‘two cows’), which in fact represent a synthesis or summary of the official ‘pantheon’ in its various sections (cf. ‘List A’, above): b'l/a∆rt, 'nt/r“p, dr il, p¢r b'l, “lm, with the ubiquitous ∆kmn w“nm included among the goddesses, which does not occur there. Possibly it is a type of sacrifice of ‘general communion’, offered to the whole pantheon, as is made clear in KTU 45 To these animal victims must be added ‘the cruet of oil’, so that we would have ‘seven’ units of offering, as a group complementing the offering of ‘firstfruits’. 46 Curiously, here dr il and p¢r b'l are grouped together whereas they are separate in the official ‘pantheon’; cf. ‘List A’, above.

      

341

1.148 = RS 24.643:1–9. The precedence given to ilh or ilhm only attempts to ensure the ancestral meaning: positioned at the head of the other gods, ilh is here synonymous with ilib, just as ilib is synonymous with il at the head of the pantheon; the primordial ‘divine being’ of the gods and so of the actual divinized dynasty or mlkm, also present in the pantheon. The unity and peculiar nature of the following ritual action (lines 17–19) is confirmed as a new type of sacrifice by KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001:8–10, whereas in both texts we have different continuations. This time the sacrifice of ‘burning’ (urm) and the three combustible materials (entrails, cereal or early grass and grain) are again offered to the ilhm, this time called b'lm, who thus retain pre-eminence as recipients of offerings in the five sacrificial actions of this section. In this case the syntactic pattern is X + DN + X. A new type of offering (m'rb) (D – L – S 1975e, 145; X 1981, 66; L… 1985, 216–7;  M 1972, 15 n. 47; 1987, 161, n. 36)47 also begins the third ritual section (lines 19–22), comprising a db˙48 of vegetables (oils and bread) in unspecified quantities, and of animal produce (honey and dove), remarkably unusual in Ugaritic liturgy and not dedicated to any particular deity. It is a global offering which yq˙ bt mlk, to be understood as a ‘tribute-offering which the palace takes’. This meaning is confirmed by the next rite (lines 22–23), which specifies that another offering of the same vegetal kind ‘wine and flour’, and perhaps as part of the same m'rb sacrifice, has to be poured out, without indicating to which deity, in the ©r. The offering of ‘wine’ returns us to the beginning of the text and together with the ‘flour’49 provides a suitable funerary communion offering. This closes the series of rites—seven in all—which are celebrated on the 14th day of the month in the palace and its cultic installations.

47 Related to the root *'rb, Heb. ma' aràb, Akk. irbu, eribtu, the word seems to mean approximately ‘entry’, in a commercial sense; however it could also have a ‘funerary’ connotation in connection with the ‘setting’ said of the ‘sun’ which ‘enters’ (the underworld). 48 Here db˙ denotes the type of offering, intended for a ‘festal banquet’. Text and context are reminiscent of the db˙ mlk of KTU 1.91 = RS 19.015:2; cf.  M 1987, 161, n. 38;  T 1989, 155, n. 54;  O L 1992a, 172 = 1999, 256. 49 In the previous line ‘leavened loaves’ were mentioned, their correlative, just like wine is the correlative of oil-honey.

342

 

Next, the text takes us to another cultic scenario on the same date, the temple of the ‘goddess’/Ilatu, on the ‘steps’ of whose altar (lines 23–38) three series of sacrificial rituals take place. The first sacrificial ritual (lines 23–9), expressed according to the syntactic patterns X + l + DN || X + DN, comprises twelve sets of victims (‘two birds’ twice, ‘two rams’, ‘four cows’ and ‘one ewe’) and nine divine recipients: ßpn/©lmt, yr¢/nkl || b'lt bhtm, in“ ilm, ilhm || “p“, r“p. Even so, the particular meaning of the group and reason for each offering elude us; the second sequence repeats the beginning of the text, lines 5–6, but without il“. The second series (lines 29–33) has the syntactic pattern X + DN and five deities celebrated with six victims (‘two cows’ and ‘four ewes’): ilh, ilhm, il, ∆kmn w“nm, ilt, like that of lines 10–13, with 'nt for b'lt bhtm and without r“p. The sacrificial series closes with the offering of two victims (‘ewes’) with no recipient expressed, perhaps omitted by mistake, although the precise place of the ceremony is indicated and the sacrificial series is divided into two. In the third series (lines 33–38), there are again five/six recipient deities for the offerings: b'l ßpn, ßpn, b'l ugrt, ilib, a∆rt, ri-(?), to which six or seven sacrificial units correspond (‘two cows’, ‘one ewe’, ‘two birds’ and ‘one/two rams’), assigned according to syntactic pattern X + l + DN. The group of gods is almost the same as in the following section, but in a different sequence and with some variations: in this last section Ilu has to be supposed for Ilib, as is usual, and considered as being offered the ‘shekel of silver’; in line 41 Íapunu has been omitted. This section divides the sequence into two subgroups in respect of the place of offering: il, a∆rt, in“ ilm, b'l Ípn, Ípn, b'l ugrt, who also occur in KTU 1.109 = RS 24.253:32–5. The break in the text prevents us being able to determine how the surprising remark ‘thirty times’ (which comes next and occurs in other texts) is connected with the preceding. In all likelihood it refers only to the last sacrificial offering, as can be inferred from the multiple parallelism with KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001:20–2, a parallelism which probably suggests reading the damaged lri- as l(r)i[n“ ilm], to whom inevitably there correspond 'ßrm, ‘two birds’. The triple series closes with a unit of ritual which again mentions (lines 36–8) the sacred place in which it occurs and refers us back to the beginning (lines 23–4), a perfect literary inclusio: the altar of the temple of the ‘Lady/ies of the Exalted Mansions’/Ilatu. Thus far,

      

343

the rituals which take place on the 14th day, the day of the full moon, the sacred climax of the month ri“ yn, in two cultic locations: the palace sanctuary and the temple of Ilatu (possibly also located within the palace). The final section (lines 38–48) records the offerings corresponding to the first week of the month, on its last days, which are ‘festive’ days: the 5th, 6th and 7th. The ritual of the 5th day takes place (lines 38–45) in the temple of Ilu, so going back to the heading of the text, which presupposed the offering of the firstfruits to that god. The text is broken, but a first series of offerings is discernible: ‘one shekel of silver’ and various animal victims offered to Ilu, A∆iratu and to the in“ ilm, with the known pattern X + l + DN. The series next continues on ‘the altar of Ba'lu’-presumably in the same temple (?)-with a series of sacrifices (‘one cow’ and ‘two ewes’) offered to various invocations of that deity, using the same pattern. The correlation of this series with the one occurring in lines 33–6 is surprising: both reproduce the two groups of deities, of Ba'lu and of Ilu, but in reverse order, and in both, the repetition of its last element a specified number of times (30/22) is assumed, with or without a particular recipient. In this case it seems that the offering which has to be repeated is specified: ‘one ram’, ‘one cruet of oil’ and ‘one cow’; an offering which is taken up again on the 6th day (lines 45–6): ‘two cruets of oil’ and ‘one cow’. The only new element is a reference to the exact cultic installation, the 'ly, the ‘sacrificial (place)’, in which the ceremony is carried out and which has already occurred before (line 37), in connection with the temple of Ilatu/‘Lady of the Mansions’, the location of the previous series of ritual actions. The sacred and sacralizing ritual ends on the 7th day (lines 47–48) with the desacralization of the (feast) day and of the king officiating at sunset. This refers us back, by literary inclusio and ritual sequence, to the new purification, which will take place on the 13th and 14th days (lines 3 and 6–7), and to the following ‘proclamation’ of the day (lines 7–8), related to the beginning of our text. We have already anticipated above how this ritual ends (lines 48–9) with the return to the ceremonial of the 1st day of the month (new moon) in order to complete all its elements (lines 1–2), thus closing the text almost as a literary unit with a final inclusio. The liturgy of the month of ri“ yn is thus outlined in its first two weeks between the climactic limits of new moon and full moon. The rites of the first week (1st, 5th, 6th and 7th days) take place, apparently,

344

 

in the temple of Ilu, whereas those of the end of the second week (13th and 14/15th days) take place in the cultic installations of the palace and in the temple of Ilatu/‘Lady of the Mansions’, possibly part of them. The appendices KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:50–5 and KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056:54–7 include two specific rituals which simply mention the victims required. The first describes with sufficient detail, ‘the Canaanite ritual of huts’ in which are offered ‘one ram’ in holocaust and as a peace offering ‘one head of cattle and one ram’ (alp w“ ), seven times, to an unknown deity ( prgl.ßqrn) (on this cf.  O L 1992a, 84 = 1999, 123–4). The second simply notes the offering of ‘one ram’ on the 14th day of a certain month (for KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056:58–61; cf. above § 7.2.2.1.1 ‘Record of sacrificial material’, c). As a whole, this text has the structure of a multiple and complex mixed sacrificial ritual (temporal-local-typological), i.e. an ordo mensualis or ritual ‘menology’ of the ‘New Year’ liturgy in Ugarit. 2.3.1.3 Lists of offerings in context (KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256, KTU 1.115 = RS 24.260, KTU 1.43 = RS 1.001, KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+) a) Instead, in the ritual KTU 1.112 = RS 24.25650 the offerings are set within more explicit cultic contexts. Only lines 22–7 are in the nature of a ‘list of offerings’ which have been allocated, with a syntactic variant. The text is a collection of ceremonies which take place also ‘in the month of ›iyaru(?)’, and within it, ten ‘feast days’ are specified. These, calculated from the new moon ( V 1961, 468ff. ‘The Liturgical Calendar. The new moon’), are the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th days. In this text, various rituals of a sacrificial nature, of offerings, are joined with others which are non-sacrificial, such as rituals of purification, procession or oracle, which require special consideration. The first fact that stands out is that each type of offering ritual (¢≈r©l, iyn, “npt) begins on the first day of the corresponding first three weeks of the month (1st, 8th, 15th). 50 Cf. H 1978, 21–6; X 1981, 43–8;  T 1980, 113–36; 1989, 197–9; D – L 1988b, 315–6;  O L 1992a, 156–70 = 1999, 232–53.

      

345

The offerings are arranged into three categories: animals (sheep, cattle, birds), vegetables (grain/bread, wine), minerals (silver, pottery), with a clear tendency to grouping them into sets of 7 and 3 units of offering (7/3/7/7/14/?/3?).51 To this cultic and sacrificial arithmetic must be added the 7 ‘ascents’ made by the king’s sons on the first day of the month, perhaps in connection with the 7 sets of offering. Distributed according to their recipients, these offerings correspond to the tutelary gods of palace and dynasty. In reality they receive, as we have seen, the offerings of the royal family on the 1st day: b'lt bhtm, the ‘Lady of the Mansion(s)’ ( M 1970a, 199 ('Anatu?); 1971, 85–6 n. 4, 95 (‘Mistress of the Mansion’);  T 1980, 163ff.),52 ‘one shekel (of silver)’ and ‘one platter’, as well as ‘one ram’ and ‘two birds’ to/for the in“ ilm.53 The 8th day: the offering of ‘grain/bread’, ‘one shekel (of silver)’ and ‘(one jar of ) wine’ is directed to 'A∆tartu ¢r, whereas on the 14th day the mysterious g∆rm receive ‘two rams’ ( O L 1992a, 161–2 = 1999, 239–40.), most probably belonging to this sphere of dynastic deities. On the 15th day, the climax of the festival, the following are offered from the sacrificial hecatomb: ‘one ram’ to each of the gods Ilu, Ba'lu of Íapunu and Ba'lu of Ugarit; ‘two’ to btbt and the same number to A∆iratu; lastly, to the il mßd/ilt mgdl, ‘one platter/one ram’ (depending on the reading), plus ‘seven cows’ and ‘fourteen ewes’. On the 16th day, ‘one ram’ is again offered to btbt (there follows a lacuna in the text). Finally, on the 17th day, the deity iln receives three(?) unspecified offerings. As is evident, the deities venerated form a small group, even if the lost sections of the text are taken into account. Apart from the classic group of the great gods of Ugarit (Ilu, A∆iratu, Ba'lu, 'A∆tartu), we also have a collection of deities, generally under obscure descriptive names, who form part of what we may call the ‘tutelary gods’ of palace and dynasty (cf. List C above): b'lt bhtm, in“ ilm, g∆rm, btbt. This limitation of divine recipients in turn corroborates the ‘private’, 51 Similar series of 2/7/14 animal victims can also be noted in the Hebrew Bible (cf. e.g. Num 29:2ff.) and in other Ugaritic texts; on this, also in connection with the materials for offerings (silver, grain/bread, wine), cf.  T 1980, 34ff., 43ff. Of course here ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ stand for the respective unit, as specified elsewhere: ‘one measure/loaf of . . .’, ‘one jar of . . .’. The offering of king Keret also includes bread and wine (cf. KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ ii 16–9). 52 On the other hand, the empty space in line 2 suggests that another deity received the two rams mentioned first. 53 For the various interpretations of this epithet cf.  O L 1987a, 66; 1992a, 92 n. 134, 160 n. 68 = 1999, 134 n. 167, 239 n. 70.

346

 

palace nature of this ritual ( O L 1992a, 44–7 = 1999, 59–62;  T 1980, 162–9). b) KTU 1.115 = RS 24.26054 has particular importance for the information it provides about the royal pantheon, as well as for its clear structure, which almost suggests that this text is literary. Ultimately, however, it is a list of offerings in a clear context. This royal ritual takes place in the palace, more specifically, in its sanctuary (line 7: qd“ ), as we already know from other texts. It is of the db˙ type (line 1) and includes two banquets (lines 8/19: t/yl˙m), one connected to a ˙ll ydm-ritual (lines 6–8) and the other forming part of a “lmm sacrifice (lines 9–10). The moment is given in the opening statement (‘When the king sacrifices to U“¢arayu’), although we do not know when it actually took place. Its basic syntax is sacrificial, with alternating patterns: X + l + DN / X + l + DN + type / X + type / l + DN + X, with two prescriptive-explanatory verbs: ydb˙, t/yl˙m. The most striking and peculiar thing about this ritual is its dedication to only one pair of deities (u“¢r, bbt), who seem to be connected with the palace cult as tutelary or ‘patron’ gods of the palace, whereas they do not belong to the official pantheon of Ugarit ( O L 1992a, 54–8 = 1999, 71–8) with the specific invocation under which they are commemorated here. However, they are the first two deities of the dynastic pantheon (list C; KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246:1–2). This divine couple is the structural element of the text, which is arranged in repetitive series in a concentric chiasmus. The text shows a marked concentric structure with a symmetrical twofold distribution of offerings, like the one seen in KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005, there centred on the deities g∆r and 'Anatu: ‘ram’, ‘dove’, ‘ram’ || ‘ram’ || ‘ram’, ‘ram’, ‘dove’. The ritual ends with an indication of time which claims to specify, in line with the normal semantics of a˙d, the occurrence of the double sacrificial-banquet rite on one and the same day.

54 Cf. V 1965, 586–8; F 1969, 197–205; 1970, 491ff.; 1975, 139–41;  M 1970b, 316–7; L 1974, 9–11; D – L – S 1975i, 1975j; C 1979, 1407; J 1980, 246–9;  T 1980, 87–91; 1989, 200–2; X 1981, 105–8; D – L 1981, 85–8; 1988b, 319–20; A 1984, 6–7, 18–9, 24–5, 32–3; 1985, 21;  O L 1992a, 177–8 = 1999, 264–6.

      

347

c) KTU 1.39 = RS 1.001 provides various series of ‘sacrifices’, holocausts and communion sacrifices, probably offered to the dead kings under their various invocations: ∆', ilh, ilh b'l, and of course, in“ ilm. There is an actual moment, ‘the night of ”ap“u pgr w∆rmnm’ (of the ‘dead/funerary offering’ and of the ‘sovereigns’), in which these ∆rmnm are honoured with a sacrificial ritual which involves all the gods of the dynastic pantheon, as we saw above (List C; lines 12–9). It is a text-list of sacrificial liturgy in which a series of offerings/ victims is itemized following the known formulae of sacrificial syntax.55 There are very few temporal and local parameters and they are of no help in determining clearly the structure of the text. At all events, from line 12 it seems to be divided into two parts each with the same number of lines, which in respect of the cultic ‘moment’ and the list of gods which the second provides, are structurally and intentionally different. The ritual of the second part (lines 12–22) takes place lll, ‘at night’, and in bt mlk, ‘the palace’. These specifications and the systematic use of the god list of KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246:1–14, referred to above, indicate that the whole thing is a royal dynastic ritual of the funerary cult, presented autonomously, independent of the day of the month in which it is to be celebrated. Instead, the text has another parameter which is much better for determining its structure. This is the one connected with the ritual typology which is specified with unusual precision and in this matter is very like KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256. Its first part, (lines 1–9, 9–10, 10–11) is thus arranged according to four different types of offering/sacrifice (“rp-“lmm, urm, “npt), each one with its particular series of gods, some even repeated, as might be expected a priori. This sequence has a parallel in KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:11–17, 17–19, which gives it its ‘standard’ character (cf. above ‘Lists of gods in sacrificial texts’ § 2). The second part (lines 12–19, [19]–20–22), instead, with a list which is itself already a unit, as we have seen, presents one single type of sacrifice, unspecified. The end of the text (lines [19]-20–22, reverse of the tablet) is a supplementary ritual, which could be understood as the ‘thirty times’ repetition, i.e. over a ‘month’ ( pgr?), of the offering/sacrifice to ‘two’ new deities (b'lt bhtm, in“ ilm), and thus as an extension of the standard 55 Cf. D – L – S 1975e, 141–3; X 1979–1980, 147ff.; 1981, 76–80;  T 1980, 65ff.; 1989, 135–9; D – L 1988b, 308–10;  O L 1992a, 145–9 = 1999, 213–9.

348

 

list of KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246:1–14, as a synthesis of the royaldivine list of the reverse (cf. above ‘List of Names of Divine Kings’). The distribution of offerings is as follows. As a burnt sacrifice: to the ∆'(m) as a whole, ‘two ewes’, ‘one dove’, ‘two loins and one liver from a head of cattle’; to Ilu, ‘one ram’; ‘one cow’ to the ilhm; ‘one ewe’ to ∆kmn-“nm and another to Ra“pu. As a peace offering: to the ilhm as a whole, ‘two ewes’, ‘one head of cattle’, ‘one ram’, ‘one cow’; to Ba'lu, A∆iratu, ∆kmn-“nm, 'Anatu and Ra“pu, ‘one ram’ each; ‘one cow’ to the groups dr il and p¢r b'l and another to “lm. In a burnt sacrifice (urm): to the ilhm b'lm, ‘a burnt heart’ and ‘fifteen measures of forage and spelt’.56 In a sacrifice of ‘presentation’ (half of it?): one ‘ram’ each to b'l ßpn, b'lt bhtm, ilt mgdl and ilt asrm. Lastly, as a pgr(?)-sacrifice: to the pantheon of KTU 1.102 = RS 24.246:1–14, ‘one cow’ to ten of its deities, ‘one ewe’ to another four, ‘one ram’ to one deity and two unspecified offerings (db˙m) to two others, without it being possible to determine the meaning and significance of this variety of victims. In the final ‘coda’: ‘thirty times one cow’ to the b'lt bhtm and ‘two birds’ to the in“ ilm. We can, then, understand this text as a ‘sacrificial agenda’ which lists the various types of sacrifice related to the royal funerary liturgy: “rp-“lmn, urm, “npt, pgr and the ‘daily sacrifice’, with the time and place of celebration unspecified. d) KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+ is also a royal funerary ritual of a particular month, the month of gn;57 there victims are offered to all the ‘divine peoples’ and to some dead kings (the most recent?) in particular, under their ‘divine’ names: yar“il, ydbil, 'mtr (cf. ‘Lists of Names of Divine Kings’, above § 7.2.2.2). The sacred time corresponds to days 8, 22 and 25 (cf. lines 18, 24, 25–26). This implies that the ceremonies mentioned in lines 1–17 (18) took place on the first or on subsequent days of the first ‘week’ of the month in question. As for the sacrificial rite, we have the known type “rp, ‘(as a) holocaust’ (cf. lines 2 and 7), repeated twice, apparently corresponding to the twofold mention of the recipient deities (r“p/in“ ilm/group of three || r“p/in“ ilm/[ ?]), and of the victim (˙gb/np“ w“ + 'ßrm). The 56 This sacrificial offering is unique in all the cultic literature of Ugarit. On the meaning of the types of rituals termed urm and “npt and their possible relation to “rp w“lmm cf.  O L 1995, 45, nn. 49, 51. 57 Cf. H 1978, 26–30; X 1981, 81–5; D – L 1988b, 324–5;  T 1989, 185–7;  O L 1992a, 149–56 = 1999, 219–32.

      

349

remainder or second part of this initial ritual of sacrifice has elements remarkably in parallel with those in KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256: 1) the participation of the royal family, ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’, and then of the king himself (cf. lines 9–10, 17); 2) the performance of the cultic action in the cult installations of the palace: the sacrifice of ‘one ram’ to Pidrayu and ‘seven ewes’ in the ¢mn, ‘one ram’ in the qd“/'ly/¢mn of Nikkalu, another in the kbm and ‘one cow’ ‘at the door of the royal mausoleum’ ( O L 1992a, 153 = 1999, 227); 3) the sevenfold rhythm of the ceremonial (cf. KTU 1.106 = RS 24.250+:12–3; KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256:6–7); 4) in both texts the ‘cantor’ takes part (lines 15–7), and there is an ‘oracular response’ (∆∆b rgm) in both, at a later stage (cf. lines 23 and 32). Also in both, but at different times, the desacralization/ purification rite of the king is mentioned, although this fact is not of itself significant. On the 8th day the sacrificial rite includes, together with the usual victims numbering ‘seven cows’, ‘fourteen ewes’ and ‘one (piece of ) offal’ (cf. KTU 1.112 = RS 24.256:26–7), a new class of offering, unknown in the other rituals of Ugarit: ‘fish stew’ (“b“lt dg). Similar ritual elements recur and close the cultic action of the third week (cf. lines 32–3). The decisive day of the ritual is the 25th. It comprises a sacrificial(-banquet) at night before the king, seated on his throne, in honour of and in communion with arßy and ‘gods of the underworld’ (ilm arß) with ‘provisions’ (“l˙mt) selected and prepared beforehand (cf. lines 25 and 28: ‘nine ewes’, ‘one head of cattle’ and ‘one goose’), offered to the gods, and ‘two ewes’ and ‘one cow’ offered to the goddess. As for place, the cultic action shifts on day 8 from the cult installations of the palace mentioned in lines 13–4, to a new sacred location, known only from this text and giving its name to the month of the ritual: the ‘garden’ ( gn) ( O L 1996a, 103–4, for the identification of the gn), which fits in well with the ‘infernal’/‘funerary’ nature of the deities honoured in this ritual. Apart from the sacrificial moment (lines 1–15, 19–22, 30–31) in honour of and communion with deities either specifically mentioned or assumed, it also includes the desacralization/purification rite of the king, already known from other texts (lines 24, 26, 34), and two

350

 

new royal ceremonies, which can be considered peculiar to it and to which we have already referred: the singing before the king and the preparation of the funerary banquet. Its interpretation must, however, be left for another systematic analysis which goes beyond consideration of the text as ‘list of offerings and gods’. e) Together with mere lists of offerings like those above, a text such as KTU 1.119 = RS 24.26658 provides a more complex context, a mixture of list and elements of recitation; more specifically, a psalm of prayer in the event of a national threat, the only one in any text of this type. It poses the question, at least in this case, of whether they are administrative (cf. above). However it has to be remembered that the tablet was found in the 24th campaign (1961) in the library of the priest bn agp∆r, i.e. in principle in an archive more concerned with ritual than with administration. The relationship of this cultic element to the foregoing list of offerings is not clear. A ‘list’ which itself already provides ‘rituals’ that transcend the simple record of a victim: exact sacred place and time, type of ceremony and in particular, repeated mention of the royal desacralization rite, which may or may not have included some sort of victim to justify the allusion in a simple record of offerings. Nor can we be sure whether both sides of the tablet belong to the same text or to two different texts. The second (the reverse) could quite well be an authentic liturgical ritual, even though it also begins like a list of offerings (lines 18–22). In fact the lower part of the tablet is broken, which means that we have two separate texts, obverse and reverse, corresponding perhaps to two separate rituals, either of the same month or of different months. The obverse (lines 1–17) has a list of offerings which corresponds to the sacrificial ritual of the month of ib'lt, specified for various days: 7th, 17th and 18th; this datum divides the text into three sections: lines 1–4, 4–11, 11–17. The first two are clearly distinguished by the sequence desacralization/purification of the king, which means that between days 7 and 17 the king does not celebrate ritually, whereas the ceremony of days 17 and 18 forms a single unit. This 58 Cf. H 1973, 693–703; 1978, 31–9; A 1978, 254–62; X 1978, 127–36; 1981, 25–34;  T 1980, 17ff.; 1989, 206–11; M 1981b, 62–83; S 1983a, 263–369; 1983b, 304–6;  M 1983, 251–2; 1987, 171–4; M 1988, 139–55; D – L 1988b, 819;  O L 1992a, 197–205 = 1999, 292–306; P 1997a, 283–5; W 1998c, 416–22.

      

351

liturgy takes place in the temple of Ba'lu, bt b'l ugrt (lines 3, 9–10), mgdl b'l ugrt (line 12), and then moves to the temple of Ilu, qd“ il, bt il (lines 6, 14) for the second and third rituals. Even the various areas of the temple of Ba'lu where the offerings are made are specified, which will not be discussed here. Also specified are the various sacrificial actions of the syntactic pattern ‘X + l + DN [+ type of offering + officiant’] with, exceptionally, more verbal than nominal syntax. Victims: besides the usual ones (large and small flocks: ram, cow, bull, lamb), there occur others which are rarer or specific ([piece of ] offal, dove, donkey). The officiant: when specified, he is the king, also the subject of other non-sacrificial rites (purification). However the strangest datum of this text comprises the (divine) recipients of the offerings, together with their type, an element which is by no means clear. In the first section (lines 1–4) ‘two rams’ are delivered for b'l and sacrificed in the temples mentioned. In the second section (lines 4–11) ‘three cows’ are delivered to the sanctuary of Ilu and to the b'lm and to the ‘hero’ (©lm), ‘two sheep’ (‘ewes’) and ‘one cow’ to the Damsels (©lmt), plus ‘one lamb’ and ‘one dove’ which ‘are burned (tnrr) l∆',59 in the testimonial of the temple of Ba'lu of Ugarit’. As in other cases, the ritual of the 17th day forms a continual unit with the ritual of the 18th day, section three (lines 11–17), and so the desacralization of the king is not specified. On this day the offering of ‘one head of cattle’ (alp) is made in the temple of Ba'lu; in the temple of Ilu, ‘one (piece of ) offal’ (np“ ) for U“¢arayu(?), another for Ba'lu and ‘a donkey’ for whom or why we do not know. The fourth section (lines 18–36, reverse) has two clearly differentiated parts: a ritual (lines 18–24 + 25) and a prayer (lines 26–36). In it are noted the victims which correspond to a ‘week’ of offerings (apparently reserved for Ba'lu), of which have been preserved those of the ‘two birds’ (twice), ‘one liver’ and ‘one “little chain”(?) of a liver’. This complex of victims ('ßrm, kbd, ““rt) belongs more to divination or summoning rituals. It is possible, then, that although it takes place in the same sacred place, the ritual on the reverse is completely 59 This lexeme, ∆'( y), has normally been given the meaning of ‘offering’ in one of its types (which is not defined); however closer analysis makes it preferable to see here and in other texts a divine-cultic title of the dead and divinized kings of Ugarit, a title which is already attributed in epic to the legendary King Keret (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i 24 and par.); cf.  O L 1988a. Cf. Wyatt 1998c, 200 n. 115.

352

 

different from the ritual on the obverse. It is not sacrificial, but a magical entreaty, with the king as subject in both functions. The weekly sequence of this section has a structure like that of the ‘graded numerical sequence’ in myth and epic ( O L 1981a, 60–1), with a climax on the seventh day. The syntax is nominal as usual, on days (3 and) 4 and 5 (and 6) together (num. + X + [l + DN + specification of place]), whereas it is verbal ( ykbd ) on days 1 and 2; on the 7th, also, as a recitation, not as sacrificial (dn). Analysis of these elements is left to the discussion of these texts as ‘ritual’ as are the place and mode of the action. The same applies to the fifth and final section (lines 26–36), which is a prayer. As a whole, this double complex ritual refers to only a limited range of ‘deities’ to whom offerings are presented (b'l, il ?, b'l ?/il ?, b'lm, ©lm, ©lmt, ∆'/b'l?, i“¢ry?/b'l ? ? ?/b'l ). From this point of view, the ritual is largely ‘related to Baal’ in respect of recipient and ‘royal’ in respect of officiant. At all events, this whole set of ritual and recited elements has already appeared in other Ugaritic texts, those called ‘cultic myths’ (KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002, KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194; ‘mythological rituals’ instead are KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252 and KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126). In practice, this mix of cultic elements was probably commoner than appears from their inadequate distribution in literature and cult (a category which is largely a matter of lists). Some scholars already speak of the character of myths as recitations, an element of ritual, and many cultic texts must have had elements which presumably were recited, as is the case in the text analysed here. Ritual was never movement without speech, nor was ‘myth’ recited without movement: gesture and speech belong together. Here we conclude this survey of the texts of cultic practice in Ugarit in respect of ‘lists of gods and offerings’, a literary form under which many of them are given, although it allows glimpses of a more complex liturgy than the act of sacrifice sketched out in these lists and was its culminating sacred act. In this handbook another section is devoted to disentangling and explaining the complex ritual involved in the liturgy of Ugarit (see § 7.1). (Translation: W.G.E. W)

3

T O T P X

3.1 Mesopotamian tradition The great Mesopotamian tradition of divination was well known and accepted in Ugarit, a city whose archives have preserved several tablets (mostly in alphabetic cuneiform) which belong to the same famous tradition. In particular, we have on the one hand some texts with teratological omens which concern predictions derived from deformed or monstrous births of animals or human beings. One fragmentary document instead reports several astrological omens, while a short tablet concerning an eclipse of the sun may also be noted; there are also several small models of livers and an inscribed model of a lung which derive from the practice of extispicy. In general one can say that in Ugarit Mesopotamian tradition was followed quite slavishly, even if there are some indications of adaptation and specific formulations connected with local requirements, both political and social. One significant fact, in this respect, is that it was sometimes felt necessary to compose the texts of the omens in the local language, as witness to a certain desire for cultural appropriation. 3.2

The teratological omens

The teratological omens, that is, those which contain presages drawn from the observation of deformed births (or abortions) of animals and humans, are represented in Ugarit by three alphabetic texts, KTU 1.103+ = RS 24.247+, KTU 1.145 = RS 24.328+ and KTU 1.140 = RS 24.302. They all came to light to the south of the acropolis, in what has been called the Cella aux tablettes, which was part of the house of a famous diviner (here, incidentally, were also found models of livers and of a lung as well as the difficult [necromantic?] text KTU 1.124 = RS 24.272). To this can be added a fragment of a tablet in syllabic cuneiform (RS 7.001 = AO 18.892), as yet unpublished, which was found on the surface.1 1

Essential bibliography: H 1978; D – L – S 1975d;

354

 

This small group of texts is of the greatest interest because it documents translation into the local language of a type of divination text which is typically Mesopotamian (the Babylonian series ”umma izbu studied by Leichty).2 The documents in question, which are approximately contemporaneous with those found in the great Syrian archive of Meskené-Emar,3 also allow us to examine further the history of the spread of this genre. In fact they date back to a period earlier than the corresponding documents in Akkadian and Hittite found at Bo[azköy (R 1970) and represent the most direct chronological link with the Old Babylonian tablets which circulated in series before their final ‘canonization’ in 24 tablets, evidence for which is provided from Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh. The Geburtsomina of Ugarit are typologically related to those from Bo[azköy and, if we follow the classification proposed by Riemschneider,4 these too can be divided basically into two types: KTU 1.103+ = RS 24.247+ and KTU 1.145 = RS 24.328+ refer to anomalous animal births (which are to be set alongside Tablet V of the canonical series), whereas KTU 1.140 = RS 24.302 concerns human births (and seems to derive from Tablets I–IV of the canonical series). The teratological omens from Ras Shamra are a fairly faithful reflection of the ‘principles’5 of what is termed deductive divination, such as the classic opposition right—left, where the right refers to everything concerning the country and its inhabitants, whereas the left concerns the king and enemy countries.6 In this perspective, every defect or anomaly found on the right comprises an unfavourable omen, but if it is found on the left it is interpreted favourably. Every ‘increase’—even if strange or monstrous—of the right side, therefore, corresponds to events which are positive for the king and his kingdom. The absence of limbs or organs seems instead to portend bad omens.

X – C 1979; X 1981, 191–206; P 1986; D – L 1990a, 87–165; D – L 1990c;  O L 1992a, 237–41 = 1999, 353–9. 2 L 1970. 3 Cf. A 1985–87, VI/1–2 and VI/4, 686–93. 4 R 1970, who correctly distinguished on the basis of the protasis, texts introduced by the clause ták-ku-zu -za . . . a-a-“i (human births) from those introduced by the clause ák-ku - (animal births). 5 See, in general, B 1974. 6 Cf. W 1996c and below, § 13.2.2.

  

355

In line with the typology of these omens in the earliest period of their circulation, there are no references to the individual and private sphere: every prediction is of an official nature and in fact always refers to the king or the country. In the Ugaritic omens also one catches a glimpse of this association of ideas based on analogy: note for example the interpretation of certain bodily features of the foetus. Among the examples that can be adduced the following can also be noted: if the foetus looks like a bird the prediction is that the gods will fly away from the land; the head of the foetus symbolizes the king or the governor of the land; missing or deformed feet or paws (which therefore prevent walking) are interpreted in the sense that the land will not be able to progress as usual in its existence due to epidemics or internal strife. In Ugarit, then, the dichotomy between (a) anomalies and malformations, and (b) similarities with animals has also been adopted. From the limited material available it is not possible to verify the presence and consequences of multiple body-parts and of a whole range of cases of deformity and/or defects, but even so everything suggests complete agreement with the Babylonian model. In Ugarit as in Bo[azköy there was, then, full acceptance of Mesopotamian tradition, even if the Old Babylonian originals were certainly slightly adapted for local needs which were exclusively of public concern. What are called the ‘stock apodoses’ display a limited range of events which evidently reflects military politics on a small scale, as in Ugarit. 3.3

Astrological omens

Already attested in the Old Babylonian period, the Mesopotamian collections of astrological omens (W 1941–4, 172–95) were circulated widely around the mid-second millennium  and as a result we find copies scattered in ‘peripheral’ centres such as Bo[azköy, Alala¢, Emar and even Ugarit.7 At Ras Shamra in particular, besides a few as yet unpublished syllabic texts (RS 23.38, RS 25.440 and RS 25.141 + 454), a broken tablet in alphabetic cuneiform has been found in the northern palace of Ras Ibn Hani (KTU 1.163 = RIH 78/14).8 It contains presages based on meteorological observations, 7 8

Detailed bibliography in D – L 1990a, 165–95. B – C 1980, 352; D – L 1990a, 165–95 (cf. 168–70);

 

356

of the sun and the moon, and is connected with the Mesopotamian series Enûma Anu Enlil (W 1941–44). As usual, the sentences comprise a protasis and an apodosis and the presages concern the well-being of the king, the ruling house and their possessions. The text is too broken to supply information or provide specific parallels with the omens of Mesopotamian tradition. The most detailed analysis available, also at the comparative level, is by D – L (1990a) and for the time being it is not possible to progress further. The widespread belief in astrology in Ugarit is documented not only by references to the ‘(divine) stars’ in some ritual texts and from allusions in texts such as KTU 1.23 = RS 2.[024] and KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322 + ii 1–3,9 but also by an unusual document, KTU 1.78 = RS 12.61. It concerns an eclipse of the sun, the simultaneous appearance of the planet Mars and the presages derived from it.10 This astral conjunction seemed to take on a fatal and dangerous character, confirmed by the consultation of livers expressly carried out. At all events, the precise date of the event (probably March 5th, 1223 ) is still debated by specialists and there is no unanimous opinion.11 The exceptional nature of the document, which lies halfway between astrology and hepatoscopy, further complicates its translation and interpretation. The translation provided here is still provisional and hypothetical: 1 2 3 4 5 6

b∆∆. ym.˙d∆ ¢yr 'rbt “p“ ∆Àrh r“p kbdm tbqrn skn

In the silence(?)12 (of the month) ¢yr down went the Sun: her gatekeeper was Ra“ap. (For this) (1/2) liver(s) was/were examined: danger!

 O L 1992a, 236 = 1999, 352; D – L 1988b, 94–5; D – L 1990c. 9 As correctly noted by  O L 1992a, 236, n. 68 = 1999, 352, n. 69. 10 Essential bibliography:  O L 1992a, 235 = 1999, 350; D – L – S 1974b, 464–5; F 1976, 38ff.; X 1981, 171; D – L, 1988b, 99, 100; D – L 1990a, 39–85. 11 K – M 1971; S – S 1970;  J –  S 1987–8; W 1989; D – L 1990a, 281–5 (contribution by W.C. S – H.W. D). P – S 1993; W 1998c, 366–7. 12 For a discussion of b ∆∆ see D – L 1990a, 50ff.; the meaning proposed here is hypothetical.

   3.4

357

Extispicy

Also typical of Mesopotamian divination tradition are the texts of omens written on some models of livers and on one model of a lung, found in the house of the so-called diviner-priest (which was probably also a sort of school), also quite an important person in his official capacity. The five models of livers we now have (KTU 1.141 = RS 24.132; KTU 1.142 = RS 24.323; KTU 1.143 = RS 24.326; KTU 1.144 = RS 24.237; KTU 1.155 = RS 24.264)13 report on the results of hepatoscopic analysis concerning various events and it cannot be excluded that they record independent developments in respect of the tradition from which they come. Whereas KTU 1.155 = RS 24.654 is too damaged to provide any information at all, the other texts are very interesting. KTU 1.141 = RS 24.312 refers to the acquisition of a youth (a slave? Àzr) from an Alashiote (= a Cypriot) by Agp∆r, a well-known person in Ugarit;14 KTU 1.142 = RS 24.323 mentions a sacrifice—db˙—in honour of a dead person (a sort of kispum?), on the occasion of which the commissioner asks the diviner for a response. The contents of KTU 1.143 = RS 24.326, on the other hand, are rather vague, as the text refers only to the performance of an extispicy requested by someone, without going into the causes which led to the sacrifice. Finally, KTU 1.144 = RS 24.327 is an omen which was probably requested by a prince with regard to the ¢up“u-mercenaries who must have caused worries at the political level (D – L 1990a, 15). The model of a lung (KTU 1.127 = RS 24.277), which merits a separate study, is also connected with a Mesopotamian tradition.15 The incised text is divided into sections marked off by lines which probably correspond to the anatomical regions of the lung. It seems likely, nevertheless, that the various parts of the text are connected to each other and comprise a unity, even if it is difficult to understand (cf. for example the uncertainty concerning the term nat which

13 Essential bibliography: X 1981, 184–90; M 1987, 218ff.; D – L 1990a, 241ff.;  O L 1992a, 232–4 = 1999, 347–9. 14 On him cf. C 1979, 1271. 15 K 1985, 185–7; M in D – L 1990a, 255ff. Specific bibliography in D – L 1990a, 18; add  O L 1992a, 69–72 = 1999, 91–5.

358

 

could even be translated ‘removal’).16 The most plausible hypothesis is that this model has been inscribed with several divination exercises, performed at different times, but concerning the same event and with the same aim: to avert the danger of an enemy attack by means of a series of rites, including also a ceremony belonging to the well-known typology of the ‘scapegoat’ (lines 29–32). It should be stressed, then, that the lung model provides us with evidence of the fusion of two different religious traditions, one of Mesopotamian divination and the other of West Semitic atonement ceremonies, for which the oldest documentation is now supplied by the texts from Ebla in the 24th century  (X 1996b). (Translation: W.G.E. W)

16

D – L 1990a, 25ff., with a discussion of the various hypotheses.

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF UGARIT

1

T U L J-L C

1.1

Introductory

The origin of letter-writing is most probably to be sought in oral messages transmitted through an intermediary. By the mid-second millennium , communication by letter had developed considerably. Likewise, the role of the intermediary between sender and recipient. Depending on the culture, the intermediary would be called màr “ipri1 in Akkadian, wpwty 2 in Egyptian and ml"k 3 in Northwest Semitic. The intermediary carried a short written text which served him as a letter of accreditation in the presence of the recipient and allowed him to expand the message, replying to any requests for explanation the recipient might pose. 1.1.1

The texts

The 86 letters or fragments written in alphabetic cuneiform and in Ugaritic with their various collations are as follows: KTU 2.1 = RS 3.427, KTU 2.2 = RS 3.334, KTU 2.3 = RS 1.013 + 1.043, KTU 2.4 = RS 1.018, KTU 2.5 = RS 1.020, KTU 2.6 = RS 1.021, KTU 2.7 = RS 1.026 + 2.[025], KTU 2.8 = RS 1.032, KTU 2.9 = RS 2.[026], KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475, KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315, KTU 2.12 = RS 9.479, KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872, KTU 2.14 = RS [Varia 4], KTU 2.15 = RS 15.007, KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008, KTU

1 M-R 1956, 68–110; B 1977, 333–4, 233–6 and 211 sub 3; E 1964, 212–3; O 1964, 213–4; L 1968, 55–77; H 1975, 376–81. 2 See V 1976. 3 C 1981a, 1982, 1991.

 

360

2.17 = RS 15.098, KTU 2.18 = RS 15.107, KTU 2.20 = RS 15.158, KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174, KTU 2.22 = RS 15.191[], KTU 2.23 = RS 16.078+, KTU 2.24 = RS 16.137[bis]+, KTU 2.25 = RS 16.196, KTU 2.26 = RS 16.264, KTU 2.27 = RS 16.378, KTU 2.28 = RS 16.378, KTU 2.29 = RS 16.378, KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379, KTU 2.31 = RS 16.394, KTU 2.32 = RS 16.401, KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402, KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139, KTU 2.35 = RS 17.327, KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+, KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031, KTU 2.39 = RS 18.038, KTU 2.40 = RS 18.040, KTU 2.41 = RS 18.075, KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113, KTU 2.43 = RS 18.113[], KTU 2.44 = RS 18.134, KTU 2.45 = RS 18.140, KTU 2.46 = RS 18.147, KTU 2.47 = RS 18.148, KTU 2.48 = RS 18.285[], KTU 2.49 = RS 18.286+, KTU 2.50 = RS 18.287, KTU 2.51 = RS 18.[312], KTU 2.52 = RS 18.[364], KTU 2.53 = RS 18.[380], KTU 2.54 = RS 18.[386], KTU 2.55 = RS 18.[387], KTU 2.56 = RS 18.[400], KTU 2.57= RS 18.[443], KTU 2.58 = RS 18.[482], KTU 2.59 = RS 18.[500], KTU 2.60 = RS 18.[528], KTU 2.61 = RS 19.011, KTU 2.62 = RS 19.022, KTU 2.63 = RS 19.029, KTU 2.64 = RS 19.102, KTU 2.65 = RS 19.158, KTU 2.66 = RS 19.181, KTU 2.67 = RS 19.181, KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199, KTU 2.69 = RS 24.660, KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093, KTU 2.71 = RS 29.095, KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124, KTU 2.75 = RS 34.148, KTU 2.76 = RS 34.356, KTU 2.77 = RIH 77/01, KTU 2.78 = RIH 77/21, KTU 2.79 = RIH 77/25, KTU 2.80 = RIH 78/21, KTU 2.81 = RIH 78/3 + 30, KTU 2.82 = RIH 78/12, KTU 2.83 = RIH 78/25, KTU 5.9 = RS 16.265, KTU 5.10 = RS 17.063, KTU 5.11 = RS 17.117.4 To date we know of 20 other unpublished letters.5 1.1.2

Structure

Usually, a letter comprises heading, main message and ending. The study of letters written in Ugaritic has not progressed much since C 1989a; see there for lengthier discussion of matters raised here.

4 C – V 1993a, 239–306, 863–4; the texts, in corrected form are available in Íapànu, Publicaciones en Internet, at http://www. labherm.filol.csic.es. 5 See M-L 1995a, 103 n. 2.

   1.2

361

Heading

The heading, also called the introduction, comprises the address, proskynesis, greetings and wishes. 1.2.1

The address can take on various forms:

(a) l recipient rgm + t˙m sender (b) t˙m sender + l recipient rgm The name of the more important person preceded the name of someone of lower rank, unless out of politeness the name of the recipient had to come first (L 1979a, 1328). In other words, the second formula shows that the sender has higher rank than the recipient, whereas the first formula shows the higher rank of the recipient or else is an indication of politeness between persons of the same rank. If this is the case, Ugaritic usage would be the same as in other regions (L 1979a, 1328 with bibliography). However, not all scholars share this opinion. For some, hierarchy is the only criterion that explains the precedence of the name in both cases (K 1975, 199; K 1977, 144–5; C 1979b, 1414). Ugaritic usage would then differ from that of other areas, except for El Amarna (K 1975, 199). As we shall see later on (§ 8.1.2.2), proskynesis occurs only when the first formula is used. This is the one, then, that is used when an inferior addresses a superior. The personal names of both the sender and the recipient are quite often replaced by terms denoting relationship. For example, adty, ‘My Lady’, occurs in KTU 2.12 = RS 9.479.2; KTU 2.24 = RS 16.137[bis]+:2; KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402:1; KTU 2.56 = RS 18.[400]:1; KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199:1; KTU 2.82 = RIH 78/12:2; adtny ‘our Lady’, KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315:1, adny ‘my lord’, KTU 2.64 = RS 19.102:2; b'ly ‘my lord’, ‘my master’, KTU 2.40 = RS 18.040:1; KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113 :1; KTU 2.61 = RS 19.011:2; KTU 2.63 = RS 19.029:1; KTU 2.64 = RS 19.102:10; b'lh ‘his master’, KTU 2.47 = RS 18.148:2; b'lny ‘our master’, KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093:1; b'lkm ‘your (pl.) master’, KTU 5.10 = RS 17.063:3; umy ‘my mother’, KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315:1; KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872:2; KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008:2; KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379:1; KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139:2; KTU 5.10 = RS 17.063:3; KTU 2.82 = RIH 78/12:1; bny ‘my son’, KTU 2.14 = RS [Varia 4]:3; a¢y ‘my brother’, KTU 2.14 = RS

362

 

[Varia 4]:3; KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031:2; i¢y ‘my brother’, KTU 2.44 = RS 18.134:2; a¢ty ‘my sister’, KTU 2.21= RS 15.174:3; a¢th ‘his sister’, KTU 5.10 = RS 17.063:1; 'bdk ‘your servant(s)’, KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315:4; KTU 2.12= RS 9.479.5; KTU 2.24 = RS 16.137[bis]+:4; KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402.2; KTU 2.40 = RS 18.040.4; KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113:3; KTU 2.64 = RS 19.102:12; KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199:3; KTU 2.75 = RS 34.148:4; KTU 2.81 = RIH 78/03 + 30:5), bnk ‘your son’, KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872:4; KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379:3; KTU 2.64 = RS 19.102:5; a¢k ‘your brother’, KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031:3. The terms ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘brother’ and ‘son’ do not have the literal meaning of blood-relationship among those concerned. They are terms of respect. The king is called ‘father’ and the queen, ‘mother’ (see C 1989a, 247–8). The noun t˙m, ‘message’, differentiates the Ugaritic formula from contemporary Akkadian formulae (El Amarna and even Ugarit itself ) which begin with umma, ‘thus’.6 Sometimes an unbroken line separates the address from what follows (see C 1989a, 249). No account is taken of this line by epigraphists, except for TU. The unbroken line is one of the punctuation marks of Ugaritic. It corresponds to our full stop, new paragraph (see C 1989a, 248–9) except when it is used as a writing guide. In that case it recurs regularly in all or nearly all the lines of the text. 1.2.2 The proskynesis is a formula of prostration and respect towards the recipient. It is used only with the first type of address formula as given above. There are four different types. The simplest is l p'n N qlt, ‘at the feet of N (the recipient) I fall’ (KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872:5–6; KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379:4–5; KTU 2.64 = RS 19.102 obverse:6–7; KTU 2.79 = RIH 78/3 + 30:5–6; KTU 2.80 = RIH 78/12:2–3; see C 1989a, 249, n. 26). Somewhat more

6 It occurs in KTU 2.4 = RS 1.018; KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475; KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315; KTU 2.12 = RS 9.479; KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872; KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008; KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174; KTU 2.24 = RS 16.137[bis]+; KTU 2.26 = RS 16.264; KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379; KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402; KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139; KTU 2.39 = RS 18.038; KTU 2.40 = RS 18.040; KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113; KTU 2.44 = RS 18.134; KTU 2.46 = RS 18.147; KTU 2.49 = RS 18.286+; KTU 2.61 = RS 19.011; KTU 2.63 = RS 19.029; KTU 2.64 = RS 19.102; KTU 2.71 = RS 29.095; KTU 2.76 = RS 34.356; KTU 2.78 = RIH 77/21.

  

363

distant is l p'n N mr˙qtm qlt ‘at the feet of N I/we fall from afar’ KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315:5–7; KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402:3–4; KTU 2.45 = RS 18.140:11–2 (see C 1989a, 249, n. 27). More solemn is l p'n N ∆nid “b'd mr˙qtm qlny ‘at the feet of N twice seven (times) I/we fall’ KTU 2.64 = RS 19.102 obv. 13–16; KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093:8–10. Or also l p'n N “b'd w“b'id mr˙qtm qlt ‘at the feet of N seven and seven (times) from a distance I fall’ KTU 2.12 = RS 9.479:6–11; KTU 2.24 = RS 16.137[bis]+:5–7; KTU 2.40 = RS 18.040:5–8; KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113:4–5; KTU 2.51 = RS 18.[312]:2–3; KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199:4–7 (see C 1989a, 249, n. 29). The two last expressions could have the same meaning although it is not completely certain and they could have different nuances (see C 1989a, 250). ‘I fall’ is a translation of qlt from Öqyl, cognate with Akkadian qâlu (see C 1989a, 250). ‘From afar’ is a translation of mr˙qtm or mr˙qm, an adverb derived from Ör˙q. 1.2.3 Greetings. The sender usually greets the recipient with a jussive: y“lm l- ‘Peace to N! (see C 1989a, 251 and n. 36), which occurs in several letters.7 Its variants are y“lm ly8 and ln y“lm.9 The nominal use of “lm cannot be excluded in some cases.10 1.2.4 Wishes. The greeting can be followed by a wish with a religious content as expressed by the sender in favour of the recipient. When both elements are present, the action seems to be progressive. Indeed, with the greeting the sender wishes the recipient to enjoy good health when receiving the letter, while with the wishes he expresses the hope that the gods may continue preserving the recipient’s good health. The same progression is glimpsed in the body of the letter. The greeting, then, can be differentiated from the wishes or 7 KTU 2.1 = RS 3.427; KTU 2.4 = RS 1.018; KTU 2.6 = RS 1.021; KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475; KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872; KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008; KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174; KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379; KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402; KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139; KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031; KTU 2.41 = RS 18.075; KTU 2.44 = RS 18.134; KTU 2.46 = RS 18.147; KTU 2.52 = RS 18.[364]; KTU 2.63 = RS 19.029; KTU 2.67 = RS 19.181; KTU 2.71 = RS 29.095; KTU 2.81 = RIH 78/3 + 30. 8 KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379; KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402; KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199; KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124. See C 1989a, 252. 9 KTU 2.79 = RIH 78/3 + 30.6, see C 1989a, 252–3. 10 KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093; KTU 2.72= RS 34.124; KTU 5.10 = RS 17.063.

364

 

expression of wish/desire11 although there are different opinions (see C 1989a, 253–4). The religious expression normally used in the wishes (see C 1989a, 229–34) is ilm tÀrk t“lmk, ‘May the gods protect you and keep you healthy!’.12 Ugaritic uses two verbs because two actions are meant to be represented (see C 1989a, 254). The verb tÀr, √nÀr, denotes the action of ‘protecting’.13 Theoretically, t“lm could be the “aphel causative or the intensive D stem. However, both Akkadian and Hebrew normally use the verb “lm in the intensive stem. Ugaritic probably does the same.14 Thus, the expression manifests the wish that the gods continue preserving the health of the recipient. The formulation of the wishes or desires can change. The letter writer has freedom of expression which is evident, for example, in KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008:4–6, when he writes ily ugrt tÀrk t“lmk, ‘May the gods of Ugarit protect you and keep you healthy!’, an expression which has its equivalent in the Akkadian of Ugarit: ilànu ugarit ana “ulmàni lißßurùka or else ilànu “a ugarit ana “ulmàni lißßurùka (see C 1989a, 256). The author of the letter KTU 2.4 = RS 1.018 sends wishes to the High Priest ilm t“lmk tÀrk t'zzk, ‘May the gods keep you healthy, protect you and keep you hardy!’ (lines 4–6). A longer version occurs in KTU 5.9 = RS 16.265:2–6: ilm tÀrk t“lmk t'zzk alp ymm w rbt “nt b'd 'lm, ‘May the gods protect you, keep you healthy, keep you hardy for a thousand days and ten thousand years for ever!’. Finally, there is the formula b'l y“ul “lmk, ‘May Ba'al take care of your health!’ of KTU 5.11 = RS 17.117:2, which becomes intelligible if compared with the Hebrew expression YHWH y“"l l“lmk, of Arad Letter 18 and the Akkadian expressions ilànu “ulumka . . . li“al of EA 96:4–6, ilànu li“alù “ulumka of Taanak 1.5–6 and Aramaic 'lhy' y“lw “lmk of AP 56:1 (see C 1983a).

11

Further details and discussion in C 1989a, 251–2. With some variations it occurs in KTU 2.1 = RS 3.427:1–2; KTU 2.4 = RS 1.018:4–5 (ilm t“lmk tÀrk); KTU 2.6 = RS 1.021:5–6 (ilm tÀrkm t“lmkm); KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315:7–9; KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872:7–8; KTU 2.14 = RS [Varia 4]:4–5; KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174:5–6 (ilm t“lmk tÀrk); KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379:6–7; KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139:3–4; KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031:4–5; KTU 2.41 = RS 18.075:1–2; KTU 2.44 = RS 18.134:4–5; KTU 2.46 = RS 18.147:4–5; KTU 2.63 = RS 19.029:5–6; KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199:9–10 (collation: Pardee); KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093:6–7; KTU 2.71 = RS 29.095:4–5 (ilm t“lmk tÀrk); KTU 2.75 = RS 34.148:6. 13 Others consider the root to be Àyr; see C 1989a, 255. 14 See C 1989a, 254–5; T 1990a, 164. 12

   1.3

365

Body of the letter or message

1.3.1 Structure of the message. The second part of the letter is laid out in dialogue form, marked in some cases15 by the adverbs hnny, ‘here’ and ∆mny, ‘there’ (further details in C 1989a, 257, n. 66). Generally (see C 1989a, 258, n. 68) the sender uses hnny,16 or its equivalent hlny17 to open the section where he provides news of his circumstances, limited to the expression ‘everything is (very) fine with18 (me/us)’—'mn( y) kll (mid ) “lm in various forms (see C 1989a, 259, n. 70). The term ∆mny is used to begin the expression (see C 1989a, 259, n. 73) by the sender that all may go well with the recipient 'm N mnm “lm. The two expressions introduced by hnny and ∆mny in the body of the letter are the counterpart of the greeting and wishes in the structure of the text. The greeting, like the expression introduced by hnny, denotes the situation as at present, whereas the wishes, like the expression introduced by ∆mny, are set in the future. In both cases there is an element of progression. In 'm N mnm “lm, the verbal form “lm is probably an optative qatala, and in 'mn( y) kll (mid ) “lm the qatala is in the present.19 1.3.2 Syntax. Within the dialogue section, the key to the wording and of course to understanding is syntax. Unfortunately, this is the least known part of Ugaritic grammar. The research undertaken by us in Madrid has not yet provided results. The key to syntactic structure frequently lies in particles which are still largely not understood, although their mysteries have been penetrated to some extent. Thus, 15 In KTU 2.1 = RS 3.427; KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315; KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872; KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174; KTU 2.24 = RS 16.137[bis]+; KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379; KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139; KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+; KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031; KTU 2.46 = RS 18.147; KTU 2.56 = RS 18.[400]; KTU 2.65 = RS 19.158; KTU 2.67 = RS 19.181; KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199; KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093; KTU 2.71 = RS 29.095; KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124; KTU 2.76 = RIH 77/21; KTU 2.83 = RIH 78/25. 16 KTU 2.11 = RS 8.315:10; KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031:6; KTU 2.46 = RS 18.147:6; KTU 2.56 = RS 18.[400]:4; KTU 2.65 = RS 19.158 :1; KTU 2.71 = RS 29.095:5; KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124:4. 17 KTU 2.1 = RS 3.427:3; KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872:9; KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174:7; KTU 2.24 = RS 16.137[bis]+ :8; KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379:8; KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+:2; KTU 2.47 = RS 19.181 :4; KTU 2.70 = RS 29.093:11; KTU 2.76 = RIH 77/21:4; KTU 2.83 = RIH 78/25:2. 18 See C 1989a, 258, n. 69. 19 See C 1986, 259–60; 260, n. 75.

366

 

ht, usually translated by ‘now’20 has the peculiarity of always marking the passage to the second part of the discourse21 or argumentation. It means ‘also’, in the first case and ‘but’22 when followed by the conditional particle hm, ‘if ’. Other particles, such as w which begins an apodosis, also contribute to the recognition of structural elements.23 Ugaritic w, as in Hebrew, can also denote the beginning of a conditional clause or a subordinate conditional clause.24 In this way, step by step the syntax is revealed, but the picture is still incomplete. If we consider the letter as a whole and not just the body of the message, we can add that epistolary style may be marked by the use of a large number of jussive, imperative and optative forms. The third person jussive is used frequently, for example in y“lm lk in the greeting and ilm tÀrk t“lmk in the wishes, but also in the body of the message, for instance in ∆mny mnm “lm and sometimes throughout the whole letter as in KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008. Perhaps this is one of the characteristics of epistolary style,25 which is due to the involvement of a third person in the communication, an intermediary who reads the written message aloud. Scholars who do not accept the role of the mlak have great difficulty in understanding the use of the third person.26 It cannot be excluded that the use of the third person is an expression of respect. 1.3.3 Literary aspects of the letters. The letters are the work of various authors preserved in a single copy, as short unvocalized texts full of hapax legomena which allude to contexts which are unknown to us. These are the historical contexts in which the letters were written, the archaeological contexts in which they were found. We also lack the essential communication link of the 2nd millennium , the mal"àk who held the key to interpretation, the additional explanations demanded by the text so as to be fully understood by the recipient. So much for the inherent difficulties of the letters. However, it

20

See C 1989a, 262, n. 77; DLU, 169–70. For example in KTU 2.4 = RS 1.018 and KTU 2.14 = RS [Varia 4]. See C 1989a, 273 n. 6 and 295 n. 12 respectively. 22 See C 1989a, 337, n. 36; 278, n. 10. 23 C 1989b, commentary on the letters KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475; KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379; KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402. 24 See C 1989a, 338 n. 40. 25 P – W 1987. 26 K 1977, 145 in respect of KTU 2.47 = RS 18.148. 21

  

367

has to be accepted that on the other hand it presents several advantages compared to other literary genres. The letter has spatial boundaries which cannot be said of more complex literary texts such as myths and legends. This factor assures us beforehand that if the tablet is intact, the meaning of the letter will be complete. It has been claimed that the correspondence in Ugaritic is only a translation from Akkadian texts. The arguments for and against have been set out elsewhere.27 There is a strong possibility that Ugaritic correspondence was original. 1.4

Closing formula

The body of the message is followed by a request for information concerning the recipient and his surroundings. The formula is usually rgm ∆∆b l-, ‘Send a reply to (lit. return a word to)!’. The verbal form ∆∆b is a Shaphel imperative of the verb ∆wb, with assimilation of the phoneme /“a/ typical of the Shaphel to /∆a/. When the letter is written in the third person, t∆∆b is used in the closing formula, 3rd pers. fem. sing. jussive: ‘May she return a word to her servant!’. This occurs in KTU 2.12 = RS 9.479:1428 and KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008:19.29 1.5

Conclusion

Historical and social importance of the correspondence. The sender of most of the letters preserved is a king/queen or a prince/princess. Some seem to come from lesser court officials. Of all the letters preserved, the one by queen PuduÀibat or Pudu¢epa (KTU 2.36 = RS 17.435+), is undoubtedly the most interesting for its historical significance, but also for the information it provides on diplomatic relations and even on the political tactics used by Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit. Pudu¢epa was the wife of ›attu“ilis, the mother of Tud¢aliya and a contemporary of Ramesses II. The kingdom of Ugarit was a vassal of ›atti, and the king of Ugarit was obliged to present himself each year in the Hittite court, bringing a tribute established beforehand. As the letter shows, the king 27 28 29

See C 1989a, 264–7. See C 1989a, 286 n. 6. See C 1989a, 302 n. 25.

368

 

of Ugarit had to bring a quantity of gold for the House of the king, but the same amount also for the House of the queen. Niqmaddu sent the required amount of gold that was due to the king by adopting the ruse of sending it to the House of the queen. Similarly, Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit, had to send a certain quantity of precious stones which had been worked in his kingdom to the Hittite court. Niqmaddu pretended not to have any gem cutters. In the rest of the letter, he asks the Hittite court for help in assuring that the caravans going to Egypt would pass through Ugarit, no doubt thinking of the benefits such commercial traffic would entail. In another letter, (KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031), the king of Tyre informs the king of Ugarit that the fleet he had sent to Egypt found itself in the middle of a great storm which forced the fleet to split, half going to Tyre and the other half to Acre. The fleet was carrying wheat. The captain made them take the wheat out of the amphoras and lay it out to dry, but first he delivered it to the king of Tyre, the one responsible on land. The king of Tyre informed the king of Ugarit that the cargo had again been loaded on the boats and that the fleet had resumed its journey. Another letter, (KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199), by Ur¢ite“ub, seems likely to deal with the old Hittite king who had fallen into disgrace and had had more than friendly relations with Ugarit. Each of the letters is a remnant of someone’s life and reflects the society to which he belongs. 1.5 Appendix: the vocabulary of the letters A.– The total number of Words with their Morphological Display (or WMD)30 in the Ugaritic corpus published so far is 6521.31 The number of WMD exclusive to a single literary genre is as follows: Administration: 2031; Myth: 1164; Epic: 495; Ritual: 438; Correspondence: 332; Assorted Fragments: 81; School Exercises: 44; Law: 44; Inscriptions: 40; Hippiatric texts: 37. 876 of the 6521 WMD contained in the published Ugaritic texts occur in the Correspondence. Of these, 544 are also common to other genres, leaving 332 as exclusive to the Correspondence. 30 Palabras en Morfología Desplegada or PMD in Spanish. Here the English abbreviation is used for convenience. See § 16.2.2. 31 C – V 1993a, 1–2191.

  

369

B.– The Vocabulary of the Correspondence shared with other literary genres: 1.– Correspondence and Administration: ad'; adty; a¢ty; alyyn; anyt; argmnm; atlg; ibm; iwr≈n; iw≈r; iwrpzn; i¢y; iytlm; il“p“; ilt˙m; itn; i∆tl; ubr'y; ully; urÀt∆b; bdhm; blym; b'ly; b'lyskn; b'rm; gzl; glb; grg“; dym; ≈mn; ≈rdn; ≈rm; ˙yil; ˙pr; ¢lpn; ¢pn; ¢pnm; ybnn; ymz; kbr; ky; kkr; klby; ksphm; ktt; lby; lq˙t; mitm; mznh; mkr; mlb“; mly; mlkytn; mrdt; sny; 'bdb'l; 'bdyr¢; 'bdm; 'yn; 'ky; 'l; 'lr; 'tn; '∆try; plsy; pm; pßn; ßpy; r˙bn; “kn; “lmy; “ml; “m't; “'t; “tn; tyt; tlmyn; tmtt; tny; trÀds; trtn; ∆by; ∆pb†'l; ∆pn. 2.– Correspondence and Myth: ad; adnh; a˙“; amß; ar“; ilak; iph; ir“tk; bnk; dbr; dtm; hdd; hdt; hln; ˙mk; ˙“; ¢srt; yblt; y'msn; klm; kpr; lak; llt; lp; mla; mlak; mÀt; mr∆; mtt; n'mm; sip; 'bdk; 'nn; p'nk; ßlm; qbt; qdt; qlh; qlt; qrnh; rgmt; “b'd; “dt; “kb; “ntm; “pr; t˙mk; tm; t'tqn; tÀrk; t∆∆b; ∆bh; ∆mt. 3.– Correspondence and Epic: adnk; a¢tk; amrk; argm; a“kn; a“tn; ikm; i∆t; b'lny; d'; d∆; hndt; ytb' mnd'; 'rym; tadm; tdbr; tmÀy; tßi; tqb; ∆nnth. 4.– Correspondence and Ritual: amn; aspt; db˙n; ≈r'; ˙wth; ¢rdh; ¢tm; ydb˙; y“al; mzn; mlt; mßqt; mr˙qm; ndr; “l. 5.– Correspondence and Law: iky, brt; mg“¢, 'mnk. 6.– Correspondence and Assorted Fragments: ¢dr; mli; tzn; ts'. 7.– Correspondence and School Exercises: ¢; †; mtr. 8.– Correspondence and Vocabularies: ikt. 9.– Correspondence and the Hippiatric Texts. C.– Vocabulary exclusive to the Correspondence, as has been seen, comprises 332 WMD. A preliminary analysis results in the following: Verb forms: √abd ‘to be eternal’, ‘to perish’: tubd. √ahb ‘to love’: ihbt. √awd ‘to weigh, pay’: udh; tud. √aw“ ‘to make a gift, give’: nu“. √azr ‘to gird’: y“izr. √a¢d ‘to grasp, seize’: i¢d; i¢dn. √a¢r ‘to delay’: y“i¢r; t“i¢rhm. √aty ‘to come’: nitk. √ar“ ‘to ask, desire’: ar“t; yir“. √bll ‘to moisten, ferment’: iblblhm. √b'l ‘to work, make’: y“b'l; ib'ltn. √b'r ‘to burn’, ‘to abandon, destroy’: ib'r; b'r; yb'rn. √bq∆ ‘to seek’: bq∆; ybq∆. √btt ‘to move away’, ” ‘leave aside’: ybt; u“bt; u“btm. √gd' ‘to cut’: agd'. √grr ‘to move’: igr.

 

370

√d˙l ‘to fear, be scared’: td˙l. √d˙ß ‘to be excited/nervous’: td˙ß. √hb† ‘to humble, demolish’: hb†; yhb†; thb†. √hdy ‘lacerate, gash oneself ’: hdy. √w˙l ‘to be discouraged’: tw˙ln. √wzn ‘to weigh’: yzn. √wp∆ ‘to spit’: p∆.32 √zwd ‘to provision, supply’, Nifal ‘to be provisioned, supplied’: nzdt. √˙dy ‘to see, look’, ‘rejoice’: ˙d. √˙wy ‘to prostrate oneself ’, ‘to live’: ˙w; ˙ytn. √¢lq ‘to perish’, ‘to be absent’: ¢lqt. √¢pn ‘to cover, protect, wrap’: y¢pn. √¢ta ‘to snatch, conquer, defeat’: ¢ti; n¢tu; ¢†at. √yd' ‘to know’: yd'm; ld'.33 √y'b ‘to be spacious’: y'b. √yßa ‘to go out’: a“ßu; y“ßa; “ßu. √yra ‘to fear, be frightened’: yritn. √yrd ‘to descend’: yrdnn. √ytn ‘to give, sell’: atnnk; ytnk; ytnnn; “tnt; “tnth; “tntn. √y∆b ‘to sit, dwell in’: y∆bt; y∆btn. √kwn ‘to be establish’, ” ‘to create, make preparations’: t“knn; t“knnnn;

y“kn.

√k˙d ‘to erase’, ‘to hide’: k˙dnn. √l˙m ‘to eat’, ‘to fight’, ‘to be suitable’: il˙mn. √lik ‘to entrust with, commission, send’: ilakk; lakm; likt; luk; tlik; tlikn. √lwy ‘to follow, enclose, go round’: a“lu (?). √lw∆ ‘to mould (clay)’: lt∆ (Gt). √mkr ‘to trade’: amkrn. √mla ‘to fill’: mlit (part. act. G. fem.pl.). √m©y ‘to arrive, come, reach’: ym©yk; m©yy; m©yk; tm©yy. √nad ‘to raise’: nitk. √nhr ‘to cause to flow’: “hr.34 √nw' ‘to move’, ‘ask, request’: n'kn. √ns' ‘to uproot’: “s'n. √n©r ‘to protect’: t©rkm; t©rn. √n∆b ‘to pull up’: n∆b. √syr ‘to travel’: syr. √spr ‘to write, tell, relate’: ysprn. √'wr ‘to be naked’, ‘to go blind’, ‘to worry’: t'wr. √'zz ‘to be strong, prevail’, D ‘to preserve strength’: t'zzk. √'mt ‘to hit, tie, wrap’: 'mt. √'ry ‘to empty, unload’, ‘to turn’: 'ryt. 32 33 34

Hapax. It comes from a pupil’s exercise. Hapax. Text in bad condition, but it is a preposition + inf. const. of yd'. Hapax. Possible but not certain.

  

371

√'“r ‘to invite’: t'“r. √'tq ‘to pass, move forward’, ‘to become old’: t'tq; “'tq. √©zr ‘to fortify’: a©zr. √phy ‘to discern, see, perceive, experience’: iphn; phn?; phnn?. √pl† ‘to set free, save’: npl. √ßba ‘to grow, to rise (of the sun)’, ‘to decrease, to set (of the sun)’: ßb". √ßwq ‘to squeeze’: “ßq ‘to press’. √ß˙q ‘to laugh’: t“ß˙q. √ßpy ‘to cover, put on’, ‘observe, keep guard’: aßpy; tßpy. √qwr ‘to flow’, ‘be curved’: “qr. √qyl ‘to fall’: qlny. √q“r ‘to knot, join’: q“r; tq“r. √qty ‘to end’: tqt. √r˙l ‘to worry, travel’: tr˙ln. √ri“ ‘to swell up, have a headache’: ru“. √rw“ ‘to be poor’: yr“. √r““ ‘to destroy’: yr“. √“ay ‘to wait, lie in wait’: a“i. √“al ‘to deal with, watch over/supervise’: y“ul. √“il ‘to question, ask, request’: “il; “ilt; i“al; i“alhm; t“al; y“tal; y““il. √“wr ‘to besiege, enclose’: y“rn. √“yt ‘to place, set’: i“tn. √“k˙ ‘to meet/find’: t“k˙; n“k˙. √“l˙ ‘to send’, ‘to found, build’: n“l˙. √“lm ‘to be well, be in peace’: “lmt; “lmtn; t“lmk; t“lmkm. √“m¢ ‘to rejoice’: ““m¢t. √“m' ‘to hear’: “m'h; t“m'm; m“m't. √“qp ‘to strike, break’: y“qp. √“ty ‘to drink, taste’: i“tn. √∆br ‘to break, smash’: t∆brn. √∆kp ‘to be demolished, resist, repel’: n∆kp. √∆'y ‘to correct, inspect’, ‘to offer’: t∆'y.

Nouns: adn ‘Lord, father, master, foreman’: adny; adnty. idn ‘permission, consent’: idn. adt ‘Lady’: adtny. az ‘fringed carpet’: azt. amt ‘maid, maidservant, slave; forearm, elbow’: amtk. any ‘fleet’: anyk; anykn. argmn: ‘tribute’ argmny. in“ ‘people’: in“k. udr ‘nobility, the most noble’; ‘camels’; ‘slope, skirt (of a mountain)’: udrh; udrk. u≈r ‘courier, messenger’; ‘salvation’: u≈rh. u¢ ‘brother’: u¢y. un ‘sorcery, magic’: unk.

372

  urk ‘length’: urk. bnny: bnny (or preposition bn ‘between’ + suff. -ny ‘us’). bß ‘linen’: bß. g ‘voice’: gy. g“m ‘rain’: g“m. dbr ‘plague, pestilence; thing, word’; ‘pastureland, pastures, hut’: dbrm. dn ‘receptacle, amphora’: dnh; dntm. ≈r' ‘arm’; ‘wheat seed’: ≈r'hm. ˙wt ‘life’; ‘house, dynasty, country, territory, district, region’; ‘animal, serpent’: ˙wtk; ˙wtm. ˙my ‘wall’; ˙my. ¢b∆ ‘freeman, fugitive’; ‘soldier, proletarian’: ¢b∆m. ¢rd ‘guard, sentinel’; ‘part of the conscript army’: ¢rdk. kw ‘liquid measure’: kw. ksu ‘throne’: ksiy. ksp ‘silver’: kspym ‘silversmiths’. lb ‘heart’: lbk. lb“ ‘garment’: lb“k. lg ‘gallon’: lgk.35 ldt ‘receptacle, cellar’: ldtk. l˙ ‘cheek, jaw, snout, fauces’; ‘tablet, writing, dictation, message’: l˙y. mid ‘abundance’: midy. md ‘surveyor’: mdym. m¢r ‘surveyor’; ‘dung’; ‘courtier’; ‘coat, cloak’: m¢rk. mkr ‘trader’: mkrn. mlakt ‘mission, assignment, embassy’: mlakt; mlakth; mlakty; mlaktk. mli ‘full, complete’ (qatil √ mla ‘to fill’): mlit. ml© ‘a type of sacrifice’: ml©t. msgr ‘castle, fortress’: msgr. m'n ‘reply’: m'nk. mrdt ‘carpet’: mrdtt. mrkbt ‘chariot’: mrkbtk. m∆n ‘repetition, reply’: m∆nn. n'r ‘boy, lad, soldier, knight/horseman, cadet’; ‘a type of roasted or dry flour’; ‘mix, mixture’: n'ry. np“ ‘throat, cheeks, desire, person, animal, living being’: np“y. np“n ‘abundance’; interjection: ‘by (my) life!’. npt ‘type of offering’: nptn. nr ‘yoke’: nrm. nt ‘inner part’: nt; nty. sglt ‘property’: sglth. s¢l ‘driller (of precious of semi-precious stones)’: s¢lk; s¢lm. 'ps ‘frontier’: 'ps. '∆ ‘moth, louse’: '∆ty.

35

Hapax. The text is very corrupt.

  

373

©b ‘sacrificial pit’: ©bny. ©l ‘depression, hollow’, ‘reedbed’: ©lhm. qnu ‘lapis lazuli’: qnim; qnuym. qrt ‘city’: qrtn. rgm ‘word, speech, matter, claim, complaint’: rgmh; rgmy. r' ‘shepherd’, ‘friend, companion’: r'. “d ‘field’: “dk. “in ‘gift, peace offering’: “ink. “lm ‘peace, appeasement, peace offering’; ‘satisfied’; ‘victim of communion sacrifice’: “lmk. “m ‘name’: “my. ∆y ‘water, river’: ∆y; ∆h; ∆yny.36 t˙m ‘errand, resolution, decree, message’: t˙mhy. Personal names: a©zr; a¢tmlk; ibrk≈; iwrp¢n; i¢qm; ill≈r; irr∆rm; gnryn; ≈≈yn; yrmhd; ytrhd; nmy; nmry; 'bdmlk; pgn; pd©b; pzy; pzry; plz; pn˙∆; p©sdb; ptmy; ∆tyy. Divine names: a∆rty, ‘Athirat’. Toponyms: grgm“ ‘Carchemish’; lwsnd ‘Lawasantiya’; mg“¢ ‘Muki“’; n©∆ ‘Nu¢a““e’; gblm ‘Byblos’ (unless it is a gentilic: ‘Byblians’); ns. Gentilics: ugrtym ‘Ugaritians’; “mny: “mnyk. Names of professions: kspym ‘silversmiths’; mdym ‘surveyors’. Numbers: snp ‘two-thirds’. Personal pronouns: ankn ‘I’. Demonstrative pronouns: hndn; hnk; hnkt. Indefinite pronouns: mhy; mhk; mhkm; klklhm; kllh. Adverbs: ikmy; inm; innm; hnny; midm; mr˙qt; mr˙qtm; “b'id ‘seven times’; ∆mny; ∆nid ‘twice’; '“rid ‘ten times’. Prepositions: 'mn: 'mny; 'mnkm; 'ltn ‘against’; ©mt ‘according to, in accordance with’; bn ‘between’: bnny (with suff. -ny ‘us’). Conjunctions: uy; uk; uky.

Excluded from the above classification are: 1. The WMD which are susceptible to different analyses. The list is as follows: akln, ally, ankm, ptn, tit∆m, tbt, tnlh, ttk. 2. Also excluded from the previous grammatical classification are the WMD for words which as yet remain unexplained. The list is as follows: a¢nnr; i∆rhw; ul'nk; uß'nk; ba“; bby; bnptn; hzb; h¢b; hkm; htm; yßin; yßunn; stn; t'pr; pkdy; pr¢n; ∆l˙my.

36

Hapax. It occurs in KTU 5.11 = RS 17.117.

374

 

The next step is to determine whether other noun or verb forms, i.e. the same noun with different suffixes or other forms from the same root are attested in other literary genres besides Correspondence. This and other supplementary information can be found in the Concordance of Ugaritic Roots, in preparation (see § 16.2). (Translation: W.G.E. W)

2

T A L J H

2.1 Introduction Some 354 letters or fragments of letters have been found at Ras Shamra. Of these, 134, or just over one-third of the total, were discovered during the 1994 season of excavations in the ‘House of Urtenu’, and have not been published as of this writing.1 Of the 220 letters or letter fragments found before 1994, 24 remain unpublished; thus, the total number of letters available for study is 196. While many of the published Akkadian letters were written within the kingdom of Ugarit, many others were sent to Ugarit from cities and states across the Near East. Perhaps as many as 43 of the letters may be said with some degree of confidence to have originated within Ugarit itself, or to be copies of letters sent from the Ugaritian court. But about twice that number, roughly 85 of the letters, give some indication of their point of origin outside Ugarit, and among these at least 17 places of origin are attested: Ala“iya, Amqu, Amurru, Assyria, A“tate, Beirut, Carchemish, Egypt, ›atti, Mari, Muki“, Parga, Qadesh, Sidon, Siyannu (and U“natu), Tar¢uda““e, and Tyre (perhaps also Alala¢, Emar and Ma"¢az, as well as a second town named Beirut/Bi"rut; see the listing at the end of this chapter). It is not surprising, perhaps, that the largest numbers of letters come from Ugarit’s overlord, ›atti, and ›atti’s provincial capital, Carchemish. Of course, there are a great many letters between individuals, in which the sender did not specify his or her location at the time of writing, or in which in any case such information can not be recovered. 2.2

Format and Formulae

Most of the Akkadian letters exhibit a common format (see A 1973; Y 1992). They begin with an address, which gives the identities of the sender and the addressee, in the form of a command to the scribe/messenger: in its simplest form, ‘Say to [the addressee]; 1 See B – M-L 1995; L 1995a; and especially M-L 1995b for overviews of the 1994 Akkadian tablets.

376

 

thus/word-of [the sender]’ or the inverse, ‘Thus/word-of [the sender]; say to [the addressee]’. Normally the party that appears first in the address is the one with a higher social rank (N 1955, 2–3). There usually follows a salutation, which may contain any or all of the following elements: a statement of obedience if the sender is of lower social rank than the addressee; a wish for the well-being of the addressee; an invocation of divine blessing. A salutation is omitted in letters from the Hittite overlord. Following the salutation there may be a stereotyped statement of the sender’s well-being and a polite request for news of the well-being of the addressee. Then comes the body of the letter. These various elements—address, salutation, statement/inquiry of well-being, body—are often separated from one another on the tablet by a ruled horizontal line. The scribe may also use such a line to mark off separate topics in the body of the letter. To illustrate the introductory formulae, the following letters may be presented. In the first, RS 20.238 = Ug 5 no. 24, the king of Ugarit writes to a king of superior rank; after the address, there is a statement of obedience (prostration) and a lengthy wish for the well-being of the addressee and his household; then follows the body of the letter. Ana “ar màt Ala“iya abì-ya qibì-ma; umma “ar màt Ugarit màrì-kà-ma:

Say to the king of the land of Ala“iya, my father; message of the king of the land of Ugarit, your son:

Ana “èpì abì-ya a[mq]ut. Ana mu¢¢i abì-ya lù “ulmu. Ana bìtàtìka ¢ìràtì-ka ßàbì-ka, ana gabbi mimmû “a “ar màt Ala“iy[a] abì-ya d[a]nni“ danni“ lù “ulm[u].

I f[al]l at my father’s feet. May my father be well. May your houses, your wives, your army, everything of the king of the land of Ala“iy[a], my father, be v[e]ry, very wel[l].

Abì, anumma eleppètu “a nakrì illaka; àlànì-ya ina i“àti i“arrip, u amàt [l ]à banìta [in]a libbi màti ìte[p]“ù. Abùya ul ì[d ]e kì gabbu ßàbì . . . -ya ina màt ›atti a“bù u gabbu e[lepp]ètù-[ y]a ina màt Lukkâ a“bu? [Ad ]ìni ul ik“udan-ni. U màtu kâm-ma nadât. Abù-ya amàt annìta lù ìde. Inanna 7 eleppètu “a nakrì “a illakan-ni, u amàt ma“ikta ìtep“ù-nâ“i. Inanna “umma elepp[ètu] “a nakrì “anâtu

My father, now then, the enemies’ ships have been coming; they have been setting fire to my towns, and so they (the enemies) have do[n]e something [u]npleasant [i]n the land. Does my father not know that all my . . .—troops are situated in ›atti and all [m]y s[hip]s are situated in Lycia? They have not [ye]t reached me. The land could be overthrown

   iba““i-mi, †è[m]a [ayy]akâmma “upr[a]nni, u lù ìde.

377

this way. My father should be aware of this. Now the enemies’ ships that have been coming against me are seven, and they (the enemies) have done something heinous against us. Now, if there are more of the enemies’ ships, send [m]e ne[w]s [so]mehow, that I may know.

In the next letter, RS 19.070 = PRU 4, 294, the king and queen of Ugarit write to a man of lesser rank; after the address there follow a brief expression of well-wishes and an invocation of divine blessing. Umma “ar màt Ugarit u “arrat màt Ugarit; ana Kila’e abì-ni qibì-ma: Lù “ulmu ana mu¢¢ì-ka. Ilànù ana “ulmàni lißßurù-ka. Anumma Ilì-milku màr-“iprì-ni ana “a"àli “ulmi “a “arri bèlì-ni naltapar-“u. [ . . .

Message of the king of the land of Ugarit and the queen of the land of Ugarit; say to our father Kila’e: May you be well. May the gods keep you in good health. We have sent herewith our messenger Ilì-milku to inquire after the welfare of our lord the king. [ . . .

Finally, a letter to the king of Ugarit from one of his agents, RS 17.383 = PRU 4, 221ff., illustrates the stereotyped statement of the sender’s well-being and inquiry concerning that of the addressee; we quote here only the introductory part of the letter: Ana “ar màt Ugarit bèlì-ya qibì-ma; umma Tagu¢li ardì-kà-ma:

Say to my lord the king of Ugarit; message of your servant Tagu¢lu:

Ana “èpì bèlì-ya i“tu rùqi“ “inî“u sebî“u amqut.

I fall at my lord’s feet from afar twice seven times.

Enùma itti “arri u ittì-ya gabba “ulmu. A“rànu itti “arri bèlì-ya mìnummê “ulmànu? ˇèma literrùni.

Now then all is well with the king and with me. Is everything well there with my lord the king? May news be sent back to me.

 

378 2.3

Topics of the Letters

A wide range of topics is addressed in the Akkadian letters. Most of the letters from Ugarit’s overlords, ›atti and Carchemish, concern military and political matters, such as movements of enemy troops; requests for troops, arms, or information; border disputes; the activities of merchants; and other legal matters. Others, however, have to do with the sending of gifts and tribute, or accompany the sending of a high official. Letters from other courts often discuss gift exchange, alliances, and good relations, or present requests for commodities. Letters between individuals concern economic matters, offer or request news, or simply bear a greeting from sender to addressee, with a request for a return letter. 2.4 Grammar The letters found at Ras Shamra, like the other Akkadian texts, are for the most part written in the western peripheral type of Middle Babylonian that is termed Hurro-Akkadian or Syro-Anatolian. This type of Akkadian usually exhibits a certain amount of confusion in the writing of stops and sibilants; an enclitic particle, -mê, which tends to replace normative Akkadian -ma on prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, and pronouns (e.g., in the conjunction kìmê instead of kìma; the adverb anummê instead of anumma; and the indefinite pronoun mannummê instead of mannumma); the frequent appearance of the conjunction u to introduce main clauses after protases of conditional sentences, after relative clauses and other subordinate clauses, and after instances of casus pendens. Peripheral Akkadian texts also tend to exhibit an admixture of several core Mesopotamian dialects into the Middle Babylonian matrix, such as Old Babylonian and Old and Middle Assyrian forms. They also betray substrate influence, i.e. features of the scribes’ native languages, including lexical items, phonological and morphological patterns, and syntactic structures. Finally, the peripheral texts also show a certain amount of grammatical simplification and reduction, the result of creolizing tendencies as the scribes attempted to write their imperfectly-learned Akkadian. The features just listed are common to all Syro-Anatolian Akkadian texts, including the Ras Shamra Akkadian letters. Texts written in a particular locale, however, will exhibit each of the various features to a greater or lesser extent than texts written elsewhere. In

  

379

other words, the grammar and orthography of peripheral texts vary according to their provenance. For example, letters from Sidon tend to have a large number of Assyrian forms (A 1992), as in the following: RS 34.149 = RSO 7, no. 38. Umma Adad-i“me “ar màt Íidùni;

Message of Adad-i“me king of the land of Sidon;

ana “ar màt Ugarit a¢ì-ya qibì-ma:

say to the king of the land of Ugarit, my brother:

Alteme kì [i“p]ura a¢ù-ya an[a mu¢¢ì]ya: ‘. . .’

I have heard that my brother [wro]te t[o m]e: ‘. . .’

Ittalak ana àl Íid[ùn]a ilì-ya ana? epà“ ? “iprì-“u. Aptiqis-su ina aklè ina bèt[è -“ ]u ina ùmè “a [u“i ]b annaka. A[numm]a ana mu¢¢ì-[ka utta’’]er-“u.

He arrived at Sid[on], to me, to produce his message. I provided him with bread in [h]is hous[e] for the days that he [stay]ed here. [I have now retur]ned him to [you].

The following distinctions between texts written at Ugarit proper and texts written at Carchemish have been noted, inter alia (H 1979): U

C

sporadic instances of incorrect broken writings intervocalic /w/ written either or “ does not always > l before dental; i“tu and ultu inandin, less often inaddin attu- does not occur 3fs prefix normally t-, rarely isubordination marker -u virtually absent mixing of III-weak forms: ileqqe/ ilaqqe, iqtabi/iqtebi many clauses not verb-final yànu is common lù is rare preterite and perfect interchangeable for past tense

unexpected broken writings virtually absent intervocalic /w/ written only “ > l before dental always, except for i“tu (never ultu) inaddin, never inandin attu- does occur 3fs prefix i- (t- in one text only) subordination marker appears about half the time III-weak forms all normative Babylonian nearly all clauses verb-final yànu unattested lù is common perfect in main clauses, preterite in subordinate

380

 

The following two letters, the first from the king of Carchemish and the second from the king of Ugarit, illustrate several of these distinctions: RS 17.423 = PRU 4, 193. Umma “arrim-ma; ana Ibìràni “ar Ugarit qibì-ma:

Message of the king; say to Ibìrànu king of Ugarit:

Lù “ulmu ana mu¢¢ì-ka.

May it be well with you.

Enùma Mißra-muwa a“rànu itti Kuzi ?“arru-ma a“àbi illaka. U atta i“tu zìttì“u kì †àbi“ lù tèteneppu“-“u. Appùnama ana sisî-“u â tibna lù tattanaddin-ma. ”umma atta ul tìdè-“u, a¢ù-“u “a Upparmuwa “ùt; màr “arrim-ma “ùt. U i“tu zìttì-“u kì †àbi“ lù tèteneppu“-“u.

Now then, Mißra-muwa is coming there to stay with Kuzi?-”arruma. You must treat him consistently well, according to his due. In addition, you must keep his horses supplied with grain (and) straw. In case you do not know him, he is the brother of Uppar-muwa; he is the king’s own son. So you must always treat him consistently well, according to his due.

RS 20.184 = Ug 5 no. 28. Ana ›e“mi-Te““up bèlì-ya qibì-ma; umma Ammi“tamri ardì-kà-ma: Ana “èpì bèlì-ya amqut. Ana mu¢¢i bèlì-ya lù “ulmu. Ana bìtìka ¢ìràtì-ka, ana gabbi mimmu “a bèlìya danni“ danni“ lù [“ulmu]. Bèl-ì, enùma kì u“ebbal “arru bèlì-ya sisî ana ardì-“u ina qàti “a Tagu¢li [. . .], u ¢ataddi arad-“[u . . .]. Kì “aknakk[u. . .?]. Inanna sis[û. . .] . . . several lines missing . . . [Anumma ?] Amu[tara ? ana mu]¢¢i “arri bèlì-ya altap[ar]. Bèlì-ya Amutara [ana] pànì “arri bèlì-ya lu“èrib“u. Amàtè-“u kì “a †àbi“ bèlì-ya ana pànì “arri bèlì-ya lidbub u kì damqi“ li“èr[ib“u].

Say to my lord ›e“mi-Te““up; message of your servant Ammi“tamru: I fall at my lord’s feet. May my lord be well. May your house, your wives, everything of my lord’s, be very, very [well]. My lord, now then, whenever my lord the king would send horses to his servant in the charge of Tagu¢lu [. . .], h[is] servant would always be glad [. . .]. How does it seem to yo[u? . . .] Now, horse[s . . .] . . . several lines missing . . . [Herewith] I have sen[t] Amu[taru t]o my lord the king. May my lord present Amutaru [t]o my lord the king. May my lord discuss his concerns before my lord the king as well as possible, and prese[nt him] as properly as possible.

  

381

U bèlì-ya ana pànì “arri bèlì-ya liqbi u 2 sisî damqùti u 1 qa“ta damiqta “a màt ›anigalbat lu“èbila ana ardì-“u ina qàti Amutari ZarKu pànì-ya.

Also, may my lord speak before my lord the king, that he may send two good horses and a good bow from ›anigalbat to his servant in the charge of my . . . Amutaru.

U atta bèl-ì 1 qa“ta damiqta “a màt ›anigalbat “ùbila ana ardì-ka ina qàti Amutari ZarKu pànì-ya. Anumma ana “ulmàni bèlì-y[a] i“tèn kitâ rabìtu damiq[tu] u i“tèn kitâ “anû damqu ultèbilakku.

Also you, my lord, send one good bow from ›anigalbat to your servant in the charge of my . . . Amutaru. Herewith, as a greeting gift for m[y] lord, I have sent you one goo[d] large linen garment and one other good garment.

Such grammatical peculiarities exhibited by individual dialects may be used as evidence for the provenance of a letter whose point of origin is otherwise uncertain, or at least, in some instances, to suggest that a given letter is probably not from a given place. 2.5 Akkadian Letters according to Place of Origin Letters discovered at Ras Shamra before the 1994 season are listed below according to where they were written. The assignment of provenance is frequently uncertain; this is reflected in the list by ? or ?? before a RS number. Letters for which the place of origin is unknown appear at the end of the list. 2.5.1

Alala¢

Perhaps RS 4.449 (V 1936a, 23ff.): Muki“ or Alala¢?; see also B 1987. 2.5.2

Ala“iya

RS 20.018 = Ug 5, no. 22; perhaps also RS [Varia 16] (RSL 1) = Ug 5, no. 23: Ala“iya or Carchemish; see B 1969, 219; Y 1992. 2.5.3

Amqu

?RS 17.424 + 397 = PRU 4, 219–20.

 

382 2.5.4

Amurru (see I’ 1991)

?RS 15.024 + 050 = PRU 3, 18b; ?RS 16.111 = PRU 3, 13–4; ??RS 16.116 = PRU 3, 10b; RS 17.116 = PRU 4, 132ff.; RS 17.152 = PRU 4, 214; RS 17.286 = PRU 4, 180; ??RS 19.006 = PRU 6, no. 1; ?RS 20.033 = Ug 5, no. 20; see I’  ‒ S 1990; RS 20.162 = Ug 5, no. 37; RS 23.023 (unpublished; see M-L 1995b, 35–6); RS [Varia 27] (F 1984). 2.5.5

Assyria

??RS 6.198 (T-D 1935); ??RS 34.165(+) = RSO 7, no. 46; perhaps also RS 18.054 = PRU 4, 228–9: Assyria or Sidon; see M 1971, 2; A 1992, 193 (5.4). 2.5.6

A“tate

?RS 34.134 = RSO 7, no. 31; ??RS 34.141 = RSO 7, no. 32; ??RS 34.173 = RSO 7, no. 33. 2.5.7 RS RS RS see

Beirut

11.730 = PRU 3, 12–3; 34.137 = RSO 7, no. 37; 86.2212 (unpublished; see A 1992, 192 (3.5)); also the next entry.

2.5.8

Bi’rut

RIH 81/4 (A 1984, who suggests that this Bi’rut is the Ugaritian port rather than the Phoenician city). 2.5.9

Carchemish (see H 1979)

RS 8.333 = PRU 3, 7–8; RS 15.077 = PRU 3, 6–7;

  

383

RS 16.003 = PRU 3, 3–4; ?RS 17.078 = PRU 4, 196–7; RS 17.289 = PRU 4, 192; RS 17.292 = PRU 4, 188; RS 17.385 = PRU 4, 194; RS 17.423 = PRU 4, 193; RS 20.022 = Ug 5, no. 2; ?RS 20.174 = Ug 5, no. 25; ??RS 20.182 = Ug 5, no. 63; ?RS 20.216 = Ug 5, no. 35; RS 20.237 = Ug 5, no. 31; ?RS 25.461 (L 1989, 317–9); RS 34.136 = RSO 7, no. 7; RS 34.138 = RSO 7, no. 8; ?RS 34.143 = RSO 7, no. 6; RS 34.145 = RSO 7, no. 9; RS 88.2013 (unpublished; see M-L in 1995b, 39); perhaps also RS 13.007 = PRU 3, 6a: Carchemish or ›atti; perhaps also RS [Varia 16] (RSL 1) = Ug 5, no. 23: Ala“iya or Carchemish; see B 1969, 219; Y 1992. 2.5.10

Egypt

RS 86.2230 (unpublished; see A 1992, 181 n. 6); RS 88.2158 (unpublished; see L 1995b); perhaps also RS 26.158 = Ug 5, no. 171: ›atti or Egypt. 2.5.11

Emar

?RS [Varia 26?] (Latakia 88) = RSO 7, no. 30; see A 1982a, 105 with n. 33. 2.5.12

›atti (see H 1989)

?RS 15.033 = PRU 3, 15–16; RS 17.130 = PRU 4, 103ff. (letter/treaty); RS 17.132 = PRU 4, 35ff.); RS 17.133 = PRU 4, 118–9 (letter/legal); ??RS 17.144 = PRU 6, no. 6; RS 17.247 = PRU 4, 191; ?RS 17.429 = PRU 4, 227–8 (letter?);

 

384

RS 18.003 = PRU 4, 103ff. (letter/treaty); RS 20.212 = Ug 5, no. 33; RS 20.255 = Ug 5, no. 30; RS 34.129 = RSO 7, no. 12; ?RS 34.133 = RSO 7, no. 36; ??RS 22.216 (unpublished; see M-L in 1995b, 36); ?RS 88.2009 (unpublished; see M-L in 1995b, 39); perhaps also RS 13.007 = PRU 3, 6a: Carchemish or ›atti; perhaps also RS 17.383 = PRU 4, 221ff.: ›atti or Ugarit; perhaps also RS 17.422 = PRU 4, 223ff.: ›atti or Ugarit; perhaps also RS 26.158 = Ug 5, no. 171: ›atti or Egypt. 2.5.13

Ma’¢az

?RS 10.046 (V 1941, 1–2; see also PRU 3, 9–10). 2.5.14

Mari

?RS 34.142 = RSO 7, no. 47. 2.5.15

Muki“

RS 20.003 = Ug 5, no. 26; perhaps also RS 4.449 (V 1936a, 23ff.): Muki“ or Alala¢?; see also B 1987. 2.5.16

Parga

RS 15.019 = PRU 3, 13b. 2.5.17

Qadesh

RS 20.016 = Ug 5, no. 38; RS 20.172 = Ug 5, no. 39; ?RS 20.200 = Ug 5, no. 40; RS 34.146 = RSO 7, no. 15; RS 80.387 (A 1982a, 221–2). 2.5.18 RS RS RS RS

Sidon (see A 1992)

11.723 = PRU 3, 9b; 25.430 (unpublished; see A 1992, 193 (5.7)); 34.149 = RSO 7, no. 38; 86.2208 (unpublished; see A 1992, 193 (5.11));

  

385

RS 86.2221 + 86.2225 + 86.2226 + 86.2240 (unpublished; see A 1992, 179–94 (5.12); much of text transliterated and translated in footnotes); ?RS 86.2234 (unpublished; see A 1992, 193 (5.13)); perhaps also RS 18.054 = PRU 4, 228–9: Assyria or Sidon; see M 1971, 2; A 1992, 193 (5.4). 2.5.19.1

Siyannu

RS 17.083 = PRU 4, 216; RS 17.143 = PRU 4, 217–8; ?RS 17.288 = PRU 4, 215; RS 17.425 = PRU 4, 218b; ?RS 20.017 = Ug 5, no. 43; RS 20.021 = Ug 5, no. 42; ??RS 21.183 = Ug 5, no. 41. 2.5.19.2 Siyannu/U“natu RS 34.158 = RSO 7, no. 16; perhaps also RS 20.219 = Ug 5, no. 44: Ugarit or Siyannu. 2.5.20

Tar¢uda““i

RS 34.139 = RSO 7, no. 14. 2.5.21

Tyre

RS [Varia 25] = Latakia 7 (A 1982b). 2.5.22

Ugarit (see H 1989)

Aphek 52055 (TA 8, 7–8 [O]; see also S 1983); ?Berlin 1690 (EA 48); Berlin 1692 (EA 45); ?Berlin 1693 (EA 47); ?Berlin 1694 (EA 46); Cairo 4783 (EA 49); ?CK 7 (private collection; unpublished; see A 1992, 192 (3.6)); ?RS 15.011 = PRU 3, 19; ?RS 15.014 = PRU 3, 5; ??RS 15.063 = PRU 3, 20a; RS 16.112 = PRU 3, 4b;

 

386

?RS 17.239 = PRU 6, no. 8; RS 17.455 = PRU 6, no. 3; RS 19.070 = PRU 4, 294; ?RS 19.080 = PRU 6, no. 2; ?RS 20.013 = Ug 5, no. 49; ??RS 20.015 = Ug 5, no. 53; ??RS 20.019 = Ug 5, no. 48; ?RS 20.023 = Ug 5, no. 54; ??RS 20.141 = Ug 5, no. 34; ?RS 20.158 = Ug 5, no. 51; RS 20.168 + 195 = Ug 5, no. 21; RS 20.178 = Ug 5, no. 55; ?RS 20.182(+) = Ug 5, no. 36; RS 20.184 = Ug 5, no. 28; RS 20.200 = Ug 5, no. 29; ??RS 20.232 = Ug 5, no. 58; RS 20.238 = Ug 5, no. 24; ?RS 20.239 = Ug 5, no. 52; ?RS 20.243 = Ug 5, no. 32; ??RS 22.347 (unpublished; see M-L in 1995b, 35); ?RS 25.131 (L 1989, 318, 320); ?RS 25.138 (L 1989, 318–20); ?RS 32.204 = RSO 7, no. 19; ?RS 34.135 = RSO 7, no. 17; ?RS 34.140 = RSO 7, no. 11; ?RS 34.150 = RSO 7, no. 10; ?RS 34.151 = RSO 7, no. 13; ??RS 34.153 = RSO 7, no. 35; ?RS 34.154 = RSO 7, no. 18; ?RS 34.180,17 (34.180) = RSO 7, no. 26; ?RS [Varia 10] (1957.2) = AnOr 48,23–4; perhaps also RS 17.383 = PRU 4, 221ff.: ›atti or Ugarit; perhaps also RS 17.422 = PRU 4, 223ff.: ›atti or Ugarit; perhaps also RS 20.219 = Ug 5, no. 44: Ugarit or Siyannu. (U“natu: see Siyannu § 8.2.5.19 ) 2.5.23

Provenance unknown

RIH 77/17 (A-K 1979, 318); RS 1.056 (V 1929, pl. 76/1);

  

387

RS 1.[057] (V 1929, pl. 76/2); RS 1–11.[028] = AO 19.952 (unpublished; partial transliteration in PRU 3, 1 n. 1); RS 11.794 = PRU 3, 17–8; (letter?); RS 11.834 = PRU 3, 17b; RS 12.005 = PRU 3, 16–7; RS 12.033 = PRU 3, 14–5; RS 15.018 = PRU 3, 11–2; RS 15.108 = PRU 3, 20–1 (letter?); RS 15.124 = PRU 3, 21b (letter?); RS 15.178 = PRU 3, 8–9; RS 17.142 = PRU 6, no. 4; RS 17.148 = PRU 6, no. 7; RS 17.315 = PRU 4, 111; RS 17.390 = PRU 6, no. 10; RS 17.391 = PRU 4, 226a; RS 17.393 = PRU 4, 226–7; RS 17.394 + 427 = PRU 4, 220b; RS 17.398 = PRU 6, no. 11; RS 17.428 = PRU 6, no. 9; RS 17.451 = PRU 6, no. 12; RS 17.452 = PRU 6, no. 5; RS 17.456 = PRU 4, 228b (letter?); RS 18.057 = PRU 6, no. 13; RS 18.089 = PRU 6, no. 15; RS 18.268 = PRU 4, 229b; RS 18.281 = PRU 6, no. 17 (letter?); RS 19.050 = PRU 6, no. 14; RS 19.053 = PRU 6, no. 18; RS 19.115 = PRU 6, no. 19; RS 20.095 = Ug 5, no. 65; RS 20.130 = Ug 5, no. 46; RS 20.141 = Ug 5, no. 76; RS 20.150 = Ug 5, no. 56; RS 20.151 = Ug 5, no. 50; RS 20.159 = Ug 5, no. 74; RS 20.182 = Ug 5, no. 67; RS 20.189 = Ug 5, no. 73; RS 20.191 = Ug 5, no. 75; RS 20.194 = Ug 5, no. 62;

388

 

RS 20.196 = Ug 5, no. 77 (letter?); RS 20.200 = Ug 5, no. 78; RS 20.214 = Ug 5, no. 79; RS 20.225 = Ug 5, no. 45; RS 20.227 = Ug 5, no. 57; RS 20.242 = Ug 5, no. 72; RS 20.244 = Ug 5, no. 61 (same tablet as RS 21.063? [K 1974]); RS 20.246 = Ug 5, no. 68; RS 20.248 = Ug 5, no. 59; RS 20.426,14+ = Ug 5, no. 70; RS 20.[438] = Ug 5, no. 47; RS 21.006? = Ug 5, no. 80 (letter?); RS 21.007 = Ug 5, no. 71; RS 21.054 = Ug 5, no. 66; RS 21.063 = Ug 5, no. 60 (same tablet as RS 20.244? [K 1974]); RS 21.064 = Ug 5, no. 64; RS 21.072 = Ug 5, no. 69; RS 21.201 = PRU 6, no. 20; RS 22.006 = PRU 6, no. 16; RS 23.031 (unpublished; see M-L in 1995b, 37); RS 23.365 (unpublished; see M-L in 1995b, 35); RS 23.368 (unpublished; see M-L in 1995b, 37); RS 28.017 (unpublished; see M-L in 1995b, 35); RS 34.070 = RSO 7, no. 29; RS 34.152 = RSO 7, no. 40; RS 34.155 = RSO 7, no. 21; RS 34.160 = RSO 7, no. 24; RS 34.161 = RSO 7, no. 22; RS 34.163 = RSO 7, no. 39; RS 34.164 = RSO 7, no. 34; RS 34.167 + 175 = RSO 7, no. 25; RS 34.170 = RSO 7, no. 23; RS 34.171 = RSO 7, no. 20; RS 34.174 = RSO 7, no. 41; RS 34.180,12 (34.180) = RSO 7, no. 28; RS 34.180,5 (34.180) = RSO 7, no. 42; RS 34.180,60 = RSO 7, no. 27; RS 88.2011 (unpublished; see M-L in 1995b, 39);

   RS RS RS RS RS RS

389

86.2216 (unpublished; see RSO 5/1, 357); 86.2232 (unpublished; see RSO 5/1, 359); 86.2236 (unpublished; see RSO 5/1, 359); 86.2241 (unpublished; see RSO 5/1, 360); 86.2249 (unpublished; see RSO 5/1, 360: letter?); [Varia 34] = AO 29.507 (unpublished; see RSO 5/1, 381).

CHAPTER NINE

THE LEGAL TEXTS FROM UGARIT I M R*

1 1.1

I Definition and scope

What constitutes a legal document? And what is the difference between a legal and an administrative text, both often associated and sometimes even confused? These are two basic questions we should attempt to answer before we begin to discuss the evidence. Strictly speaking, a legal document serves mainly as written proof that a transaction has taken place. Since the transaction itself can be validated if, and only if, it is performed before a body of witnesses, the legal document, as opposed to administrative records, must mention the name or names of the witnessing party. It should also be noted in passing that although the practice of signing or sealing, i.e. affixing a personal mark, is almost a prerequisite in the composition of a legal document (for it provides the proof that the person who signs is present or has assumed the obligation undertaken in the transaction) it is by no means confined to this genre (administrative texts or letters may also bear such marks). However satisfactorily these definitions may have answered the opening questions, anyone who has dealt with this kind of source knows well that the problem is not so simple. Indeed, the dividing

* I wish to express my most sincere thanks to Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, epigraphists of the Mission de Ras Shamra, who kindly made available to me their transliterations and copies of the unpublished Ugaritic texts discussed in this paper. I am also grateful to Mme Florence Malbran-Labat, also epigraphist of the Mission de Ras Shamra, who kindly provided me with the contents of the newly excavated Akkadian legal documents as well as with her transliterations and copies of other unpublished texts. My especial thanks go to Dennis Pardee, who read critically an earlier draft of this paper, making several corrections and annotations. It goes without saying that any mistakes remain my own responsibility.

    

391

line between a legal and an administrative document is far from ideal. For example, as early realized, bills and receipts that are usually classified among administrative records may sometimes mention that the act has been performed before witnesses; and, on the other hand, some contracts may unexpectedly omit any reference to them. This general problem is also found in the corpus of legal texts from Ugarit. As already remarked by Nougayrol in publishing the first important group of clay tablets of legal content unearthed at Ras Shamra, three out of his thirty-eight texts lay in fact ‘à la limite du domaine juridique’.1 As a result of these attested cross-relationships (in addition to the uncertain identification of badly damaged fragments) the number of legal documents of Ugarit obviously varies in accordance with the individual scholar’s point of view. Although this is no place to discuss every controversial case, mention will be made here of the criteria followed and the consequent inclusion or exclusion of documents. Given the broad scope of a handbook it has been considered more convenient here to frame our material not according to its linguistic provenance but rather according to its find-spot. This means that we shall include not only the major group of domestic legal texts (over 250 texts and fragments) but also the international legal documents comprising edicts and treaties (about 100 texts and fragments) that have been found at Ugarit, which stem namely from the courts of ›atti, Carchemish, Amurru, Siyannu as well as that of Ugarit itself.2 Regardless of the place of the composition of the texts, legal documents found so far at Ugarit are inscribed without exception on single clay tablets (and called accordingly in Akkadian †uppu, and in Ugaritic spr) without envelopes. 1.2 The find-spot Due to the ever-increasing corpus of texts excavated at Ras Shamra, only a general, but not complete, picture of the archaeological distribution of the written material of Ugarit can be attempted. Another

1

N 1952, 182 n. 2. This same scope was also applied in the last survey of the legal texts published by D. Pardee and P. Bordreuil in the ABD article on Ugarit (P – B 1992, 718ff.). In contrast, in the corresponding contribution to SDB, Sznycer dealt only with the legal texts written in the Ugaritic language (S 1979, 1417ff.). 2

392

 

limit to the interpretation of the archaeological context of tablets and fragments is the presence of stray finds: intrusions among the different archives of Ugarit do exist as shown by joins between far distant pieces.3 The bulk of the legal texts of Ugarit was unearthed from the royal palace archives at Ras Shamra (around 300 texts and fragments). It was soon observed after the excavation of the palace that the concentration of these records followed a deliberate pattern according to their genre. Indeed, the royal domestic legal texts, in which the king appears regularly either as the person presiding or as one of the parties of the transactions, come mainly from the so-called ‘central archive’, while legal texts dealing with international affairs were kept as a rule in the palace ‘southern archive’. Several private archives outside the royal palace have also yielded legal material. Each of them contains a relatively small number of texts (they rarely exceed 10 records) and apparently deal with the private business of the owners of the households over some generations. As reported from the last epigraphic finds, the archive in the house of Urtenu kept copies of three international legal documents.4 In this regard, one should note that the owners of these archives were presumably high officials of the kingdom of Ugarit, so that both the existence and content of the archives may be explained to a certain extent on account of their political and social status. 1.3

Chronology

Dating texts was not practised at all by Ugarit scribes. Strictly speaking, not even legal records were dated, in contrast to the common legal tradition. This is also true of the international documents drawn up by scribes of the courts of ›atti, Carchemish, Amurru or Siyannu. The only chronological reference is the name of the king (obviously normally attested in royal documents) or a possible prosopographical connexion, such as for example the name of the scribe. In any case, the most accurate date we can give for any document stands grosso modo for the span of one particular reign. The chronological frame of our material covers the reigns of seven successive kings, from Niqmaddu II down to 'Ammurapi’, in all like3 4

Cf.  S 1991a, 50. M-L 1995b, 110–11.

    

393

lihood the last monarch of Ugarit. This means that this corpus belongs to a period, in absolute terms, of about 150 years, from around 1330  down to the destruction of Ugarit.5 1.4

Language and script

No doubt Ugarit has provided us with very rich textual material, both in number and variety, attesting up to seven different languages and five different scripts. Scribes at Ugarit, however, were mainly biscriptal:6 they basically wrote Ugaritic, their own tongue, in alphabetic cuneiform, and Akkadian, the lingua franca of the time, in syllabic cuneiform. What was noted for the archival distribution of the legal texts is also true for the language and script. The genre in question seems to be closely connected with the language employed. Indeed, except for a few cases, legal texts are drawn up in Akkadian in syllabic cuneiform. The few exceptions correspond to several Ugaritic documents and one Hittite text. The reason why the treaties and international legal documents found at Ras Shamra were composed in Akkadian can be easily explained on account of the aforementioned diplomatic nature of the language. Concerning the domestic texts, however, the explanation has to be sought elsewhere, especially because scribes did chiefly choose Ugaritic to write their local administrative records. Admittedly, this question seems to be intimately related to the genre of the material. In coining the expression and discipline of ‘cuneiform law’ Koschaker meant to make clear that the strong appeal of Mesopotamian or, more exactly, Babylonian law to other cultural centres of the ancient Near East was fixed at a formal level, of which script and language constituted the basic aspects.7 A closer look at the internal evidence shows furthermore that the few Ugaritic examples are fully influenced by their Akkadian counterparts. Because the division of legal texts in this section is made according to the language of the texts the order will follow the linguistic conventions of this genre in Ugarit.

5 6 7

We follow here the absolute dates proposed by  S (1991a, 1–46). This designation was coined by  S (1995a, 186). K 1935, 27.

 

394 2

T A L T

We have mentioned above that Akkadian was the language par excellence of legal documents. We also stated that this Akkadian corpus consists of two main different genres or sub-genres, namely records dealing with domestic affairs and records that concern foreign affairs. Accordingly, we propose here to deal with them separately. It should be noted that scribes at the royal court of Ugarit were probably familiar with this distinction; not only because of the content of the documents they could read or the characteristic physical aspect of the tablets (such as their shape or seal impressions) but also because they deliberately filed them separately within the royal archives, as pointed out above. 2.1

The domestic legal texts

Texts dealing with domestic transactions, and thus written at Ugarit, are by far the major group of legal documents. Nougayrol suggested classifying these records according to the nature of the witnessing party (as we have seen, the main defining element of this genre). He distributed them into three different categories: 1) acts performed before witnesses, 2) those performed before the king and 3) acts of the king, in which no mention of the witnessing party is made.8 Concerning the latter type, it is generally agreed that the active role of the king must have rendered unnecessary the mention of witnesses in the text. In other words, one must assume that the king presided over these transactions too. This, as we shall see, can be supported by the seal impression of the tablets in question. As a result, we suggest dividing the domestic legal texts of Ugarit into two main groups: 1) records describing acts presided over by or performed before the king, and 2) records describing acts performed before witnesses. In spite of this division, both royal and non-royal documents were written by Ugaritian scribes (in fact, we know of scribes who wrote both kinds of texts) and present, therefore, several common features that distinguish them from other, foreign texts. At first sight, it is possible to distinguish a legal text composed at Ugarit on the basis 8

See N 1952, 182ff. and 1955, 23.

    

395

of both the shape of the tablet and the sealing practice. The prototype is the common tablet (about 90 × 70 mm, the thickness exhibits more variation, reaching sometimes about 40 mm) with one single seal impression placed on top of the obverse, hence at the head of the text (sometimes divided by a ruling). A close look at the tablets shows that the seal was rolled (very seldom stamped) before the text was written. The text, on the other hand, also presents several characteristic features of this local legal practice. No doubt the most typical example is the invariable opening adverbial phrase ‘From today’ (i“tu ùmi annîm). 2.2 2.2.1

The royal legal texts

Definition and scope

This group consists of those legal texts in which the king of Ugarit presides, explicitly or not, over the transactions involved. These ‘actes royaux’, as Nougayrol called them, are as a rule characterized by one main feature: they consistently bear the same seal impression, that of the so-called ‘dynastic seal’ of the kings of Ugarit. This feature is of course essential to define a legal text, for the presence of this impression implies that the owner of the seal, i.e. the king, was present at the transaction. Therefore, the preservation of the royal seal impression, or the corresponding seal identification formula, quickly characterizes a royal document. Of course, the form and content which describe the nature of the transaction are also good indicators for identifying these texts. I have counted altogether about 170 texts and fragments in Akkadian that describe domestic transactions presided over by the king. 2.2.2

Find-spot

All but three of the documents were found within the walls of the royal palace. This should not be surprising when dealing with royal documents. Most significant, however, is the distribution of these texts within the palace proper. Of the approximately 170 texts and fragments, at least 147 come from the same royal archive, named by Schaeffer ‘les Archives Centrales’. A closer look at the archaeological context has shown that these records were in all likelihood stored on file in a room located on the upper floor of the northern

 

396

wing of this area.9 Also of interest is the fact that almost all the legal texts discovered in this archive are royal documents. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that this archive was probably meant to keep royal domestic legal documents. 2.2.3

Form

The physical characteristics of these documents have been referred to above. One should note, however, the existence of exceptionally large tablets like the Sammelurkunde RS 15.109+. We also mentioned that the seal impressed at the head of these tablets, except for just a few cases, is the ‘dynastic’ or state seal of Ugarit. This cylinder seal, as the legend reads, belonged to ‘Yaqarum, son of Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit’, very likely the Amorite ancestor and founder of the Ugaritic dynasty. All the members of the dynasty from Niqmaddu II down to the last monarch 'Ammurapi’ used as a rule this seal as well as an official replica of it to sign their records. Other royal seals did exist and were occasionally impressed on royal documents like the stamp ring-seal of Niqmaddu (presumably Niqmaddu II) on RS 17.147. The form of the royal documents follows a very regular and concise pattern. The first section consists of a description of the completed part of the transaction; it is thus phrased in the past (preterite or perfect) and in objective style. For example, the king has granted, the buyer has purchased. Characteristic of this part is the opening adverbial expression ‘from to-day’, mentioned above, usually combined with the closing expression ‘(and) for ever’ (ana/adi dàrìtim is the most frequent formula). The king appears then after that introductory phrase either as having presided over the transaction, ‘before RN’ (ana pàni RN), or as first and active party. Apart from the king the other parties involved are properly identified too by name with or without further qualification. Sometimes a summary or the result of this event marks the end of this section. Next follow the so-called ‘final clauses’. These deal with the presentfuture stipulations or obligations of the transaction such as the guarantee, eviction or services inherent to the contract, and are therefore phrased regularly in the durative, also in objective style. For example,

9

See  S 1991a, 88–93.

    

397

no-one will take the estate granted or purchased from the grantee’s or buyer’s hands; the grantee will or will not have to perform the ilku/pilku-service. Finally, the document closes with the formula that identifies the dynastic seal, either as ‘(great) seal of the king’ or as ‘seal of RN’, often followed by the name of the scribe who is sometimes qualified as witness. Schematically, then, the structure of royal documents can be described as follows:10 a) b) c) d)

dynastic seal impression, operative section, seal identification formula, name of the scribe.

On the other hand, a royal document can describe one or more transactions. These compound transactions deal as a rule with the same party involved as beneficiary. At least in some cases it seems that each of them may have been previously written in one single document (the most illustrative example is the above mentioned document RS 15.109+, already qualified as Sammelurkunde). These transactions may belong to the same category, called accordingly by Nougayrol ‘actes multiples homogènes’ (e.g. RS 15.109+, RS 15.122, RS 16.248), but also to different ones. One example of the latter ‘actes multiples hétérogènes’ is RS 15.85 which contains a royal transaction (in lines 1–10) beside a non-royal one, i.e. performed ‘before witnesses’ (in lines 11–21). Before closing this chapter, it should be noted that the legal practice of Ugarit hardly had any recourse to the divine action against transgressors of contracts; on the other hand, there are no examples of promissory oaths. 2.2.4

Content

Almost all the royal documents that preserve a more or less complete and intelligible text are deeds of conveyance. Gifts (e.g. RS 15.88, RS 15.145, RS 16.142, RS 16.150), sales (e.g. RS 15.136,

10 Other schemes have been proposed by N 1955, 24, H 1967, 196 (for the sale documents), K 1980, 533 (also for the sale documents) and K 1979, 433.

 

398

RS 16.137, RS 16.156), purchases (e.g. RS 15.119, RS 16.284), barters (e.g. RS 15.123+, RS 16.158, RS 16.246) or divisions of inheritance (e.g. RS 15.90, RS 15.120), and even royal verdicts that concern litigations on landed property (e.g. RS 16.254, RS 16.356) record the resulting transfer, usually heritable, of title to real estate. Real estate in the legal texts of Ugarit basically consists of houses and land which include, as the most characteristic cultures of this Mediterranean area, vineyards and olive groves. The description of the property conveyed is as a rule very concise providing only the name of the previous tenant; no measurements or boundaries are given and sometimes a brief geographical reference of its location is mentioned. By far the largest group of documents is composed by deeds of royal gifts, with or without countergift (i.e. in return for a sum of money like RS 15.126, RS 16.135, RS 16.167 or RS 16.174). In a few records the gift concerns entire villages (e.g. RS 15.114, RS 15.147) and/or some of their taxes (e.g. RS 16.153, RS 16.244). Among the few transactions that do not concern, strictly speaking, the law of property one should mention several deeds of adoption (e.g. RS 15.92, RS 16.200, RS 16.344) and manumission (e.g. RS 16.267) as well as grants of privileges like franchises (e.g. RS 16.238+) or promotions (e.g. RS 16.348). As for the parties involved in these transactions, no doubt the king stands as the main protagonist. Documents from the time of 'Ammi∆tamru II are by far the most attested. The donees of royal gifts are often found not only benefiting from several grants but also as the contracting parties of deeds of sale, purchase and barter. Accordingly, Nougayrol grouped these records under different ‘dossiers’. Among these individuals, who are not always well identified, we find members of the royal family and officials of the court of Ugarit. 2.2.5

An example

Transactions described in royal deeds obviously differ from text to text, not only in contents but also in form due to the particular style of each scribe. Nevertheless, for the sake of illustration, we have chosen one of these documents, namely RS 16.275, a gift of real estate from Niqmaddu II to his brother Nuriyànu, to show the pattern described above.

     Obv

5 Rev

10

15

Impression of dynastic seal i“-tu u4-mi [an-ni-(i-)im] I níq-ma-di“kur dumu ['Ammittamru] lugal uruu-ga-ri-i[t] it-ta-“i é-“[u] “a Ipa-be-y[i ] i-na uru ul  -l[a-mi ] ù id-d[in-“u] a-na Inu-r[i-ia-na] ù a-na dumu.me[“-“u] a-na da-ri-tim[-ma] ma-am-ma-an la-a i-l[eq-qè(-“u)] i“-tu “u-ti Inu-ri-ia-[na] ù i“-tu “u-ti dumu[.me“-“u] a-na da-ri-tim-m[a ] na4 ki“ib “a luga[l]

2.3 2.3.1

399

From today Niqmaddu, son of 'Ammittamru, king of Ugarit, has taken the house of PN (which is located) in TN and has given it to Nuriyànu and to his sons for ever. No-one will take it from the hands of Nuriyànu or from the hands of his sons ever. Seal of the king.

The non-royal legal texts

Definition and scope

This second group of domestic legal texts consists of those records which describe transactions performed before witnesses and that were not presided over by the king. As opposed to royal deeds, these documents are regarded as ‘private deeds’. Following our definition above, we have excluded from this corpus memoranda (e.g. RS 15.41) or bills (e.g. of personal security like RS 15.81 or RS 16.287) in which no mention of a body of witnesses is made. On the other hand, a text like RS 16.354 which recapitulates a series of debt-notes with their respective testimonies, lies precisely on the borderline of the legal domain. All in all the material consists of about 65 relatively well-preserved documents and of several fragments. 2.3.2

Find-spot

As one would expect, most of these documents have been found in private archives. The major concentrations come from the so-called ‘Residential Quarter’: nine documents from the house of Ra“ap"abu and eight more or less complete documents and several fragments from the house of Rap"ànu. One should also mention the recently

 

400

discovered archive of Urtenu which counts now some seven Akkadian legal records. Of interest is the fact that the royal palace has also yielded private documents. The reason for this find-spot is not easy to explain. It has been suggested that the king was highly involved in the legal life of Ugarit. But other explanations are also possible. It is plausible, for example, that some of the documents could actually belong to court officials or other personnel closely connected with the palace. In this regard, one should note that three of these deeds (RS 17.86+, RS 17.102, RS 17.325) belonged to the queen’s ‘dossier’ and at least two of them (RS 11.856, RS 15.182) to the sàkinu’s. 2.3.3

Form

As already mentioned above, the physical appearance of these tablets is not essentially different from that of royal documents. The seals impressed at the head of the documents were usually anepigraphic cylinder seals and belonged to the private people involved in the transactions, especially those undertaking obligations. A small number of deeds, however, are without seal impression (e.g. RS 11.856, RS 20.176) and some of them show the sealing space in blank (like RS 20.146). The schema and form of these texts are also similar to the ones described above for royal documents, and as was mentioned above, we know of scribes like Nu'me-ra“ap, Ilta˙mu or Muna˙˙imu who wrote down both royal and private transactions. The text begins with the phrase ‘from to-day’, followed by the mention ‘before witnesses’ (ana pàni “ìbùti ) which thus determines the ‘private’ character of the deed. After these introductory expressions the operative section describes in the past and in objective style the fulfilled part of the transaction. Next follow the obligation clauses drawn up in the durative and also in objective style. No stipulations on services are attested in private deeds; on the other hand, penalty clauses occur rather frequently in these texts. The note that identifies the seal impression and the list of witnesses, which often includes the scribe, close the document. The following scheme can be outlined:11

11

See previous note.

     a) b) c) d)

401

private seal impression operative section seal identification formula list of witnesses (often including the name of the scribe)

2.3.4

Content

Private archives contain a relatively restricted number of deeds and they are concerned with the activities of the members of the family. Among them we find deeds of conveyance like sales of land (e.g. RS 15.182, RS 17.61) and persons (e.g. RS 11.856, RS 20.236), purchases (RS 15.37, RS 17.22+) and gifts especially in contemplation of death (RS 8.145, RS 17.38, RS 17.378). As with royal documents, houses and lands are described in a very concise manner (note the exceptional reference to measurements in RS 17.22+). Very common among such family transactions are deeds that concern the law of persons, such as deeds of emancipation (e.g. RS 8.279bis, RS 16.129, RS 20.176, RS 27.53) and deeds of adoption (RS 17.21, RS 20.226, RS 21.230, RS 25.134). Little is known of the identity of the contracting parties. As we have already mentioned, the queen appears in some of these documents (deeds of sale) and one can argue that many of the other contractors must have belonged to the relatively high social class in Ugarit. On the other hand, the number of witnesses is not uniform; three to five witnesses seems to have been the general tendency but examples of texts with as few as two and as many as fourteen witnesses (e.g. RS 14.16) are attested. 2.3.5

Publication and studies

The majority of these Akkadian texts was published by Nougayrol in three volumes of the French Mission de Ras Shamra: N 1955, 1968 and 1970. The former contains most of the royal legal texts and also includes an excellent study of the material. In the same volume, B (1955) offers a juridical interpretation of the documents as compared to other cuneiform legal sources. Other scattered non-royal texts were published by T-D (1937), V (1941c no. II, 1951 no. VI) and, more recently, L (1991) and Malbran-Labat (B et al. 1991, no. 29). A few still remain unpublished. Apart from some scattered partial studies, two dissertations have

 

402

dealt with the legal texts of Ugarit, chiefly those written in Akkadian: M 1980 and L 1985. The former basically consists of an English translation with a brief commentary of all the domestic legal documents (including also some administrative records); and the latter exclusively deals with the royal land grants, presented in transliteration and translation in chronological order, and aims at determining the evolution of Ugaritian society through a thorough examination of the changes in language, namely the clauses on heritability in these texts. A study by the present author of both the language and the content of the royal deeds of conveyance is forthcoming. 2.4 2.4.1

The international legal texts

Definition and scope

Under this category we include all legal documents unearthed at Ugarit that are concerned with international matters such as treaties, edicts, verdicts or any other transactions that involve parties of more than one state. This material consists of approximately one hundred texts and fragments. More often than not it is the state or states proper that are involved, in which case the parties stand for the rulers themselves or also sometimes their plenipotentiaries. Therefore the division of the evidence in accordance with the witnessing party corresponds mutatis mutandis with the palace, viz. the court of the state of origin. A verdict promulgated by the Hittite suzerain usually took place at his own court, and the same holds true for arbitrations or agreements drawn up by the scribes of the kings of Carchemish, Ugarit, Amurru or Siyannu (the provenance of a small number of texts and fragments cannot be determined due to the obscure or fragmentary context). 2.4.2

Find-spot

International documents found at Ugarit obviously concern in one way or another the state of Ugarit proper. Therefore, as one would expect, most of these records have been discovered in the archives of the royal palace. As we have already mentioned, the distribution of these texts follows a clear pattern. Over three quarters of this material come from the same concentration of tablets, the so-called ‘southern archive’. Like the domestic royal legal texts found in the palace central archive, international documents were probably stored

    

403

on file on the upper storey,12 and they seem to have been kept there separately. Moreover, some of them were identified by means of labels or tags attached either to the tablets themselves or the baskets in which they were placed.13 Although some of the few finds outside the royal palace could have been misplaced, it is nonetheless probable that several private archives belonging to high state officials would also have contained some of the international legal documents (as is certainly true of the epistolary material). This seems indeed to be the case of the archive of Urtenu which, according to the last epigraphic report already mentioned above, has yielded three documents of Hittite origin. 2.5 2.5.1

The texts from ›atti

Definition and scope

It goes without saying that the nature of the foreign records found at Ugarit is intimately connected with the political and diplomatic relations existing between the states involved. Indeed, the fact that Ugarit was annexed to the Hittite empire as a vassal state during the reign of Niqmaddu II explains why the approximately thirty legal documents stemming from the Hittite court discovered at Ras Shamra basically consist of vassal treaties, edicts and verdicts establishing Ugarit’s foreign relations. Dated texts range from the days of the annexation of Ugarit by ”uppiluliuma I down to the reign of Tud¢aliya IV. In opening the section on legal texts we referred to the general problem of drawing the line that divides legal texts from administrative records. With Hittite documents the controversy is further raised mainly due to the form of the texts. As is well known, Hittite scribal practice often opens the text with the epistolary Akkadian formula umma PN/RN ‘Thus (says) PN/RN’, regardless of the basic nature of the document (e.g. in treaties or annals). Furthermore, the use of subjective or objective style in the body of the text is not conclusive either since both are attested in letters and legal documents, and they may also occur side by side in the same text. As a matter of fact, one may wonder whether the Hittite Great King made 12 13

See  S 1991a, 97. See labels nos. 27–32 in  S 1989b.

 

404

any distinction at all: he decreed and proclaimed, the document was issued, and next it was presented or sent to the vassal king. Therefore, what really mattered was the point of view in which the text was couched (and accordingly sealed) rather than the formulae used. One should recall here the three duplicates of a text called by Nougayrol ‘lettres-édits’ (RS 17.130 and dupl.). The introductory formula ana RN qibìma, ‘speak to RN’, leaves no doubt about the epistolary character of the documents; the text, however, describes ›attu“ili III’s regulations concerning the business activities of the merchants of Ura in Ugaritic territory. To the same domain of ambiguity belongs the suzerain’s letter-verdict RS 17.133 sealed with queen Pudu¢epa’s seal about a litigation over a shipwreck. Finally, RS 17.132 should be mentioned, a letter containing the early proposal from ”uppiluliuma I to Niqmaddu II for a military alliance which includes the legal stipulations following the description of the contractual agreement. 2.5.2

Form

In spite of these concurrent problems of definition, a Hittite tablet of legal content is in principle not very difficult to identify at first sight. One can even speak of prototype if by this we understand the more common appearance of documents. This would be a relatively large tablet (larger than the prototype of Ugarit: the thickness averages some 40 mm) and ‘cushion’-shaped showing a highly raised surface on the centre of the obverse where the deep impression of the stamp seal (in our corpus especially the Tabarna seal) is to be found. Other types are of course attested; the above mentioned verdict and edict-letters, for example, bear the seal impression on a sort of appendix protruding from the left upper edge (or ‘shoulder’, as Nougayrol would put it) of the tablet. The exception to this kind of tablets are the duplicates of the treaty between Mur“ili II and Niqmepa' (RS 17.79+ and dupl.), which possibly represent copies of an original metal tablet kept at ›attu“a (in fact, some of the duplicates could have been made at Ugarit). Their shape is already unusual: they are extraordinarily large and flat on both sides; also exceptional is their fine script as well as the absence of any seal impression. As for the text, apart from the already mentioned common opening letter-formula (in documents issued by the Great King we normally find umma ”am“i RN ‘thus [says] “the Sun” RN’ followed by

    

405

his titles and filiation), one should mention the usual recourse to divine action to secure and guarantee the undertaken agreements. 2.5.3

Content

Of course the basic ‘binding’ text (Akk. †uppu “a riksi/rikilti ) for the above-mentioned international state of affairs is the vassal treaty. Two such texts have been found at Ugarit. One is the treaty between ”uppiluliuma I and Niqmaddu II (RS 17.340, RS 17.369), and the other is the one already mentioned between Mur“ili II and Niqmepa'. Like other Hittite vassal treaties, the stipulations contained in these texts concern the extradition of fugitives, the frontiers of the kingdom of Ugarit, military assistance and the vassal’s loyalty. Other documents complete this main agreement, for example the edict establishing the detailed inventory of the tribute due to the Hittite overlord (RS 17.227 and dupl., cf. also RS 17.380+) or the decree regarding extradition of fugitives concluded by ›attu“ili III (RS 17.238). Complaints of, or disputes between vassal states concerning one of these basic stipulations were arbitrated by the Hittite Great King himself; so the decision given by Mur“ili II on the dispute of border territory between Ugarit and Muki“ (RS 17.62+ and par.) and between Ugarit and Siyannu (RS 17.235+ and par.), or also the above mentioned verdict promulgated by ›attu“ili III regulating the business activities of the merchants of Ura in Ugaritian territory. Problems concerning the dynastic succession of the kings of Ugarit also belonged to the jurisdiction of the Hittite overlord; so, for example, the case of divorce of 'Ammi∆tamru II and the daughter of the king of Amurru, who was also niece of the Hittite king (RS 17.159, RS 17.365+), or the case of conspiracy against this same king apparently plotted by the sons of the queen of Ugarit (RS 17.35+), both adjudicated by Tud¢aliya IV. 2.6 The texts from Carchemish 2.6.1

Definition and scope

No doubt, the role of the king of Carchemish as viceroy of the Hittite Great King—and thus overlord—of the Syrian vassal states accounts not only for the considerable number of documents issued from this court and found at Ugarit, namely about thirty texts and

 

406

fragments, but also their significant nature: most deal with inter-state arbitrations. Although a few are dated to Talmi-Te““ub most of the material belongs to the reign of his father Ini-Te““ub. Here also special reference should be made to one text that may defy classification. Like RS 17.132, RS 17.334 opens with the expression umma “arrima ‘thus [says] the king’ and contains the proposal from ”arru-ku“u¢ to Niqmaddu II for a military alliance against the king of Nu¢a““i and includes the resulting stipulations of the agreement. Of particular interest is the fact that this text is preserved in a copy sealed by Ini-Te““ub of the original, broken document. 2.6.2

Form

Characteristic of the legal texts from Carchemish is their physical appearance. All arbitrations and most other deeds are written on oblong formatted tablets and the cylinder-seal is rolled in the middle of the reverse. On the other hand, the text of verdicts begins invariably with the formula ‘before PN’ or more often ‘before RN’ (ana pàni RN). Only three records (RS 17.146, RS 17.230, RS 18.19) differ from this pattern and the three are shaped after the Hittite prototype (note that they are all deeds of agreement). The difference, however, is that the name and titles of the king of Carchemish are not introduced by umma. Arbitrations of lawsuits are phrased after a clear standard pattern. After the opening formula ‘before RN/PN’, the two litigant parties coming to court are named and the statement of one or both of them is presented, usually in subjective style. Next the verdict of the king is mentioned also in subjective style, followed by the result or execution of the royal decision phrased this time in objective style and in the past. The text ends with the clauses that forbid any future claims coming from either of the two parties and the final clause that states the irrevocable character of the document. Deities are invoked in only one of the deeds of agreement as guarantors of the transaction. 2.6.3

Content

By far the largest group of documents from Carchemish concern international arbitrations. Almost all these transactions are presided by king Ini-Te““ub. Among the parties involved one should mention the king of Ugarit and his sàkinu as well as the whole community

    

407

of Ugaritian citizens. These verdicts concern different matters such as, for example, an action for a debt (e.g. RS 17.314, RS 17.346) or a complaint about the death of a prisoner (RS 19.63); but the most frequently attested are cases of assault, theft and especially the murder of merchants in Ugaritic territory (e.g. RS 17.128, RS 17.145, RS 17.158, RS 17.234). This major problem is precisely the subject of the four preserved deeds of agreement between the states of Carchemish and Ugarit (RS 17.146, RS 17.230, RS 18.19, RS 18.115). On the other hand, the role of the king of Carchemish as viceroy of the Hittite Great King over Ugarit is reflected in other inter-state arbitrations such as RS 17.59, in which Ini-Te““ub presides and enacts Tud¢aliya IV’s exemption of 'Ammittamru II from his military obligations in the war against Assyria, or the same cases that were presided by the Hittite suzerain himself, such as the divorce between 'Ammi∆tamru II and the daughter of the king of Amurru (RS 17.396, RS 1957.1) or the family conspiracy against the same king of Ugarit (RS 17.352). 2.7 2.7.1

The texts from Ugarit

Definition and scope

Scribes at Ugarit also drew up transactions undertaken by parties from different states and some of these documents (around ten) have been found at Ugarit. The problem, however, is again one of definition, for a few of them are said to have been presided over by foreign officials. The fragmentary verdict RS 17.371+, for example, which is written by Nu'me-Ra“ap, the well-known scribe of domestic legal texts of Ugarit, is arbitrated by the kartappu of Carchemish. How, then, are we to classify these records? Admittedly these cases do not agree with the criterion stated above, namely correspondence between witnessing party and place of composition of the tablets. There seems to be little doubt that in these arbitrations the court of the overlord (›atti or Carchemish) was transferred for some reason to the seat of the vassal (note e.g. that in RS 17.371+ one of the parties is the king of Ugarit); in such cases the overlord himself would then appoint at least one of his officials as authorized arbitrator. Following in a strict sense the title of this chapter we have resolved to include these documents here.

 

408 2.7.2

Form

The main physical characteristics of documents composed at Ugarit have already been described above. It is interesting to observe that RS 16.170 in which the king of Ugarit acts as overlord is shaped and styled in exactly the same way as any other royal legal document (one should further note that this document was found among the royal documents in the palace central archive). By contrast, the documents that describe acts presided over by a superior, foreign authority at Ugarit significantly show a distinctly eclectic aspect. For example, RS 18.02 in which the king of Ugarit redeems certain people from the Hittite priest of I“tar of Zinzaru, is shaped after the Carchemish fashion (i.e. an oblong tablet) and sealed with the Hittite stamp seal of the priest in the Hittite fashion (i.e. in the middle of the obverse); nevertheless, since the scribe is Nu'me-Ra“ap the text clearly follows the local form of Ugarit (as in, for example, the opening phrase ‘From to-day’). 2.7.3

Content

In spite of its fragmentary state, RS 16.170 describes in all likelihood a verdict of king Niqmepa' concerning the long-standing conflict of border territory between the kingdom of Ugarit and Siyannu, then its vassal state, thus previous to its defection to the king of Carchemish. One tablet that belongs to the large dossier of the divorce of king 'Ammi∆tamru II and the daughter of the king of Amurru (RS 16.270) bears the impression of two seals of 'Ammi∆tamru, the dynastic seal and his personal one, and seems to have been written by a scribe of Ugarit. As for the arbitrations of foreign commissioners at Ugarit, RS 17.371+, which is somewhat damaged, probably refers to a litigation involving the merchants of Ura, and RS 18.02, as already stated, is a deed of redemption. Other deeds written at Ugarit record private international transactions. For example, RS 16.180 and RS 17.251 are deeds of sale; the former records the sale of a horse from the ¢uburtanùru of the king of Carchemish to the king of Ugarit (note the possible badly preserved Ugaritic summary at the end of the text),14 and the latter, written by Burqànu, describes the sale of an individual by two Hittite brothers to the sàkinu of Ugarit. 14

See M R 1996a, 457f.

     2.8 2.8.1

409

The texts from Amurru

Definition and scope

A few legal texts written by scribes from the chancellery of Amurru have been found at Ugarit. The two matters that are recorded reflect on the one hand the neighbouring situation of both kingdoms and, on the other, the intermarriage that was relatively frequently practised between both dynasties. The former is represented by one text, RS 19.68, a treaty between Niqmaddu II and Aziru, which is possibly one of the oldest agreements—if not the oldest—recovered from the royal palace archives. The latter is constituted by four documents that belong to the large dossier concerning the divorce case between 'Ammi∆tamru II and the daughter of Bente“ina and sister of ”au“gamuwa. 2.8.2 Form Some formal features of the treaty RS 19.68 have led to the origin of the tablet being called into question. Indeed, the mention throughout this parity agreement of the royal name Niqmaddu in first position as well as the interference of subjective style within the text phrased from the viewpoint of the Ugaritic king could suggest that the text was composed by a scribe of the royal court of Ugarit. On linguistic and epigraphic grounds, however, it seems more likely that Amurru was the original provenance of the scribe;15 on the other hand, the seal impression at the head of the text corresponds to the cylinder seal of Aziru. The later documents of his descendant ”au“gamuwa show the strong Hittite influence that developed through the years. Indeed, not only are the tablets in the ‘cushion’ shape but, more significantly, the cylinder seal of Aziru gives way to ”au“gamuwa’s stamp seals inscribed with Hittite hieroglyphs, of which the impression can be found in the middle of the raised surface of the obverse of the tablets (so in ‘tablette G. Badr’,16 RS 17.228, RS 17.318+, and RS 17.360+, which also bears the cylinder seal impression of Aziru on top of the obverse). As for the text, the scribes of the chancellery of Amurru, like the ones of Ugarit, used the formula ‘from to-day’ to open the document 15 16

See N 1956, 281, and I" 1991, 21. Edited by A – S 1991–2.

 

410

(RS 17.228, RS 17.360+, RS 19.68). Divine curses are attested only in the treaty RS 19.68. 2.8.3

Content

The treaty between Niqmaddu II and Aziru describes the latter’s renouncement of the former claims of Amurrite rulers to adjacent Ugaritian territory (including Siyannu); the text declares that Aziru accordingly received satisfaction, namely 5,000 shekels of silver. Furthermore, military aid from the Amurrite king in case of an enemy attack against his northern neighbour is stipulated. The divorce between 'Ammi∆tamru II and the daughter of Bente“ina obviously provoked a serious international diplomatic conflict. This, as we have seen, is well reflected not only by the number of records that were needed to regulate the affair but also by the authorities who had to supervise it, such as the Hittite emperor (who was in turn the divorcee’s uncle) or his viceroy in Syria, the king of Carchemish. The documents that were issued and sealed by the king of Amurru and brother of the divorcee describe his obligations in the agreement: ‘tablette G. Badr’ concerns her expulsion, and RS 17.228, RS 17.318+, and RS 17.360+ concern her final extradition (for execution) and resulting compensation of 1,400 shekels of gold. 2.9 The texts from Siyannu 2.9.1

Definition and scope

Only two legal documents stemming from the court of Siyannu have been found at Ugarit. They are both related to the long-standing disputes of border territory between both states (see above the verdict of king Niqmepa' or the final regulations decreed by the emperor Mur“ili II). RS 18.01 was issued by king Padiya and RS 17.123 by king 'Abdi-Ninurta. 2.9.2

Form

The physical appearance of both tablets is hardly distinguishable from the Ugarit prototype (possibly as a result of political influence). The cylinder seal impressed by Padiya at the head of the document is that of his predecessor, Sassi (used thus as a ‘dynastic seal’); 'Abdi-

    

411

Ninurta, in turn, rolled another, anepigraphic one. Also like the documents composed at Ugarit, they are introduced by the opening phrase ‘from to-day’ and they are couched in objective style. 2.9.3

Content

Both deeds concern real estate property. More precisely, they describe the final result and state of affairs after litigation concerning the ownership or jurisdiction of land that belonged to frontier districts between Ugarit and Siyannu. This is explicitly mentioned in RS 17.123 in which the arbitrator was the Hittite overlord. The districts involved in this case are ”uk“i and ›armana. Vineyards of the former frontier district are also the object of partition in RS 18.02, this time between the religious associations (marzi˙u) of Ugarit and Siyannu. 2.9.4

Publication and studies

The bibliographical picture is almost the same as we have seen for the domestic texts. The great majority of the international material was magisterially published by Nougayrol in two volumes of the French Mission de Ras Shamra: N 1956 and 1970. The former contains most of the documents as well as an excellent study of them. Other scattered texts have been published by F (1971), M-L (B et al. 1991, no. 1) and A – S (1991–2), and a few still remain unpublished. The treaty between Mur“ili II and Niqmepa' was thoroughly analysed by  M (1986), and B (1996c) has recently provided us with a handbook of Hittite international documents. Mention must also be made of two other monographs that offer a comprehensive picture of the international relations as described among others by the documents of Ugarit: K 1974a (more restricted to the juridical aspects) and L 1990.

3

T U L T

Since Akkadian was the language par excellence of legal documents it is hardly surprising that this genre is far less represented in the Ugaritic corpus. This is illustrated, for example, by the fact that the chapter of legal texts in the standard edition of this corpus (indexed

 

412

with the digit ‘KTU 3.’) runs to barely six pages.17 Indeed, we should regard these few legal documents written in alphabetic cuneiform as exceptions. Probably on this account and also because the phraseology of some of the documents was obviously inspired by the Akkadian pattern, it has been suggested that these texts could be translations of Akkadian originals.18 This seems to be true of the one international document, namely the edict that establishes the inventory of the tribute due to the Hittite overlord. However, this is not so obvious for the rest of the material, not even for royal documents that clearly show a parallel phraseology.19 Indeed, concerning the latter, how could one explain that the so-called ‘translated copies’ were found among other original Akkadian documents in the palace central archive? And where, then, were the Akkadian ‘originals’ accordingly kept which, on the other hand, have so far not been found? In fact, it seems reasonable to ask why scribes who were admittedly biscriptal would not have written, if only exceptionally, legal texts in Ugaritic (note that Burqànu, for example, drew up at least three documents in Akkadian [RS 8.145, RS 25.137 and RS 17.251] and one in his own tongue [KTU 3.8 = RS 19.066]).20 The fact that these texts are written in Ugaritic implies that they were most likely drawn up at Ugarit. In this chapter we shall follow the plan proposed for the Akkadian corpus. Accordingly we shall divide Ugaritic legal documents into two sub-genres: on the one hand, the domestic texts and, on the other, the one international document. 3.1

The domestic legal texts

All Ugaritic legal texts but one deal with domestic transactions. According to the nature of the witnessing party these documents can be classified into two categories, the same ones by which we classified the Akkadian domestic texts, namely the royal and the non-royal documents. 17 One should note that in spite of the corrections and additions to this edition (D – L – S 1995) that will be pointed out throughout this paper this preliminary appreciation is not significantly changed. 18 See K 1979, 433, 444, or L 1985, 359. 19 For the parallel phraseology see e.g. N 1962, 29, R 1969, 132ff., K 1979, M 1980, 182ff. 20 Of course one may still question with  S (1991a, 27 n. 213) whether this text is not a Ugaritic copy of an Akkadian original.

     3.2 3.2.1

413

The royal legal texts

Definition and scope

As defined above, this group consists of those legal texts in which the king of Ugarit presides, explicitly or not, over the transactions involved. These royal documents (in Ugaritic: spr mlk as attested in KTU 2.19:1321 include four published examples (KTU 2.19 = RS 15.125,22 KTU 3.2 = RS 15.111, KTU 3.4 = RS 16.191+ and KTU 3.5 = RS 16.382) and one unpublished text (RS 94.2168) found in the recently excavated archive of Urtenu. From this same archive came another unpublished record (RS 94.2965) arranged similarly, and containing clauses typical of royal legal documents; although no reference of the witnessing party is made and no royal seal is impressed (nor is there a space left free on the tablet for sealing) it is possible to understand implicitly that the king presided over this transaction. (One should note that RS 94.2168 also does not bear the royal seal impression: were these two documents actually private ‘copies’?) Furthermore, an unclassified fragment (KTU 7.63 = RS 15.117) that has often been taken to list the royal titles of Niqmepa' could also belong under this category.23 3.2.2

Find-spot

As already mentioned, one or two royal documents have been found outside the royal palace, namely in Urtenu’s house. The other four deeds (as well as the fragment KTU 7.63 = RS 15.117) come from the palace archives. Of interest is the fact that these four tablets come entirely from the same concentration, the so-called palace central archive where, as we have seen, most Akkadian royal domestic legal documents were kept (KTU 7.63 was discovered in the palace eastern archive).

21 V (1957, 15ff.) used the designation ‘actes royaux’ differently, for he also included royal letters. 22 Although still included under the epistolary category with the resulting digit in D – L – S 1995, 168, it is now generally agreed that this fragment is of legal content (see already K 1979, 433, 444ff.). 23 Note that  S (1991a, 564) suggests cataloguing the text as epistolary or legal.

 

414 3.2.3

Form

We have referred to the fact that royal legal texts drawn up in Ugaritic reflect, and presumably imitated the Akkadian pattern. Actually it is reasonable to assume that the same scribes shaped and wrote both the Akkadian and Ugaritic tablets. For example, as regards the shape of tablets, it is interesting to observe that although written in the shorter alphabetic script Ugaritic royal documents have the same average measurements attested for their Akkadian counterparts (e.g. KTU 3.5 = RS 16.382 measures 90 × 70 × 35 mm). The sealing practice is also identical: the royal seal impression is placed on top of the obverse and could be divided from the text by a ruling. Note that the dynastic seal of the kings of Ugarit was rolled on KTU 3.2 and KTU 3.5, whereas the ring-seal of Niqmaddu (presumably Niqmaddu II) was stamped twice in order to fill the sealing space in KTU 3.4 (although not preserved, KTU 2.19 was certainly sealed by the king as stated in ll. 6ff.).24 As for the text, the phraseology clearly reproduces the Akkadian formulae. Thus, the text begins with the temporal expression ‘From to-day’ (l ym hnd ), which could also be combined with the closing expression ‘(and) for ever’ ('d 'lm). The first section of the text describes the completed part of the transaction, obviously phrased in the past (perfective) and in objective style. The king appears in first position either as active party (so in KTU 3.2 and KTU 3.5) or as having presided over the transaction (so in RS 94.2168, omitted in KTU 3.4), introduced by the preposition ‘before’ (l pn—perhaps to be restored before the royal name in KTU 7.63:1). Next follow the final clauses that deal with the obligations of the transaction, phrased this time in the future (imperfective) and also in objective style. Although the seal identification clause is only preserved in KTU 2.19, its restoration at the end of texts KTU 3.2 and KTU 3.5 seems very plausible. Perhaps the same holds true for the name of the scribe which is not attested in these texts. The scheme of the Ugaritic royal documents is thus not very different from their Akkadian counterparts. 3.2.4

Content

The contents of these texts is as follows: KTU 3.2 = RS 15.111 and KTU 3.5 = RS 16.382 are both deeds of royal gift; RS 94.2168 24

As shown after collation, the upper part of the fragment KTU 7.63 is lost.

    

415

concerns the rights of succession of 'Abdi-milku’s children and in particular the inheritance of the property he received from the king; and RS 94.2965 lists estate property acquired by a Yabninu together with the rights and obligations bound to it. KTU 2.19 = RS 15.125 is a deed of franchise (note the Ugaritic designation spr d tbrrt in lines 9–10), namely from the ilku-service (called in Ugaritic un∆ ). The final document, KTU 3.4 = RS 16.191+, concerns the redemption of seven persons from the Berutians by one Iwrikili for 100 shekels of silver and the resulting obligations imposed on them. As for the parties involved, 'Ammi∆tamru II is the donor king of KTU 3.2 and KTU 3.5 as well as the donor and guarantor of the rights of succession in RS 94.2168, and Nimqaddu (II/III) is the grantor of privileges in KTU 2.19. Unfortunately it is difficult to identify the other contracting parties due to the want of more solid prosopographical evidence. Still, it is possible to relate some of the Ugaritic documents to the Akkadian ‘dossiers’. For example, amtrn, the donee’s father in KTU 3.2, could be identified with the wellattested Amutarunu. And the 'Abdi-milku whose inheritance is the topic of RS 94.2168 is very likely the homonymous main party of one of the largest dossiers identified by Nougayrol; moreover, we learn from this Ugaritic text that he was married to the king’s daughter. This explicit information supports the assumption that many of the beneficiaries of these dossiers were members of the royal family as well as court officials (with this regard, one should note that the protagonist of the fragment KTU 7.63 = RS 15.117 is the sàkinu of the palace and door-keeper of the king). 3.2.5

An example

In order to illustrate the similarities in the scheme and form between these Ugaritic documents and their Akkadian counterparts, we present here in transliteration and translation the royal document KTU 3.5 = RS 16.382: Obv

5

Impression of dynastic seal l ym . hnd 'mttmr . bn nqmp' . mlk ugrt . ytn “d . kdÀdl

From today 'Ammittamru, son of Niqmepa', king of Ugarit, has given the field of PN1,

 

416

x m x x . [ y]d gth yd . zth . yd . [k]rmh . yd [k]lklh w ytn.nn l . b'ln . bn kltn . w . l bnh . 'd [.] 'lm “˙r . 'lmt bn“ bn“m l . yq˙nn . bd b'ln . bn . kltn w . bd . bnh . 'd 'lm . w . unt in . bh

from TN1, (which is located) in the territory of TN2, together with its factory, and its olive grove, and its vineyard, and whatever belongs to it, and he has given it to PN2, son of PN3, and to his sons for ever. In the future no one will take it from the hands of PN2, son of PN3, and from the hands of his sons ever. And there is no service on it.

(end broken off )

...

u“kny . d . b “d[ y] Lo.E.

10 Rev.

15

20

3.3 3.3.1

The non-royal legal texts

Definition and scope

We include under this second group of domestic legal texts those records which describe transactions performed before witnesses (Ugaritic yp˙) and that were not presided by the king. Such definition immediately excludes from our corpus texts like KTU 3.3 = RS 15.128, a bill concerning personal security, KTU 3.7 = RS 18.118, a list of Egyptian persons entering the ilku (Ugaritic un∆)-service,25 and KTU 3.10 = RIH 84/33, a list of debtors,26 in which no mention of a body of witnesses is made. On the other hand, KTU 3.6 = RS 17.[468] is too fragmentary for classification.27 As a result, only two other KTU 3. series texts can be included under this category, namely KTU 3.8 = RS 19.066 and KTU 3.9 = RS [Varia 14] = RS 1957.702, which do list the witnesses of the transaction. In addition,

25

See more recently M R 1993b. Note that it partially duplicates KTU 4.791 (see B 1995a, 4–5) listed thus within the administrative records; other debts lists are e.g. KTU 4.123 = RIH 84/04 obv., KTU 4.283 or KTU 4.310. 27 Note that even D – L – S (1995, 202) admit that its content is ‘uncertain’; the presence of the sequence (> yp˙ [?]) at the end of l. 2 is in a completely fragmentary and obscure context. 26

    

417

reference should be made to other texts that have been classified as administrative and could in fact lie on the borderline of the legal domain. Like the above mentioned Akkadian text RS 16.354, KTU 4.386 = RS 18.111 (restoring [ y]p˙ at the beginning of l. 3 and also possibly [ yp]˙ at the beginning of ll. 7 and 9), KTU 4.632 = RS 19.073, KTU 4.778 = RIH 83/12 with its duplicate KTU 4.782 = RIH 84/08,28 KTU 9.477 = RIH 83/39+29 and perhaps also KTU 4.258 = RS 17.007+ (see l. 5) record a series of debt-notes together with the witnesses involved. As a matter of fact, the explicit mention of witnesses is what distinguishes these texts from other debtnotes tablets like KTU 3.10. Significantly, the same holds true for KTU 3.8 vis-à-vis KTU 3.3. Both are bills of personal security and use a similar phraseology (also parallel to the Akkadian counterparts RS 15.81 or RS 16.287 referred to above).30 However, as already stated, neither the latter nor the Akkadian texts mentions any witnesses.31 Stronger doubts about the legal nature of KTU 3.8 and also KTU 3.9 have been expressed basically because both lack seal impressions and do not use phrases typical of legal texts (like the introductory formulae ‘from to-day’ or ‘before witnesses’). As a result, it has been suggested that these texts should rather be identified as ‘memoranda’.32 Despite the doubts of classification, which may indeed question once more the accuracy of our definitions, both documents will be included under this category following thus our basic premise, viz. the more or less explicit mention of witnesses in the texts. 3.3.2

Find-spot

Very little can be said about the find-spots of KTU 3.8 and KTU 3.9. The former was found in the open space between the royal palace and the so-called ‘southern palace’. As recently pointed out,

28 See B 1987, 291ff. Note that some of the debt-notes in this text do not mention the witness. 29 See B et al. 1984, 430. 30 See M 1980, 186ff. and H –  S 1991a, 189ff. 31 The list of persons on the reverse (ll. 10ff.) correspond to the sureties (cf. l. 1: spr. 'rbnm, see most recently H –  S 1991, 189) and not to the body of witnesses (as stated by M [1980, 188]). 32 So K 1979, 432f., with critical comments upon the former inclusion of this and other KTU 3. series texts within the category of ‘Verträge’ in D – L – S 1976a (see also S 1979, 1418).

 

418

tablets unearthed in this area ‘could have come from different parts of the surrounding buildings’,33 which means either from the palace or from a private house. As for the latter, it is almost certainly from illegal excavation at Ras Shamra.34 It is not without interest that all witnessed debt-notes come from the palace archives and that two of them (the two duplicates) were found in the palace at Ras Ibn Óani. 3.3.3

Form

We have already mentioned that KTU 3.8 and KTU 3.9 lack some of the characteristic features of legal documents. To begin with, neither of them bears a seal impression. On the other hand, the formulas that usually introduce a legal text, like ‘from today’ or the one attested in the Akkadian counterparts ‘before witnesses’, are absent. Nevertheless, examples with these same atypical features can be found within the Akkadian corpus (compare also the Ugaritic royal document RS 94.2965). RS 11.856, for instance, describes the transaction without any such introductory formulas, lists the witnesses at the end of the text after a ruling and bears no seal impression. These are exactly the same characteristics and scheme as in KTU 3.8 (significantly, the unusual shape of both tablets is similar).35 As for the text itself, KTU 3.8 follows the general pattern of legal documents. It is phrased in objective style, the completed part of the transaction is in the past (perfective) and the final clauses in the future (imperfective). After listing the three witnesses, the name of the scribe is mentioned at the very end of the document. The text of KTU 3.9, on the other hand, is exceptional in that it combines both objective and subjective style, an unusual feature in domestic contracts. The names of two witnesses close the document. 3.3.4

Content

KTU 3.8 is a deed of security: five persons assume surety for two debtors. KTU 3.9 concerns the inauguration of a religious associa33

V S 1991a, 146. Note that it has recently been possible to trace back the find-spot of another Claremont Ras Shamra tablet, namely from the palace archives (A – S 1991–2, 8 n. 5). 35 Viz. they are small and nearly square: KTU 3.8 measures 48 × 42 × 28 and RS 11.856, 40 × 40 × 22 mm. 34

    

419

tion (mrz˙) by a ”amumànu and stipulates the binding obligations for both its founder and leader and the rest of its members. 3.4

The international legal text

3.4.1 Definition and scope It is hardly surprising to find only one Ugaritic text, KTU 3.1 = RS 11.772+, under this category since Akkadian was not only the legal but also the diplomatic language par excellence at that time in the Near East. As a matter of fact, what is truly surprising is precisely the very existence of one document written in alphabetic cuneiform that describes a transaction between two states, namely Hatti and Ugarit. The discovery in the palace southern archive of the Akkadian parallel text, namely the edict that establishes the inventory of the tribute of Niqmaddu II owed to his overlord ”uppiluliuma I (RS 17.227 and dupl., see above § 9.2.5.3), clearly showed that we are dealing here with an Ugaritic version.36 This interpretation, however, has been recently challenged arguing that the language and formulae of KTU 3.1 do not correspond to a legal document but, rather, that they reveal the epistolary nature of the text.37 This opinion, however, takes into consideration neither the ambiguous language used by Hittite scribes (as discussed above under § 9.2.5.1), also present in the Akkadian original edict, nor proper Ugaritic epistolary structure.38 3.4.2

Find-spot

The different fragments of this tablet were found scattered within and around the palace western archive. Of interest is the fact that the Akkadian tribute list RS 11.732[] was discovered at this same archive and that the content thereof is predominantly administrative. On this account, it has been reasonably suggested that the Ugaritic version of the edict was kept there for administrative purposes.39

36 See e.g. N 1956, 37ff., D – L 1966a, or  S 1990a, 354ff. 37 K 1993, followed by T 1995b, 235. 38 See also the remarks of P (1998). 39 See  S 1991a, 57–8.

 

420 3.4.3

Form

As already mentioned, the text is preserved from several fragments (RS 11.772+11.780+11.782+11.802). The original tablet must have been relatively large. Unlike the Akkadian duplicates, however, KTU 3.1 is not ‘cushion’-shaped and its width, namely 30 mm, and rather flat surface seems to rule out a priori the original presence of the Hittite seal impression in the lost middle part of the obverse. The scheme of the text corresponds to the Akkadian original, the first preserved paragraphs to the historical introduction, and the following to the detailed definition of the tribute. Although not preserved, the end of the text may have contained the invocation to the gods as witnesses and guarantors of the agreement, as in the Akkadian text. Finally, it has been pointed out that the order of some of the tribute items as well as that of the Hittite officials follows the text of the treaty of Mur“ili II (RS 17.380+) rather than the edict of ”uppiluliuma I.40 3.4.4

Content

The historical introduction so typical of Hittite edicts and agreements relates how Niqmaddu II refused to take part in the antiHittite coalition and thus stresses his loyalty towards his overlord ”uppiluliuma I. The text then describes in detail the inventory of the tribute that as a result the king of Ugarit owed to the Great King, the queen his wife, as well as his high officials.

4

T H L T

The excavations at Ras Shamra have so far yielded only two cuneiform texts written in the Hittite language. One is part of a trilingual literary composition (RS 25.421+) and the other is a complete legal document (RS 17.109). The latter, with which we are here concerned, is thus unique in that it is the only Hittite original document found at Ugarit. Shortly after its discovery, Hittitologists, too, agreed with the uniqueness of RS 17.109 for not only was this tablet the first Hittite legal document discovered outside the Anatolian core of 40

See  S 1990a, 341.

    

421

the Hittite empire but also the only source which could shed light on the form of Hittite private legal practice. 4.1

Definition

RS 17.109 was catalogued by E. Laroche with the number CTH 296 as one of the Hittite ‘procès’ within the brief chapter of law. He titled it ‘témoignage écrit de Pallariya’. Indeed, the text describes the testimony of a witness of an inter-state transaction, namely between Hatti and Ugarit; the deposition is made before two witnesses and properly authenticated by means of a seal impression. On epigraphic, linguistic and also prosopographic grounds, the tablet can be safely dated to the second half of the 13th century , and thus it fits into the general chronology of the Ugarit archives. On the other hand, the fact that the text is written in the classical script of Bo[azköy does not necessarily mean that the tablet was drawn up at the Hittite capital. As we have already seen, it is possible, and in this case even probable, that Hittite officials would arbitrate international affairs in foreign states or courts like Ugarit. 4.2 Find-spot The tablet was found in the palace southern archive. This find-spot agrees well with the nature of RS 17.109 since, as we have mentioned in several occasions, this royal archive was meant to keep the legal documents concerned with foreign affairs. 4.3

Form

The shape of RS 17.109 is rather peculiar. In fact, it belongs to a category of Hittite tablets we have already seen above (§ 9.2.5.2). The tablet bears a kind of appendix that protrudes from the middle of its upper part, on top of which the stamp-seal impression is to be found. Also typical of Hittite scribal practice (and of deposition documents), the text opens with the word umma (here as an Akkadogram). In this case it introduces the statement of one of the parties involved. Then his witness declares, also phrased in subjective style and in the past. Next follow the clauses that settle the affair and validate the written document, mainly provided for the other, absent party.

422

 

After a ruling, the mention of the two witnesses (of whom one probably acted as judicial officer) close the text. 4.4

Content

As catalogued by Laroche, RS 17.109 is a deed of deposition. It contains the declaration of Pallariya, the witness of a transaction, namely the receipt of a large amount of silver by the Hittite tax collector from the sàkinu of Ugarit. The same state officials, especially the latter, are often protagonists in other international legal cases that were most often arbitrated, as we have seen above (§ 9.2.6), by the king of Carchemish. 4.5 Publication and studies The tablet was published in transliteration and translation by L (1968b no. 1); recently, S (1995a) has provided us with the copy and photos, and also a few reading improvements. Apart from Laroche’s first interpretation, one should also mention the contributions by H (1971),  S (1971) and M R (1999).

CHAPTER TEN

THE ECONOMY OF UGARIT M H

The economy of the kingdom of Ugarit is considered here under three headings: the administrative texts, commerce and crafts and industries.

1

T A T 1.1 General

The administrative texts written in both Ugaritic and Akkadian belong to the time span from the middle of the 13th century  to the destruction of the kingdom in about 1180  or a few years later. It is impossible to separate the Ugaritic and Akkadian texts, for they deal with the same issues, and often the same persons are mentioned in the texts in both languages. It is also impossible to determine the exact number of the texts, for (a) there are hundreds of tablet-fragments, which rarely can be used to explain anything; (b) many texts and text fragments in the administrative economic field are still unpublished.1 There is also the problem of dividing the texts according to content. Some of the administrative texts are economic, others are agrarian, etc. In all, we possess approximately 550 clearly and fairly legible texts of this kind in Ugaritic and 160 in Akkadian, a ratio of 7:2. We can divide these texts, albeit not absolutely, into primary tablets made on the spot or at the time of the administrative (economic or fiscal) act, and tablets which are monthly or even annual summaries. 1 For the overall number of the texts and their editions, cf. TEO. The Akkadian texts are generally cited according to their publication in PRU 3, 4, 6 and Ug 5. Other occasional publications are quoted separately. On unpublished texts cf. KTU 2, 9.

 

424

In some instances it is also difficult to draw a dividing line between administrative and commercial texts (in cases when the prices of the goods are not given). We also include here the texts excavated in the territory of the kingdom of Ugarit (Ras-ibn Hani (RIH)). In general, all these texts reflect the structure of Ugaritic society, which was divided into two sets. One comprised the ‘sons of Ugarit’ (Akk. mârè ME” Ugarit), i.e. the villagers, who had a certain communal organization (H 1976). The other comprised the ‘servants of the king’ (Ug. bn“ mlk, Ugaritic Akk. bunu“u milki, Akk. ardè ME” “arri ) or royal servicemen, who received various deliveries for their service from royal stores and also, for performing their duties, land allotments on conditional holding (H 1982). This social stratification is known from the text PRU 4, 107 = RS 17.238, which also mentions the ‘servants of the servants of the king’ (Akk. ardè ME” ardè ME” “arri ). From this text, as well as from the administrative texts, it is clear that some of the royal servicemen were in a position to have underlings. The royal servicemen were organized into professional groups and at the head of every group stood a royal nominee-official or rb (lit. ‘great’, ‘big’). They performed their duties (taxes, conscription and corvées).2 The various professions of craftsmen, agricultural workers, different military groups, priestly professions, officials and palace personnel were organized in groups sometimes of ten. 1.2 Classification of the administrative texts There is some difficulty in classifying the administrative texts as they are largely of mixed contents, but in general it is possible. 1.2.1

Lists of villages

We shall begin with the lists of villages (Ug. qrt, Akk. âlu). This category contains the texts which merely provide the names of villages (since the numbers which follow them are sometimes broken, as are the first and last lines, where the purpose of a text was given).3 They can be further classified as: 2 Therefore it is impossible to define them as ‘guilds’, as this would presuppose at least some degree of internal self-government which is not apparent in the bn“ mlk texts. 3 KTU 4.94 = RS 11.832; KTU 4.303 = RS 17.370[]; KTU 4.365 = RS 18.073; KTU 4.414 = RS 18.251[]; KTU 4.621 = RS 19.048[]; KTU 4.622 =

   

425

a) Lists of mobilization of villagers for military purposes (or sometimes for the corvée); sometimes arms were delivered to them: ‘bows’ (q“tm), ‘shields’ (Akk. gabàbùME”), ‘slings’ (ql'm) and ‘spears’ (mr˙m).4 b) A list of payments of tribute in silver to the Hittite king (professional groups of bn“ mlk also appear in this text, KTU 4.610 = RS 19.017). c) Payments by the villagers—not individually but as a unit—of silver, wool, cereals, olive oil, wine and cattle to the royal treasury.5 d) Tablets recording the distribution of ‘food’ (akl ) or ‘rations’ (˙pr) to the villages in corpore at the time of performing their corvée and other texts where the villages are listed (KTU 4.41 = RS 8.280). 1.2.2

The gt

We learn from the administrative texts that there was a well developed royal economy in the kingdom (H 1979a). It was divided into units (Ug. gt, Akk. dimtu)6 which were dispersed over all the kingdom.7 Here too certain groups of texts shed light on the economic activities on the gt ’s. Texts include: 19.048[]; KTU 4.629 = RS 19.061; KTU 4.661 = RS 19.167; KTU 4.676 = RS 19.174; KTU 4.684 = RS 19.257; KTU 4.685 = RS 19.258; KTU 4.686 = RS 19.259; KTU 4.693 = RS 20.157; KTU 4.770 = RIH 77/27; PRU 6, 97 = RS 19.118; PRU 6, 169 = RS 18.279; Ug 5, 102 = RS 20.207; 103 = RS 20.143; 104 = RS 20.144; etc. 4 KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716; PRU 3, = RS 11.841; PRU 6, 131 = RS 19.35; cf. also KTU 4.63 = RS 10.052 where mobilized people of various villages receive their arms; PRU 6, 95 = RS 19.74; KTU 4.683 = RS 19.256; and Bordreuil 4 = RS 34.131 etc. 5 KTU 4.73 = RS 11.724+; KTU 4.93 = RS 11.776 + 11.800; KTU 4.95 = RS 11.836+; KTU 4.108 = RS 12.003+; KTU 4.113 = RS 12.018; KTU 4.232 = RS 16.355; KTU 4.267 = RS 17.103; KTU 4.308 = RS 17.386; KTU 4.553 = RS 18.[479]; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016; KTU 4.611 = RS 19.018; PRU 3, 194 = RS 11.830; PRU 3, 191 = RS 11.841[]; PRU 3, 191 = RS 15.020; PRU 3, 191 = RS 15.179; PRU 3, 192 = RS 15.183; etc. PRU 6, 104 = RS 19.43; PRU 6, 105 = RS 19.117; PRU 6, 106 = RS 19.119; Ug 5, = RS 19.80; Ug 5, 111 = RS 19.129; Ug 5, 113 = RS 19.26; Ug 5, 187 = RS 19.27 (although it is not always certain whether these are payments or deliveries). 6 The literal meaning of gt is ‘oil or wine press’ (H 1979b). 7 The texts concerning the more than 70 royal gts are: KTU 4.89 = RS 11.796; KTU 4.96 = RS 11.840; KTU 4.97 = RS 11.841; KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858:45; KTU 4.110 = RS 12.006; KTU 4.122 = RS 13.012; KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001; KTU 4.139 = RS 15.017; KTU 4.141 = 15.022+; RS 4.142 = RS 15.023; KTU 4.175 = RS 15.096; KTU 4.200 = RS 15.189; KTU 4.213 = RS 16.127; KTU 4.243 = RS 16.395; KTU 4.271 = RS 17.115; KTU 4.296 = RS 17.031; KTU 4.297 = RS 17.326; KTU 4.307 = RS 17.384; KTU 4.313 = RS 17.399; KTU 4.320 = RS 17.444; KTU 4.345 = RS 18.033; KTU 4.358 = RS 18.048; KTU

426

 

a) The tablets concerning villagers, villages and royal service people whose service fields were in the area of a certain gt and connected with it, who had to deliver their share of their own produce to the gt,8 where it was processed. b) Texts concerning stocks of agricultural tools on various gts.9 c) Lists of the state of cattle on the gts. These include beasts of burden (oxen and donkeys), cattle for fattening (mri ) and poultry,10 listed together with the working teams. d) Texts concerning agricultural products (cereals, wine, oil, etc.) which are at the gt, including fodder and products delivered by the villagers and (non-agricultural) craftsmen to the gt stores. Sometimes the name of the month is given, in which case these are monthly reports.11 e) Tablets concerning ‘royal servicemen’ (bn“ mlk), who had agricultural professions: ‘ploughmen’ (˙r∆m),12 ‘vine dressers’ ( gpnym), ‘(sheep-) shearers’ ( gzzm), ‘shepherds’ (nqdm and r'ym), and other personnel who were partly referred to as ‘man of the gt’ (bn“ gt) and ‘belonging to the gt’ (bdl gt).13 4.365 = RS 18.073; KTU 4.380 = RS 18.099; KTU 4.382 = RS 18.106+; KTU 4.386 = RS 18.111; KTU 4.397 = RS 18.136; KTU 4.400 = RS 18.139; KTU 4.405 = RS 18.143[]; KTU 4.409 = RS 18.146 bis; KTU 4.424 = RS 18.296; KTU 4.618 = RS 19.045; KTU 4.625 = RS 19.052; KTU 4.636 = RS 19.097; KTU 4.638 = RS 19.100; KTU 4.750 = RS 29.094; PRU 6, 122 = RS 21.203; Ug 5, 95 = RS 20.01; Ug 5, 96 = RS 20.12, etc. 8 KTU 4.110 = RS 12.006; KTU 4.244 = RS 16.396; KTU 4.643 = RS 19.105, etc.; cf. also L 1979c. 9 KTU 4.625 = RS 19.052; KTU 4.632 = RS 19.073, etc.; cf. also PRU 6, 141 = RS 19.112 (?). 10 KTU 4.89 = RS 11.796; KTU 4.128 = RS 14.176; KTU 4.175 = RS 15.096; KTU 4.275 = RS 17.125; KTU 4.296 = RS 17.140; KTU 4.358 = RS 18.048; KTU 4.367 = RS 18.076; KTU 4.618 = RS 19.045; KTU 4.636 = RS 19.097; Ug 5, 95 = RS 20.01. 11 KTU 4.143 = RS 15.031; KTU 4.213 = RS 16.127; KTU 4.243 = RS 16.395; KTU 4.269 = RS 17.106; KTU 4.271 = RS 17.115; KTU 4.345 = RS 18.033; KTU 4.397 = RS 18.136; KTU 4.400 = RS 18.139; KTU 4.636 = RS 19.097. 12 KTU 4.65 = RS 11.602:1. 13 KTU 4.35 = RS 8.183+; KTU 4.65 = RS 11.602; KTU 4.71 = RS 11.721; KTU 4.87 = RS 11.789; KTU 4.96 = RS 11.840; KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845; KTU 4.106 = RS 12.001; KTU 4.122 = RS 13.012; KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084; KTU 4.129 = RS 15.001; KTU 4.141 = RS 15.022+; KTU 4.153 = RS 15.046; KTU 4.175 = RS 15.096; KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116; KTU 4.213 = RS 16.127; KTU 4.243 = RS 16.395; KTU 4.269 = RS 17.106; KTU 4.296 = RS 17.031; KTU 4.307 = RS 17.384; KTU 4.320 = RS 17.444; KTU 4.332 = RS 18.010+; KTU 4.355 = RS 18.045; KTU 4.358 = RS 18.048; KTU 4.374 = RS 18.082; KTU 4.378 = RS 18.087; KTU 4.382 = RS 18.106+; KTU 4.440 = RS 18.[317]; KTU 4.491 = RS 18.[389]; KTU 4.493 = RS 18.[391];

   

427

f ) Many texts also deal with the deliveries from the gts for certain persons. The goods are wheat, emmer, wine, oil, wood, cattle, textiles, metal artifacts, etc.14 At times it is difficult to differentiate between storage stocks and deliveries. It should be noted that these texts may overlap with commercial ones and we cannot draw a clear dividing line. Furthermore, many of the texts are of mixed content and it is sometimes impossible to classify them precisely. 1.2.3

The royal servicemen

These are texts dealing with the ‘royal servicemen’ (Ug. bn“ mlk; Akk. ardè “arri ) according to their professional groups. Again the divisions are not definitive. a) Texts where the professional group is mentioned as a unit, the personal names of its members not being given, and where the whole group receives deliveries of some kind.15 b) Lists of royal servicemen of different professions (˙r“ anyt, ‘shipwrights’, ˙r“ bhtm ‘house-builders’, nskm ‘(metal) casters’, etc.) where each professional is listed and identified only by his name plus his father’s name, or by his father’s name alone (bn X ‘son of (PN) X’). Sometimes they also receive certain deliveries in silver, or in kind and sometimes in these texts give a total of the amount of the delivery. These texts also tell us in which village of the kingdom of Ugarit they resided.16 KTU 4.608 = RS 19.014; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016; KTU 4.618 = RS 19.045; KTU 4.630 = RS 19.062; KTU 4.636 = RS 19.097; KTU 4.729 = RS 24.301; KTU 4.740 = RS 24.660; PRU 6, 118 = RS 18.116; Ug 5, 96 = RS 20.012. 14 KTU 4.36 = RS 8.208; KTU 4.38 = RS 8.272; KTU 4.128 = RS 14.176; KTU 4.131 = RS 15.003; KTU 4.144 = RS 15.032; KTU 4.149 = RS 15.039; KTU 4.153 = RS 15.046; KTU 4.175 = RS 15.096; KTU 4.213 = RS 16.127; KTU 4.216 = RS 16.165; KTU 4.230 = RS 16.341; KTU 4.243 = RS 16.395; KTU 4.263 = RS 17.049; KTU 4.269 = RS 17.106; KTU 4.352 = RS 18.042; KTU 4.377 = RS 18.086; KTU 4.378 = RS 18.087; KTU 4.387 = RS 18.112; KTU 4.495 = RS 18.[394]; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016; KTU 4.630 = RS 19.062; KTU 4.636 = RS 19.097; KTU 4.705 = RS 21.056, etc. 15 KTU 4.105 = RS 13.014[bis]; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084; KTU 4.139 = RS 15.017; deliveries: KTU 4.29 = RS 3.320; KTU 4.36 = RS 8.208; KTU 4.38 = RS 8.272; KTU 4.47 = RS 10.043; KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845; KTU 4.217 = RS 16.176; KTU 4.312 = RS 17.397[]; KTU 4.416 = RS 18.252; KTU 4.485 = RS 18.[381]; KTU 4.745 = RS 25.417 and KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001 (cereals); KTU 4.216 = RS 16.165 (wine); KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016 (˙pr monthly ‘ration’s); KTU 4.610 = RS 19.017 (argmn “p“ ‘tribute to the Sun’, i.e. the Hittite king). 16 KTU 4.35 = RS 8.183+; KTU 4.43 = RS 9.011; KTU 4.44 = RS 9.453; KTU

428

 

c) The bn“ mlk can be considered as a special category, designated as being at the disposal of the king, queen (or queen-mother), the ‘vizier’ (Ug. skn, Akk. sàkinu) or other functionaries who are defined as overseers. The formula here is generally spr bn“ (mlk) dt bd (mlkt, skn, or a PN), ‘list of the (royal) men who are at the disposal of (the queen, the sàkinu or a PN)’.17 Furthermore, these texts sometimes note particular work in a village, on a gt or work of another kind. d) As noted above, the professional groups had their nominated rb, ‘chief ’ or ‘elder’.18 Data have not survived regarding all the groups, but we know that there were rbs in the following groups: nqdm ‘shepherds’,19 ˙r“m ‘craftsmen’, in this case ‘cartwrights’,20 note also the rb khnm ‘chief priest’,21 etc. In some cases there could be an ‘overseer’ nÀr (Akk. àkil )22 instead of the rb. 4.66 = RS 11.656; KTU 4.69 = RS 11.715+; KTU 4.471 = RS 18.[363]; KTU 4.90 = RS 11.797; KTU 4.92 = RS 11.799; KTU 4.98 = RS 11.844; KTU 4.114 = RS 12.027; KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001; KTU 4.128 = RS 14.176; KTU 4.134 = RS 15.006; KTU 4.155 = RS 15.051; KTU 4.177 = RS 15.101; KTU 4.181 = RS 15.106; KTU 4.187 = RS 15.157+; KTU 4.188 = RS 15.169+; KTU 4.201 = RS 15.192[]; KTU 4.215 = RS 16.130; KTU 4.217 = RS 16.176; KTU 4.230 = RS 16.341; KTU 4.261 = RS 17.023; KTU 4.269 = RS 17.106; KTU 4.272 = RS 17.118; KTU 4.286 = RS 17.290; KTU 4.310 = RS 17.392; KTU 4.321 = RS 18.005; KTU 4.322 = RS 18.007; KTU 4.355 = RS 18.045; KTU 4.367 = RS 18.076; KTU 4.370 = RS 18.079; KTU 4.374 = RS 18.082; KTU 4.378 = RS 18.087; KTU 4.379 = RS 18.098; KTU 4.422 = RS 18.293; KTU 4.440 = RS 18.[317]; KTU 4.485 = RS 18.[381]; KTU 4.545 = RS 18.[471]; KTU 4.561 = RS 18.[549]; KTU 4.617 = RS 19.044; KTU 4.624 = RS 19.049[][]; KTU 4.633 = RS 19.086; KTU 4.655 = RS 19.158; KTU 4.681 = RS 19.180; KTU 4.690 = RS 20.009; KTU 4.714 = RS 22.231; KTU 4.761 = RS 34.123; KTU 4.772 = RIH 78/06; PRU 3, 195 = RS 15.009; PRU 3, 194 = RS 11.839; PRU 6, 143 = RS 21.200; PRU 6, 147 = RS 19.127; PRU 6, 148 = RS 17.97; PRU 6, 149 = RS 15.354. 17 We must distinguish between the ‘(grand) vizier’ sàkin màti ‘sàkinu of the land’ (i.e. of the kingdom) and the sknm ‘sàkinus’ of various villages of the kingdom, i.e. the ‘elders of the settlements’ (Akk. ¢azannu). 18 KTU 4.110 = RS 12.006; KTU 4.141 = RS 15.022+; KTU 4.144 = RS 15.032; KTU 4.223 = RS 16.194 (?); KTU 4.264 = RS 17.052; KTU 4.367 = RS 18.076; KTU 4.379 = RS 18.098; KTU 4.635 = RS 19.096; spr rb '“rt ‘list of elders (overseers) of ten (men)’ (KTU 4.714 = RS 22.731:1) and KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016. 19 KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009] + vi 56. 20 KTU 4.145 = RS 15.034:9. 21 KTU 6.6 = RS 1.[051]; KTU 6.7 = RS 1.[053]; KTU 6.8 = RS 1.[054]; KTU 6.9 = RS 1.[055]; KTU 6.10 = RS 1.[052]. 22 nÀr mdr ' ‘guard of the sown’ (KTU 4.141 = RS 15.022+ iii 16); nÀr krm ‘guard of the vineyard’ (KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:12’; KTU 4.618 = RS 19.045:6); àkil narkabti ‘overseer of the chariots’ or ‘chariotry’ (PRU 3, 84 = RS 16.157; PRU 3, 79 = RS 16.239; PRU 3, 85 = RS 16.250:17); LÚàkil “angi ‘overseer of the priests’ (PRU 3, 168 = RS 16.186:13').

   

429

e) The ‘elder’ (rb), it seems, is also connected with the distribution of raw materials to the royal artisans. It was his responsibility to deliver their produce to the treasury (and possibly to the gt). Another type of these texts shows us the delivery of materials for repairing military equipment (chariots).23 f ) Like the villages mentioned above, the professional groups— both military and non-military—participated in the formation of the army and were subject to conscription. Naturally, the military professionals were obliged to fulfil their periodic guard service as ¢rdm (Akk. ¢uràdu) ‘watchmen’ or ‘mobilized men’. They received everything from the royal stores—arms, chariots, horses, even caparisons (horse-cloths) and other items of their equipment. These military professional groups appear in the texts as mrynm (Akk. maryannu) ‘charioteers’; m≈rÀlm (Akk. .) ‘watchmen, guards’, ∆nnm (Akk. “anannù) ‘warriors’ and others.24 Soldiers of foreign origin (Ug. ∆r†nm Akk. “erdana) as is evident from the texts, had to serve under the same conditions, and, received the same kind of deliveries and lands in conditional holding.25 Naturally, our knowledge here is also limited by the fragmentary state of the administrative tablets. g) As noted, there are texts on tribute delivered to the Hittite king to which the professional groups of all specializations contributed together with the villages. The same applies to the small number of

23

KTU 4.145 = RS 15.034; for a different interpretation cf. V 1995a, 42–7. KTU 3.7 = RS 18.118; KTU 4.33 = RS 5.248; KTU 4.53 = RS 10.090; KTU 4.54 = RS 10.103; KTU 4.58 = RS 11.[902]; KTU 4.69 = RS 11.715+ (also bdl mrynm and bdl m≈rÀlm ‘subjects of the maryannu/m≈rÀlm’); KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845; KTU 4.102 = RS 11.857; KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084; KTU 4.137 = RS 15.015+; KTU 4.149 = RS 15.039; KTU 4.152 = RS 15.045; KTU 4.162 = RS 15.067+; KTU 4.163 = RS 15.073; (also bn mrynm‘sons of the maryannu’; KTU 4.170 = RS 15.084 (also n'r mrynm ‘youths of the maryannu’); KTU 4.173 = RS 15.094 (also bn mrynm); KTU 4.174 = RS 15.096; KTU 4.179 = RS 15.103; KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116; KTU 4.213 = RS 16.127; KTU 4.216 = RS 16.165; KTU 4.230 = RS 16.341; KTU 4.244 = RS 16.396; KTU 4.322 = RS 18.007; KTU 4.379 = RS 18.098; KTU 4.387 = RS 18.112; KTU 4.416 = RS 18.252; KTU 4.485 = RS 18.[381]; KTU 4.528 = RS 18.[448]; KTU 4.561 = RS 18.[489]; KTU 4.623 = RS 19.049[]; KTU 4.635 = RS 19.096; KTU 4.751 = RS 29.096; PRU 3, 192 = RS 12.034+12.043; PRU 3, 123 = RS 15.123 + 16.152; PRU 3, 118 = RS 15.155; PRU 3, 142 = RS 16.136; PRU 3, 79 = RS 16.239; PRU 3, 96 = RS 16.249; PRU 3, 199 = RS 16.126 + 16.257 + 16.258 + 16.345; PRU 6, 31 = RS 19.98; PRU 6, 90 = RS 19.114; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131; PRU 6, 131 = RS 19.035; PRU 6, 136 = RS 17.240; Ug 5, 68 = RS 20.246. Cf. also H 1979c. 25 H 1979d; see in general V 1995a, 93–129. 24

430

 

archers, whom the villages and the professional groups had to contribute to the guard, according to KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716. h) A very important part of the administrative texts are the agrarian tablets, mostly in alphabetic cuneiform or Ugaritic. In contrast to the legal agrarian texts, written in Akkadian, which list individual cases in which the serviceman (military or civilian) receives land grants in conditional holding from the king for his service, these are administrative documents simply recording the delivery of a field to a person or its transfer from one person to another. Sometimes the texts record the service fields (or vineyards) in certain villages. In the Ugaritic texts these fields are called ubdy, updt or ubdit. The word is of Hittite origin, meaning ‘carrying out, performing obligations’ (I 1974, 107) and has the same meaning as the Akkadian word pilku, known only from Ugarit (H 1981; W 1995c, 542). The texts are composed in general according to the following formulae: “d ubdy (name of profession) dt b (name of gt x), ‘The service field of the professionals X, who are at the gt . . .’ Or: “d/krm ubdy PN b (name of village), ‘field/vineyard ubdy of PN in (name of the village)’. There are also other formulae with slight variations. In some cases we read simply “d bd PN, ‘a field in the hands of PN’. A number of texts list several fields as at the disposal of one person. Often the title of the passage of the text where several persons are mentioned with their fields denotes the profession of the servicemen who had the fields (or vineyards) at their disposal. There is also an example of the redistribution of fields. In this case the formula is as follows: “d X bd Y ‘The field of (PN) X to the hands (i.e. at the disposal) of (PN) Y’. Possibly it designates the fields of the nayyàlu, persons who did not fulfil their obligations, which were given to other servicemen (H 1982, 19–22). Last, but not least, a very interesting feature here is the distribution or transfer to certain persons of fields designated as ßbr (possibly an abbreviation for (“d ) ßbr, Akk. eqel ßibbiru, ‘communal (or public) field’); this has a possible parallel in the early Roman republican ager publicus.26 26 The ubdy-fields are said to belong to the following classes: trrm ‘the trrmprofessionals’ (KTU 4.7 = RS [Varia 18]:1); mdm ‘friends (of the king)’ (KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858:1) mrynm ‘maryannu-warriors’ (line 8); mrim ‘liaison men’ (line 20); '“rm ‘overseers of ten men’ (line 30); mri ibrn ‘liaison men of (prince) Ibirànu’ (line 37); ∆Àrm ‘gatekeepers’ (line 39); “rm ‘singers’ (line 41), nqdm ‘shepherds’ (line 44); m≈rÀlm ‘watchmen’ (line 54), etc.; “d ubdy Il“tm' dt bd skn "Ubdy ‘fields in the (village) Ili“tam'i, which are at the disposal of the sàkinu" (KTU 4.110 = RS 12.006:1–2); zt ubdym

   

431

i) A number of texts are devoted to pasturing cattle, and the important thing here is that the royal servicemen ‘shepherds’, r'ym, were engaged in this. At least some of these had their ‘youth(s)’ sÀr(m) or ‘apprentices’ (lmdm). They worked not only in the royal economy on the gts but took cattle for pasture from the villagers of the kingdom of Ugarit, as well as from various professional groups of royal servicemen.27 There is also a particular tax from villagers and royal servicemen known as, kaspu “a maqqadi, ‘silver for pasturing’.28 1.2.4

Cadastral texts

There is a group of cadastral texts, but it is not absolutely clear whether the persons mentioned in them are villagers living in the communal framework or royal servicemen. They are mentioned in the same text as living in different villages. Besides the head of the household (or family) are listed his wife (or wives), sons, daughters (in one case even his son-in-law) and male and female slaves ('bd, amt). Some persons designated as Àzr ‘youth’ and pÀt ‘girl’ figure here. Possibly these are children, teenagers or dependent members of the family.29 ‘ubdy olive groves’ (KTU 4.164 = RS 15.075:3); also KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116; KTU 4.222 = RS 16.193; KTU 4.244 = RS 16.396; KTU 4.282 = RS 17.246; KTU 4.340 = RS 18.027; KTU 4.344 = RS 18.030; KTU 4.356 = RS 18.046; KTU 4.357 = RS 18.047; KTU 4.389 = RS 18.117; KTU 4.399 = RS 18.138; KTU 4.416 = RS 18.252; KTU 4.423 = RS 18.295; KTU 4.424 = RS 18.296; KTU 4.425 = RS 18.297; KTU 4.692 = RS 20.145 ubdy yß˙m—‘the ubdy fields of heralds’. And according to KTU 4.631 = RS 19.072 a number of ubdy-fields in the village are distributed among various persons. In addition there is mention of the handing over of the field l qrt ‘to the village’, which received the field under its collective responsibility (lines 4–6, 6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23–24). The ßibbiru-fields are mentioned in PRU 3, 143 = RS 16.137; and PRU 6, 55 = RS 18.022; cf. also KTU 4.375 = RS 18.084 (ßbr-fields in various villages). 27 H 1982; texts: KTU 4.75 = RS 11.735+; KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001; KTU 4.129= RS 15.001; KTU 4.153 = RS 15.046; KTU 4.175 = RS 15.096; KTU 4.243 = RS 16.395; KTU 4.374 = RS 18.082; KTU 4.378 = RS 18.087; KTU 4.391 = RS 18.129; KTU 4.440 = RS 18.[317]; KTU 4.493 = RS 18.[391]; KTU 4.618 = RS 19.045; KTU 4.729 = RS 24.301; KTU 4.740 = RS 24.660; these mention r'ym (‘shepherds’) and their sÀr(m) and lmdm. In PRU 6, 118 = RS 18.116 the r'ym receive cattle for pasturage from various persons; the delivery of cattle into the charge of certain persons is recorded in PRU 3, 188 = RS 16.290; PRU 3, 205 = RS 16.155; PRU 6, 115 = RS 17.37; PRU 6, 117 = RS 17.136; PRU 6, 119 = RS 19.69; PRU 6, 120 = RS 19.116; PRU 6, 121 = RS 19.141. 28 PRU 6, 116 = RS 17.64 (M R 1995a). 29 KTU 4.80 = RS 11.778; KTU 4.295 = RS 17.312; KTU 4.360 = RS 18.050; KTU 4.417 = RS 18.258; KTU 4.419 = RS 18.289; KTU 4.432 = RS 18.[303]; KTU 4.519 = RS 18.[436]; KTU 4.644 = RS 19.106. Cf. also H 1976, 84–90.

 

432 1.2.5

The navy

The maritime location of Ugarit gave rise to the engagement of its inhabitants in building ships, manufacturing equipment for ships and joining their crews. As mentioned, we know of ‘shipwrights’ (˙r“ anyt) who were royal artisans. But whether the ships crews were royal servicemen or mobilized villagers is uncertain, though the latter seems more probable. The texts refer to various types of ships and naval equipment at the royal stores, and even to shipbuilding.30 Documents on foreign trade involving ships are not considered here. 1.2.6

Deserters

We have observed that there are many texts concerning various obligations of the population of Ugarit of various social positions. But not everyone was able or willing to fulfil his obligations. Apart from the legal texts, where villagers and royal servicemen were proclaimed nayyàlu (cf. above), some administrative texts mention ‘deserters’ (amèlùME” mu-un-na--†u-ti; PRU 6, 76 = RS 17.361) and another tablet lists six men from various villages who la-li-ku “a il-ki ‘did not perform the ilku (corvée)’.31 1.2.7

The bdlm

The foregoing (cf. § 10.1.3.1 on the ardè ME” ardè ME” “arri, and § 10.1.2.3 on the sÀrm and lmdm) leads us to texts concerning persons who were the subjects of royal servicemen and who also received rations and deliveries from the royal stores. They too belonged to the bn“ mlk the ‘royal servicemen’, but as the delivery texts indicate, they were of a lower category. In this connection there arises the question of the Ug. bdlm (Akk. bidalùma), who appear in the admin-

30 Ship’s crews from various villages KTU 4.40 = RS 8.279 and PRU 4, 138 = RS 19.46 with an indication that the ships belong to the king (anyt mlk) appears on tablet KTU 4.421 = RS 18.291; various types of ships belonging to (or used by) coastal villagers of the kingdom. KTU 4.81 = RS 11.779; KTU 4.366 = RS 18.074; KTU 4.371 = RS 18.080; PRU 6, 73 = RS 19.107, equipment for ships PRU 6, 141 = RS 19.112 together with food (PRU 6, 150 = RS 18.101 and possibly PRU 6, 164 = RS 19.90). Ships of the king of Carchemish in Ugarit. RSO 7 § 5, 23–5, RS 34.147; cf. also H 1976: 21–4; H 1982: 188–91 and V 1995a, 159–76. 31 PRU 6, 77 = RS 19.032; cf. also Ug 5, 96 = RS 20.012, where besides mentioning ‘servants’ (ardè ME”) who performed (“alima), also mentions 16 persons la “al-lima ‘who did not perform their duties’.

   

433

istrative texts. They are first mentioned in alphabetic and syllabic texts as bdl mrynm/maryannu bi-da-lu-ma. They also appear after the reference to the tamkars ‘traders, merchants’, and there are also bdl of m≈rÀlm ‘watchmen’ and of qr†ym (KTU 4.85 = RS 11.786) etc. The bdlm/bidalùma noted in PRU 3, 199 = RS 16.126 + 16.257 + 16.258 + 16.345:12 feature there as a group after the tamkàrù (LÚ.ME”.ME” ), Rainey and Astour understand this term to mean ‘merchant’ (R 1963, 136–7; A 1972a). Heltzer, instead, argues that if we add together the bdlm/bidaluma of all groups of the servicemen, they amount to approximately one-third of the total and so it is not possible for all of them to be merchants or traders.32 Heltzer explains the word not from the Akk. badàlu, ‘to trade’ but as bd + l, ‘into the hands of ’. Thus, they must have been the auxiliary personnel of the maryannu, tamkàru, etc. (H 1978a, 122, n. 10). Sanmartín proposes that bdlm means ‘substitutes, reservists’, or even ‘subjects’.33 The word bdlm, written in syllabic cuneiform as bi-da-lu-ma, appears in the same text (PRU 3, 199 = RS 16.126 + 16.257 + 16.258 + 16.345) as the Akkadian word tamkàrù and by analogy with LÚ.ME”mu“-ke-nu-tum LÚ.ME”a-“i-ru-ma ‘the mu“kènùtum of the a“iru ('“rm “overseers of ten”)’ (PRU 3, 199 = RS 16.126 + 16.257 + 16.258 + 16.345 iii 30) and LÚ.ME”mu“-ke-nu-tum LÚ.ME”. ‘mu“kènùtum of the . (i.e. m≈rÀlm)’ (ibid., iv 20), they have to be considered as ‘substitutes’ or ‘subjects’ of the people to whom they belonged. In all the other texts from Ugarit where the bdlm appear they are not connected with trade.34 We mention this discussion here to demonstrate that not all questions of interpretation of Ugaritic terms have been definitely settled. 1.2.8

The clergy

A number of texts are devoted to the clergy. First of all come the khnm (Akk. “angù) ‘priests’ and the qd“m (Akk. bàrù) ‘diviners’. Besides the temple personnel there are, presumably, lists from local sanctuaries. 32 Cf. also H 1982, 114. According to KTU 4.69 = RS 11.715+ ii 6–10 bdl mrynm are listed after the mrynm; KTU 4.137 = RS 15.015+:4; KTU 4.173 = RS 15.094:5 and KTU 4.163 = RS 15.073:8 bn mrynm ‘sons of maryannu; KTU 4.179 = RS 15.103 n'r mrynm; lit.’ ‘youth of the maryannu’. Naturally, the subjects of the maryannu are mentioned very often. 33 S 1988a, 171–4; 1991, 183–4. R (1988, 221–7) comes to a different conclusion. 34 KTU 4.85 = RS 11.786; KTU 4.86 = RS 11.788; KTU 4.96 = RS 11.840; KTU 4.116 = RS 12.048:20; KTU 4.134 = RS 15.006; KTU 4.214 = RS 16.128.

 

434

The khnm and qd“m, like other temple personnel, belonged to the royal servicemen (bn“ mlk), and the texts do not indicate whether the clergy exercised strong political or economic influence. There are texts recording the presentation by the king of fields to the priests in conditional holding, as well as distributions of natural products to them.35 As noted above, there was also a ‘high priest’ (rb khnm).36 1.2.9

Mobilization

We mentioned above the lists concerning about mobilization of villagers and royal servicemen into the army, and also deliveries to various people in military professions, who according to the administrative texts did not differ formally from other professional groups. The villagers and servicemen, as noted, also received arms for their military or guard duty.37 There are also texts listing various groups of royal servicemen, always stating that they performed their service ‘at the royal house (palace)’.38 1.2.10

Administrators

A number of very important sections, although not the longest, from texts concern the royal administrators, who are also mentioned in letters, and in legal and international political texts. There are deliveries of silver (?), flour and garments to the sàkinu, namely, the sàkinu of the country.39 Information is also available about the family of the skn/sàkinu.40 Moreover, some tablets shed 35 KTU 4.29 = RS 3.320; KTU 4.36 = RS 8.208:1; KTU 4.38 = RS 8.272; KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716:72; KTU 4.69 = RS 11.715+ vi 22–37; KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845:9; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084:6; KTU 4.282 = RS 17.246:5; KTU 4.357 = RS 18.047:24; KTU 4.412 = RS 18.251[] ii 1–5 (the beginning of the column is broken but the qd“m follow and usually they were preceded by the khnm); KTU 4.41 = RS 18.252:6; KTU 4.633 = RS 19.086:4–14; KTU 4.745 = RS 25.417:5; KTU 4.761 = RS 34.123; PRU 3, 199 = RS 16.126 +16.257 + iii 37–55; PRU 3, 168 = RS 16.186:13; PRU 6, 43 = RS 17.131; PRU 6, 27 = RS 17.001; PRU 6, 136 = RS 17.240. 36 KTU 6.6 = RS 1.[051]; KTU 6.7 = RS 1.[053]; KTU 6.8 = RS 1.[054]; KTU 6.9 = RS 1.[055]; and some non-administrative texts in Akkadian and Ugaritic. 37 PRU 3, 191 = RS 11.841[]; PRU 6, 131 = RS 19.035 which documents a consignment of arms. 38 KTU 4.137 = RS 15.015+; KTU 4.163 = RS 15.073; KTU 4.173 = RS 15.094; KTU 4.174 = RS 15.095; KTU 4.179 = RS 15.103. 39 KTU 4.342 = RS 18.028[] KTU 4.361 = RS 18.051; KTU 4.132 = RS 15.004:5; cf. also L… 1973. 40 KTU 4.102 = RS 11.857:16.

   

435

light on the difference between the skn/sàkinu of the country and the local skns who were the royal nominees as governors of certain villages (Ug. skn qrt, Akk. sàkin àli or ¢azannu àli ).41 Other administrative personnel such as the '“r(m) (Akk. a“iru), ‘overseer(s) of (teams) of ten’, also feature in the administrative texts. These, together with the maryannu and others, receive large quantities of oil,42 as well as other products, possibly on a yearly basis, including lands in dependent holding. The administrative texts make it possible to distinguish different groups of the mrum (Akk. mur"u), possibly of the king; mr"u skn (Akk. mur"u sàkinu); and mr"u ibrn (Akk. mur"u ibiràna (apparently, when Ibirànu was the heir to the throne). Similar is the mr"u u∆ryn (Akk. mur"u u“riyanni ) ‘the mr"u of the heir.’ All the texts listing deliveries to them, together with their appearance in non-administrative texts, show them to be some kind of liaison-officers43 of the king, the heir to the throne and the sàkinu. The administrative texts hardly mention scribes, unlike the other texts from Ugarit.44 However, the ‘friends of the king’, Ug. md(m) (Akk. mùdu), are often also mentioned in administrative texts.45 1.2.11

Ancillary palace personnel

The auxiliary palace personnel likewise finds a place in the administrative archives of Ugarit. We believe that at least the gatekeepers

41 KTU 4.63 = RS 10.052; KTU 4.288 = RS 17.293; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:11. 42 PRU 3, 199 = RS 16.126 +16.257 + iii ; cf. also KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716; KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845; KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858; KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001; KTU 4.392 = RS 18.130; KTU 4.415 = RS 18.251[]; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016; PRU 3, 134 = RS 15.137; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131; PRU 6, 116 = RS 17.064; PRU 6, 131 = RS 19.035:3; PRU 6, 72 = RS 19.065 and other texts; cf. V 1995a, 145–7. Note also the rb '“rt ‘chief of ten’ (KTU 4.714 = RS 22.231). 43 H 1982: 154–6; KTU 4.36 = RS 8.208; KTU 4.47 = RS 10.043; KTU 4.48 = RS 10.045; KTU 4.69 = RS 11.715+; KTU 4.92 = RS 11.799; KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845; KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858; KTU 4.105 = RS 13.014 [bis]; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084; KTU 4.137 = RS 15.015+; KTU 4.163 = RS 15.073; KTU 4.173 = RS 15.094; KTU 4.174 = RS 15.095; KTU 4.179 = RS 15.103; KTU 4.207 = RS 16.006; KTU 4.212 = RS 16.107; KTU 4.332 = RS 18.010+; KTU 4.410 = RS 18.250; KTU 4.416 = RS 18.252; KTU 4.745 = RS 25.417; PRU 3, 162 = RS 16.348; PRU 3, 194 = RS 11.839; PRU 3, 199 = RS 16.126 +16.257 + iv; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131; PRU 6, 116 = RS 17.64; PRU 6, 131 = RS 19.35; PRU 6, 136 = RS 17.240. 44 KTU 4.89 = RS 11.796. 45 H 1982, 161–3; KTU 4.38 = RS 8.272; KTU 4.47 = RS 10.043; KTU 4.54 = RS 10.103; KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845; KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858; KTU

 

436

of the palace belonged there. Thus, the texts even mention the ‘gatekeeper of the king’ (∆Àr mlk) and ‘the gatekeeper of the palace’ (∆Àr hkl ).46 Some texts refer to the palace ‘fowlers’ ( yq“m, syllabic ya-qi“u-ma).47 Also mentioned are ‘tailors’ (LÚ.),48 an ‘acrobat’ (LÚ¢uppu) for performing, a ‘jester’ (aluzinnu)49 and a ‘seal-cutter’ (LÚparkullu).50 A ‘singer’ (LÚnâru), a ‘cook’ (LÚnu¢atimmu)51 and a ‘cymbalist’ (LÚmaßi-lu) appear in the same text.52 It is also interesting that among the ‘royal servicemen’ (bn“ mlk) a ‘barber’ ( gallàbu) figures once also. 1.2.12

The royal stores

What is known about the royal stores is derived almost exclusively from the alphabetic texts. Note that we do not know about the distribution of these products, for they are neither staple foods nor wine or oil. Naturally they were among the goods made by local artisans or imported by the authorities. But due to the lack of information on the prices of these products, and since tamkàrs are not mentioned in connection with them, we cannot ascribe them to the commercial texts. Even so, they provide us with a wealth of economic data. Thus, various textiles and garments are listed, including pÀndr,53 kndw ‘net’,54 kndpnt (?),55 ¢pn ‘a kind of blanket’,56 pld (Akk. palidu), some 4.188 = RS 15.169+; KTU 4.245 = RS 16.397 i and ii; KTU 4.387 = RS 18.112; KTU 4.690 = RS 20.009; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131. 46 KTU 4.224 = RS 16.195; KTU 4.63 = RS 10.052; cf. also KTU 4.195 = RS 15.184 and KTU 4.103 = RS 11.258; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084; KTU 4.128 = RS 14.176; KTU 4.141 = RS 15.022+; KTU 4.195 = RS 15.184; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016: 7.63 and PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131. 47 KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845; KTU 4.114 = RS 12.027; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084; PRU 6, 136 = RS 17.240; Ug 5, 96 = RS 20.12. 48 PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:17. 49 PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:21, 22. 50 PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:24. 51 PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:24–25. 52 PRU 6, 136 = RS 17.240:10. 53 Hurrian pa¢andari, and in our opinion, Mycenaean pekitira, some kind of cloth or blanket; KTU 4.4 = RS 2.[032]:1–2; KTU 4.370 = RS 18.079:10; PRU 3, 206 = RS 15.135; (R – X 1985, 61). 54 KTU 4.4 = RS 2.[032]:4 (R – X 1985, 41). 55 KTU 4.4 = RS 2.[032]:2; PRU 3, 206 = RS 15.135:13 (R – X 1985, 41). 56 KTU 4.4 = RS 2.[032]:3 (R – X 1985, 41). KTU 4.4:4; KTU 4.148 = RS 15.038:19; KTU 4.152 = RS 15.045:5; KTU 4.156 = RS 15.053:5; KTU 4.166 = RS 15.078:2; KTU 4.182 = RS 15.115:35; KTU 4.190 = RS 15.171 :4; KTU 4.270 = RS 17.111:7; KTU 4.363 = RS 18.055:3; KTU 4.765 = RS 34.180,10:4; KTU 5.11 = RS 17.117:16 (R – X 1985, 39).

   

437

kind of cover,57 ¢lpn, possibly a kind of tunic,58 npß, more probably a set of clothing, as the text concerns textiles,59 lb/p“ ‘garment’,60 mrdt ‘carpet’,61 kdw∆ (?),62 ktnt ‘tunic’ (Akk. kitu), r†, possibly a ‘linen garment’,63 kst some kind of cover,64 mlb“,65 possibly a variant of lp“ ‘garment’,66 sk ‘garment’,67 and ¢pn, made of linen, used as a blanket both for humans and horses.68 Textiles and garments are also mentioned in other types of text which mostly concern stores, though many of the terms remain obscure.69 There are also texts concerning chariots, one of which (KTU 4.145 = RS 15.034) mentions their components, ‘wheels’ (apnt), ‘arrows’ (˙Ω), ‘quivers’ (u∆pt) and so on, whereas other involve complete chariots.70 There are also data about furniture and wooden architectural items,71 unusual containers used for perfumes and other items.72 Likewise, there are various spices such as mastic (Ωrw)73 and aromatic oils 57

KTU 4.4 = RS 2.[032]:4; KTU 4.146 = RS 15.035:7; KTU 4.152 = RS 15.045; KTU 4.205 = RS 16.004:7; KTU 4.270 = RS 17.115:8; KTU 4.363 = RS 18.055; PRU 6, 128 = RS 19.104:3; PRU 6, 127 = RS 19.57:3; PRU 6, 129 = RS 19.133:5. 58 KTU 4.117 = RS 12.060; KTU 4.192 = RS 15.176; KTU 4.630 = RS 19.062; KTU 4.721 = RS 23.028:1, etc. (R – X 1985, 38). 59 KTU 4.166 = RS 15.078:1; R – X 1985, 54. 60 KTU 4.166 = RS 15.078:3; KTU 4.205 = RS 16.004; KTU 4.721 = RS 23.028; R – X 1985, 44–6. 61 KTU 4.205 = RS 16.004:6; R – X 1985, 50–1; cf. also mrbd KTU 4.270 = RS 17.111:11. 62 KTU 4.205 = RS 16.004:19; R – X 1985, 40–1. 63 KTU 4.203 = RS 16.001:8; KTU 4.206 = RS 16.005. 64 KTU 4.206 = RS 16.005:1; KTU 4.337 = RS 18.024; KTU 4.363 = RS 18.055:1; KTU 4.402 = RS 18.142; KTU 4.721 = RS 23.028:1; R – X 1985, 43–4. 65 KTU 4.206 = RS 16.005:5; R – X 1985, 42. 66 KTU 4.257 = RS 17.[473][]:5; Cf. KTU 4.182 = RS 15.115:63 and Akk. malba“u from Ugarit; R – X 1985, 49. 67 KTU 4.270 = RS 17.111:6; (cf. KTU 4.525 = RS 18.[445]:1); R – X 1985, 55. 68 KTU 4.270 = RS 17.111:7; KTU 4.363 = RS 18.066:3–4, 6–7; KTU 4.765 = RS 34.180,10:4, etc. Cf. R – X 1985, 39. 69 So far, the best example of the organization of the textile industry remains the large tablet on distribution of raw material to weavers: T-D 1934. 70 KTU 4.167 = RS 15.079; KTU 4.447 = RS 18.[325]+; KTU 4.500 = RS 18.[402]; KTU 4.602 = RS 18.[551]. 71 KTU 4.195 = RS 15.184. 72 sp(m) ‘cup(s)’ (KTU 4.34 = RS 6.216) spl ‘cup’ (KTU 4.385 = RS 18.110:3; KTU 4.123 = RS 13.014:17); KTU 4.123 = RS 13.0141 also lists irpm ‘vases’ (20) trqm (meaning unknown) (20) and mq˙m ‘pincers’ (possibly for perfume) or ‘tongs’ (21). 73 KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:22 k∆ Ωrw; KTU 4.402 = RS 18.142:10–11 '“r kat (read k∆t) Ωrw ‘ten flasks of balsam’.

 

438

such as ‘myrrh oil’ (“mn mr),74 ‘spiced oil’ (“mn rq˙)75 and even ‘lamp oil’ (“mn nr),76 possibly a kind of olive oil treated in a special way.77 There are also texts listing various metal implements, though it is not completely clear whether they were used for agriculture, for shipbuilding or for military purposes. 1.2.13

Descendants

In a large number of tablets, especially those in alphabetic cuneiform, the names of persons, villagers or professional royal dependents are listed, followed by wn˙lh, ‘and his descendant(s)’, sometimes with the addition of wn˙lhm, ‘and their descendants’.78 The ‘descendants’ receive deliveries and fields in conditional holding together with the royal dependents (bn“ mlk). 1.2.14

Labels

There is also a relatively large number of bullae or labels which were sometimes added to various delivered goods and described their contents.79 1.3

Conclusion

This brief description of the administrative and economic texts in the alphabetic Ugaritic script and in syllabic Akkadian from the kingdom of Ugarit provides an insight into the social and economic history of this kingdom at least during the 13th and up to the early 12th century .80 Naturally, it is impossible in this brief summary 74 KTU 4.14 = RS 1.012:2, 7, 15 (however, cf. S 1990); KTU 4.91 = RS 11.797:14; KTU 4.786 = RS [ Varia 22]:14. 75 KTU 5.10 = RS 17.063:7–8; KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:21. 76 KTU 4.786 = RS [Varia 22]:8 kd “mn nr ‘a jar of lamp oil’. 77 KTU 4.670 = RS 19.174; PRU 6, 142 = RS 19.135. 78 It is impossible to list such texts here as there are scores of them; cf. KTU 4.35 = RS 8.134 i 20, 22, 26, ii 5–6, 20; KTU 4.631 = RS 19.072:2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18–19, etc. 79 KTU 6.11 = RS 5.262 kd [.] yn l prt ‘one jar of wine to Pr∆’; KTU 6.12 = RS 5.269; KTU 6.20 = RS 15.097 1 nsk k[sp] 2'“rt 3w nß[ p] ‘To the jewellers (lit. “silver-casters”) ten and a half ’; cf. also KTU 6.21 = RS 15.192; KTU 6.22 = RS 15.226; KTU 6.24 = RS 17.072; KTU 6.26 = RS 17.318; KTU 6.27 = RS 17.361, etc. See, in general,  S 1989b. 80 It seems that these short and concise documents were often unbaked and not kept for very long, in contrast to the royal archives containing legal and political texts.

   

439

to give a full description of the texts, study of which can yield so much information. Among the texts cited but not included in this short account may be noted many small fragments of texts. Clearly they provide meagre information. However, sometimes new finds and the publication of tablets, if there are parallel or similar texts, make it possible to reconstruct some texts which has been done to some extent in the existing publications. Many tablets remain unpublished81 and we must hope that this situation will change. We must also bear in mind that the classification of the texts in various categories, as given above, is somewhat artificial, but may be the basis for further studies.

2 C 2.1

Ugarit as a trade centre

Ugarit was an important centre of international trade in the latter half of the second millennium , and possibly there was also internal trade on a smaller scale. Our knowledge of Ugaritian commerce comes from archaeological documentation, especially from the excavations in the port of Ugarit, modern Minet-el-Beida. By the 18th century , Ugarit was already an important commercial centre, with connections in one direction with Mesopotamia (Mari) and in the other with Crete and the Aegean area. The information about the visit of the king of Mari, Zimri-Lim, to Ugarit, and his commercial activities provides good evidence for this claim.82 The flourishing period of this international centre, however, was from the 14th to the beginning of the 12th centuries . We find here something similar to a royal monopoly of foreign trade: mutual regulation by political agreements between neighbouring countries and states concerning their trade. We learn much about prices, payments and transportation conditions of total overland and maritime trade as well as about mutual coordination among various ‘national’ metrological units, a necessary precondition for international trade. 81 KTU category 9, unpublished texts (CAT 569–603) listing 529 tablets and fragments of tablets. Note that only alphabetic texts are mentioned. 82 The text ARMT 23 No. 556, edited with comments by V 1986. On the general problems of Mari trade with the Aegean via Ugarit, see H 1989a.

 

440

2.2

The tamkàrs

In practice, trade was in the hands of the tamkàrs (Ug. mkrm, Akk. tamkàruME”, Sum. .), who were the royal commercial agents of Ugarit and its neighbouring countries, although they sometimes managed their own commercial operations, too. The tamkàrs (mkrm), like the other professional groups of royal dependents (bn“ mlk), received land allotments as conditional holdings for their tamkàrùtu-service.83 The tamkàrs (mkrm) as a professional group are known from a number of Ugaritic (alphabetic) and syllabic Akkadian texts.84 Together with members of other professional groups the tamkàrs also had to participate in guard service as archers and, together with these other professional groups, received deliveries in kind.85 2.3

International treaties

The most important trade relations guaranteed by international treaties, as well as by orders of the Hittite king, were established between Ugarit and the Hittite Empire and with the latter’s vassalkingdoms, Carchemish, Emar and others (cf. A 1994, 91–103). There are international texts concerning trade based on reciprocal agreements. Thus we know of the declaration of Inite“ub, the king of Carchemish,86 that in cases when the tamkàrù “a mandatti 87 of the king of Ugarit, who maintain their commercial activities in Carchemish, or the tamkàrs of the king of Carchemish, with their activities in Ugarit, are killed and robbed, the culprits shall be found and punished. Restitution of property has to be made. If the murderers are not found, the people of the territory where the murder 83 PRU 5, 130 = RS 18.285 (KTU 2.59 = RS 18.[500]) in which a certain Abdi¢agab receives land allotments and for this 9pil-k[a]-“u 10“a LÚ.ME” tamkàru-ut-ti 11 ú-ub-¢al ‘the service of tamkàrship he shall perform.’ 84 KTU 4.36 = RS 8.208; KTU 4.38 = RS 8.272; KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084; KTU 4.137 = RS 15.015+; KTU 4.163 = RS 15.073; KTU 4.173 = RS 15.094; KTU 4.174 = RS 15.095; KTU 4.179 = RS 15.103; KTU 4.214 = RS 16.128; KTU 4.217 = RS 16.176; KTU 4.263 = RS 17.049; KTU 4.369 = RS 18.078; KTU 4.430 = RS 18.301[]; KTU 4.745 = RS 25.417; KTU 6.17 = RS 14.023; PRU 3, 20 = RS 15.063; PRU 3, 199 = RS 16.126 + 16.257 + 16.258 ii 1–36; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:3, etc. 85 KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716 and KTU 4.36 = RS 8.208; KTU 4.38 = RS 8.272. 86 PRU 4, 154 = RS 17.146; H 1978a, 126–7; also Y 1969, 70–9. 87 The tamkàrs are the trade-agents of the king or those who pay him taxes.

   

441

was committed had to pay 3 minas of silver as compensation.88 We also know that such cases occurred and that compensation for the life of the tamkàr was paid.89 Some of these texts are also written as agreements between the peoples of Carchemish and Ugarit. Another important text is a decree (or declaration) of the Hittite king Hattu“ilis III made to Niqmepa, king of Ugarit.90 The former reacts to the complaint of the king of Ugarit that the stay of the tamkàrs of Ura (the seaport of the Hittite Empire) in Ugarit for a full year is a heavy burden. The Hittite king declares that the tamkàrs of Ura have to leave Ugarit in wintertime. The tamkàrs even had the right to take all the moveable property of their debtors, as well as their families and even the debtors themselves, but the lands of the debtors had to remain in the hands of the king of Ugarit.91 From another text we learn that objects in an olive grove belonging to the tamkàrs of Ura were stolen, and then returned.92 And in yet another text the tamkàrs of Ura are required to leave Ugarit in wintertime (i-na ku-uß-ßi ), and not stay there and the same applies to the ‘sons of the city of Kutupa’.93 It is clear from these texts as well as from others that commercial relations, especially in foreign trade, were bound by international law. Again, Ura appears in the texts on international commercial relations at the end of the Hittite Empire, as does Ugarit about 1200 . According to Ug 5, 33 = RS 20.213, the Hittite king orders the king of Ugarit to transport 200 kur (ca 500 tons) of grain on his ships to the Hittite country via the port of Ura.94 2.3.1

Trading partners

The commercial texts may be classified into several categories depending with which country or countries Ugarit was trading.

88

See also PRU 5, 76 = RS 18.045 and PRU 4, 160 = RS 18.019. PRU 4, 106 = RS 17.229 and PRU 4, 153 = RS 17.230. 90 PRU 4, 103 = RS 17.130; also H 1978a, 127–8; Y 1969, 71–2. 91 Duplicates PRU 4, 154 = RS 17.461 and RS 18.003 (mentioned PRU 4, 103). 92 PRU 4, 182 = RS 17.319; possibly a similar text is the fragment PRU 4, 190 = RS 17.316. 93 The location of this city is unknown. Text: RSO 7, No. 1 = RS 34.179. 94 See also the fragment Ug 5, 145 = RS 26.158; H 1978a, 153–5. 89

 

442 2.3.1.1

Trade with Canaan

Certain texts pertain to the relations between Ugarit and the cities of the Canaanite coast which concerned maritime trade. Thus, according to PRU 6, 126 = RS 19.029, a number of pieces,95 25 in all, are handed over to a certain Abihili ‘to Byblos’ (a-na gu-ub-li). Another text (KTU 4.338 = RS 18.025) mentions a sum of ‘10540 11shekels of silver; this is the silver of the ships 12that was pledged among the ships 13for the king of Byblos, 14and 15the king of Byblos took 50 (shekels) of silver 16as the property (cargo) of his ship’.96 Possibly, too, there were maritime commercial relations with Sidon.97 Information is available about maritime connections with Tyre (ßr).98 It also seems that in addition maritime relations were maintained with Ashdod and Ashkelon on the south coast of Canaan.99 2.3.1.2

Trade with Egypt

Naturally, the commercial texts have a great deal to say about Egypt. A letter concerning a ship bound for Egypt has been mentioned above. PRU 6, 14 = RS 19.050 is devoted to commercial trips to Egypt and ›atti. An interesting text from many aspects is Ug 5, 42 = RS 20.21. The king of neighbouring U“natu, connected with Ugarit, writes to the king of Ugarit that he had a treaty with him. He relates that he sent a certain Ba'aliya with other persons and property. Also, that this person, possibly Ba'aliya, ‘gave over this person, his companion, to the sons of Egypt, and left him there’,100 but took his property. This is not the only such text. Another text is RSO 7, No. 16 = RS 34.158. Again, the king of U“natu writes to Uzzinu, who was the sàkinu (of the land of Ugarit). He says that one of his servants, (i.e. a Ugaritian) ‘handed over the ßubàtuME” elippàti ME” ma-a“-¢a-tu-ma ‘7 garments of ships’ (possibly sails(?)). ˙m“ m"t arb'm 11kbd ksp anyt 12d 'rb.banyt 13l mlk gbl 14w. ¢m“m ksp 15lq˙ mlk gbl 16 lb“ anyth. See also H 1978a, 143; M R 1993a. 97 Cf. PRU 6, 81 = RS 19.182. Byblos is also mentioned in this text. 98 KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031 and KTU 2.40 = RS 18.040. In a letter, the Tyrian king reports that a ship bound for Egypt is still in Tyre. Akko is also mentioned there. 99 KTU 4.635 = RS 19.096; PRU 6, 79 = RS 19.042:4. Arwad is also mentioned in this text; PRU 6, 96 = RS 19.91:4; PRU 6, 156 = RS 19.020. 100 15 e-nu-ma amèla “a-a-“ i 16LÚ tap-pi-“u 17ip-“u-ru-un-mi 18a-na mâr ME” mi-iß-r[i-i ] 19 ù iz-za-ab-“u. 95

96 10

   

443

slave (or servant) to the sons of the land of Egypt’.101 Later in the text, he makes the accusation that the culprit is Ba'aliya, who was mentioned in the previous text. Thus we even learn about criminal activities in commercial relations with Egypt. There are also other texts about more regular trade relations with Egypt, including the fact that some tamkàrs were combining their efforts. The tablet KTU 3.8 = RS 19.066 is an account of this. According to this tablet, a few persons combined their capital and efforts and go together on a tamkàr-trip to Egypt.102 RSO 7, 71–2 No. 33 = RS 34.173 possibly shows us other existing commercial relations with Egypt. 2.3.1.3 Trade with Cyprus A number of texts also tells us about maritime trade with Cyprus (Akk. ala“iya, Ug. al∆y). According to RS 34.153:31–5,103 the king of Ala“ia has to receive two horses from the king of Ugarit. Text KTU 4.352 = RS 18.042 mentions 660 jars of oil.104 Ug 5, 21 = RS 20.163, also mentions a Cypriot tamkàr. The text KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113 provides evidence of trade relations with Egypt, Cyprus and Ugarit. 2.3.1.4 Trade with Anatolia We also have information about maritime trade relations with other countries of the Hittite zone of influence in Anatolia. For example, in the text of a litigation before Inite“ub, king of Carchemish, between the tamkàr Ari“imiga, servant of the king of Tar¢uda““i, and the ‘sons of Ugarit’.105 Commercial transactions between Ugarit and Tar¢uda““i are also noted at the time of the last king of Ugarit, Ammurapi.106 2.3.1.5

Trade with Crete and Carchemish

We cannot end this section without considering the trade relations between Ugarit and Crete (Kapturi). One of the chief tamkàrs of i-pa-“a-ar IR 8[“a] I [x]-te-dU a a-na mâre ME” KURmi-iß-ri. H 1978a, 139–42. For a different opinion, see L 1969. 103 RSO 7, No. 35, 75–6. 104 The kd ‘jar’ of Ugarit had a capacity of ca 22.5 litres (H 1989a). 105 PRU 4, 169 = RS 17.158; Cf. also PRU 4, 171 = RS 17.042, where the matter of compensation for the life of a tamkàr who has been killed is debated. 106 RSO 7, No. 14, RS 34.139. 101 7 102

444

 

Ugarit, Sinarànu, son of Siginu, was freed to pay to the ‘palace’, (i.e. to the authorities) any tax payments and exemptions from performing service obligations.107 Taking into account his land transactions, he was one of the richest persons in Ugarit.108 Naturally, trade relations with Carchemish were overland. The same is to be said about Qadesh (Kinza). It seems that responsibility for the regularity of relations and the payment of all duties by tamkàrs was in the hands of the sàkinu109 (the ‘vizier’ of the country), the màkisu (‘customs official’),110 and the LÚàkil kari (‘overseer of the quay’).111 We learn from the texts that there was also a bureaucratic apparatus overseeing trade activities in this kingdom. Overland transportation to Carchemish and its vicinity, the vassal states and Emar, was undertaken by donkey caravans. We learn this from an interesting text (PRU 4, 176 = RS 17.346), in which the king of Ugarit is accused before the king of Carchemish ‘that the king of Ugarit has stolen the caravans of the tamkàrs’.112 According to PRU 4, 150 = RS 17.059, the king of Ugarit had to transport the payment of his tribute to the Hittite king ‘on 10 caravans’.113 We also have information about other caravans going to the country of the Hittites and Egypt.114 Ug 5, 57 = RS 20.227 mentions a caravan route to Emar in the southernmost part of the land of the Euphrates.115 Commercial relations with Emar are also known from a number of letters.116

107

PRU 3, 107 = RS 16.238. Crete occurs in line 10. On the commercial activities and buying of lands by Sinarànu, Son of Siginu, the tamkàr (LÚtamkàru) PRU 3, 106 = RS 16.206 see H 1988a. 108 H 1978a, 132–3. 109 PRU 4, 215 = RS 17.288; PRU 4, 196 = RS 17.078; PRU 6, 7 = RS 17.148, etc. 110 PRU 3, 15 = RS 15.033; PRU 4, 196 = RS 17.078; PRU 4, 235 = RS 17.135 + 17.360 + 17.360[]; PRU 4, 202 = RS 17.371 + 18.020; PRU 4, 239 = RS 17.232, etc. 111 PRU 4, 182 = RS 17.424; Ug 5, 13 = RS 17.469. 112 5 . . . ma-a “ar KURÚ-ga-ri-it ¢arrànê ME” “a LÚ ME”tamkàre ME” [il ]-ta-na-ri-iq-mi. 113 12 i“-tu 10 ¢a-ar-ra-ni. 114 PRU 6, 14 = RS 10.050. 115 Possibly, commercial caravans are mentioned in Ug 5, 38 = RS 20.016; Ug 5, 53 = RS 20.15; PRU 6, 137 = RS 19.27; PRU 4, 138 = RS 19.46. 116 RSO 7, No. 30 = RS [Varia 26 ]; No. 31 = RS 34.134; No. 32 = RS 34.141; No. 33 = RS 34.173, etc.

    2.3.2

445

Exchanging gifts

From primitive times, a certain kind of commerce or commercial exchange involved the exchange of gifts. This feature is also widely known from the ancient Near East from the 15th to the beginning of the 12th cent. . We know that it took place between rulers of equal rank, between queens and between high officials of various ranks. Also ‘gifts’ from abroad from persons of lower rank or from vassals to the ruler, queen, or official of higher rank were sent to Ugarit, and vice versa.117 There is a large international correspondence in this field. The objects are mostly called by the term ‘gift’ (nàmurtu and “ulmànu).118 (Here we do not consider the official ‘tribute’, mandattu, which appears in a number of texts). As for the ‘gifts’, these include silver, even gold, precious stones, metal vessels and utensils, horses, donkeys, various textiles and garments, and many other items. There are many texts in which various goods are mentioned which, without any doubt, were used for trade, for foreign trade of the first rank. We cannot define them as commercial goods when their prices are not given or at least when it is not written that they were a ‘gift’ (Ug. mn˙) or when they concern the trading of cattle, food products, and artifacts, where the equivalent of the exchange is given. 2.3.2.1

Slaves

We can begin with the slave trade. The amounts involved were not large, even if we consider the price of redeeming a slave. From some of the texts119 it is clear that the price of a slave (male or female) was between 14.3 and 120 shekels of silver,120 and the average price of a slave was about 33 shekels (see § 11.1.6.6). 117

The exhaustive work on this question is Z 1973. PRU 3, 14 = RS 12.33; PRU 4, 191 = RS 17.247; PRU 3, 194 = RS 17.385; PRU 4, 214 = RS 17.152; PRU 4, 221 = RS 17.383; PRU 4, 223 = RS 17.422; PRU 6, 6 = RS 17.144; PRU 6, 7 and  = RS 17.148; PRU 6, 8 = RS 17.239; PRU 6, 13 = RS 18.057; PRU 6, 14 = RS 19.050; PRU 6, 16 = RS 22.006; PRU 6, 149 = RS 17.354; Ug 5, 21 = RS 20.168; Ug 5, 38 = RS 20.016; Ug 5, 39 = RS 20.172; Ug 5, 46 = RS 26.130; Ug 5, 48 = RS 20.19; Ug 5, 50 = RS 20.151; Ug 5, 53 = RS 20.015; Ug 5, 56 = RS 20.150; Ug 5, 57 = RS 20.227; Ug 5, 62 = RS 20.194; Ug 5, 67 = RS 20.182, etc. 119 KTU 4.36 = RS 8.208 (T-D 1937); PRU 4, 238 = RS 17.231; PRU 4, 236 = RS 17.251; PRU 4, 109 = RS 17.028; PRU 4, 109 = RS 17.108; PRU 4, 201 = RS 18.002; KTU 3.4 = RS 16.382; KTU 4.659 = RS 19.166; Ug 5, 10 = RS 17.067. 120 On the Ugaritic shekel of 9.4 gr. cf. P 1981. 118

 

446 2.3.2.2

Food and agricultural products

‘Wheat’ (˙†), sold according to the parìsu measure (ca 90 litres), cost 1 shekel for 1 parìsu, and 1 parìsu bought 0.2 jars of (olive) oil = 4.5 litres.121 ‘Barley’ (“'r) was measured by the dd-measure, as was ‘emmer’ (ks/≤m or kΩ2m)122 and ‘oil’ (zt [“mn]). In Ugarit, olive oil was sold at a price of 1.5 shekels per jar (22.5 litres).123 Many texts mention the sale of oil, but the state of the texts does not permit exact calculations.124 The price of ‘wine’ ( yn) cannot be calculated.125 ‘Honey’ (nbt), ‘dried figs’ (dblt), and ‘raisins’ (ßmqm) were also commercial goods, as were ‘cheese’ (ME” ), ‘black cumin’ (sbbyn) and other products.126 As for cattle, we know that the price of an ox was between 10 and 17 shekels.127 Sheep were priced at of 1–1.5 shekels each128 and horses were sold for 20–300 shekels each.129 Donkeys and mules were also objects of commercial transactions.130 2.3.2.3

Textiles and dyes

Textiles and garments played an important role in the commerce of Ugarit. Besides ‘flax’ ( p∆t)131 the texts also mention ‘wool’ (“'rt), the price of which was from 1–7 shekels of silver per talent (ca 30 kilos).132 There are also texts mentioning ‘blue (violet) purple wool’

121 The ‘jar’ (kd ) was a standard measure of ca 22.5 litres. (H 1989b); the texts are KTU 4.710 = RS 22.003:11–12; KTU 4.60 = RS 11.[913] and KTU 4.402 = RS 18.142:7–8. 122 KTU 4.710 = RS 22.003:11 (although KTU 2 read k§t). 123 KTU 4.31 = RS 5.197+:11. 124 PRU 3, 197 = RS 16.181; PRU 6, 155 = RS 19.07; KTU 4.91 = RS 11.795:2–3; KTU 4.150 = RS 15.040; KTU 4.123 = RS 13.014; KTU 4.158 = RS 15.062:3; KTU 4.341 = RS 18.028:20–21; KTU 4.402 = RS 18.142:9. 125 KTU 4.123 = RS 13.014:22–23. 126 Not all the words denoting the products can be translated exactly (H 1978a, 19–21). 127 PRU 4, 38 = RS 17.356:6; KTU 4.337 = RS 18.024:21; cf. also KTU 4.402 = RS 18.142:5: ‘5 pairs of oxen’. 128 KTU 4.337 = RS 18.024:22; KTU 4.709 = RS [Varia 13]: 5; also KTU 4.34 = RS 6.216:4, 9. 129 KTU 4.158 = RS 15.062:6; PRU 3, 41 = RS 16.180; PRU 6, 7 = RS 17.148; Cf. also Ug 5, 28 = RS 20.184; PRU 6, 6 = RS 17.148 and RSO 7, No. 21 = RS 34.155 where the price of the purchase is not given. 130 PRU 4, 176 = RS 17.346; PRU 6, 6 = RS 17.144; PRU 6, 8 = RS 17.239; PRU 6, 14 = RS 19.030; Ug 5, 36 = RS 20.016; Ug 5, 53 = RS 20.015. 131 KTU 4.182 = RS 15.115:8; KTU 4.168 = RS 15.082:11; KTU 4.206 = RS 16.005:4. 132 KTU 4.158 = RS 15.062:17–8; KTU 4.341 = RS 18.028:4–5, 14–15; KTU

   

447

(Akk. uqnu—takiltu) and ‘red purple wool’ (Akk. “ìpat uqnu ¢usmànu, Ug. p˙m). Large quantities of these types of wool are mentioned but no prices are given.133 A large number of tablets concern dyes, perfumes, and vessels for them.134 A great variety of garments and other textile artifacts existed.135 2.3.2.4

Metals, minerals and wood

The precious metals, gold and silver, are important, although gold was relatively cheap in Ugarit. According to the texts, its ratio to silver was 1:3–4.136 We can also calculate the prices of other metals: ‘tin’ (Akk. a-na-ku [.]; Ug. brr),137 with a tin-silver price ratio of 200:1, which seems to be realistic,138 and ‘copper’ (Akk. erû, ‘bronze’ Akk. siparru, Ug. ∆l∆)—this could possibly mean that their ratio to silver must have been 200–235:1.139 Other commercial items—artifacts—are often mentioned: golden and silver cups (ks ¢rß, ks ksp),140 and artifacts of copper (bronze), which have an important place in trade. The exact price of these items is unknown.141 Various stones and minerals appear as trade objects in the commercial texts. Sometimes they consist of beads, alum, possibly even as rare an item as glass (? me-e-ku PRU 6, 6 = RS 17.144:40) also ‘carnelian’ (“mt), ‘lapis-lazuli’ (iqnu), etc.142 Timber 4.337 = RS 18.024:9–10; KTU 4.707 = RS 21.184:15–8; KTU 4.721 = RS 23.028:9, 14; and a large number of other texts. 133 Cf. H 1978a, 23–7. 134 H 1978a, 27–8. 135 Cf. R – X 1985, in which an exhaustive analysis of all textiles known from Ugarit, is given. 136 H 1978a, 28–9; KTU 4.341 = RS 18.028:1–2, 5–6, 10, 16–7, KTU 4.337 = RS 18.024:20. But the scarcity of data makes this rate questionable. See V 1980, esp. 106–7, and S 1979. 137 Ug 5, 12 = RS 17.150+; 38 = RS 20.16; PRU 6, 155 = RS 19.07; KTU 4.337 = RS 18.024:4–5. 138 H 1978a, 29–30, V 1980a, 110. 139 H 1978a, 30–1, V 1980a, 108. 140 No account is taken here the artifacts that were paid as tribute to the Hittite king: KTU 3.1 = RS 11.772+; PRU 3, 181 = RS 11.732[]; PRU 4, 40 = RS 17.227; note also PRU 3, 12 = RS 11.730, PRU 3, 33 = RS 16.114:5; PRU 6, 158 = RS 19.024; Ug 5, 12 = RS 17.150+ (copper cups). 141 KTU 4.123 = RS 15.115:17, 21; KTU 4.385 = RS 18.110:3, 5; PRU 6, 7 = RS 17.148; PRU 6, 6 = RS 17.144; PRU 6, 14 = RS 19.50; PRU 6, 158 = RS 19.24; PRU 6, 163 = RS 19.64; Ug 5, 38 = RS 20.16. 142 KTU 4.182 = RS 15.115:10, 12, 16, 17, 27; KTU 4.158 = RS 15.062:14–15; KTU 4.206 = RS 16.005:6; KTU 4.337 = RS 18.024:25; PRU 3,20 = RS 15.063; PRU 3, 39 = RS 16.359; PRU 3, 187 = RS 15.043; PRU 6, 6 = RS 17.144:40;

 

448

from various trees and reeds were objects of commerce,143 as were wooden artifacts.144 Naturally, the list of all such objects of trade could be extended, but space does not allow this. 2.3.2.5 Weights and measures One very important feature also needs to be taken into account in the commercial life of Ugarit: its metrological system and its adaptation to the conditions of international trade. As mentioned above, the Ugaritic mina consisted of 50 shekels of 9.4 grams, almost equalling the Egyptian kit of 9.2–9.3 grams. As Parise has pointed out,145 for trade with Mesopotamia, the Ugaritic mina was divided into 60 shekels, and then the shekel was weighed according to the Mesopotamian standard of ca 8 grams. For transactions with the Hittites, the mina was divided into 40 shekels according to the Hittite system, and a shekel weighed 11.75 grams. Naturally, this ‘exchange rate’ eased commercial relations. There is one other important matter. From the texts of Ugarit, we also know of another metrological unit, the ∆"t (∆"dt), “a-i-tu in Ugaritian Akkadian.146 We have reached the 1 conclusion that in Ugarit it was — 12 of the kd ‘jar’ of 22.5 litres, and 1 that this unit of measure comes from Egypt, where it was — 12 of the Egyptian deben of 92–94 grams, and known as “ "t, “ "(t ), sniw. This adaptation of metrological units facilitated trade relations with Egypt.147

3

C  I

Ugarit was an important centre of developed crafts in the second millennium , especially from the 14th to the beginning of the PRU 6, 133 = RS 18.057:3; PRU 6, 156 = RS 19.020:3; Ug 5, 48 = RS 20.019:11; Ug 5, 12 = RS 17.150 + 17.034:5–50, etc. 143 KTU 4.91 = RS 11.795:7, 8; KTU 4.158 = RS 15.062:12, 20–22; KTU 4.247 = RS 16.399:29, KTU 4.402 = RS 18.142:3; PRU 6, 158 = RS 19.24; Ug 5, 12 = RS 17.150+:8–32. 144 KTU 4.123 = RS 13.014:21; KTU 4.127 = RS 14.129:2; KTU 4.158 = RS 15.062:7; KTU 4.385 = RS 18.110:10; PRU 6, 158 = RS 19.24:9; PRU 3, 163 = RS 19.64; PRU 6, 162 = RS 19.36:5; Ug 5, 28 = RS 20.187:10. 145 P 1981, 156. 146 KTU 4.778 = RIH 83/12:5; KTU 4.782 = RIH 84/8:7–8 and KTU 4.771 = RIH 78/2:5–8; KTU 4.150 = RS 15.040:5; only once in Akkadian, Ug 5, 95 = RS 20.425:10. 147 H 1994; C 1992.

   

449

12th centuries. Archaeological material found there can sometimes add to our knowledge when we can establish a connection with professions or artefacts mentioned in the written sources.148 3.1

Royal service

The craftsmen of all branches of production belonged to the ‘royal (service) men’ (bn“ mlk = Akk. bunù“u milki ). From royal stores in various parts of the kingdom they received rations and where necessary, raw materials for processing. They also received land prebends (“d ubdy) as conditional holdings. The group known as bn“ mlk performed their professional duties as their ‘corvée obligation’ ( pilku) (see § 10.2.3). This type of centralised system for the whole economy, including crafts, is also known in other countries of the ancient near East. However, the organization most like it is documented in the Linear B tablets of Mycenaean Greece. 3.2

Crafts and industries

Unfortunately, we know almost nothing about the existence of private artisans, or of private crafts which must have been practised within families. This includes weaving textiles at home, home-made pottery and other activities. Crafts and industries can be classified as follows: 3.2.1

Collective work

By collective work is meant shipbuilding, chariot construction, the construction of houses and other buildings. This type of work often required various components made by craftsmen of different kinds such as ‘house builders’ (Ug. ˙r“ bhtm, Akk. itinnu), who are documented in many texts149 and ‘shipwrights’ (Ug. ˙r“ anyt; KTU 4.125 = RS 14.002:1).150 Naturally, the shipyards were in the coastal villages. 148 On archaeology cf. S 1939a, 1949, 1956. Also the archaeological reports by Schaeffer in Syria from 1929 onwards. Cf. also C 1979. 149 KTU 4.35 = RS 8.183+ i 16; KTU 4.38 = RS 8.272:6; KTU 4.47 = RS 10.043:10; KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116; KTU 4.376 = RS 18.085; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:18; KTU 4.630 = RS 19.062:8–9; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:11; PRU 6, 131 = RS 19.035:1; Ug 5, 99 = RS 10.15:12. Cf. H 1982, 80ff., esp. 86–7; S 1995a, esp. 178. 150 H 1982, 85–6; S 1995a, 177–8.

 

450

Some tablets also mention components of ships, including masts (trn) (V 1995a, 137–76). Mention is also made of ‘chariot-makers’ (˙r“ mrkbt) and ‘cartwrights’ (˙r“ 'rq).151 Using information from these texts it has been possible, to some extent, to reconstruct the technology of chariot making (C 1977). In addition, chariots were repaired in the workshops for which the workers received materials of various kinds, including ¢rß, ‘gold’ (KTU 4.167 = RS 15.079:1–2). 3.2.2

Agriculture

Olive oil was a very important product and is listed in deliveries of rations. The peasant farmers, it seems, had to supply olives for the production of oil to the gt’s which comprised the basic units of the royal economy. Olive oil was produced in large quantities (H 1996) but as yet no installations from the Late Bronze Age for the production of olive oil have come to light. However, the industry was so developed that, according to PRU 3, 99 = RS 16.257+, 220 persons in royal service received at least 502 ‘jars’ (Ug. kd, Akk. karpatu) of oil, i.e. about 11,030 litres.152 Delivery on this scale seems to have been yearly. Refined oils are also attested, including “mn mr, ‘myrrh oil’, “mn nr, ‘lamp oil’ and “mn rq˙, ‘aromatic oil’ (on these see § 10.1.2.13). On rq˙ see below. Wine also played an important role and there were, of course, wine makers. Information on wine is derived chiefly from the lists of the royal stores and from deliveries made to individuals, to the court and for cultic purposes (H 1990). Here, mention may be made of the professions within the bn“ mlk connected with the processing of cereals. These are ‘millers’ (Ug. al¢nm, Akk. ala¢¢inu) attested a few times.153 The existence of a bt al¢nm ‘house of the quartermaster (lit. “miller”)’ (KTU 4.392 = RS 18.130:4) shows that we are dealing with an organization. It is possible that the ksdm154 were also

151 H 1982, 87–8; S 1995a, 178; KTU 4.46 = RS 10.035:13–4; KTU 4.47 = RS 10.043:8; KTU 4.98 = RS 11.844:6, 8; KTU 4.141 = RS 15.022+ iii 20; KTU 4.145 = RS 15.034; KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116 ii 12; KTU 4.243 = RS 16.395:2; KTU 4.339 = RS 18.026:16; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016; KTU 4.743 = RS 25.140; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:13. Cf. V 1995a, 35–72. 152 One kd/karpatu = 20–25 litres. 153 KTU 4.102 = RS 11.857:25; KTU 4.337 = RS 18.024:11; PRU 6, 70 = RS 17.050:11, although these are PNN; cf. H 1982, 80; S 1995a, 175–6. 154 KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845:16; KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001:8; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084:16; KTU 4.186 = RS 15.156:1, 9; KTU 4.332 = RS 18.010+:18.

   

451

‘millers’ (H 1982, 90; DLU, 226). The ‘bakers’ or ‘cooks’ (Ug. apy, Akk. LÚnu¢atimmu; Ug. kkrdn, Akk. LÚkakardinnu)155 also belonged to the bn“ mlk and received rations and allotments of land. 3.2.3 Metal-working The role of metal-working, in both copper and tin, was very important. To begin with there are the nskm, ‘(metal-)casters’156 (Akk. nàsikùma).157 We do not know why there is no term for their specialization in these texts (but see next paragraph). One reason is supplied, perhaps, by KTU 4.261 = RS 17.023, which has the heading: spr argmn nskm ‘list of the tribute of (metal) casters’, where every person mentioned in the text had to deliver 200–500 (shekels?) as tribute (argmn) which the king of Ugarit had to pay the Hittite king, his overlord. Here belongs the large group of nsk ∆l∆ ‘copper (or bronze) casters’158 (Akk. nàsiku ; PRU 3, 195 = RS 15.009 :1 and LÚ(ME”)  , PRU 3, 204 = RS 15.172:10; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.133:23). A sample passage is 1∆l∆. d. yßa 2bd. “mmn 3largmn 4lnskm 5 ∆mn. kkrm 6alp. kbd 7[m]itm. kbd ‘Copper (or: bronze) which was delivered by ”umamànu to the casters for tribute, eight talents, one thousand two hundred (shekels)’ (KTU 4.43 = RS 9.011). From this text we see that ”umamànu distributed about 250 kilos of copper (or bronze), for processing or for making the final product, which had to be paid to the Hittite king. ”umamànu seems to be the ‘elder’ (rb) of the casters. There were also different types of metal-worker, for example, nsk ˙Ωm/˙≈m,159 ‘arrowsmiths’ (KTU 4.630 = RS 19.062:14). Arrow production was the work of several specialists (see below). One profession involved in metal-working was the ˙r“ q†n who were makers of

155

S 1995a, 176,180; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084:27. The root is nsk, ‘to pour, found, cast’ (KTU 4.43 = RS 9.011:4; KTU 4.98 = RS 11.844:17; KTU 4.133 = RS 15.005:3; KTU 4.261 = RS 17.023:1; KTU 4.310 = RS 17.392:2, 5; KTU 4.396 = RS 18.135:20). We do not accept the opinion of D (1983) that the verb means ‘to forge’. 157 PRU 6, 136 = RS 17.240:15; cf. S 1995a, 181–2. 158 H 1982, 93–4; S 1995a, 182; texts: KTU 4.35 = RS 8.183+ ii 8; KTU 4.43 = RS 9.011:4; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084:18; KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116 ii 27; KTU 4.222 = RS 16.193:8–11; KTU 4.181 = RS 15.106; KTU 4.272 = RS 17.118; KTU 4.310 = RS 17.392. 159 In KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:25 ˙≈m is the Hurrian spelling of ˙Ωm. 156

 

452

sickle-bladed swords.160 There is a problem in connection with copper artifacts and the production of bronze at Ugarit since there were no local sources of metal (Z 1970). It seems that metalworking had a long tradition in Ugarit since we know that when Zimrilim, king of Mari, visited Ugarit, all along his route he distributed large quantities of tin to rulers and in particular to Cretans living in Ugarit (V 1986). 3.2.4

The textile industry

Raw materials in the form of ‘flax’ ( p∆t) and ‘wool’ (“ 'rt) were available locally in sufficient quantities, for treatment. It is possible that spinning was a home industry, but at least four ‘spinners’ (Àzlm) are listed among the bn“ mlk.161 ‘Weavers’ (Ug. m¢ß, Akk. mà¢ißu and u“paru)162 are also mentioned in many texts.163 Although there were many terms for textiles and garments, it is not always possible to determine what they mean (R – X 1985) In one text purple-dyed wool is distributed to weavers for further treatment (T-D 1934). A wide spectrum of minerals and herbal dyes was used which involved complex treatment ( S 1990a). Among those who treated textiles were the ‘fullers’ or ‘dyers’ (kbsm/kb≤m). 160 H 1997; S 1995a, 182; KTU 4.47 = RS 10.043; KTU 4.98 = RS 11.844:9; KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116 iii 16; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:23; KTU 4.630 = RS 19.062:12; KTU 4.370 = RS 18.079:35; KTU 4.742 = RS 25.139:12; KTU 4.745 = RS 25.417:18. Note that the yß˙m (KTU 4.47 = RS 10.043:7; KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716:67; KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845:19; KTU 4.105 = RS 13.014[bis]:2; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084:10; KTU 4.147 = RS 15.036:5; KTU 4.151 = RS 15.044 ii 1; KTU 4.207 = RS 16.006:5; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:9; KTU 4.626 = RS 19.056:1; KTU 4.692 = RS 20.145:1, 8) were ‘workers in bronze’ (S 1987; 1995a, 185). 161 H 1982, 96–8 and 123–4, where the m¢ßm were mistakenly considered to be military personnel; cf. S 1995a, 181; R – X 1985, 20–1. Texts: KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845; KTU 4.102 = RS 11.115; KTU 4.107 = RS 12.002; KTU 4.123 = RS 13.014; KTU 4.124 = RS 13.020; KTU 4.128 = RS 14.176; KTU 4.158 = RS 15.062; KTU 4.182 = RS 15.115; KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116; KTU 4.266 = RS 17.074; KTU 4.332 = RS 18.010+; KTU 4.338 = RS 18.026; KTU 6.48 = RS 20.401; PRU 3, 204 = RS 15.172; PRU 6, 10 = RS 17.390; Ug 5, 99 = RS 20.425. 162 AHw, 581; CAD M/1, 102; AHw, 397; CAD I/J, 255–6. Texts: PRU 3, 205 = RS 15.172 :7; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:23; Ug 5, 99 = RS 20.425:5. 163 KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845:15; KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858:57; KTU 4.121 = RS 13.009:1; KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001:9; KTU 4.128 = RS 14.176:5; KTU 4.182 = RS 15.115:56; KTU 4.187 = RS 15.157+:1; KTU 4.269 = RS 17.106:8; KTU 4.332 = RS 18.010+:14–7; KTU 4.635 = RS 19.096:7; PRU 6, 166 = RS 19.099; cf. S 1995a, 181.

   

453

The b'l tÀp∆m was the ‘maker of horse-cloths’ or ‘maker of caparisons’164 and there were other textiles which could be used in chariot making, shipbuilding, the manufacture of weapons, etc. (see next paragraph). The only term for ‘leather-worker’ known is Akk. a“kàpu; he made objects for both military and civilian use. Even the relatively scarce material provided here is indicative of the important role textile production had in Ugarit, partly for the purposes of foreign trade. 3.2.5

Weapon production

The manufacture of military equipment and weapons was important to the economy which was fully controlled by the palace authorities and run by the bn“ mlk system, although individual work was possible. The b'l tdtt were ‘makers of breastplates’.165 The production of arrows was complex. Besides the ‘arrow casters’ (nsk ˙Ωm) there were also ‘modellers of arrows’ ( psl ˙Ωm, also termed ¢≈Àlm)166 who apparently produced/made the non-metallic part of the arrow and placed it on the arrowhead.167 The evidence for this comes from KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016 which among other professions lists by name three ¢≈Àlm (line 16) and eight nsk ˙≈m (line 25; cf. n. 159). Similarly, those involved in the construction of bows were called ˙r“ q“t ‘bow-maker’ and psl q“t ‘bow-modeller’, which would point to composite bows since they had to have an aesthetically pleasing form. Craftsmen from other professions such as ˙†bm ‘woodcutters’ or even possibly ‘carpenters, furniture makers’. Although the term ˙r“ was usually specified further, as we have seen (˙r“ bhtm, ˙r“ q“t and ˙r“ q†n), sometimes ˙r“m occurs on its own in the texts and it is impossible to determine its precise meaning (S 1995a, 177). See also § 11.4.7.

164 H 1982, 82–3; S 1995a, 176–7; texts: PRU 3, 15 = RS 15.033; PRU 3, 77 = RS 16.142; PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:14, PRU 6, 109 = RS 19.131:5; PRU 6, 131 = RS 19.035:8; Ug 5, 83 = RS 20.146:20. 165 Akk. tudittu, ‘pectoral’; H 1982, 83–4; S 1995a, 177; KTU 4.608 = RS 19.016:35–39. 166 H 1982, 92; S 1995a, 179.; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:25; KTU 4.630 = RS 19.062:14. 167 H 1982, 84; S 1995a, 183, possibly Akk. LÚsa-si-nu (KTU 4.141 = RS 15.022+ iii 19; KTU 4.134 = RS 15.006:2; KTU 4.150 = RS 15.040; KTU 4.188 = RS 15.169+; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:16).

454

  3.3

Other crafts

Pottery, or the art of ceramics, was also an important craft. The Ugaritic word for ‘potter’ is yßr (Akk. LÚya-ßi-ru-ma, LÚpa¢¢àru).168 The expression for jeweller in Ugaritic is nsk ksp, lit. ‘silver caster’ (kutimmu in Ugaritic Akkadian).169 Also documented are the pslm, i.e. ‘sculptors, carvers, engravers’,170 who most probably worked in stone. The only occurrence of Akk. parkullu ‘seal cutter’, is in PRU 6, 93 = RS 17.131:24 (as LÚ.).171 In addition there was the profession of ‘pharmacist’ (Ug. rq˙) who also mixed ointment or prepared perfume.172 Naturally, we do not have a complete picture of all the arts and crafts in Ugarit, but only the sample given here, which is sufficiently representative.

168 H 1982, 89–90; S 1995a, 185. Texts: KTU 4.46 = RS 10.035:11–2; KTU 4.87 = RS 11.789:3; KTU 4.93 = RS 11.776+:11; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084:28; KTU 4.367 = RS 18.076:18; KTU 4.339 = RS 18.026:2–4; KTU 4.338 = RS 18.025:10; PRU 3, 204 = RS 15.172; PRU 6, 136 = RS 17.240:11. 169 H 1982, 92–3; S 1995a, 183; Texts: KTU 4.47 = RS 10.043:5; KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716:74; KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845:18; KTU 4.183 = RS 15.116 ii 22; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:32; KTU 4.745 = RS 25.417:7; KTU 5.20 = RS 24.281:1; PRU 6, 70 = RS 17.050:4; PRU 6, 131 = RS 19.035:29. 170 H 1982, 96; S 1988, 183; texts: KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716:63; KTU 4.99 = RS 11.845:18; KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858:36; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084:8; KTU 4.207 = RS 16.006:7; KTU 4.370 = RS 18.079:45; KTU 4.412 = RS 18.251 iii 9; a possible Akk. parallel is LÚzadimmu; cf. S 1995b, 455, n. 2. 171 On seal cutting see S 1995b. 172 S 1988, 183–4; texts: KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+:21; KTU 1.87 = RS 18.056:22; KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643:21; KTU 4.31 = RS 5.197+:2, etc.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

THE SOCIETY OF UGARIT J-P V

1

P, C  S M 1.1

The size and demography of the kingdom

1.1.1 The kingdom of Ugarit covered a territory of considerable size.1 It covered about 5,425 km2 when its expansion was greatest and 2,200 km2 without the additional territories granted by ”uppiluliuma I of ›atti (A 1995, 55). According to several studies (G 1987; H 1976, 103–12; L 1979a, 1319–20), the population of the kingdom was between 31,000 and 33,000 people, approximately, with 6,000–8,000 in the capital and about 25,000 in the rest of the territory. However, the archaeological evidence available at present counsels the greatest prudence in calculations of this kind (Y 1992; C 1994, 199). 1.1.2 The Ugaritic ‘atonement’ ritual KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002 (and parallels;  O L 1992a, 99–109 = 1999, 146–60) is addressed to all the people of Ugarit, to whom the words ‘sons/daughters of Ugarit’ refer. It is the same as the term used for Ugaritians in international juridical texts.2 As will be seen in the following paragraphs, this people came from a range of different cultures.

1 The final version of this chapter was prepared while staying at the Altorientalisches Seminar of the Freie Universität, Berlin, thanks to a research grant provided by the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. I would like to thank Prof. Dr J. Renger for the friendly welcome he extended to me and for the facilities he made available for my research at the above institute. 2 For example, PRU 4, 107–8 = RS 17.238; PRU 4, 161 = RS 17.341.

 

456 1.2

The Semitic component

1.2.1 The basic component of Ugaritian culture is Semitic, as attested by the local language (Ugaritic), its alphabet, a high proportion of the personal names, or by the religion reflected in the indigenous myths, legends and rituals. The alphabet normally used in Ugarit, with its abg¢-sequence, shows the fusion of various Semitic traditions (D ‒ L 1988a). In terms of form, a considerable number of the signs in the Ugaritic alphabet can be linked to Semitic alphabets of the western type; a second group, with a smaller number of signs, can be connected with southern alphabets; finally, a third group corresponds to both traditions. The mixed origin of the signs could be an indication of the southern origin of part, at least, of the historical Ugaritian population, where it might have taken on elements from both traditions (western and southern) for the formation of its own alphabet. 1.2.2 This last hypothesis is strengthened by the recent discovery in Ugarit of a cuneiform alphabet which follows the hl˙ sequence, i.e. the one peculiar to the South Arabic alphabet (B ‒ P 1995a). The cuneiform alphabet in the South Arabic sequence found at Beth Shemesh (D ‒ L 1988a, 277–96; P 1991; S 1991) would comprise the geographic link between the South Arabic alphabet of the south and the South Arabic alphabet of Ugarit.3 1.3

The Hurrian component

1.3.1 As attested by the onomasticon and a significant number of texts in Hurrian found in Ugarit, Hurrian is the second ethnic, linguistic and cultural component basic to the kingdom. On the one hand there are documents which belong to the world of the scribes (for example, polyglot vocabularies); on the other, documents which are religious in nature, including texts with musical notation (L 1979; S 1995). They were written using both the syllabic system and the local alphabet.

3

On the relationships among the various alphabets of the South Arabic type and the alphabetic sequence attested in Egypt see T 1996. See § 4.2.

   

457

1.3.2 It should be stressed that the only successful adaptation of the Ugaritic alphabet to another language, in a significant way, was to Hurrian.4 The Hurrian documents written in this way are cultic in character (D ‒ M 1994; 1995). Sometimes, Hurrian and Ugaritic alternate within the same document, which shows that some scribes may have been bilingual (P 1996b). Hurro-Semitic syncretism is also reflected in the mix of divine names from both traditions found in some of the rituals, a genre which shows to what extent the Hurrian pantheon was known in Ugarit ( O L 1992a, 62–5 = 1999, 82–6; D – M 1997b). 1.3.3 Everything, therefore, points to a high level of integration of the Hurrian element, as a living culture, within Ugaritic society.5 The supposition of a limited use of Hurrian as a spoken language in Ugaritian society ( S 1991a, 519; D ‒ M 1995, 38–40) has to be revised in view of texts such as RS 23.031, an (unpublished) letter in which Akkadian and Hurrian alternate in a sort of mixed language, used perhaps in commercial transactions (M-L 1995c, 37).6 At all events, the ritual KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002 (§ 11.1.1.2) seems to suggest that at least in the period of King Niqmaddu the Hurrians had not yet been integrated fully (L 1979a, 1321; P 1996b, 76).7 1.4

Foreigners in Ugarit

1.4.1 The ritual KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002 (§ 11.1.1.2; cf. § 13.6.2) mentions other groups of foreigners in Ugarit, such as Hittites and Cypriots and refers, in general, to the ‘guests of the walls of Ugarit’. Thus it is a reflection of Ugarit in its known role as a meeting-place where languages and cultures interchange.8 4 With the exception of the few examples of texts in Akkadian written using the alphabetic system (S 1988). 5 In this context, note the coexistence of Semitic and Hurrian personal names within the Ugaritic royal family (L 1979a, 1322). 6 Elements of Hurrian influence are also evident in the Akkadian of Ugarit (H 1989, 281–2;  S 1991a, 521–2). As for Ugaritic, it contains a significant contribution of words with a Hurrian origin (W 1995c, 533–41; 1996a, 701–4). 7 A king mentioned in KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002:28; KTU 1.84 = RS 17.100 []+:40; KTU 1.121 = RS 24.270:9; the Hurrians are mentioned in KTU 1.40:29, 37 (restored in lines 12 and 20); KTU 1.84:4 (restored in lines 15 and 20). On the historical moment in which the text can be set see  O L 1992a, 108 = 1999, 157. 8 An interchange which, at the lexical level, is expressed in the presence of a

458

 

1.4.2 The historical relationship between Ugarit and ›atti is well documented.9 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Ugaritian administrative texts mention Hittites in connection with food rations from the palace.10 The most famous episode, however, concerns the presence of Hittite traders in Ugarit. At the request of Niqmepa of Ugarit, ›attu“ili of ›atti stipulated, by decree,11 that the Hittite merchants from the Cilician locations of Ura12 and Kutupa13 operating on Ugaritian soil were to carry out their activities only in summer, and were required to leave Ugarit during the winter. Perhaps it was a political decision by the king of Ugarit, in an attempt to limit the massive buying up and export of Ugaritic grain and thus to maintain economic stability and social peace (V 1995). In turn, the intense political relations between Ugarit and the Hittite kingdom of Carchemish led to the signing of agreements about financial compensation should the citizens of one country be assassinated in the other country (§ 11.1.4.6).14 The person called Tak¢ulinu was at a different level, if it is accepted that besides being mudû of the queen of Ugarit,15 he was kartappu of the king of Carchemish (so N 1955, 111;16 but see S 1983; cf. § 11.1.5.1). By means of a series of documents, King Ammi∆tamru II allows him to buy lands and villages in Ugarit; however, these properties seem to be conditional on the loyalty of Tak¢ulinu and his descendants to the Ugaritic crown.17 1.4.3 Political relations between Ugarit and Cyprus are attested since the conquest of the island by ›atti and its later inclusion in

considerable number of foreign contributions to the indigenous language (W 1995c; 1996a). For a possible reference to Assyrians in the texts from Ugarit see KTU 4.230 = RS 16.341:3 (a∆r[ y]m; cf. the personal name a∆ry, C ‒ V 1995a, no. 534) and Ug 5, no. 56 = RS 20.150:7. There is a discussion of the term ubru, probably a foreigner of some sort attested in Ugarit, in V 1995. 9 See, most recently, L 1995; N 1995b. See also § 15 below. 10 KTU 4.149 = RS 15.039:4; KTU 4.216 = RS 16.165:9. 11 PRU 4, 103–5 = RS 17.130 and its version RSO 7, No. 1 = RS 34.179. The second text mentions the people of Kutupa. 12 On Ura and its possible location see L 1993. Merchants of the Hittite king native to Ura also appear, as witnesses, in international juridical texts found in Ugarit; cf. PRU 4, 190 = RS 17.316; PRU 4, 202 = RS 18.20+. 13 A place mentioned in RSO 7, No. 1 = RS 34.179; see M-L 1991, 15, n. 4. 14 PRU 4, 153 = RS 17.230. 15 PRU 3, 113 = RS 16.353. 16 PRU 3, 44 = RS 16.273. 17 PRU 3, 113 = RS 16.353.

   

459

a common defence system (§ 11.5.4.3). The abundance of Cypriot pottery,17a the Cypro-Minoan texts found in Ugarit (L 1979a, 1322–3) as well as letters18 and administrative texts,19 are also witness to relationhips between the two communities at both the cultural and the commercial levels. Some Cypriots (al∆y, al∆yy; DLU, 33) receive from the Ugaritian administration food and clothing,20 others belong to the guild of craftsmen.21 On the other hand, from its structure the administrative text KTU 4.102 = RS 11.857 seems to be a list of prisoners of war, or of persons detained for some reason, who come from Cyprus (V 1995a, 108). An unpublished letter found in Ras Shamra in 1994, which reports the dispatch of an emissary of the king of Cyprus to Ugarit to deal with the freeing of Cypriots detained on Ugaritic soil,22 could support this hypothesis. 1.4.4 The correspondence which has been preserved shows that political relations between Ugarit and the coastal centres of southern Syria and Palestine were, in general, smooth and cordial.23 Within a common cultural area (X 1995b) commercial relations and the exchange of persons took place at the same level as political relations.24 The presence in Ugaritic administrative texts of persons from Tyre, Byblos,25 Sidon, Beirut,26 Acre, Arwad, Ashkelon or Ashdod27 17a

Y 1984b, 430. KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113 (K 1983); Ug 5, 21 = RS 20.168; RSO 7, 35 = RS 34.153. 19 KTU 4.390 = RS 18.119:1 (restored). See also KTU 1.141 = RS 24.312, an inscribed model of a liver, concerning someone buying a person from a Cypriot ( O L 1992a, 232 = 1999, 347). 20 KTU 4.149 = RS 15.039 (on the possible cultic nature of the text see S 1989, 341; KTU 4.352 = RS 18.042; KTU 4.705 = RS 21.056. 21 KTU 4.155 = RS 15.051; cf. also KTU 4.343 = RS 18.029. 22 Personal communication of F. M-L. 23 List of sources in A 1992, 192–4, completed by X 1995, 257–60. Add the letters CK 7 (A 1991a, 219) from Beirut, and PRU 4, 219 = RS 17.424+ from Tyre (cf. A 1996, 63 n. 94). 24 See, for example, PRU 6, 126 = RS 19.28; PRU 6, 156 = RS 19.20; KTU 4.338 = RS 18.025 (M R 1993a). On the content of documents which are still unpublished see M-L 1995a, 445; 1995b, 104. 25 On Ugaritic kblbn (KTU 4.149 = RS 15.039:6) as possibly meaning ‘Byblian’, see S 1989, 341. 26 On the possibility that in the Ugaritic texts the toponym ‘Beirut’ denotes the present locality of Ras Ibn Hani, see A 1984, but also  S 1994, 368 with n. 20 (Ras Ibn Hani = Ra"“u). 27 PRU 6, 79 = RS 19.042 (Tyre, Acre, Arwad, Ashkelon); PRU 6, 81 = RS 19.182 (Byblos, Sidon, Acre); KTU 4.96 = RS 11.840 (Ashdod, gent. a≈ddy); KTU 4.352 = RS 18.042 (Ashdod, gent. a≈ddy); KTU 4.635 = RS 19.096 (Ashdod, gent. a≈ddy); KTU 4.778 = RIH 83/12 (Tyre, gent. ßry); KTU 4.782 = RIH 84/08 18

460

 

is not suprising, therefore. On some occasions their presence is due to circumstance,28 but at other times there seems to be a greater degree of integration into the Ugaritian administrative structure, with people who work in palace farms (gt; cf. § 11.4.1.2)29 or are referred to as ‘apprentice’ (Àamaru).30 1.4.5 In broad outline, Ugarit moved from the sphere of Egyptian influence to become, by treaty, part of the political system of the Hittite empire. However, as the correspondence shows (KTU 2.36 = RS 17.435+; KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031; C 1989b), commercial relations between both countries remained the same and at its final stage, Ugarit seems to have resumed relations with Egypt at the highest level (F 1988; L 1995b). The historical ties linking both these states31 are reflected in the significant presence of Egyptians in Ugaritian society in which they seem to be very much integrated. Together with Ugaritians and foreigners of all kinds, persons described as ‘Egyptians’ or ‘from Egypt’ work on palace farms,32 and receive food and clothing from the administration. 33 Also, as the juridical text KTU 3.7 = RS 18.118 shows (H ‒  S 1991a, 206; M R 1993b), they can be found in various villages of the kingdom, perform military functions such as that of m≈rÀl (§ 11.5.3.4) and fulfil obligations of the unu““u (un∆ ) type. Other Egyptians enjoyed a social position which was no doubt more influential, even receiving various properties from the king of Ugarit without any compensation at all.34 However, the ambiguity in respect of the possible Egyptian origin of certain persons said to be Egyptian in Ugaritic administrative documents even affects persons of the social standing of ”ip†i-Ba'alu (V – G 1997; cf. § 11.2.6.1).

( Tyre, gent. ßry); KTU 4.321 = RS 18.005 (Byblos, gent. gbly); KTU 3.4 = RS 16.191+ (Beirut, gent. pl. birtym). 28 For example, the reference to shipowners from Sidon and Acre in ships from Carchemish anchored in Ugarit (RSO 7, 5 = RS 34.147). Both references could also be understood as personal names (cf. also the case of a≈ddy in KTU 4.352 = RS 18.042:9). 29 KTU 4.96 = RS 11.840:3. 30 PRU 6, 79 = RS 19.42:9. 31 On relations between Egypt and Ugarit see, recently, H 1995. 32 KTU 4.96 = RS 11.840:6 (gent. mßry). 33 KTU 4.352 = RS 18.042:2 (mßrm ‘Egypt’). 34 See the case given in PRU 3, 142 = RS 16.136.

   

461

1.4.6 Life in Ugarit was not exempt from dangers for foreigners. Several international juridical documents deal with the murder of traders.35 They are bilateral agreements (with Carchemish) on monetary compensation for the murder of traders on each other’s soil as well as resolutions concerning the robbery and murder of foreign merchants in the kingdom of Ugarit (K 1980). The defence of crown interests and the protection of international trade were sought in equal measure. Actual cases were resolved between the king of Ugarit and the community to which the murderer belonged (§ 11.3.8). The resolution of the conflict was brought about by payment of a customary amount of money and not by the death of the guilty party.36 The non-application of the death penalty is observed also in cases of serious crime in which actual persons (not communities) are implicated,37 although some instances of execution are also known.38 1.4.7 The kingdom of Ugarit also accommodated groups of people who were basically not sedentary and were identified by their own names. One of these groups was the ¢apirù,39 also attested in Mesopotamia and Palestine. Broadly speaking, the term denotes individuals of foreign extraction, ethnically and socially displaced, who frequently formed roving and dangerous bands, but who could end up being integrated to some extent within society (B 1972–75). The latter is the situation that seems to apply to Ugarit. The references to various categories of personnel under the command of the ‘chief of the ¢apirù’ (rb 'prm)40 and to a ¢apiru in connection with 35

The unsafe nature of routes and roads could affect those of the highest rank, as shown by the abduction of a Hittite princess on Ugaritian soil (Ug 5, 108 = RS 20.216). Other cases of murder in Ugarit in PRU 4, 173= RS 17.234 and Ug 5, 94 = RS 20.022. See § 10. 36 As is clearly shown by lines 14–23 of the letter KBo I 10+ (K 1980; H 1989, 285, 291–2) from the Hittite king ›attu“ili to Kada“manEnlil II of Babylonia, which deal with the death of Babylonian merchants in Ugarit and Amurru. 37 Cf. PRU 3, 96 = RS 16.249: counterfeiting the royal seal and documents; the penalty imposed is not death (envisaged in line 22) but exile. See also the episode of intrigue led by two Ugaritic princes, dealt with in PRU 4, 121–4 = RS 17.352, 17.035+, 17.362 and 17.367, which also seems to be settled by the exile of those guilty (N 1956, 120). 38 Cf. PRU 3, 68 = RS 16.269; cf. § 11.3.2.2. 39 Mentioned in Ugaritic and Akkadian texts; Ug. 'prm (plural; C ‒ V 1995a, no. 4506); Akk. ¢a-pí-ri (PRU 6, No. 112 = RS 17.99:5); Sum. . (and variants; B 1972–75, 20); DLU 85. 40 Cf. KTU 4.752 = RS 29.097:1.

462

 

oil rations41 show that there was some degree of organization within the group alongside its integration within the administration of the kingdom, without losing its identity.42 The mention of a place called ‘Hill of the ¢apirù’43 in administrative documents seems to indicate that, as in nearby ›atti,44 the group had a geographical location. At times the ¢apirù were the direct cause of friction with foreign countries either over legal matters45 or due to border conflicts.46 1.4.8 Besides the ¢apirù, the Ugaritian sources mention other groups. A label with the inscription ‘for the chief of the k∆kym’47 and an administrative text with personal names belonging to this category48 suggest the (controversial) possibility that there was a group of Kaskaeans in Ugarit, a north Anatolian people documented chiefly in Hittite sources (DLU, 231). The probable presence in Ugaritic society of groups belonging to the so-called ‘Sea Peoples’, in particular the “erdanù, is also controversial (L 1995). The various kings of Ugarit also had to deal with nomadic peoples such as the ummàn-manda, in conflicts which in the last resort had to be resolved by diplomacy.49 The inclusion of the various groups mentioned as mercenaries in the army of Ugarit cannot be discounted. 1.4.9 In wartime, the contribution of foreigners to Ugarit could be due to the taking of prisoners or the arrival of fugitives. Both circumstances were foreseen at an international level. The treaties signed by Ugarit with ›atti50 or Carchemish51 usually envisaged the possi41

PRU 6, No. 112 = RS 17.099.5. See also PRU 3, 102 = RS 15.109+.54–5; cf. also PRU 3, 233. 43 Ug. ›lb 'prm (C ‒ V 1995a, No. 4506), Sum.-Akk. ›albi LÚ.ME” ./'apurìma); DLU, 85, 191. 44 PRU 4, 107 = RS 17.238. 45 PRU 3, 3 = RS 16.003, a letter from the king of Carchemish to king Ammi∆tamru concerning the case of ¢apirù. PRU 4, 107 = RS 17.238, an edict of ›attu“ili III on fugitives from Ugarit in the territory of the ¢apirù of ›atti (§ 11.4.2.2). 46 PRU 4, 161 = RS 17.341, on border problems between Ugarit and the southern kingdom of Siyannu. Note also the reference, in a negative context, to the term ‘¢apiru’ in a scribal exercise (PRU 3, 213 = RS 16.364). 47 KTU 6.3 = RS [ Varia 5] (l rb k∆kym). 48 KTU 4.319 = RS 17.443. 49 PRU 4, 180 = RS 17.286; V 1995a, 18–9. 50 PRU 4, 52 = RS 17.369, a fragment which according to N 1956, 52, must form part of the agreement PRU 4, 48 = RS 17.340. In connection with this agreement see the letter PRU 4, 35 = RS 17.132. Cf. also the treaty PRU 4, 96 = RS 17.079+ and the international verdict PRU 4, 161 = RS 17.341. 51 PRU 4, 54 = RS 17.334. 42

   

463

bility of acquiring prisoners from third-party countries in the event of war as well as keeping in their territory fugitives from these same countries.52 As bilateral agreements, the obligation of the signatories to repatriate fugitives from both countries who had settled in the neighbouring country could be stipulated.53 1.5

Ugaritians abroad

1.5.1 The presence of foreigners in Ugarit corresponded to the departure of Ugaritians beyond its frontiers. Sometimes they are Ugaritians who travel abroad while carrying out their duties or profession. The international relations of the Ugaritic court, for example, required the constant exchange of ambassadors and messengers. Taku¢linu, the best known ambassador of Ugarit, carried out his duties in Carchemish (S 1983; cf. § 11.1.4.2).54 The king and queen of Ugarit tried to foster the work of their envoys by means of personal contacts in the court in question.55 In turn, the envoys had to give an account of their mission by means of written reports. 56 1.5.2 Because of their profession, Ugaritian traders also went abroad often. Running the same risks as their colleagues in other countries (§ 11.1.4.6), their business ranged from Emar to Egypt, passing through Cyprus, U“natu and the ports of the Levantine coast (§ 11.2.6.1). The scribes also had some degree of mobility, by profession (§ 11.2.7). One of them, from Cyprus, requests his lord, the king of Ugarit, to send five chairs and a table (M-L 1995a, 445; 1995b, 104). However, as shown by the episode of the ‘great sin’57 which occurred in Sidon (A 1992, 185, 189–91; X 1995, 259), the residence of Ugaritians beyond its frontiers was not always free of conflict. A group of Ugaritians desecrated the

52 The military history of Ugarit (V 1995a, 11–31) suggests that there was no lack of occasions on which the clauses concerning prisoners and fugitives could be put into practice. 53 Cf. PRU 4, 107 = RS 17.238. In this respect see also, for example, the treaties AT 2 (D ‒ L 1997) and AT 3 signed by Alala¢. 54 In connection with ›atti see the Ugaritic letter KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008 (C 1989b, 297–302). 55 PRU 4, 294 = RS 19.070, Ug 5, No. 28 = RS 20.184, both in connection with Carchemish. See also RSO 7, No. 38 = RS 34.149, in connection with Sidon. 56 Ug 5, No. 44 = RS 20.219; RSO 7, No. 10 = RS 34.150. 57 ¢i-†a ; cf. A 1992, 190, n. 54.

464

 

temple of the Sidonian storm-god. As a result, the culprits, the people and the king of Sidon had to perform a meticulous and expensive reparation ritual to all the deities of Sidon over a period of four days. Some of the culprits agreed to pay the cost of the ritual and those who refused ran the risk of being executed.58 1.5.3 On other occasions it was not professional reasons but war or economical circumstances which forced some Ugaritians to leave the country (§ 11.1.6.7). 1.6

Social mobility

1.6.1 As the legal and administrative documents from Ugarit show, the inhabitants of the kingdom could belong to different social classes. It was a very structured society with a pattern quite different from the one reflected in the texts from nearby Alala¢ (S 1978; G 1988), but comprised permeable strata. Different circumstances could bring about a change in a person’s class, such as a royal decision, marriage or one’s own economic situation. The differences between Ugaritians in general and those within the same class in particular (L 1979a, 1334; V 1988, 117), were also economic in character.59 The variations in the social and economic position of the Ugaritians are also reflected in the archaeological remains of tombs (S 1995) and houses (C 1994, 199–201) found in the city of Ugarit, which also show clearly the social disparity between the capital and the rest of kingdom. On the lowest rungs of the social ladder there were a certain number of servants, slaves and fugitives (§ 11.1.6.6–7). 1.6.2 Certain social classes, such as the maryannù and the mudù, had their own structure and were directly connected with the crown. In Ugarit, the term maryannu,60 which is well known in ancient Near Eastern sources of the second half of the 2nd millennium  (W 1987–90), did not denote a type of soldier of the war58

See also A 1982b on a business dispute in Tyre. Note also the existence of properties which were free of obligations (for example, PRU 3, 90 = RS 16.147) as compared with others, the acquisition of which entailed various economic and social obligations (for example, PRU 3, 62 = RS 16.167). 60 Ug. mryn, pl. mrynm (C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 3726 and 3727). 59

   

465

chariot in the strict sense but a social group, a status or class (R 1972; V 1995, 93–109). Its members formed a well-defined group within society,61 occupying a distinct social position but without comprising the controlling elite of the kingdom ( V 1988, 121). Distributed in various places,62 they were connected economically with agriculture.63 Some of their members were military personnel connected with chariots,64 but they are neither the only members of Ugaritic society intended for the chariot squad, nor did all the maryannù have to carry out that duty.65 1.6.3 As for the term mudû,66 it denoted the scribe of the village (§ 11.2.7.2) but was also the name for a kind of courtier, the ‘expert’, either of the king or the queen (S 1989, 337–41). The maryannù were also connected with the crown. On the one hand, as in Alala¢,67 the king had the power to grant an individual the status of maryannu,68 which was surely hereditary.69 On the other hand, again as in Alala¢ (N’ 1980, 112), they comprised various categories, one among them being that of ‘maryannu of the king’.70 The same person could function in both categories, maryannu and mudû at the same time.71 Nevertheless, the category of maryannu must have been superior, judging from the economic benefits it entailed and because it was a more restricted class (R 1972, 221). Accordingly, maryannu and mudû could have been the highest social classes. 61 See, for example, the lists of maryannù, KTU 4.322 = RS 18.007 and KTU 4.561 = RS 18.[489]; also perhaps KTU 4.623 = RS 19.049[]. 62 Cf. PRU 3, 192 = RS 12.034+; KTU 4.244 = RS 16.396:16; KTU 4.772 = RIH 78/06:5. 63 KTU 4.416 = RS 18.252:1; KTU 4.244 = RS 16.396:16. 64 Cf. PRU 3, 192 = RS 12.034+ and the dependence of the maryannù on the ‘overseer of (the) chariot(s)’ ( LÚ GI”; PRU 3, 79 = RS 16.239:31–3). 65 As shown, again, by PRU 3, 192 = RS 12.34+. Thus, the theory of R 1972, 228, according to which the maryannù gradually lost their connection with chariots during the second half of the 2nd millennium, is very probable. They were being integrated into spheres which were more civil than military and their place in the army was gradually taken by members of the lower classes. 66 Ug. md, pl. mdm (C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 3361 and 3382). 67 AT 15; AT 91 (N’ 1980, 111–2; D ‒ M 1996b, 184–7). 68 PRU 3, 140 = RS 16.132; H 1987b, 173. At Emar, instead, this power could belong to an individual, cf. RE 66 (B 1996b, 85). 69 Cf. KTU 4.561 = RS 18.[489]. 70 maryannu  (PRU 3, 79 = RS 16.239:17). Also attested are the n'r mrynm ‘lads/ cadets of the maryannùma’ and bn mrynm ‘sons of the maryannùma’ (V 1995a, 105–9). 71 Cf. PRU 3, 79 = RS 16.239.

466

 

1.6.4 Changes in status by royal decree could involve other classes, such as the qd“, mur’u and a“iru. Traditionally understood to mean ‘commanders’, ‘officials’, the mur’ù were in turn subdivided into ‘mur’u of the king’, ‘mur’u of the crown prince’ and ‘mur’u of the prefect’.72 By a decision of Ammi∆tamru II, a man and his sons moved from belonging to the mur’ù of the crown prince (Ibiranu) to form part of the mudù of the queen, a change which entailed a series of financial privileges.73 In the case of another person, the same king decrees his transfer from à“iru74 to ‘mudû of the king’, a position which entailed the payment of a sum of money but also exemption from certain obligations.75 It can be supposed, therefore, that both cases involved a rise in social standing. 1.6.5 Changes were also possible horizontally, as the juridical document PRU 3, 78 = RS 15. seems to suggest.76 In the case of women, the changes of status attested are related to marriages (§ 11.1.6.6). 1.6.6 As in other societies of the period,77 people in Ugarit could be bought and sold.78 As a result, in Ugaritic society there was also a servant class,79 which one joined chiefly through financial debts80 (cf. § 11.1.6.7). Servants formed part of a property on the same level 72 Ug. mru mlk/Akk. mur’u , Ug. mru ibrn/Akk. mur’u Ibirana, mur’u u“riyàni and Ug. mru skn/Akk. mur’u LÚ“ respectively. Bibliography and discussion (‘fatteners’, ‘quartermasters’) in V 1995, 145–7; C ‒ V 1995b. 73 PRU 3, 162 = RS 16.348. According to N 1968, 136 n. 4, it is very likely that the person in question was the recipient of the queen’s letter Ug 5, 136 = RS 20.013. 74 A category of uncertain meaning, cf. DLU, 92 (Ug. '“r). 75 PRU 3, 134 = RS 15.137. 76 The document provides two examples of a change: by decision of king Niqmepa, a person moves from being a ‘tanner’ (a“kàpu) to being a ‘lancer’ ( LÚ.; cf. H 1989, 67; § 11.5.2.3) and the other, instead, moves from a ‘lancer’ to a ‘tanner’. 77 On Emar see A 1981 and the references in D 1990. 78 Cf. PRU 4, 161 = RS 17.341; PRU 4, 238 = RS 17.231; Ug 5, No. 10 = RS 17.067; Ug 5, No. 85 = RS 20.236; KTU 3.4 = RS 16.191+. The Egyptians seem to have played an active role in this enterprise, cf. KTU 3.8 = RS 19.066; PRU 3, 19 = RS 15.011; Ug 5, No. 42 = RS 20.021; RSO 7, No. 16 = RS 34.158. 79 Masc., Ug. 'bd (C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 4289, 4296, 4306, 4310; DLU, 68, which distinguishes between 'bd I ‘slave’ and 'bd II ‘servant’), Sum. , Akk. ardu (cf. polyglot vocabulary Ug 5, No. 137 = RS 20.123 iii 4; H 1987b, 96, 158). Fem., Sum. , Ug. amt (C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 270, 287, 289; DLU, 36). For references to prisoners (Ug. asr, Akk. asìru) in the texts from Ugarit cf. DLU, 55. 80 Cf. KTU 3.8 = RS 19.066 (H ‒  S 1991, 191–2); PRU 4, 103–5 = RS 17.130. On the appropriateness of speaking of ‘servitude’ rather than

   

467

as lands, houses, animals and domestic furniture,81 and thus could be transferred and exchanged for other servants.82 For the state they carried out agricultural tasks on the royal farms (Ug. gt, Akk. dimtu; § 11.4.1.2).83 Being a servant was not necessarily for life, as shown by the cases of women who drop their status as servants as a first step before marriage (§ 11.3.1.4),84 or by the possiblity of personal freedom, with a servant left in one’s stead.85 1.6.7 Finally, Ugarit had to deal with the problem of fugitives. As is known, the pursuit and extradition of fugitives was an important matter in the international relations of the ancient Near East. Ugarit, like other states in the period, confronted this situation by means of bilateral treaties and internal legal mechanisms (H ‒  S 1991). Since the nayyàlu or runaway could not fulfil the economic obligations towards the administration (ilku-obligations, pilku),86 he was pursued and lost his lands in favour of third parties (H 1976, 52–7; L 1979a, 1343; S 1995c, 135–6).87 It was another possible way of becoming a servant (§ 11.1.6.6).

2

T R F, A  C 2.1

Dynasty and succession

According to the textual evidence, only one dynasty ruled in Ugarit. The royal titularies of the juridical texts show that succession was

‘slavery’ in Ugaritic society, see B 1955, 299; N 1955, 31–2; for the opposite view cf. L 1982, 257. 81 For example, PRU 3, 56 = RS 15.120; Ug 5, No. 81 = RS 21.230; PRU 6, No. 49 = RS 17.378; RS 8.145 (T-D 1937, 249). 82 Ug 5, No. 56 = RS 20.150; PRU 6, No. 45 = RS 18.021; RSO 7, No. 56 = RS 34.170. 83 KTU 4.636 = RS 19.097; Ug 5, No. 96 = RS 20.012. Cf. also H 1982, 64–5; L 1982, 257. 84 PRU 3, 85 = RS 16.250; PRU 3, 110 = RS 16.267; RS 8.208 (TD 1937, 253; partially in PRU 3, 110) where the husband pays a certain amount of money. 85 RSO 7, No. 23 = RS 34.170. 86 See p. 485 n. 194. Cf. also abyn ‘bankrupt’ in KTU 4.70 = RS 11.720:6 (DLU, 7; KTU 2, 237; ¢lq ‘missing’ [DLU, 192]). 87 The generic term for ‘fugitive’, also attested in Ugarit, is munnabtu. The label PRU 6, No. 76 = RS 17.361, which deals with fugitives, was probably attached to the agreement between ”uppiluliuma and Niqmaddu, PRU 4, 52 = RS 17.369,

468

 

from father to son. The only exception was Niqmepa', son of Niqmaddu II, who succeeded his brother Ar¢alba.88 The king was free to choose the crown prince, although the king of ›atti reserved for himself the right to intervene in the royal succession.89 In the event of the monarch being a minor, the queen-mother (L 1974, 336; L 1995a, 75) or the prefect could act as regents. 2.2

The king

The king, as head of state, was at the pinnacle of the political, administrative and religious system of the kingdom. The royal palace, in the capital of the kingdom (M 1995), was a clear expression of his sovereign position. He was constantly present in external politics, as shown by the treaties, juridical documents and copious international correspondence. On the other hand, he was the supreme commander of the army, a function which he exercised to effect (§ 11.5.1.2). In religion, the king occupied a central position. A large number of the rituals preserved ( O L 1992a = 1999) are royal in character: they are carried out in the palace, are directed towards the tutelary gods of the dynasty, focus on the king’s person or show him to be the principal officiant. Some rituals where the king officiates show the monarch as protector of the kingdom and some stelae represent him functioning as a priest, as beneficiary of divine protection and as its intermediary between god and kingdom (Y 1991, 292–7). Once deceased, the kings then became divine beings and continued to watch over the dynasty and the kingdom. Ugaritic royalty, therefore, is very much in line with royalty elsewhere in the ancient Near East at the time and differs sharply from the types of royalty of contemporary Syrian centres such as Emar (F 1992a). 2.3

The prefect

The administration of Ugarit was not monolithic but a partitioned system. The superior position of the monarch was tempered by the which also regulated the problem of foreign fugitives who reached Ugarit ( S 1989b, 384). 88 Also a son of Niqmaddu. This atypical succession was due to the direct intervention of the Hittite king Mur“ili II following the Syrian revolt led by Nu¢a““i and Qadesh (cf. PRU 4, 85 = RS 17.338; L 1979a, 1306). 89 Cf. PRU 4, 126 = RS 17.159. See also PRU 4, 124 = RS 17.367 and PRU 4, 128 = RS 17.348; Y 1963, 29–30; P 1978, 131.

   

469

existence of administrative nuclei or nuclei of power headed by the prefect, the queen and the court nobles (cf. also § 11.2.5).90 The ‘prefect’ (sàkinu), at the head of a ‘House of the prefect’,91 complemented the king in every aspect of government, whether internal or external, political, commercial or juridical (L 1979a, 1337; ML 1995b, 109). He was also the king’s deputy when he was outside the kingdom92 and acted as regent if the king was a minor.93 2.4 The queen 2.4.1 The queen ( S 1985–6; A 1994) occupied a separate administrative and political position. In the context of the role played by princesses in the international politics of the period (P 1978; S 1991b, 335), the foreign origin of some queens of Ugarit 94 partly explains this position. Another cause was her secure financial position. Queens brought a substantial dowry to a marriage,95 control of which they retained in the event of divorce. They could increase their possessions by direct intervention of the king,96 by the acquisition of new properties97 and by the activities of her own merchants.98 They managed her patrimony with complete freedom,99 and its business activities are reflected in various genres.100 90 The king’s relatives also had considerable influence. The documents show them as increasing their personal patrimony thanks to the direct intervention of the king, as in the case of Niqmaddu’s family, i.e. his brother Nuriyani (PRU 3, 45 = RS 16.140) his sister Dalaptum (PRU 3, 52 = RS 15.085), his daughter Apapâ (PRU 3, 69 = RS 16.276). 91 bt skn, for example in KTU 4.361 = RS 18.051 (cf. C ‒ V 1995a, No. 4174). 92 RSO 7, No. 37 = RS 34.137. 93 RSO 7, No. 12 = RS 34.129. 94 From Amurru: A¢atmilku ( S 1985–6, 70; S 1991a, 159) and the princess called ‘daughter of the Great Lady’. From ›atti: on the divorce of Ammurapi and his Hittite wife see § 11.3.2.3. From Egypt: on the ‘marriage vase’ of Niqmaddu II and the problem of identifying the woman depicted see  S 1985–6, 69–70. 95 As shown by the list of the effects of A¢atmilku, Niqmepa'’s wife (PRU 3, 182 = RS 16.146+). 96 PRU 3, 53 = RS 15.089. 97 Ug 5, 262–4 = RS 17.86+, RS 17.102, RS 17.325. Thus they disposed of properties of the gt/dimtu type (cf. § 11.4.1.2), cf. the letter KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174 (C 1981b), the administrative text KTU 4.143 = RS 15.031 and the juridical text Ug 5, 264 = RS 17.325. 98 PRU 4, 189–90 = RS 17.314, RS 17.449. 99 PRU 3, 50–1 = RS 16.277, RS 15.086; PRU 3, 53 = RS 15.89. 100 Letters: PRU 3, 14 = RS 12.033 ( S 1985–6, 71) and KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139 (C 1989b, 345–7). Administrative texts: oil (KTU 4.143 = RS

470

 

Financial independence went hand in hand with her own administrative structure which was called ‘The House of the Queen’.101 In matters of religion, rituals and administrative texts reflect the queen’s cultic activity.102 2.4.2 On the basis of the economic and administrative infrastructure described, the queen extended her activity to every sphere of the realm, retaining up to her death both her title and most of her influence. Like other queens and princesses of the period,103 the queen of Ugarit took an active part in the foreign policy of the kingdom. By means of her scribes and messengers,104 she maintained direct connections with the principal courts of the period.105 The letter RSO 7, No. 9 = RS 34.145 shows the range of aspects covered by the queen’s activity abroad. An indication of the position she held in the diplomacy of the kingdom is the letter PRU 4, 294 = RS 19.070, the presentation of a Ugaritian ambassador to a personage from the Hittite court, signed jointly by the king and queen. The king, in turn, kept the queen informed of his activity during his journeys outside the court.106 15.031), vineyards and wine (KTU 4.219 = RS 16.179:12; KTU 4.244 = RS 16.396:9; KTU 4.246 = RS 16.398:2–3; perhaps KTU 4.230 = RS 16.341:4.5), wheat (PRU 3, 188 = RS 16.151; perhaps Ug 5, 198 = RS 20.220), barley for the queen’s animals (M-L 1995a, 446). The juridical texts PRU 3, 119 = RS 16.204 and PRU 3, 143 = RS 16.138 mention the ‘service ( pilku) of the queen’s sons’. 101 bìt “arrati, an administration comprising ‘the queen’s men’ (bn“ mlkt, KTU 4.22 = RS 1.041:3–4) in the election of whom she could intervene directly, cf. for example, PRU 4, 238 = RS 17.231 (N 1968, 136 n. 5). The sàkinu is the most important official connected with the queen, cf. PRU 3, 110 = RS 8.208, PRU 3, 53 = RS 15.089, Ug 5, 264 = RS 17.325, KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174. 102 Ritual KTU 1.170 = RIH 78/11 (C ‒ V 1993a, 225: 1.174); administrative texts: KTU 4.149 = RS 15.039:14–15; KTU 4.219 = RS 16.179:12; KTU 4.230 = RS 16.341:4.5; KTU 4.246 = RS 16.398:3 (X 1981, 345). 103 See, for example, the letter EA 26, from Tu“ratta to Teye of Egypt, or the character of the Hittite queen, Pudu¢epa (C 1989b, 363–421). 104 Cf. RS 6.198 (T-D 1935), RSO 7, No. 9 = RS 34.145:21; KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139:5 (C 1989b, 343). 105 Egypt: EA 48 (M 1992, 120 n. 1); Assyria: RS 6.198 (T-D 1935; L… 1981, 87–8); Amurru: PRU 3, 13 = RS 16.111 (S 1991a, 160); ›atti: RSO 7, No. 18 = RS 34.154; Carchemish: RSO 7, No. 9 = RS 34.145. On the queen’s contacts with the Hittite world see also B 1995b, 449. It is probable that the letter KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199 records direct contact between the queen of Ugarit and the dethroned Hittite king Mur“ili III (Ur¢ite“ub; C 1989b, 360 n. 3). 106 KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872; KTU 2.33 = RS 16.379; KTU 2.34 = RS 17.139.

    2.5

471

Administrative centres

A series of residences outside the palace with archives which can be dated to the second half of the 13th cent.  show that, at least in the final stage of the kingdom, affairs of state were administered in various centres. These are what are known as the ‘houses’ of Ra“apabu (N 1968, 1), Rap’anu (N 1968, 42) Yabninu (C 1990) and Urtenu (B 1995; ML 1995a; 1995b; Y 1995), the names of nobles of the kingdom. The archives of the so-called ‘House of Urtenu’, for example, date to the end of the 13th cent. and the beginning of the 12th cent.  (the last two reigns of Ugarit); as a whole, they are more recent than the palace archives. Political, diplomatic and military affairs are the equal concern of both archives, which also share the same more important recipients, i.e. king, queen and prefect. Despite this, in the correspondence of the ‘House of Urtenu’, commerce is the principal topic, and it displays a wider geographical horizon than the palace, ranging from Cyprus and the Hittite world to as far away as Egypt and the ports of the Palestine coast. Nevertheless, the exact purpose of these residences within Ugaritic administration has yet to be determined. A comparative examination of the international correspondence kept in the royal palace and in the houses of Rap’anu and Urtenu (L 1995a) does not reveal the criteria which governed the classification of a document in a particular archive and so determine the specific nature of this archive. 2.6 Power and economy 2.6.1 The various administrative centres show the close relationship that existed between power and economy. The Ugaritic royal family played an active part in the economics of the kingdom. The kings obtained important financial benefits from their relations with traders.107 One of these, ”ip†i-Ba'alu (A 1982b; 1991b, 65–6; V – G 1997), the director of an international network of traders who operated from Emar to Egypt, passing through Cyprus and the Levantine ports, belonged to the royal family as the king’s son-in-law108 and supervised the running of the queen’s estates. A 107 For example, Sinaranu and Amtarunu (PRU 3, 101–8 = RS 15.138+, 15.109+, 16.206, 16.238+, 16.251; PRU 3, 124–6 = RS 15.163+, 15.147, 16.162). 108 RSO 7, No. 30 = RS [Varia 26].

472

 

considerable number of juridical documents show the king’s intervention in the exchange and the buying and selling of lands, either intervening directly in the operation109 or sanctioning operations between individuals.110 The politics of collecting taxes on the merchandise which circulated in the kingdom also depended in the final instance on the king (A 1996, 61–2). 2.6.2 The same relationship between power and economy can be seen in the residences outside the palace (§ 11.2.5). Yabninu, for example, who was at the head of a vast administration in the period of Ammi∆tamru II, also organized commercial trips to Egypt (C 1990). Various business networks gravitated around the ‘house of Urtenu’ (M-L 1995a, 446; 1995b, 105), the best known of which was directed by ”ip†i-Ba'alu (§ 11.2.6.1). 2.6.3 Thus the palace administration, understood in its widest sense, controlled a large part of the commercial activity of the kingdom, as is also shown by the frequent reference to traders in the administrative documents111 and the existence of a ‘merchant/traderobligation’.112 The palace supplied the merchants with a quantity of merchandise113 or money to carry out their operations, and once concluded, it then proceeded to calculate the balance of the results gained (L 1979a, 1330; 1979b).114 2.7

The scribes

2.7.1 The scribes were a central element in the functioning of the administration. Various genres are witness to the type of formation which the Ugaritic scribes received. They were professionals who were generally bilingual or, at least, biscriptal (in Ugaritic and 109 See, for example, the case of the family of Abdu (PRU 3, 78–86 = RS [Varia 7], 16.239, 16.254, 16.143, 16.157, 16.250). 110 For example, PRU 3, 54 = RS 15.090, PRU 3, 87 = RS 15.119, PRU 3, 71 = RS 16.356. 111 For the alphabetic texts cf. C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 3482–3483. 112 PRU 6, No. 30 = RS 18.[500]. 113 PRU 6, No. 156 = RS 19.020; cf. also, for example, PRU 4, 154 = RS 17.146:6–7. 114 On the dangers incurred by traders in the exercise of their profession see § 11.1.4.6. On traders in general and their various classes, see also H 1978a; A 1996, 62–3.

   

473

Akkadian;  S 1995; M-L 1996; D 1996). Expressions of the type ‘servant of Nabu and Nisaba’, which they claim in some colophons,115 show that the Ugaritic scribes were aware of belonging to a guild with its roots in Mesopotamia. The documents they used in their formation show, in fact, a deep familiarity with Mesopotamian culture as well as a certain degree of independence and originality in respect of their models (N 1968, 199–200; A 1979, 1357). 2.7.2 The profession of scribe was usually passed down from father to son, and at least two scribal dynasties are known. The existence of a hierarchy within the corps can be deduced from the references in colophons to literary and lexical texts, to titles such as ‘apprentice’ (lmd ) and others the precise meaning of which has yet to be determined ( S 1995). Besides the scribes of the palace organisation it is likely that there were street scribes who offered their services in fields such as magic, divination or simple mathematics (S 1989, 337–41). 2.8

Administration and territory

2.8.1 The work carried out by the scribes helps us to know, in broad outline, other components of the administrative structure of Ugarit. At the head of each section of administration (H 1982) there was an official called the rabû.116 His actual functions are unknown on most occasions, but titles such as ‘chief of the palace’ (rab ekallim),117 ‘chief accountant’ (rb nk“y),118 ‘chief of the craftsmen’ (rb ˙r“m),119 ‘chief of the chariots’ (rab narkabti ),120 ‘chief of the field’ (rb “d 121/rab eqlàti),122 or (always with reference to people) ‘chief of ten’ (rb '“rt),123 ‘chief of a hundred’ (rb mit),124 ‘chief of a thousand’ 115 116 117 118

390). 119 120 121 122 123 124

See, for example, Ug 5, 252, 283. On the reading rabû of the ideogram , cf. A 1996, 61 n. 85. PRU 3, 165 = RS 16.386. KTU 6.69 = RS 7.25:3–4 ( B 1986, 294; C ‒ V 1995b, KTU 4.145 = RS 15.034:9. PRU 3, 79 = RS 16.239; PRU 3, 83 = RS 16.157. KTU 4.160 = RS 15.065:12. PRU 3, 134 = RS 15.137. KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:2, 5, 7, 8; KTU 4.714 = RS 22.231:1. KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113:3.

474

 

(rab lim),125 as well as the existence of ‘judges’ (dayyànu),126 give a good idea of the ramifications and complexity of Ugaritic administration. 2.8.2 The lists of toponyms show that, for administrative purposes, Ugaritic places formed units which correspond approximately to the natural geographical divisions of the kingdom (A 1995, 62–3). Acting in coordination with the principal prefect were the provincial prefects,127 and several places had a ‘mayor’ (¢azannu; 11.3.8.2) or local representative of the central administration (H 1976, 80–1; L 1979a, 1337, 1342).128 The functionaries entrusted with control over the commerical frontiers of the kingdom, on land and at sea, were the ‘tax collector’ (màkisu)129 and the ‘harbourmaster’ (rab kàri )130 (A 1996, 61–2). The central administration also managed directly part of the financial resources of the kingdom by means of a system of farms (§ 11.4.1.2). 2.9 The priests Although they had their own financial resources (L… 1988), the priests belonged to the administrative ambit of the palace (H 1982, 132–3). It is not known what the functions of the khnm (Sum. S) and qd“m (Sum. .) were, frequently associated in the administrative texts,131 but perhaps they may have been ‘(clerical) administrators’ and ‘priests, consecrators’ respectively (A 1996, 54–8; see further  O L – S 1998, 177–81). Evidence of the priestly organization and hierarchy are the existence of a ‘college of khnm’ (dr khnm)132 and the reference, in documents of 125

PRU 6, 52 = RS 19.078. PRU 3, 61 = RS 16.156:20; see also PRU 3, 141 = RS 16.132:26. On Ug. ∆rtn as possibly meaning ‘supreme judge’ cf. S 1989, 345–8. 127 N 1968, 139 n. 4; Ug 5, No. 51 = RS 20.158; KTU 4.160 = RS 15.065:6; KTU 4.288 = RS 17.293:2–5; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016:10–11. 128 PRU 3, 134 = RS 15.137; Ug 5, No. 26 = RS 20.003; RS 25.134 (L 1991b). 129 PRU 3, 15 = RS 15.033; PRU 4, 235 = RS 17.135+; PRU 4, 237 = RS 17.066; PRU 4, 239 = RS 17.232. 130 PRU 4, 219 = RS 17.424+; Ug 5, No. 13 = RS 17.465; A 1982b, 102. Cf. N 1968, 20 n. 2. 131 C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 2927 and 5071; PRU 6, No. 93 = RS 17.131:26–7. 132 KTU 4.357 = RS 18.047:24. 126

   

475

various genres, to a ‘chief of the khnm’ (rb khnm),133 a person of high social and financial position (L… 1988, 126–31).134 3

T F   C 3.1

Marriage

3.1.1 As in other societies of the ancient Near East, marriage in Ugarit was considered to be a contract (B 1955; M 1984). The mechanics of matrimony in Ugarit are very like those of contemporary Syrian societies such as Emar (B 1996a, 69) and Alala¢, to a large extent already documented in Babylonia (W 1988). 3.1.2 The woman brought to the marriage a sum of money known as the ter¢atu, which came from the patrimony of her own family.135 The ter¢atu and the goods given her by her father as a dowry comprised the material contribution of the woman to the marriage.136 It is possible that the term ter¢atu on its own denotes the dowry (Z 1973, 25 n. 60),137 but perhaps, as in Alala¢ IV, ter¢atu and dowry were two separate items. In Alala¢, before the wedding, the groom presents the woman’s father with an amount of money called ter¢atu.138 From the sequence of events it can be deduced that 133 C ‒ V 1995a, No. 2927; PRU 3, 168 = RS 16.168; PRU 6, No. 9 = RS 17.428. 134 On the personnel connected with the cult see also, in general,  T 1980, 131–44. 135 PRU 3, 54 = RS 15.092; PRU 3, 60 = RS 16.141; PRU 3, 62 = RS 16.158 could show that the ter¢atu also consists of landed property (B 1955, 301), but the passage dealing with the matter is uncertain (M 1984, 67). 136 PRU 3, 182 = RS 16.146+ shows how rich a queen’s dowry could be (A¢atmilku; N 1955, 178; B 1955, 301). Similarly, Ugaritic epic (‘Keret’) and myth (‘The Wedding of Yar¢u and Nikkal’) have preserved the verb tr¢ ‘to marry, pay the bride-price’ ( O L 1981, 639; cf. M 1984, 68), as well as the noun mtr¢t ‘spouse, wife’ ( O L 1981a, 586); see C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 6139 and 3803 respectively. 137 The meaning ‘dowry’ of Ug. mlg (mlghy, KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194:47) is uncertain, cf.  O L 1981a, 578; see similarly mhr ‘dowry, bride-price’ in the ‘The Wedding of Yar¢u and Nikkal’ ( O L 1981a, 639; cf. M 1984, 72). See also W 1998c, 338 n. 15, 341 n. 30. 138 AT 92 (W 1994, 279; but see Z 1985, 598–9); AT 93. In AT 17 (S 1954, 23) only nidnu ‘gift’ is mentioned.

476

 

the bride’s father presented the new couple with the ter¢atu together with his daughter’s dowry. Thus returned, the ter¢atu became the indirect contribution of the husband to the marriage. Since relations between both societies are so well documented, a procedure much as in Alala¢ can be presupposed in Ugarit. 3.1.3 When the groom (or his family) presented the ter¢atu to the bride’s family, she was not yet fully a wife (Ug. a∆t, Akk. a““atu) but instead had gained the status of kallatu139 (Ug. klt) and as such starts to become part of the political family.140 In the event of the engagement being broken off 141 or of widowhood and the need to leave the conjugal hearth,142 the woman retained control of this money. 3.1.4 The letter KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124143 and the juridical document RS 8.208144 mention the anointing of a woman with oil. It is a ritual gesture attested in the context of marriage, especially in the El-Amarna letters (M 1988, 161–79). The first case seems to be a marriage between the king of Ugarit and a princess from Amurru. In the second, a high official of the queen anoints a female slave as a preliminary step to her emancipation and the later marriage of both (§ 11.1.6.6). 3.2

Divorce

3.2.1 The juridical documents provide us with some aspects of divorce in Ugarit, both within the royal family and outside it.145 In one case, a man declares that his wife has taken her share of the goods and has left the hearth.146 The reasons for the divorce are not given, but the fact that the couple had at least one son excludes the

139

PRU 3, 60 = RS 16.141. As the administrative text in Ugaritic, KTU 4.80 = RS 11.778 shows. On a similar situation in Emar, cf. RE 6 (B 1996b, 9). 141 PRU 3, 60 = RS 16.141. 142 PRU 3, 54 = RS 15.092. 143 RSO 7, No. 88. 144 T-D 1937, 253 (partially in PRU 3, 110). 145 The formula for divorce used in Ugarit must have been the same as in Emar, ‘you are not my wife/husband’; cf. A 1986, No. 124. It is the same formula as used in the Old Babylonian laws, perhaps pronounced in front of witnesses (W 1988, 69), as was the case in Nuzi (B 1971, 245). 146 PRU 3, 81 = RS 16.143. 140

   

477

woman’s infertility as a cause.147 In fact, the husband does not resort to polygamy as is foreseen in cases of barrenness (§ 11.3.3.2) and another document shows him as having a new wife.148 Generally speaking, the woman reclaimed her dowry in the event of the marriage being dissolved.149 3.2.2 Within the royal family, the best documented case of divorce is that of king Ammi∆tamru II from a daughter of Bente“ina, king of Amurru (S 1991a, 174–5; A ‒ S 1991–92).150 The woman appears to be the guilty party and so the husband takes the initiative in the lawsuit. At first the reason for the divorce is said to be that the woman was trying to prejudice the king in some way.151 The woman leaves the hearth and takes away her belongings,152 but only what she brought as a dowry, since she is obliged to forego the goods acquired during the period of marriage in her husband’s favour.153 Although the lawsuit is international in character, the result reflects the characteristics of a private divorce (N 1956, 125 n. 1). Later on, the woman is accused of having committed a ‘great sin’ (¢ì†u rabìtu), a vague term which included various types of offence,154 and finally she is executed. 3.2.3 In the separation of goods which follows the divorce of the king Ammurapi from a Hittite princess, which is not so well documented (A 1980),155 the king takes back a property which he

147 The fact that the woman could take away the money of the ter¢atu and the rest of the goods could indicate, judging from AT 92, that the husband caused the separation for no justifiable reason. In the case envisaged in PRU 3, 60 = RS 16.141, the woman certainly reclaims the ter¢atu because the matrimonial contract was not completed. 148 PRU 3, 85 = RS 16.250. 149 PRU 3, 81 = RS 16.143; PRU 4, 126 = RS 17.159; PRU 4, 209 = RS 17.355; cf. also the case of PRU 3, 62 = RS 16.158 and Z 1985, 599. 150 The princess is a daughter of the so-called ‘Great (Lady)’, possibly Ga““uliyawiya, Great Princess of ›atti (S 1991b, 334–5). 151 PRU 4, 126 = RS 17.159. 152 PRU 4, 126 = RS 17.159. 153 PRU 4, 127 = RS 17.396. 154 Counterfeiting a royal seal and tablets (PRU 3, 96 = RS 16.249), sacrilege (A 1992, 189–90). The ambiguity of the expression is also evident in ME 21 which comes from the region of Emar (A 1991a, 40). 155 PRU 4, 208 = RS 17.226; PRU 4, 209 = RS 17.355; PRU 4, 227 = RS 17.429 and, perhaps, Ug 5, No. 35 = RS 20.216.

478

 

had given his wife and the princess retains the goods she brought with her at the time of marriage.156 3.3 The family unit 3.3.1 The union of a man and a woman manifested by a matrimonial contract allowed legitimate children to be born. In general, the documents seem to show a very low birth rate (L 1979a, 1321), rarely more than three children to a single couple.157 It is possible, even so, that the administrative texts only record persons able to work in some way, and exclude, for example, old people and small children (H 1976, 88) and that the juridical documents only mention legitimate children with inheritance rights. 3.3.2 Although the data are not conclusive, polygamy must have been well established in Ugaritian society (L 1979a, 1320), especially in the upper classes (B 1995, 448).158 The situation cannot have been different from the one known in Alala¢ IV159 and Emar,160 where polygamy was accepted, especially when the wife was barren.161 3.3.3 On the other hand, the Ugaritian concept of family seems not to have been restricted to parents and children but could include other relatives.162 The average number of members per family, there-

156 On this episode see also N 1956, 206–7; P 1978, 75–8; W 1994, 279. 157 Cf. KTU 4.80 = RS 11.778; KTU 4.295 = RS 17.312; KTU 4.417 = RS 18.258, described as ‘census by household’ (KTU 2, 651). Other administrative texts corroborate this low percentage, for example KTU 4.339 = RS 18.026 (L 1979a, 1321), KTU 4.360 = RS 18.050 (H 1976, 89–90), PRU 4, No. 115 = RS 17.037. 158 Cf. also ∆nÀlyt in KTU 4.339 = RS 18.026:10 (‘second wife’ in this context?; on the term see also W 1970, 278). On the other hand, the existence of levirate marriage in Ugarit, on the basis of a single possible witness (PRU 3, 76 = RS 16.144) is a debated matter, cf. S 1980–83, 607–8; W 1991, 89. 159 AT 91 (N’ 1980, 112; D ‒ M 1996b, 184–7), AT 92 (M 1959, 356–7), AT 93, AT 94. 160 A 1986, Nos. 31, 216. 161 As in Babylonia (W 1988, 107–9) and Nuzi (B 1971, 23–4, 290; N 1984, 60). 162 Cf. KTU 4.80 = RS 11.778, which mention future daughters-in-law (kallatu/ klt) among the members of three families (cf. § 11.3.1.3) as well as the father’s brother in another family and a son-in-law (¢tn) in another.

   

479

fore, could have been between five and six persons (G 1987, 34), a number which in some cases could be higher due to the presence of servants (L 1979a, 1319). Archaeological studies on houses and residential areas of Ras Shamra support the possibility of polygamy or a high number of dwellers in certain houses, but they also counsel prudence when figures on this topic are proposed (§ 11.1.1.1). 3.4

Changes to the family unit

3.4.1 Several juridical texts deal with adoption (B 1955, 302–5; M 1980). In broad outline, such a document mentions the persons involved in the adoption and stipulates the financial conditions of both joining and possible separation. Those adopted are adopted as sons163 or brothers164 and, unlike at Emar,165 they are always adults.166 The act of adoption is carried out in the presence of the king,167 who could also sanction the act retrospectively168 or else in front of other authorities169 or witnesses whose names are not mentioned in the documents.170 3.4.2 The adoption was preeminently financial in nature, with a variety of motives such as a widow looking for financial security,171 the keeping of patrimony within the same family,172 or both at once.173 In cases of looking for financial security, the obligation of the adoptee seems to be restricted to the financial support of his new family by contributing money and goods. In return he received important benefits in the event of separation, either in the form of property174 163

PRU 3, 54 = RS 15.092, PRU 3, 64 = RS 16.200, PRU 3, 70 = RS 16.295, PRU 6, No. 37 = RS 17.088, Ug 5, No. 2 = RS 17.021; Ug 5, No. 82 = RS 20.226. 164 PRU 3, 75 = RS 16.344, Ug 5, No. 81 = RS 21.230 (W 1991, 130–2), RS 25.134 (L 1991). 165 For example, A 1986, No. 256; B 1996a, 62. 166 Other types of adoption are attested in Late Bronze Age Syria; see B 1996a, 63–8, 76; M 1980, 227–8. 167 PRU 3, 54 = RS 15.092; PRU 3, 70 = RS 16.295; PRU 3, 75 = RS 16.344. 168 PRU 3, 64 = RS 16.200. 169 The ¢azannu in RS 25.134 (L 1991). 170 PRU 6, No. 37 = RS 17.088; Ug 5, No. 82 = RS 20.226; Ug 5, No. 2 = RS 17.021; Ug 5, No. 81 = RS 21.230. 171 PRU 3, 64 = RS 16.200. 172 PRU 3, 70 = RS 16.295. 173 Ug 5, Nos. 2 and 3 = RS 17.021 and 17.033 (N 1968, 3). 174 PRU 3, 64 = RS 16.200.

 

480

or money.175 Adoptions into brotherhood, perhaps by their very nature, could result in more equitable conditions between the two parties. 3.5

Private property and inheritance

3.5.1 Private property is well documented in Ugaritian society (H 1984; S 1995c, 133–4). It was acquired in various way, chiefly by royal grants, buying, business, legacies, goods brought to a marriage or on adoption. In general, as the juridical documents show, a person disposed freely of his property, even in legacies. 3.5.2 In the case of inheritance in respect of sons, Ugaritian tradition distinguished between the firstborn (rabû)176 and all the other sons.177 Following a practice customary in the ancient Near East (D 1993),178 the firstborn is usually the son to be favoured in the distribution of goods.179 The type of family, therefore, is patrilinear. Despite this, as RS 8.145180 shows, the father could set the conditions of inheritance as he chose. In this document the father names his wife as heiress to the goods and grants her the faculty of freely 175 PRU 3, 75 = RS 16.344 (adoption as a brother); PRU 3, 54 = RS 15.092 (adoption of a son), where, in addition, on the death of the father it was the adoptive son, not the widow, who disposed of the family property; the woman does not seem have become an adoptive mother and the transaction, as in PRU 3, 64 = RS 16.200 seems to have been more a type of property transaction in favour of the adoptee (B 1955, 303). 176 The Ugaritic term used for ‘firstborn’ in the literary texts is bkr, cf. C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 1140–1; DLU, 107. 177 RS 14.016:6 (V 1951, 174); RS 8.145:15 (T-D 1937, 249); PRU 6, No. 85 = RS 19.079: obv. 15’; Ug 5, No. 7 = RS 17.036:4–5; Ug 5, No. 8 = RS 17.038:6’. The meaning of Ugaritic n˙l, usually translated ‘heir’, must be different (L 1979a, 1339). Attested only in administrative texts (C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 3918–9) it must be a technical term in administration, with the result that a single person could have various ‘heirs’ all at once (cf. W 1992c, 238; § 11.4.3). 178 On the nature of the firstborn at Emar see also   T 1994, 42–52. 179 As shown particularly by Ug 5, No. 7 = RS 17.036. Furthermore, in a more broken context, Ug 5, No. 8 = RS 17.038. PRU 3, 56 = RS 15.120 also seems to include a division of property among sons, but due to the condition of the text, the details concerning the primogeniture are unknown. In Ug 5, No. 81 = RS 21.230, a contract of adoption into brotherhood (cf. § 11.3.4.1), the parties expressly stipulate that ‘there is no firstborn or youngest among them’ (a similar expression in Emar, cf. A 1996, No. 93:8), confirming the situation as unusual. On the youngest son as the firstborn in the ‘Epic of Keret’ (KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 7–16) see  O L 1981a, 260; D 1993, 188–9. 180 T-D 1937, 249.

   

481

appointing either of her two sons as heir (K 1957a, 658).181 The explicit conditions for the sons to gain the inheritance were not to file proceedings against their mother and to honour her. These are some of the principles which had to guide the behaviour of a good son, its literary reflex being given in the ‘Epic of Aqhat’.182 However, a son could also receive part of his inheritance while the father was still alive, and immediately after could leave the family group.183 3.5.3 From RS 8.145 it follows, therefore, that the woman could inherit the family goods within marriage (§ 11.3.5.2). In other cases, instead, an adopted person could become an heir to the goods of the adopter to the detriment of the widow. The position of the woman as heiress of the paternal goods is not so clear, although it can be supposed that, as in other ancient Near Eastern societies and under certain conditions,184 she could be named as heiress by her father. 3.6

The status of women

3.6.1 As has been seen, the queen of Ugarit held an eminent social, political and administrative position (§ 11.2.4). Her financial position was sound. She approached marriage supported by a substantial dowry, the control of which she kept in the event of divorce, and she disposed of various means to increase her possessions. She had her own administrative organization and played an active part in the foreign policy of the kingdom. The queen’s position can be understood as an extended form of a woman’s status in Ugaritian society. 3.6.2 In a patriarchal and patrilinear society such as in Ugarit, the woman moved from the guardianship of her family, with the father 181 For Emar see, for example A 1996 No. 93. The opposite case could also be provided for, with the husband as heir to the wife’s goods in the event of her death, cf. PRU 3, 110 = RS 16.267. 182 KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 26–33 and parallels ( O L 1981a, 334–5; B 1993; O 1996, 269–71). Cf. § 6.3. 183 PRU 3, 32 = RS 16.129 (B 1955, 305; M 1980 275; contra D 1993, 188); PRU 6, No. 43 = RS 17.077; PRU 6, No. 53 = RS 27.053; Ug 5, No. 86 = RS 20.176. 184 Cf. B-B 1980; 1988; W 1991, 157–64; M 1993; K 1994; B 1996a, 72. Ug 5, No. 6 = RS 17.149, in spite of being interpreted by B-B 1980, 24–5 as an example of a woman inheriting, should be understood only as a purchase of lands; see the same author’s moderated view in 1988, 88.

482

 

at the head, to the guardianship of the groom’s family (§ 11.3.1.3) to move, finally, to the guardianship of the husband. Within this framework there were a series of mechanisms, financial and familial, for the social protection of a woman. From the financial aspect, in the event of divorce or widowhood, the woman regained control of the goods she had brought to the marriage (§ 11.3.2.1), goods which had become part of the conjugal patrimony without losing their identity as the wife’s possessions. To these goods could be added those she could inherit from her husband in the event of widowhood (§ 11.3.5.2). In terms of the family, the woman could rely on the possibility of returning to her father’s family.185 The husband could also provide for the widowhood of his wife by stipulating in his will the sons’ obligation to support their mother, an indispensable condition for their being in turn appointed as heirs of the paternal possessions (§ 11.3.5.2). There was also the possibility of resorting to the procedure of adoption in the search for the necessary financial support (§ 11.3.4.2). The various mechanisms could be combined in a variety of ways, none excluding the others. 3.6.3 The woman could also depend on some degree of action and social initiative. In the matter of property she could own, buy and sell properties, either alone or as a co-owner (H 1984, 175). In a lawsuit with a man over a matter of properties she could obtain a royal verdict in her favour.186 Within the family, she could not only be named as heiress but she also had the facility to appoint an heir among her sons.187 Likewise, she could take the initiative in the matter of adoption and divorce, if it is accepted that the formula used in Ugarit for the latter eventuality was not substantially different from what is documented in Emar (§ 11.3.2.1 n. 145).188 3.7 Family piety Personal piety in daily life and popular beliefs, is known in broad outline (C 1989a, 195–234;  O L 1992a, 217–62 = 1999, 324–88). This does not apply, however, to the religion of the 185 186 187 188

PRU 3, 54 = RS 15.092. PRU 3, 94 = RS 16.245. RS 8.145 (T-D 1937, 249). On the status of women in Ugarit see also K 1957b.

   

483

family. Archaeological and textual data are of uncertain interpretation and refer only to the urban population of the city of Ugarit (S 1995). The approach to the question, therefore, has to be indirect. The construction of tombs underneath a great number of the houses (C 1994, 168–76) could be an indication of a cult focusing on family ancestors.189 Epic and some of the rituals could have preserved reflexes of this type of cult in which the dead person is conceived as belonging to the divine world and as receiving cult regularly. From the same genres it can be deduced that alongside the ancestor cult there was a cult of family deities (  T 1996, 153–75). Family piety in Ugarit, therefore, would be similar to what is documented in Emar (  T 1994). 3.8

The community

3.8.1 A group of families formed a village or community. According to the theory of a bipartite society (§ 11.4.2.2), the communities comprised the ‘free’ sector of the population as against the palace dependents or ‘men of the king’ (bn“ mlk). They worked on the land and with livestock, owned lands in common, the means of production and the produce from their labour kept both them and the palace dependents. Fiscally and juridically they comprised a single body (H 1976, 63–74; L 1979a, 1333–4, 1342; 1989, 127–8). 3.8.2 The legal representative of the community was a college of ‘elders’ (“ibùtù) or ‘fathers’ (abbù) (L 1979a, 1342; H 1976, 79), an institution which existed in other ancient Near Eastern societies. Despite this, the prominent position of the king in Ugaritic society (§ 11.2.2) restricted the prominent role of the ‘elders’ in Syrian societies of the time, such as Emar (B 1989, 29–31; A 1991a, 15; F 1992b, 103–4) or Ekalte (M 1990, 58–60; 1992). In Ugarit, the ‘elders’, who could be controlled by a single family,190 represented their communities particularly in cases of collective responsibility for crimes committed in their respective territories by someone unknown (K 1980, 193). As an institution,

189 For   T 1996, 194, the ancestor cult would not be domestic but celebrated in the sanctuary. 190 Cf. Ug 5, No. 52 = RS 20.239.

 

484

they co-existed with the ¢azannu or ‘mayor’, who depended on the central power (§ 11.2.8.2).

4 4.1

C  P

Economic geography and the professions

4.1.1 There was a wide range of different geographical locations in the kingdom of Ugarit (L 1979a, 1316–7; A 1995, 58–62). A considerable strip of the Mediterranean coast limited the kingdom to the west, and enabled fishing, activities such as the purple industry and the development of maritime trade. To the north, mountainous regions and wooded hills provided the wood required for the construction of houses, ships and for export. Further south, rivers, fertile plains and uneven terrain favoured the cultivation of cereal crops, vineyards, olive groves, fig-trees and fruit trees. The geographical location of the kingdom made it suitable not only for trade by sea but also for overland trade (L 1979a, 1329), with the resultant exchange of raw materials and finished products. 4.1.2 The range of terrain, products and raw materials gave rise to a variety of financial activities and capitalization of resources. At the same time, various kinds of labour activities were being developed and organized in rural as well as urban areas. The distinction between both economies, rural and urban, is not always sharp, as is shown by the sectors of farming and animal husbandry. The hamlets and villages of the kingdom cultivated some of these activities (L 1979a, 1317; cf. § 11.3.8.1); others, instead, were controlled directly by the palace by means of farms called gt or dimtu, which used manual labour, specialized into various grades (L 1979a, 1317–8; 1982; 1989; H 1982, 49–79). However, agriculture and animal husbandry are also fully part of life in the most urbanized centre of the kingdom, the capital Ugarit, as is evident from the finds made by archaeologists within the city, of silos for cereal, sickles and installations for making oil and keeping animals (C 1994, 190–6, 201–2). 4.1.3 As for the palace, as court and administrative and religious centre, it favoured the emergence of new functions and occupations.

   

485

As a good reflection of the society which produced them, the texts of Ugarit mention a large number of professions and crafts, some of which are discussed in what follows.191 4.2

The professions and the administration

4.2.1 The administrative documents correspond to the genre which best reflects the world of the professions and other labour activities.192 They show the existence of groups or ‘guilds’ of professions organized and controlled by the central administration, from which they received, for example, food,193 and with which they negotiated matters concerning money and taxes,194 lands195 or the army.196 The administration also controlled specific individuals, either by drawing up lists of persons according to group,197 documents which enable, for example, readjustments to be made in them,198 or else by registering the presence of professionals in various economic dependencies of the palace and villages in the kingdom.199 The professionals also maintained connections with the administration outside the profession, as is shown by various types of lists in which occasionally an individual’s activity is indicated.200 4.2.2 The various professions, together with other categories mentioned in the texts, were given the common title ‘men of the king’ (bn“ mlk). In a bipartite model of Ugaritian society, and in contrast

191

On traders and scribes see §§ 11.1.4.6, 11.6.6 and 11.2.7. A compendium of Ugaritic sources on the professions is given in S 1995c, 152. Texts which mention work tools also provide, indirectly, information on the activity of workmen; cf. S 1987b; PRU 6, No. 157 = RS 19.023; PRU 6, No. 163 = RS 19.064; PRU 6, No. 168 = RS 21.199. Cf. also § 10.3. 193 For example, KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001; KTU 4.609 = RS 19.016; Ug 5, No. 99 = RS 20.425. 194 For example, KTU 4.71 = RS 11.721, PRU 6, No. 136 = RS 17.240. On the taxes called ilku, pilku and unu““u see H 1982, 19; S 1995c, 133–5; cf. M R 1993b, 1995. 195 For example, KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858; KTU 4.416 = RS 18.252. 196 KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716; PRU 6, No. 131 = RS 19.035. 197 For example, KTU 4.124 = RS 13.020; KTU 4.187 = RS 15.157+; KTU 4.412 = RS 18.251. 198 Cf. § 11.1.6.5 and the juridical document PRU 3, 77 = RS 16.142. 199 For example, KTU 4.141 = RS 15.022+; KTU 4.332 = RS 18.010+; KTU 4.358 = RS 18.048. 200 For example, KTU 4.46 = RS 10.035; KTU 4.98 = RS 11.844; KTU 4.382 = RS 18.106+. 192

486

 

with the ‘free’ sector of the population organized into village communities, the ‘men of the king’ would shape the social sector of persons dependent on the palace. They would carry out tasks which demanded a certain level of specialization and specific formation, receiving from the palace both the means of production and subsistence. This model of Ugaritian society, based on documentation within the kingdom, would seem to have outside confirmation thanks to the so-called ‘Edict of ›attu“ili III’ concerning the ¢apìrù (PRU 4, 107–8 = RS 17.238; L 1979a, 1333; H 1982). However, the theory of a bipartite society as well as the interpretation of RS 17.238 should not be considered as proven facts since other kinds of interpretation are possible (V 1988; Z 1997). 4.3 Internal organization It is possible to determine, in broad outline, the type of internal organization of the ‘guilds’ or professional groups. The reference to a ‘chief of the craftsmen’ (rb ˙r“m)201 allows the supposition that similar officers existed in the other professions, as well as ‘assistant chiefs’ for each of the separate activities (§ 11.2.8.1). On the other hand, the existence of ‘apprentices’ (lmdm,202 talmìdù,203 Àam(a)rùma)204 within each professional group ensured the continuance of the various occupations.205 It is also probable that the various offices were largely passed on from father to son,206 and that this is how the term n˙l ‘heir’ is to be understood in the administrative texts (L 1979a, 1339–40; H 1982, 100). 4.4 The textile industry The basic elements of the Ugaritian textile industry are known. The administrative documents mention certain raw materials, the names of certain professions and a large number of textiles and manufactured products (R ‒ X 1985;  S 1990). The products

201 202 203 204 205 206

KTU 4.145 = RS 15.034:9. C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 3265–9. RSO 7, No. 25 = RS 34.167+:20. H 1987b, 165. Cf., for example, KTU 4.125 = RS 14.001:8–9. As was the case with scribes, cf. § 11.2.7.2.

   

487

made out of wool were initially produced by ‘shearers’ ( gzzm); their function was seasonal and they received rations from the palace during their period of work.207 Specialists such as ‘spinners’ (Àzlm),208 ‘weavers’ (u/i“paru, m¢ß/mà¢ißu),209 ‘fullers’ (kbsm/kb_s m210/kàbisu)211 and ‘makers of tÀp∆-covers’ (b'l tÀp∆)212 were involved in successive stages of transforming the raw material. The dyeing process is documented by references to ‘bronzesmiths’ ( yß˙m; S 1987a) and wools in various colours (T-D 1934;  S 1990, 335–41). It is also possible to deduce the existence of personnel devoted to the tailoring and the confection of clothes (R ‒ X 1985, 21–2). The textile industry is one of the few crafts which have provided material evidence of their activity, both in Ugarit and in Minet el-Beida (C 1994, 190). 4.5

Hard materials, precious stones and metals

4.5.1 Various terms denote the professions connected with the cutting of stone or hard materials. The administrative documents mentioning them provide no additional information about the circumstances of their activity, although the objects which are the result of that activity have come down to us. They are the professions of ‘seal cutter’ ( parkullu; S 1995b)213 and ‘sculptor’, ‘carver’ ( psl, zadimmu) (S 1995a, 183).214 This last category, which is generic, can be subdivided into more specialized activities such as ‘carver of arrowheads (from stone)’ ( psl ˙Ωm) and the ‘notcher of bows’ ( psl q“t/sasinnu; cf. § 11.4.7.2). 4.5.2 Other professions refer to the carving of precious and semiprecious stones. These were for use within the kingdom of Ugarit

207

KTU 4.213 = RS 16.127:30; KTU 4.269 = RS 17.106:4, 26. KTU 4.358 = RS 18.048:9. 209 PRU 3, 204 = RS 15.152:7; PRU 6, No. 93 = RS 17.131:23; PRU 6, No. 166 = RS 19.099 (mà˙ißu); Ug 5, No. 99 = RS 20.425:5. Ugaritic references in C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 3444 and 3446. 210 C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 2887–90. 211 PRU 6, No. 136 = RS 17.240:8. 212 H 1982, 83; R ‒ X 1985, 68; S 1995a, 176. 213 On the possible existence of workshops for the making of seals in the city of Ugarit, see C 1994, 188. 214 See the remarks by C 1994, 188–9 on the lack of the ‘workshop of the sculptor of stelae’ in the city of Ugarit. 208

 

488

but were also sent to ›atti, as described in several letters215 and lists of tribute.216 The fourth section of the letter KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+, from Queen Pudu¢epa of ›atti to King Niqmaddu III of Ugarit, mentions three types of specialists: the ‘engraver’ or ‘polisher’ (mly), the ‘borer’ (s¢l ) and the ‘worker in lapis lazuli’ (qnuym). Archaeology illustrates some facets of their activities: in Ras Ibn Hani a workshop has been found with a large quantity of corundum used as an abrasive in the polishing of precious stones and what may be another workshop where chalcedony was worked to make perforated beads (C 1989b, 417–20). 4.5.3 The texts from Ugarit mention a considerable number of metals, such as gold, silver, copper, bronze, tin or iron. The handling and transmutation of metals was the competence of the ‘smith’ or ‘metal caster’ (nsk/nàsiku; S 1995a, 182–3). Depending on the metal involved, the ‘smiths’ were subdivided into categories such as ‘caster of precious metals’ (nsk ksp, kutimmu) and ‘copper-smith’, ‘boilermaker’ (nsk ∆l∆/nàsiku erê ; nappࢠerê ). Depending on the final product, there were a ‘caster of (metal) arrow-heads’ (nsk ˙Ωm/˙≈m) and a ‘jeweller(?)’ (nsk q†n).217 4.6

The construction of houses, ships and chariots

4.6.1 The generic term for ‘craftsman’ is ˙arrà“u (˙r“ ).218 In practice, it denotes a person who constructs objects by assembling various components (S 1995a, 177). Although the archaeological evidence is weak (C 1994, 189–90) the documents show a wide range of craftsmen, whether mentioned in the plural as a generic name (˙r“m ‘craftsmen’) or distinguished according to the specific product made. It can be noted that wood, cut by ‘woodcutters’ (˙†bm),219 was a basic raw material for this type of worker.

215 KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+ (C 1989b), PRU 4, 221 = RS 17.383, PRU 4, 223 = RS 17.422, Ug 5, No. 30 = RS 20.255. 216 KTU 3.1 = RS 11.772+ and its Akkadian versions (K 1993). 217 On the possible metal-working in the capital of the kingdom and its surrounding see C 1994, 186–8. On q†n see also n. 222a. 218 C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 1950–1. 219 C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 1844–5.

   

489

4.6.2 Both the characteristic techniques which distinguish the royal palace of Ugarit (M 1995) and study of the construction systems used in the residential areas of the capital of the kingdom (C 1994) show the skill which marked the work of those called ‘builders of houses’ (˙r“ b(h)tm, itinnu) and their co-workers.220 In general the buildings were well suited to the activities and lifestyle of city dwellers. 4.6.3 As a coastal country and open to the sea, the texts from Ugarit mention several villages located on the coast (A 1995) and show the existence of quite a variety of boats (V 1995a, 164–7). The craftsmen entrusted with boat-building were the ‘shipwrights’ (˙r“ anyt). The administrative document KTU 4.689 = RS 20.008 lists various elements made by this class of worker: oars, a top, a mast, mooring ropes, a gangway (X 1982). Another administrative text mentions some tools specifically used for this kind of work, such as ‘sickles for boats’ and ‘large hammers (or axes) for boats’.221 4.6.4 Carts were absolutely necessary for transport and commerce. The Ugaritic texts document the existence of wagons, with four wheels ('rq) and lighter carts, with two wheels (mrkbt), suitable for military purposes (§ 11.5.3).222 The craftsmen who built them were the ‘makers of chariots’ (˙r“ 'rq, ˙r“ mrkbt/naggàr narkabti ). At times the process was complex. The construction of a war chariot, for example, required a combination of various materials and objects produced by other craftsmen (V 1995a, 41–72). It can be supposed, therefore, that the ‘builders of (war) chariots’ came at the end of a process of craftsmanship and of administration which did not differ considerably from that known in Mycenae (L 1968). 4.6.5 Other craftsmen devoted themselves to the creation of small pieces of jewellery (˙r“ q†n, S 1995a, 179)222a or, as is seen in the next section, the making of weapons.

220

Cf. agrù in Ug 5, No. 99 = RS 20.425:111 (Ug 5, p. 102 n. 1). PRU 6, No. 141 = RS 19.112. 222 On the distinction between these terms see H 1982, 87 n. 23. 222a Unless they were ‘producers of swords (sickle-swords)’ (H 1997). 221

490

  4.7

Weapon production

4.7.1 Some types of workers dedicated to the making of weapons have already been mentioned (§ 11.4.5.1, § 11.4.5.3). They are usually given Semitic names which sometimes have a Hurrianized synonym. 4.7.2 The bow was a characteristic weapon of the infantryman and of the crew of the war chariot (§ 11.5.2.2). It is very probable that the composite bow was also used in Ugarit (V 1995a, 60–2). Various craftsmen were involved in the making of this weapon. The ‘carver of bows’ ( psl q“t/sasinnu) dealt with the non-metallic components. The task of the ‘bow assembler’ (˙r“ q“t) may have been to finish off the job, assembling the metallic and non-metallic (chiefly wooden) components. The place-name k∆tÀlm represents the Hurrian version of ˙r“ q“t (S 1995a, 180, 183).223 4.7.3 The arrowheads could be of stone—the work of the psl ˙Ωm (§ 11.4.5.1)—or of metal—a product of the nsk ˙Ωm (§ 11.4.5.3). The name for the second profession also occurs under Hurrian influence in the form nsk ˙≈m (H 1982, 92; cf. § 10.3.2.3). Archaeology has supplied quantities of bronze arrowheads from Ras Shamra (S 1951, 11–2), perhaps the material mentioned in the administrative text PRU 6, No. 133 = RS 19.152 in connection with arrows. To finish the product was the job of the ‘arrow assemblers’ (¢≈Àlm, also a term of Hurrian formation; S 1995a, 179), taking into account that the body of the arrows was usually made of wood or cane. 4.7.4 Other weapons used in the army of Ugarit were ‘lances’ (mr˙m) and ‘javelins’ (srdnnm; cf. § 11.5.2.3, § 11.5.3.2) for combat on foot or in the chariot. Among the bronze objects found in Ras Shamra are what may be javelin tips (C 1987, 357). The texts mention at least one type of craftsman in connection with this kind of weapon, the ‘maker of bronze lances’ (sbrdn; S 1995a, 184).224

223 Note also the existence in Ugarit of the toponym ¢rbÀlm ‘sword-makers’ (S 1995a, 180). 224 The one called ‘assembler of the arkd’ (˙r“ arkd ) also belonged to this type of craftsman, perhaps (S 1995a, 178).

   

491

4.7.5 The ‘tanners’ (a“kàpù) performed their task not only with textiles but also in connection with weapons. Leather was a material needed for the manufacture of cuirasses for horses and quivers for soldiers and chariots. It was also used for other components of the war chariot such as the parapet, the base of the body and straps for lashing the steering-pole to the parapet and the yoke to the steeringpole (V 1995a, 78). 4.8

Pottery

Several administrative documents mention, individually or as a group, the profession of ‘potter’, either using the local name yàßiru225 (Ug. yßr)226 or the Akkadian term pa¢¢àru.227 For the moment archaeology has not located workshops dedicated to this activity (C 1994, 189), although there are large amounts of pottery. 4.9

Food

4.9.1 The texts from Ugarit contain information about types of grain, fruit, animals and other foodstuffs. Products made from grain surely formed the basic foodstuff. After being harvested, the grain was stored in silos, attested archaeologically in Ugarit (§ 11.4.1.2).227a Later, the grain was treated by ‘millers’ (ksdm/k“dm, H 1982, 90). It is probable that the term al¢n, which also means ‘miller’, really denotes a high administrative official with various responsibilities connected with supplying foodstuffs (S 1995a, 175; V 1996, 698). 4.9.2 In connection with hunting, the texts mention ‘fowlers’ or bird-catchers ( yq“m/yàqi“ùma; H 1982, 173). Meat from game or domestic animals was then treated by the butchers, and the reference to a ‘cattle knife’ in an administrative document may be a vestige of their activities.228 Fishing is represented only by the epithet 225

PRU 3, 195 = RS 15.009 i 12; PRU 6, No. 136 = RS 17.240:11. C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 2681 and 2683. 227 PRU 3, 204 = RS 15.172:9; RS 22.233:19 (unpublished; cf. S 1995a, 185). On Ugaritic p¢r ‘potter’ in literary texts, cf.  M 1979, 647–8. 227a According to B 1984a, 427, the grain remained under the control of the official called kkrdn; but see § 11.4.9.2 228 mamßar bùli (PRU 6, 110 = RS 19.112:2). 226

 

492

‘fisherman’ (dgy) in the myth of ‘The Palace of Baal’229 ( O L 1981a, 535). The ‘cook’ (apy/àpiyu, nu¢atimmu) and the ‘pastrycook’ (kkrdn) (S 1995a, 176, 180) then prepared the food for consumption. 4.9.3 Most of the foodstuffs mentioned in the texts from Ugarit was intended for feeding those living in the palace and persons dependent on its administration. However, no doubt part was consigned as sacrificial offerings for the various rituals which took place throughout the year both in the palace and in the temples which were dependent on the palace administration.230 For performing the rituals a large quantity of foodstuffs was needed, the transport of which is accurately reflected in the administrative documents (S 1990). It is an aspect of palace economy which is also clearly illustrated in the rituals from Emar (F 1992b).

5 5.1

T A

Ugarit and the army

5.1.1 Ugarit, a thriving Syrian state both economically and commercially, was a kingdom involved in the politics of Syria of its time. Politically, it had to adapt its behaviour to the circumstances which in Syria favoured the great powers of the period, Egypt, Mittanni and ›atti, throughout the second half of the second millennium . However, as a rich kingdom, of medium size and on which lesser kingdoms depended, the political weight of Ugarit at regional level was considerable, especially after Hittite intervention in the area. Although acting as an important element for the stability of the Hittite political and military system in Syria, it did not forego acting on behalf of its own interests within the margins it was permitted as a vassal of a great power. Various historical events show that Ugarit had available an efficient army of considerable military impor-

C ‒ V 1995a, No. 1498. Besides the priests (§ 11.4.2.9), other personnel connected with the cult were undoubtedly singers (“r, nâru; PRU 6, No. 93 = RS 17.131:24) and cymbalists (mßlm, maßillu; KTU 4.126 = RS 14.084:30; PRU 6, No. 93 = RS 17.131:25); cf.  O L ‒ S 1998, 176–84. 229 230

   

493

tance. The army was one of the instruments which enabled Ugarit to carry out its own politics and assure the survival of the kingdom as an independent state until its disappearance at the beginning of the 12th century  (V 1995a, 11–31). 5.1.2 The army of Ugarit, whose supreme commander was the king (§ 11.2.2), comprised infantry soldiers and chariot units. It is possible that, like other armies of the time, it also used mercenaries. It is difficult to make an approximate calculation of the number of men making up the Ugaritic army, either in time of war or of peace. Initially H (1969) proposed that Ugarit was able to mobilize between 7,000 and 9,000 men. Later on, in another publication (H 1971, 130) he lowered the number to about 5,000 men on the basis of calculations concerning the number of villages in the kingdom and the inhabitants per village, a number which Liverani (1979a, 1341) reduced still further to 4,000 men. It is still a matter to be resolved, strictly related to studies on the demography of the kingdom of Ugarit (§ 11.1.1). In his latest discussion of the topic, Heltzer (1982, 127) is more cautious in his estimates, leaving the question open for future research. 5.2

Recruiting and infantry

5.2.1 Troops formed by means of conscription or recruiting were given the name ¢rd 231 (Akk. ¢uràdu; H 1982, 106–7). The administrative texts show that this human contingent was formed from forces supplied by the various villages of the kingdom and that the administrative control of the process was carried out by district.232 Military service was temporary;233 after a period, the length of which is unknown to us, the recruits returned to their villages and normal occupations (cf. § 11.4). A similar situation of armies composed of conscripts and regular troops is found in other states contemporary with Ugarit (V 1995a, 143–4).

C ‒ V 1995a, Nos. 2155–7. KTU 4.683 = RS 19.256; KTU 4.777 = RIH 83/07+ (B 1984b); KTU 4.63 = RS 10.052; KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716; KTU 4.624 = RS 19.049[][]; PRU 6, No. 131 = RS 19.035. 233 As is shown by the use of the verb la’ika ‘to commission’ in KTU 4.777 = RIH 83/07+ (on the exact meaning of the verb see C 1989a, 177–85). 231 232

494

 

5.2.2 Several administrative texts refer directly or indirectly to archers. The war chariots deployed this type of soldier but it is probable that not all the archers mentioned in the texts acted as soldiers in chariots. Thus, as in other armies of the period, at least part of the Ugaritian infantry deployed archers. These, who were normally in all kinds of professions, were recruited from various villages of the kingdom234 and received an average of ten arrows per person.235 This relatively small number of arrows and other weapons mentioned in the texts in connection with bows, especially shields,236 seems to indicate that the archers were prepared to use hand-tohand fighting, once the barbs had been used up, thus forming a sort of light infantry. 5.2.3 The soldiers supplied with bows could also be given one or more ‘lances’ (mr˙m),237 a weapon carried by warriors represented on several cylinder-seals from Ugarit (A 1992, 125 and 141). Furthermore, the lance was the main weapon of the ‘lancers’ (LÚ.ME”.-ti).238 The kit could also be completed by the ‘sickle’ or curved sword (¢rm∆t),239 attested in Ugarit both archaeologically (S 1936, 145 and plate XV) and on cylinder-seals (A 1992, 127 and 141).240 On the other hand, the reference to cuirasses241 and helmets242 for soldiers in some administrative documents indicates the possibility that there was also heavy infantry.243

234

KTU 4.68 = RS 11.716; PRU 6, No. 131 = RS 19.035. PRU 6, No. 133 = RS 19.152; RSO 7, No. 79 = RS 34.180:9. Elsewhere, the average seems to have been higher, cf. V 1995a, 151 n. 2. 236 Cf. KTU 4.63 = RS 10.052; KTU 4.624 = RS 19.049[][]; PRU 6, No. 131 = RS 19.035. 237 KTU 4.624 = RS 19.049 [][]. 238 PRU 3, 78 = RS 15.; H 1989, 67. 239 KTU 4.670 = RS 19.174; the term is well documented, cf. C ‒ V 1995a, No. 2166; PRU 6, No. 141 = RS 19.112:3. 240 Although in general it is not stated that all the soldiers bore all these weapons, KTU 4.624 = RS 19.049[][] does show that the ‘shepherds’ (nqdm) with which the document deals had a very full kit, comprising bows, quivers, shields and spears. 241 KTU 4.169 = RS 15.053:6 (∆ryn). On finds of scales from cuirasses in Ras Shamra-Ugarit see, for example, S 1938, 316; 1951, 13. 242 The grbz (gurbizu)-helmet is attested in Ugarit in connection with human beings, cf. KTU 4.363 = RS 18.055:2; PRU 6, No. 132 = RS 19.085:5 (H 1989, 348), PRU 6, No. 140 = RS 19.092:1 (H 1987b, 117) not horses, although it was common to both. 243 See also the apparel of the warriors on the Ugaritic seal RS 8.259 (A 1992, 125). 235

   

495

5.2.4 It is quite probable that besides the conscript troops (§ 11.5.2.1), part of the Ugaritian army was formed from regular soldiers. Among this type of soldier are included war charioteers (§ 11.5.3.4) and those who were connected with the protection of the king, the court, the palace and its possessions. The Ugaritic texts mention at least two classes of personnel, surely military, directly connected with the sovereign: the ‘subordinates of the king’ or ‘royal guard’ (m“m't mlk)244 and the ‘king’s lancers’ (mr˙y mlk).245 The ‘guard’ in a wide sense, called maßßartu (Sum. ) could also act as police.246 Some terms which are difficult to understand or are of doubtful meaning could denote officers of the army.247 5.2.5 The possibility has to be discussed whether the Ugaritic army used cavalry of some kind. There is no agreement on the existence of military cavalry in the second millennium ; nevertheless, the existence of horse riders before the first millennium is proved by written documents form places such as Ur, Mari, Nuzi, ›atti or Tell Leilan (B 1992, 190–8; E 1991, 131–4). In Ugarit, a fragment of a Mycenaean krater was found, undoubtedly produced locally, with a frieze of horse riders, one of them armed with a sword (S 1949, 159); it could be an indication of the use of horses for military purposes apart from the war chariot. The reference to two thousand horses in the letter KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402 (C 1989b, 325–40) would be a further indication of the existence in Ugarit of light military cavalry, or perhaps rather mounted infantry (V 1995a, 75–6).

KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124:7.11 (X 1980, 452; B ‒ P 1991, 144). KTU 1.103+ = RS 24.247+:7.47; KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002:10 (restored); discussion in V 1995a, 154–6 (but see T 1994c, 459). Cf. the ‘men of the golden lance’ and ‘men of the heavy lance’ of the royal guard in ›atti (B 1992, 212–31) and ‘the king’s brothers who bear the bronze lance before the king’ in Emar (Msk 7356:4–5, A 1986, No. 17). 246 Cf. PRU 3, 97 = RS 16.249; R 1965a, 24; H 1982, 119–21; V 1995a, 156. 247 Cf. 'tn in KTU 2.16 = RS 15.008:3 (C 1989b, 301, n. 20), rb mit ‘chief of a hundred’ (if this restoration of rb mi[. . .] is accepted in KTU 2.42 = RS 18.113:3; cf. H 1995–6, 73–4), àkil lim ‘chief of a thousand’ in PRU 6, No. 52 = RS 19.078:4, 9 and Ug 5, No. 52 = RS 20.239:27, mru (Akk. mur’u) ‘commander’, ‘officer’, but perhaps also ‘fattener’ and in some contexts ‘quartermaster’. See, in general, V 1995a, 144–7. 244

245

496

  5.3

The war chariot

5.3.1 Chariot units of the Ugaritic army, under the command of officials such as the ‘overseer of chariots’ (àkil narkabti )248 or the ‘chief of the chariot drivers’ (rb kzym),249 were quartered in various villages of the kingdom, an arrangement which implies that the soldiers whose function was to fight from the chariot were dispersed geographically. As in Alalakh, Nuzi and ›atti,249a the chariot units defended strategic points of the kingdom, such as for example, access routes to the interior. 5.3.2 The Ugaritic texts mention the large structural components which technically comprised a chariot:250 body (mrkbt),251 wheels (apnt) and steering-pole (tr).252 The textual information is complemented iconographically by the so-called ‘hunting plate’ (S 1949, 1–23; A 1965, 51–3; cf. § 14) and the representations of chariots on cylinder-seals (A 1992). The references to material for chariots253 is restricted to ‘gold’ (¢rß) and a type of leather,254 information partially supplemented by finds of pieces of a yoke, alabaster pommels and ferrules worked in alabaster and ivory (C 1990).255 The chariot was completed by the following defensive and offensive weapons wielded by the crew (V 1995a, 60–72): ‘shield’ (ql' ), bow (q“t),256 ‘arrow’ (˙Ω),257 ‘barb’ (n∆q) and ‘javelin’ (srdnn), ‘sword’ (m≈rn) ‘lance’ (mr˙) and ‘knife’ or ‘axe’ (m“¢t). The equipment was completed by the ‘quiver’ (u∆pt)258 for missiles. Archaeological finds and representations on cylinder-seals illustrate this variety of weaponry. 248 PRU 3, 79 = RS 16.239:31; PRU 3, 83 = RS 16.157:22; PRU 3, 85 = RS 16.250:17. 249 KTU 4.222 = RS 16.193:3. 249a V 1995a, 87. 250 Information on the Ugaritian war chariot from a material point of view is provided by the administrative texts KTU 4.145 = RS 15.034; KTU 4.167 = RS 15.079; KTU 4.169 = RS 15.083 and KTU 4.180 = RS 15.105 (V 1995a, 41–53). On the chariot in the ancient Near East in general see L ‒ C 1979. 251 It is very likely that mrkbt, the normal Ugaritic term for ‘chariot’, refers in some cases to its body or coachwork ( O L 1978, 49); the interpretation would fit KTU 4.167 = RS 15.079:1 and KTU 4.180 = RS 15.105:3 (V 1995a, 54). 252 It is likely that some of the chariots, before they were used, were kept stored with their wheels off. See, in general, V 1995a, 53–8, 83–7. 253 In the administrative text KTU 4.167 = RS 15.079. 254 msg d tbk, cf. S 1989, 342. 255 There is no reference in the texts to wood, the most important material in the construction of a chariot (cf. L ‒ C 1979, 81, 346). 256 Vocalized qa“tu in RS 20.189+:9 (H 1987b, 25). 257 In Sumerian gi... (PRU 6, No. 133 = RS 19.152). 258 Vocalized i“patu in PRU 6, No. 162 = RS 19.036:5. In Sumerian ..

   

497

5.3.3 Some scholars, on the basis of a passage from the ‘Epic of Keret’259 and in the letter RS 4.449,260 have suggested that in Ugarit the war chariot was drawn by three horses (S 1948; R 1965, 22). However, the administrative texts261 shows that it was usual for Ugaritic chariots to have pairs of horses ( O L 1978, 49). On the other hand, it is the more usual proportion in war chariots of the period (V 1995a, 74–5). 5.3.4 At least at one moment in their history, the chariots of the Ugaritian army seem to have had a three-man crew. Some passages in the ‘Epic of Keret’ could point in this direction.262 It is the proportion of men carried by the chariots of ›atti in the battle of Qadesh (B 1992, 148–9). A passage in the Egyptian ‘poem’ on the battle expressly mentions the Ugaritic chariots as carrying three men, a proportion which can be confirmed in the documents of that kingdom. Its members come from three different groups, the maryannù (§ 11.1.6.2–3), the kzym (probably as chariot-drivers) and the m≈rÀlm263 (V 1995a, 93–125). 5.4 Ships and war 5.4.1 It is certain that the kingdom of Ugarit never had a real war navy, but documents from Ugarit and ›atti show that at least some of the Ugaritic boats could have had a military function. It is probable that the boats were used for commerce and, when occasion arose, for the transportation of troops and for armed engagements on the high seas.264 Evidence of military use of Ugaritic boats comes from the final period of the kingdom and show the boats of Ugarit operating under the control of ›atti. However, the documents supply (PRU 6, No. 131 = RS 19.035). KTU 4.204 = RS 16.002 mentions two types, ‘arrow quiver’ (u∆pt ˙Ωm) and probably, ‘javelin quiver’ (u∆pt srdnnm). 259 KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ ii 2–3 and parallels. 260 On this document see A 1996, 47–54. 261 Ug 5, No. 105 = RS 20.211+; KTU 4.169 = RS 15.083 (in contrast to a single cuirass for a man, the text allocates pairs of cuirasses to horses, no doubt pullers of chariots). Perhaps KTU 4.582 = RS 18.[522], which is very broken, points in the same direction. 262 KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ ii 2–3 and parallels ( O L 1984a, 209–11) W 1998c, 190 n. 62. 263 However, see a different interpretation of m≈rÀlm in H 1982, 115–21. 264 Generally, the crews of Ugaritic boats were recruited not only from villages close to the sea (so H 1976, 21) but in villages close to where the boats operated, either the sea or important rivers like the Orontes (V 1995a, 168–72).

498

 

no information about the organization of a Ugaritian war fleet or about the type of boats used. 5.4.2 The first column of the Hittite historical text KBo XII 38 (G 1967) recounts the conquest of Ala“ia (Cyprus) by Tud¢aliya IV; the third column relates a later naval victory by ”uppiluliuma II over assailants from Ala“ia. The text gives no details about the composition of the Hittite troops, but it can be assumed that in both actions at least a part of the fleet under ›atti command comprised boats from Ugarit. The control of the island was an important factor in the security of the Hittite and Syrian coasts against armed incursions by foreign peoples. 5.4.3 After its conquest by ›atti, Cyprus then became part of a defence system shared jointly by ›atti and Ugarit, as is clear from the correspondence exchanged between the courts of Ugarit and Ala“ia. The letter Ug 5, No. 24 = RS 20.238,265 from the king of Ugarit266 to the king of Cyprus, is the most explicit witness available of the fleet from Ugarit in a war engagement. It also proves that the Canaanite kingdom, in the closing moments of its existence, made a last military effort in collaboration with ›atti in an attempt to repel the attacks which threatened both states. In connection with this episode, the letter Ug 5, No. 22 = RS 20.018, from Ala“ia, seems to communicate a naval defeat of the Ugaritian fleet in Asia Minor.

265 The letter Ug 5, No. 23 = RS L. 1 has usually been set in close relation to RS 20.238. However the finding of tablets from Cyprus in Ras Shamra during the 1994 campaign shows that, from epigraphy and content, RS L. 1 cannot come from that island (personal communication of F. Malbran-Labat). 266 Almost certainly Ammurapi, the last king of Ugarit; cf. L 1979a, 1312.

CHAPTER TWELVE

THE ONOMASTICS OF UGARIT R S. H

1

P N  P

The study of personal names from Ugarit includes three general areas: (1) the publication of the texts and the identification of the personal names found in them; (2) the linguistic analysis of the personal names; and (3) prosopographical matters related to the name bearers.1 Although some studies combine two or three aspects of this research, it is important to separate these categories because they represent distinct fields of study. The first, that of the publication and identification of personal names, is the logical antecedent to all further onomastic research. The linguistic analysis of the names and the prosopography of the name bearers are independent of one another. Analysis of the name focuses on the name itself as a linguistic datum both among other names of a similar linguistic group and within the literary context of the texts in which such names occur. The prosopography asks questions about the name bearer in the society of Ugarit or elsewhere. 1.1

The identification and publication of personal names from Ugarit

Personal names are part of the textual dimension of Ugarit. They occur in many genres of texts. Even the mythological, which may be thought limited to divine names, can include personal names in colophons that designate the scribe or copyist. For example, the names of ilmlk the scribe and of Niqmaddu III the king of Ugarit, occur at the end of several mythological tablets.2

1 I thank Dr. Josef Tropper and Dr. W.G.E. Watson for reading and commenting on this section of the chapter. 2 KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008] + 3.341 + 3.347; KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009] + 5.155, KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325 + 3.342 + 3.408, KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004].

500

 

Texts from the cosmopolitan centre of Ugarit are written in a variety of scripts and languages, including Sumerian, the syllabic cuneiform of Akkadian, Hurrian and Hittite, the alphabetic cuneiform of Ugaritic and Hurrian, the hieroglyphic writing of Egyptian and Hittite and the distinctive Cypro-Minoan script. With the exception of Sumerian, texts from each of these languages include personal names. With so many potential sources for personal names at Ugarit it is perhaps surprising that no comprehensive list of all personal names found in the published texts from Ugarit has ever been produced. Although highly desirable for purposes of onomastic research, the absence of such a publication forms a significant gap in the study of Ugaritian personal names. Collections of personal names and related studies have focused on the texts written in the alphabetic and syllabic scripts, above all on the Ugaritic and Akkadian texts which constitute the majority of published texts from Ugarit. The identification of personal names in Akkadian and other syllabic cuneiform texts is assisted by specific markers, the familiar “ sign preceding masculine names and the  sign preceding feminine names. In addition, the  logogram, meaning, ‘son of ’, can indicate that a personal name will follow. This logogram itself can sometimes form the first part of a personal name. However, it can also precede a place name or gentilic and indicate the origin of the person so designated. In such cases and others where there is no textual marker to signify a personal name, it must be identified by its context. In letters, personal names often appear at the beginning and identify the sender and the recipient. In contracts, those making the agreement are identified. The list of witnesses at the end of the document also contains personal names, each one often preceded by the  logogram, which is the Akkadian “ìbu ‘witness’. In order to specify the witnesses they often are given their patronyms, indicated by . Personal names also appear in census and inventory lists of all types. The simplest are those that merely list the persons. Others indicate places of origin, food rations or other items associated with each person. Some lists introduce or conclude by designating all those named as members of a particular social group or as citizens of a single town. Personal names are identified in similar ways in the alphabetic Ugaritic texts. However, these normally contain no markers similar

   

501

to the “ and  signs.3 The Ugaritic bn ‘son’ replaces the  logogram. Witnesses to contracts and other economic texts are indicated by the personal names organised in a list at the end of the Ugaritic tablet. However, they possess nothing similar to an introductory  logogram. Other names can be identified according to the title or profession of the person so named. Both syllabic and alphabetic cuneiform texts may also indicate the scribe responsible for the document. In contracts the scribe’s name often follows the list of witnesses at the end of the document. In lists, mythological and ritual texts, it also occurs at the end of the text. In the syllabic cuneiform texts it is normally identified by the logograms, . (Akkadian †up“arru), which follow the personal name. In the alphabetic cuneiform texts the Ugaritic spr can appear before or after the scribe’s name. Royal figures, including kings, queens and members of the royal household, priests, administrators and members of special warrior and other social groups are identified by the name of their rank or group following their personal names. Although the publication of cuneiform texts from Ugarit is considered elsewhere, it is appropriate to summarise their relevance for the study of personal names. Those texts first published individually or in small groups often have individual names noted. Where of interest to the editor, the names are discussed in the commentary that accompanies the initial publication. The larger text collections can be divided into two groups, those that provide a separate and comprehensive list of all spellings and occurrences of personal names and those that do not. PRU 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 each include indices that list the personal names found in the texts published in the respective volume. The same is true of Ug 5, RSO 7 and Analecta Orientalia 48 (the Claremont texts). Where collections include both alphabetic and syllabic cuneiform texts, the two types of texts each have their own list of names. No indices of personal names are found in the collections of CTA, KTU, CAT (D – L – S 1995), Ug 7 or the Ras Ibn Hani texts. Text editions of Driver,

3

A possible exception to this rule may sometimes occur. See, for example, the vertical stroke preceding the high priest’s name in the alphabetic axehead inscription, KTU 6.10 = RS 1.[052]. See G 1950, 160.

 

502

Gibson (CML) and G 1965 contain personal names as part of their glossary but not in the form of a separate list. Important lists of personal names are found in the Ugaritic dictionaries of both A 1963 and G 1965. Both list personal names as separate lexical items organised alphabetically along with the other lexemes in the dictionary. G (1965, 508–13) adds a separate list of all the Ugaritic personal names at the end of his glossary. A reverse index accompanies it as well (513–19). This is useful for restoring partially preserved names. Although Gordon includes comparisons with related syllabically spelled names from Ugarit, neither dictionary systematically lists or studies the personal names from syllabic texts. S’s 1984 grammar and glossary includes many of these syllabic names. However, it does not treat names from Ugarit separately nor does it consider the alphabetic names. As is clear from the recently published concordances (B – P 1989; C 1990;  S 1991a, 525–671; CAT ), neither the text collections nor the dictionaries survey all the published cuneiform texts from Ugarit. This is true for both the earlier and the later excavations. Therefore, it is necessary to examine additional publications in order to obtain a list of all the personal names. This has not been done. The result is that all studies of personal names from Ugarit suffer from the limitation of partial evidence. As more and more texts are published this weakness will become increasingly significant. V S’s (1991a) study has come as close as any to counting all the published names. Although he has not listed them, he has observed the frequency of their occurrence in the texts ( S 1991a, 39–40). 1,737 different masculine names occur only once, 373 occur twice and 165 occur three times. This number diminishes as the number of occurrences grows, e.g., only nine masculine names occur thirteen times. Fewer feminine names occur: 105 appear once, eleven occur twice and only one occurs three times. This datum attests to the masculine domination of the roles and responsibilities that are recorded in the texts. It also provides a hint at how large a population existed at Ugarit whose names have not been recorded. 1.2

The linguistic analysis of personal names from Ugarit

The personal names from Ugarit can be divided into two groups: those found in the epic and mythological texts and those found in

   

503

other texts. The divine, semi-divine and heroic figures of the mythological texts have not been systematically classified and studied, neither as a group of names on their own nor as part of the larger onomastic corpus from Ugarit. The personal names found outside of this literature, which is largely distinct from it, have received the focus of attention. Although most publications of individual texts or groups of texts, include the grammatical analysis of personal names at the point in the commentary that corresponds to where they occur in the text, the systematic study of larger groups of personal names has been limited to a few publications. The first one was U’s 1961 Brandeis University Ph.D. dissertation, ‘A Study of Ugaritic Alphabetic Personal Names’. This work is available only in dissertation form. It appeared at a time when only PRU 2 and the 1955 edition of Gordon’s Ugaritic Manual provided substantial collections of non-mythological alphabetic texts. Nevertheless, in his 1967 dissertation, ‘A Study of the Personal Names in the Akkadian Texts from Ugarit’, Kinlaw saw his work as a supplement to the earlier study of Uyechi. In fact, both works were written at Brandeis University under the supervision of Cyrus Gordon. Kinlaw’s work took into consideration the published texts of PRU 3, 4 and 5 as well as those from Ug 5. In addition, published texts not contained in these collections were included.4 Of course, the same personal names were rendered into both alphabetic and syllabic cuneiform by scribes at Ugarit. A study of both could combine the advantages of each system of orthography, allowing vocalization with the syllabary and greater phonemic precision with the alphabetic script. This was realised with the 1967 appearance of G’s Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Written under the supervision of Johannes Friedrich and Einar von Schuler, this remains the most complete study of the personal names from Ugarit. Its listing of names incorporated PRU 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well as Ug 5. This provided the most complete listing available. However, even Grøndahl’s work did not include all the published names. In part, this was no doubt due to the absence of a listing of the names occurring in the texts published in CTA. Personal names appearing in a few of the published alphabetic cuneiform texts were

4

They are listed in K 1967, 380. This includes the Latakia text.

504

 

not recorded.5 In addition, Grøndahl’s list of syllabic names did not include all those that had been published. The names from some of these texts do appear in K 1967, however.6 Thus Kinlaw’s list remains an essential supplement to that of Grøndahl. For her linguistic analysis, G 1967 classified more than two thousand occurrences of names according to the language families which their etymologies reflected: Semitic, Hurrian, Anatolian, Indo-Aryan, Egyptian and names with no apparent etymology. There was also a category for gentilics and other place names that function as personal names. The largest category of names, the Semitic names, received the most complete grammatical analysis with notes on orthography, phonology, single-word, construct and sentence names, hypocoristic names, feminine names, theophoric names and verb and noun formations in the names. Every category included a glossary listing all name elements. In addition to Uyechi, whom she criticises for lack of rigour (G 1967, 2–3), Grøndahl used a variety of published linguistic, onomastic and religious studies to assist in her analysis. Above all, H’ 1965 study of the Amorite names from Mari and G et al.’s 1943 work on the Nuzi names served as models for her study on the great majority of names from Ugarit, the Semitic and Hurrian names. Studies by L 1954, L 1966 and M 1960; 1965 dominate the sections on Anatolian and Indo-Aryan names. G’s 1967 study generated numerous reviews.7 As may be expected for a work of such detail, there were many items that faced criticism. The following represent some of the salient criticisms by reviewers dealing with matters of structure and analysis: (1) difficulties in identifying the same name in both the alphabetic and syllabic cuneiform indices (N 1966); (2) difficulties in dealing with multiple alphabetic and syllabic principles of organization in the glossaries and indices (S 1969); (3) the need to compare this collection of names with those from a nearby archive such as Alalakh (A 1971,  M 1969b); (4) the concern that the feminine

5 For example, KTU 6.15 = RS 6.223 and KTU 4.72 = RS 11.722+, where names not recorded in G appear. 6 For example, those found in RS 6.345 and the Latakia text. 7 A 1971; B 1969–70; D 1968–9; H 1970; L 1968;  M 1969b; N 1968b; R 1970; S 1969. See also C 1969, 254–62.

   

505

Semitic names should not be separated from their masculine counterparts and analysed separately (D 1968/9); (5) the combination of Hurrian and Semitic suffix elements and the presence of ‘double suffixes’ on some names (R 1970); (6) the need to distinguish Akkadian from West Semitic in the study of the Semitic names (R 1970) and the subsequent problem of using this combined data to describe the Ugaritic language (H 1970); (7) the failure of the glossaries to distinguish probable lexical derivations from those that are hypothetical (H 1970); (8) the absence of relevant comparative information from the Ugarit lexical texts ( M 1969); (9) some of the theophoric elements should be otherwise identified (C 1969), and (10) the absence of many names from published texts as well as the tendency to list separately the same name spelled when spelled slightly differently (e.g., different values of the same phonetic sign or the use of logograms in place of syllabic spelling; B 1969–70). Later publications have emphasized the lexical and semantic aspects in their linguistic analysis of the personal names from Ugarit. Special note should be made of J’s 1969 study which introduced new names of animals and occupations that occur in personal names from Ugarit but not in other textual sources from the city.8 In the same year D and L 1969 published a study of a Hurrian element, fant/fent- and its occurrence in personal names. However, the most important studies of collected personal names from Ugarit, after Grøndahl, are those of S 1984, P 1987, 1988, 1989/90 and W 1990c, 1990d, 1993b, 1995b, 1996c. S 1984 included analysis of the personal names from Ugarit in his study of Late Bronze Age West Semitic as revealed by the syllabic cuneiform texts. By incorporating proper nouns from Alalakh, Taanach and Amarna, as well as Ugarit, Sivan was able to provide a more complete comparative analysis of the names than had been previously available. In addition, his use of common nouns as well as verbs, prepositions, adverbs and other particles provided a thorough study of Late Bronze Age West Semitic. The same was true of the glossary which brought together and systematically studied

8 A. J 1969 adds examples of new uses of verbal and noun forms in personal names. P.D. M, J. 1970, 171–86 adds examples of animal names used in titles and the names of social groups.

506

 

and compared a mass of evidence previously available only in diverse publications. As important and useful as S’s 1984 work is, three observations should be made regarding the limitations of its method. First, the grammatical and lexical constructions of proper names are not necessarily identical to the language of the texts in which those names occur. Sivan carefully distinguishes between proper names and all the other forms throughout his study. However, the distinctive grammatical and lexical aspects of proper names tend to be ignored in such a methodology. For example, the use of case endings in personal names is summarized but one has no clear sense of which texts and names, if any, use case endings.9 A second comment concerns the work’s focus on the West Semitic evidence. This is valuable and necessary given the vast amount of material surveyed in the study. However, it means that not all of the names from the syllabic texts from Ugarit are studied. Thus Sivan’s study does not supersede the works of K 1967 and G 1967. Furthermore, because Sivan focuses on West Semitic, some names that might be better analysed as Hurrian or otherwise are assumed to be West Semitic. For example, ¢a-an-ya is probably Egyptian, -ir-“ap and -ir-“ap-pa are probably Hurrian, ki-li-ia is probably Hurrian and tu-tu may be Egyptian (H 1993, 72–3, 91, 98–9, 163). Sivan’s selection of materials from Ugarit provokes a third area of comment. Because he chooses to study only syllabic cuneiform sources, there is no systematic comparison or use made of the alphabetic cuneiform sources, including the proper names. In addition, the difficulties of reading the Ugaritian syllabary are not eased by full interaction with the polyglot vocabularies from Ugarit. This point is emphasised by H 1987a in his review of S 1984. H’s 1987b; 1989 studies of the vocabularies and of the Akkadian texts from Ugarit address this matter. Of special interest is H’s 1989, 351–415 sign list which discusses the readings of many syllabic personal names. Among the many studies in subjects related to Ugaritian personal names, L’s 1990 work deserves special mention.10 It is an at9

See the further discussion by L 1990, below. For other studies of onomastics related to, but not necessarily from, Ugarit, see the bibliography of H 1993, 249–92. 10

   

507

tempt to identify several archaic features in Semitic personal names from the Hebrew Bible. In the course of his discussion, Layton makes frequent reference to the evidence from the Ugaritian names. He demonstrates the existence of the enclitic -m and the feminine suffix -at, in names from Ugarit. He does not find evidence of mimation or of the ˙ireq compaginis. Layton also considers the evidence for case endings in personal names. G’s 1967, 51 assertion that, when they decline, most Semitic names do so with diptotic forms, is challenged in the review of S 1969, 199. However, he presents no evidence. L 1963 identifies diptotic declensions in the Akkadian names. L 1990, 43–44 furthers the discussion with an example from the letter, RS 15.89 (PRU 3, p. 53), where a feminine name appears once in the nominative as a-¢a-tum-, and twice in the oblique/genitive as a-¢a-ti-. If this is a personal name, this evidence should be added to that of the Amarna correspondence (H 1991). Some names from sites south of Tyre and Amurru do operate with case vowels. However, with the exception of Byblos, there is no clear evidence to the north of this region that case vowels were used with personal names. If the names also decline at Ugarit, it may be that the absence of evidence for case vowel declension is just that, and not evidence that case vowels did not decline. Pardee’s recent contributions to the onomastic research of Ugarit include a study of the theophoric elements in the personal names and their relationship to what is designated as the canonical pantheon list from Ugarit (P 1988). Of the twenty-eight different names in this list, fourteen are attested as elements in personal names from Ugarit. The distribution of divine names in personal names and in various genres of texts is not predictable nor are their occurrences in genres related to their appearances in personal names. The divine names in personal names from Ugarit may suggest deities who are the objects of clan or family veneration. Theophoric elements in the Ugaritic personal names are updated in a list published by R – X 1991. A second onomastic study by Pardee is part of a larger bibliography of words and names from Ugaritian texts that he has published (P 1989–90; see also P 1987c). This includes forty pages of bibliography devoted to publications that discuss names from Ugarit and appeared as late as 1990. The bibliography is divided into alphabetic and syllabic sections and organized according to personal names. Under each name listed there are bibliographical

508

 

references relevant to it. These regularly contain a brief summary of the analysis of the name made by the author of the study. Although Pardee does not evaluate the merit of these summaries, the data provided allow the interested reader to follow up on the discussion. Listed at the beginning of both the alphabetic and syllabic sections are important studies of collections of names, including personal name studies from other archives and significant reviews of those studies. It is not always clear how much of this material is incorporated into the individual entries in the bibliography. For example, the list of general references at the beginning of the section on syllabic personal names includes both Kinlaw’s dissertation on the syllabic names from Ugarit as well as one of Watson’s studies (see below). However, in the individual entries for each of the syllabic names, Kinlaw is never mentioned while Watson often appears. Nevertheless, this bibliography is the most important summary of information on onomastics from Ugarit since the publication of Grøndahl’s work. If Pardee’s bibliography brings together many of the relevant published studies on Ugarit names, Wilfred Watson’s work provides an example of those studies (W 1990c, 1990d, 1993b, 1995b, 1996c).11 Unlike other onomastic studies, which tend to focus on a single name, the names in a single text or a single element that features in names, Watson has applied recent linguistic research from a variety of sources to the linguistic analysis of more than 360 personal names. Only alphabetic names are listed and studied, although relevant syllabic spellings are brought into the discussion. In addition, Watson discusses subjects such as bird names, the unpredictable nature of word dividers within personal names, alternative phonemes and spellings of the same name, the use of bt ‘daughter of ’ and a¢ ‘brother of ’ before names, the optional occurrence of the suffix -n on the same name, the interchangeability of qtl and yqtl forms in the same name, the use of t-prefixed verbs in names and possible Hurrian elements in names. He also incorporates recent studies that relate personal names to Ugaritic grammatical features (T 1994b; 1995c) and to names found in Eblaite, Mycenaean, Egyptian and biblical Hebrew sources (S 1991; W 1995; H 1994; H 1996a; 1996b). 11 These studies have grown out of Watson’s involvement in the Ugaritic dictionary project at the University of Barcelona.

    1.3

509

The prosopography of personal names from Ugarit

Each of the indices of personal names in the PRU volumes as well as Ug 5 contain prosopographical information including family relationship to other known name bearers, occupation, citizenship of towns or villages, and sometimes a brief description of the role of the name bearer in the contract or other document. The indices of RSO 7 and AnOr 48 do not provide this information although it can be gathered from the commentary on the texts where the names appear. The lists of names in both K 1967 and G 1967 also provide this information, dividing each name into as many different name bearers as may be described by the prosopographical information. The reviews of Grøndahl’s work included two elements of criticism that relate to prosopography: (1) in the lists of the names there is no distinction between the names in texts from foreign sources and those of local origin (C 1969), and (2) the lack of statistical analysis of social groupings according to the linguistic etymology of the name, e.g., do Hurrian-named individuals predominate in certain professions or classes and not others? (N 1968). In fact, some of this information is easy to obtain from Grøndahl’s work. Although B’s 1969–70 severe criticisms of the analysis cannot be overlooked, Grøndahl’s analysis remains the most comprehensive and detailed opportunity to examine linguistic origins. Given these concerns and Grøndahl’s expressed uncertainty about double or even triple possibilities for some etymologies, an approximate quantification can still be performed with the following results: Linguistic Origin

Syllabic PNs

Alphabetic PNs

All Names

Semitic Hurrian Anatolian Indo-Aryan Egyptian Place Names Uncertain Total (Approx.)

43% 26% 16% 1/2% 1/5% 2% 12% 1000

55% 21% 7% 1/5% 1/10% 2% 16% 1400

50% 23% 10% 1/3% 1/6% 2% 15% 2400

A few observations are in order. First, half of the identifiable names are Semitic. These represent the major onomastic group at Ugarit.

510

 

Since no distinction has been made between West Semitic and Akkadian names, it is not possible to further divide this group. Second, Hurrian and Anatolian names together comprise 33% of the total number of identifiable names. This is a significant percentage, though somewhat lower than Semitic names. Hurrian and Anatolian names together represent northern names.12 They are in a minority at Ugarit. Third, the difference between syllabic and alphabetic names is most significant when comparing the ratios of Semitic names to northern names. Among the syllabic names, nearly as many are northern (42%) as are Semitic (43%). However, the alphabetic names indicate a two to one ratio of Semitic names to northern names (55% to 28%). The preponderance of Semitic names among the alphabetic names suggests that the documents written in this native Ugaritic script and language tended to be used and applied more to Semitic people than to people who possessed northern names. That distinction does not pertain to users of syllabic Akkadian texts. Name lists are the most important source for the study of prosopography at Ugarit. In addition to lists preserving only personal names, D – L – S 1995, 655–8 have identified 110 types of lists in the alphabetic cuneiform texts. These lists are divided according to the information associated with the persons and their names. P 1992 has divided this variety of information into three general areas: family terms of relationship, geographical terms of place of origin or citizenship, and occupational and social grouping terms. These classifications can be extended to include letters, contracts and other genres of texts. V S 1991a, 40 finds that 1,386 persons, or 23.2 per cent of those named, have some sort of family relationship indicated. As noted above the most common terms of relationship are ‘son of ’ (bn) and, less frequently, ‘daughter of ’ (bt). Also associated with personal names are terms describing a ‘brother of ’ ““ (a¢), and a ‘relative of ’ (¢atni ).13 The designation ‘son of,’ where a female name follows can also occur. These can describe adoption as well as blood relationships. This raises the issue of inheritance. References to ‘his heir’ (n˙lh) or ‘their heirs’ (n˙lhm) can occur in documents referring to the 12 This could also include Indo-Aryan names although at Ugarit the number of these is insignificant. 13 RS 16.250 (PRU 3, p. 85) 4–5, KTU 4.103 = RS 11.858.5, RS 16.136 (PRU 3, p. 142) 5. See R 1965c, 22; P 1992, 713.

   

511

rights and obligations of persons named. The more general family term, ‘household of ’ (bt) also occurs. Families were listed according to the father’s name, suggesting a patriarchy. In KTU 4.153 = RS 15.046 some men are designated as ‘owner/husband of a wife (or wives)’ (b'l a∆t) or ‘owner of a concubine(s)’ (b'l ““lmt). Women could be designated as ‘wife’ (a∆t) or ‘noble wife’ (a∆t.adrt), while ‘girls’ (n'rt) could be ‘lasses’ ( pÀt) and ‘boys’ (n'rm) could be ‘warriors’ ( Àzrm), terms also occurring in military contexts (R 1965c, 11). Pardee estimates that the documentation from Ugarit covers seven or eight generations and an onomastic ‘population’ of 150,000–300,000 names. Unlike other archives, there is no systematic study of all family relationships at Ugarit (cf. F 1987 for Nuzi).  S 1991a, 40–1 records fourteen names for whom he is able to trace sons and grandsons, in addition to the royal line. He observes that papponymy was not followed, except in one possible case where 'Addunu occurs as the name of both the grandfather and grandson. Many personal names and lists of personal names identify their figures according to place or people group. An individual may be identified as from a particular town, or a list may be introduced by a heading indicating that the names that follow originate from a particular place. For the latter, the gentilic suffix, -y, is often added to the place name (P 1992, 714). Some 938 persons, or 15.7 per cent of those named, come from outside of Ugarit ( S 1991a, 40). In addition to family relationship and places of origins, a third area of prosopographical study considers the social groups and professions. This is the most difficult area to understand because the precise meaning of and relationship between the social and professional terms is not clear. For example, lists of guards and other professions appear to use Hurrian terms that are imperfectly understood but related to similar Hurrian social and professional groups at nearby Alalakh (D – L 1964–66).14 These groups are important as some of them provide lists of personal names that recur in numerous texts.15

14 On pp. 197–201, D – L discuss Ugaritic professions which they classify together according to their suffix element: ¢≈Àl, k∆tÀl, m≈rÀl, tdÀl. 15  S 1991a, 33, list eight such texts where the same names of m≈rÀlm occur (KTU 4.33 = RS 5.248, KTU 4.50–53 = RS 10.087–090, KTU 4.54 = RS 10.103, KTU 4.55 = RS 10.109, KTU 4.69 = RS 11.715+).

512

 

Study of professions and social groupings considers the countryside of Ugarit’s kingdom as well as the palace (L 1988, 938). H 1976 devoted a special study to the economic structure of the rural regions. Due to the limited nature of the evidence, however, definite conclusions are difficult to achieve.16 The villages of Ugarit were taxed both in silver and commodities and in labour and military service (H 1987). Lists that bear witness to labour indicate the villages and the amount of service due for the people named (KTU 4.40 = RS 8.279). People engaged in the corvée received food rations (KTU 4.41 = RS 8.280). At the top of the social structure was the royal family. The palace archives preserve contemporary records of seven kings, six queens and other members of the royal family ( S 1991a, 2–19). As leaders of Ugarit these figures initiate and are named in legal and contractual documents as well as in local and international correspondence. A famous case, consisting of more than a dozen documents, records the divorce of Ammi∆tamru II and the daughter of Benteshina, king of Amurru (A – S 1991–2). Within the royal family sons and daughters of the king were named. A brother of Niqmaddu II, Nuriyanu, is attested in several texts as exercising unusual influence in the royal court. Special royal associates are named and designated as mùdû “arri (RS 16.239). Four of the five people named as belonging to the latter group, ‘friends of the king,’ were from a single family (R 1962, 82–8). Groups of personnel could be assigned to the service of a member of the royal family or one of the palace officials.17 Key figures in the royal court, as well as much of society, were the scribes (†up“arru, spr). In the midst of a sophisticated society, these scholars read and wrote the texts that were essential to its function (R 1969). Forty-eight names of different scribes have been preserved, including fathers and sons who were scribes as well as teachers and their pupils ( S 1991a, 19–32). Some scribes are known for specialist areas of work: Ili-milku for mythological texts and Yan˙amu for lexical texts. Another scribe, Yatarmu, was executed for his part in a rebellion against Niqmaddu (R 1969, 145–6; L… 1986b). 16

In addition to H’s own observations, see, for example, V 1980a. P 1992, 714 notes the example of KTU 4.635 = RS 19.096, where personnel (bn“m) are assigned to the king, the queen and other officials. 17

   

513

The administration of Ugarit, both at the palace and elsewhere in the kingdom, was handled by ‘personnel of the king’ (bn“ mlk) or royal dependents. The higher officers were awìlu “a “arri or awìlù rabûtu (R 1962, 8–89). The many other titles attested as part of the structure of Ugarit society are discussed elsewhere, as are the names of social groupings (R 1962; 1975; H 1969a; 1976; 1982; 1988b; V 1988). Yabninu is an example of the extent of power and influence that could be achieved in the higher offices of administration. As chief administrator of the South Palace, the archive records how he controlled peoples and trade throughout the kingdom of Ugarit and all along the Levantine coast (C 1990). Royal dependents worked in the palace’s agricultural holdings, called gt, as well as in various professions relevant to the palace economy. They often possessed their own organisation and received payment as well as food for their services (H 1987, 240–4). In the larger society, the other citizens of Ugarit could also be identified by their professions. Lists of personal names from Ugarit include (a) those where each person is identified by a different profession, (b) those where names are grouped together according to the same profession of the name bearers and (c) those who are grouped both according to their profession and according to some other item, such as their place of assignment or their ethnic origin.18 Examples of areas of society for which lists of persons occur and in which individuals could attain significant positions include religious, military and trade. Where it can be determined the religious organization appears under the control of the palace (H 1982, 131–9). The highest ranking official was the high priest or ‘chief of priests’ (rb khnm). Of those who are named, Lipi…ski has studied ¢rßn and atn.prln (L… 1988). The name of ¢rßn appears on an axehead that forms part of the foundation deposit of the high priest’s house between the two main temples on Ugarit’s acropolis.19 If this is the same ›uràßànu as that mentioned on two property transactions from Ugarit, then the high priest held houses and lands elsewhere in the city and kingdom.20 The library found in the house contained 18 P 1992, 714–5 notes examples of (a) KTU 9.458 = RIH 83/02, (b) KTU 4.134 = RS 15.006, KTU 4.129 = RS 15.001, KTU 4.374 = RS 18.082, and (c) KTU 4.367 = RS 18.076 and KTU 4.355 = RS 18.045 for place of assignment and KTU 4.635 = RS 19.096 for ethnic origin. 19 KTU 6.10 = RS 1.[052]. See now B 1998. 20 RS 15.109 + 16.296 and RS 15.155.

514

 

numerous Hurrian texts, lexical texts and many of the most famous mythological texts. Atn.prln is designated both as the high priest and as the ‘chief of shepherds’ (rb.nqdm). This may reflect both the business interests of the priestly class and also a source for the animal sacrifices in the temples. Van Soldt notes that the names of a dozen priests (Akkadian .“ sanga, Ugaritic khnm) recur in one syllabic text and as many as three alphabetic cuneiform texts.21 The military structure of Ugarit included named leaders (mru) as well as special classes of warriors (R 1962, 130–46). A special and well-known class of chariot warriors were called maryannu, an Indo-Aryan term. ‘First-class, experienced fighting men’ (n'rm) appear (R 1962, 138). Classes of warriors such as the “anannu also occur at Alalakh. The m≈rÀlm have already been mentioned. Although trade took place inland with other cities, Ugarit’s speciality was maritime trade as attested by its port of Ma"¢adu and the numerous texts describing royal, private and foreign trade.22 Ships with their owners and crews are named in several texts.23 1.4

Future prospects

It is clear from this survey that, despite the publication of much important work related to personal names from Ugarit, a great deal remains to be done in each of the areas discussed. Some of these matters may be listed here. It may be unrealistic to call for the listing and publication of all personal names identified in inscriptional material from Ugarit. However, it is a desirable goal because it provides the essential component for as complete an analysis of these names as possible. Such a list would lend itself to electronic storage and access. This list, along with others from archives and individual texts of the Late Bronze Age West Semitic world, would provide a useful source for analysis of grammatical and lexical features in the language groups represented by the names. The inclusion of prospographical infor-

21  S 1991a, 34, texts RS 16.126+  i: 37–8, RS 11.715+ (KTU 4.69), RS 19.86 (KTU 4.633), RS 34.123 (KTU 4.761). 22 In addition to the general studies of H and R (already mentioned), see L 1970; 1981; A 1970a; 1972b. 23 For example, RS 8.279 (KTU 4.40) and RS 11.779 (KTU 4.81).

   

515

mation would also allow for more accurate investigation into the society of the name bearers. A step in this direction has been made by D – L 1996b, which now provides a list of all personal and place names occurring in CAT.24 Among important questions of linguistic analysis that remain to be answered, the following might be included: (1) a closer analysis of the non-Semitic, non-Hurrian and non-Egyptian names with a view to their origins, (2) when do case vowels operate and on what sorts of names, (3) what divine names are present, and (4) what sort of patterns do the variations in the spellings of identical names suggest about the phonology. Among unsolved questions regarding prosopography, the following issues should be noted: (1) is there any relationship between the linguistic affiliation of the personal names and the social status or other social groupings among the name bearers in Ugarit’s population, and (2) how do the names, their language affiliations and their divine elements compare with the onomastica of nearby archives such as Alalakh and Emar? These and other questions await further investigation of the personal names from Ugarit.

2

U P N

The identification of place names in the texts from Ugarit is helped in the case of the Akkadian (and other syllabic cuneiform texts) by the presence of determinatives, such as ,  and , which signify that what follows (or in the case of , sometimes what precedes) is a land, place and town, respectively. Otherwise, context must be used to identify place names. For the alphabetic texts, no such determinative normally exists. Here context plays an important role. Place names must be distinguished from gentilics, which often appear in the same contexts. Gentilics often have a final -y, although this letter can also occur at the end of bona fide place names. Distinctions can be made by comparisons with other spellings of the same place name/gentilic (R 1978).

24

See also C – V 1995a.

516

 

As in neighbouring kingdoms, at Ugarit administrative texts tend to list some place names in the same recurring sequences. This may suggest geographical proximity of the places appearing side by side. In any case, it provides assistance in the reconstruction of partially preserved names (R 1982, X 1982d). 2.1 Site identification The study of place names at Ugarit has focused on site identification and linguistic analysis of the names themselves. The study of place names and their locations has been carried forward in numerous articles published by several scholars, especially A.25 The result has included the identification of places named from outside the kingdom of Ugarit as well as those from within. Those named within the kingdom of Ugarit are often difficult to locate as they occur in administrative lists with little additional information about them.26 The major means of identifying such sites is through the use of modern Arab names in the regions. The work of W.H.  S (1994) has identified repeated patterns in which some place names are listed. This recurrence of certain groups of place names has also been identified in the recently published Alalakh text AT 457 (W and H 1994, 503–504). This phenomenon can be related to border towns as listed in the treaties between Ugarit and Muki“ to the north and between Ugarit and Siyannu-U“natu to the south (H 1994b). Thus it is possible to associate some of the town groupings with border areas and thereby to project that groupings of other place names should be located in other identifiable regions throughout the kingdom ( S 1994, 366–8). 2.2 Linguistic analysis 2.2.1

Sources from syllabic texts

The linguistic analysis of the place names from Ugarit has been studied by S 1984. His work examines the West Semitic elements found in those names. This study will use Sivan’s analysis as a start25 In addition to A in the general bibliography, see B 1988, L 1966 and  S 1994, 1996, 1998. 26 Note the comment of P – B 1992, 715: ‘The study of Ugaritic toponymy is, however, still in its infancy.’

   

517

ing point to consider the question of the relationship of the place names in the kingdom of Ugarit with other place names, specifically those found in the neighbouring kingdom of Muki“ or Alalakh to the north. The question to be examined is the degree to which the place names in different regions of the West Semitic world use the same elements and thus duplicate themselves and the degree to which they are distinctive. In addition, consideration will be given to the cultural ramifications of this study, with special reference to the cultures of Alalakh and Ugarit. Alalakh as a neigbour to the north with a Late Bronze Age archive, provides a useful foil for purposes of comparing the linguistic makeup of the place names at Ugarit. In order to examine this question it is necessary to take a sampling of names from each region and to compare and contrast them. The criteria chosen here are those names that possess West Semitic elements. Using this sample it will be possible to observe where there are similarities between the different groups of names and where the names diverge from one another in terms of their etymologies. This may suggest information about place naming practices and also imply something about the degree of similarity of place names that one may expect between regions. The following list represents the Alalakh and Ugarit place names listed by vocable. Slight variations in the spelling of what is otherwise the same place name are not distinguished. The note, ‘etc.,’ indicates that one or more additional attestations occur at the archive:27 Vocables

Ugarit Place Names

"abu "adànu "admu "a≈dàdu "aggànu "ag(i )mu

 -a-d[a]-na-a (PRU 6, 80,7)  á“-da-di (PRU 6, 156,3)  a-ga-na (PRU 6, 102,10 etc.)  a-gi-mu (PRU 3, 11.841,13’ etc.)

Alalakh Place Names  a-bi4  (290,16)  a-bi-na (287,1 etc.)  ad-mu (341,11)

27 All Alalakh texts are identified according to their catalogue number as located in W 1953. For ZA 60 see D – L 1970. RS numbers given after PRU 3 and 4.

518

 

(table cont.) Vocables

Ugarit Place Names

"a˙nàpu

 a¢-nap-pí (PRU 3, 15.122, 18 etc.)  a-¢a-tu (PRU 6, 105,6’ etc.)  a-mur-ri (PRU 4, 17.82,9 etc.)  ap-sú-na (Ug 5, 12,20 etc.)  a-ra-ni-ya (PRU 3, 10.044,3’ etc.)  ar-dá-at  (Ug 5, 20 v.5’)  ar-mì-li (PRU 6, 78,16)  a-ri (Ug 5, 99,3 etc.)  a-ru-tu (PRU 6, 95,3 etc.)  a-ru-a-di-ya (PRU 6, 79,7,8)  ar-zi-ga-na (Ug 5, 27 etc.)

"a¢àtu "amurru "apsu "arànu "ardat(u/a) "armìlu "àru "arwàdu "arzu "a∆qàlòna "ayyalu "emar

 á“-qu-lu-nu (PRU 6, 79,9 etc.) ›..“ “a a-ia-li (PRU 4, 17.62+,20’) . e-mar (PRU 4, 17.143,13 etc.)

"¢z "ilu  ma-ra-il5 (PRU 3, 11.830,10) [].“.[“] e-la-ya (PRU 6, 29,5) "rr "ubur'u "ubùsu "ugarìtu "u¢ràyu "ummu

 u-bur-a (PRU 6, 118,6’ etc.)  u-bu-sú (PRU 3, 11.830,11 etc.)  u-ga-ri-it  (PRU 6, 24,v.8’ etc.) .“.“ “a u¢-ra-a-ya (PRU 3, 15.85,18)

Alalakh Place Names

 ap-sú-na (181,21)

 a-ra-(e) (68,8)

 ar-za-ya (298,16)

 e-mar  (161,14 etc.)  u-¢i-zi (298,45)  i-li-mi-il-ki (ZA 60 191,14)

a-ru-ri-e  (85,4 etc.)

 ú-ga-ri-it (4, 11 etc.)

 um-mu  (179,13 etc.)

   

519

(table cont.) Vocables

Ugarit Place Names

"u“nu

 u“-na-ti (PRU 4, 17.382,16 etc.)  a-ki-ya (PRU 6, 79,18)

'akkà 'ammu

'amqu 'anu 'azzùtu 'ènu

 am-mi-“á-bi4 (PRU 6, 78,15)  [i ]a-ku-na-mi (PRU 4, 17.62,13’ etc.)  am(?)-qí (PRU 4, 17.424,2)  ¢a-[n]i (Ug 5, 95,11)

Alalakh Place Names

 am-mi-ia (166,19 etc.)

 ¢a-zu-ta (191,2)  ¢e-en-ßú-ri-ya (PRU 4, 17.62,13’) 'ènuqap"at(u)  -qáp-at (PRU 3, 10.044,6’ etc.) 'imqu/'amqu  am(?)-qí (PRU 4, 17.424,2) 'ly  ya-a-li  (PRU 6, 102,7) 'ny  ia-a"-ni-ya (PRU 4, 17.62+,19’ etc.) 'ry  mu-a-ri (PRU 3, 11.790,32’ etc.) baq'at(u)  ba-aq-at (PRU 3, 11.790,12’ etc.) baßìru  ba-ßi-ri (PRU 3, 11.790,29’) bètu  bé-ta-¢u-li (PRU 4, 77,6 etc.) bi"ru  bi-i-ri (PRU 3, 16.244,7)  bi-ru-ú-ti (PRU 4, 17.341,14’ etc.) dallu dé-lu-ya (408,4) dùmatu  du-ma-tu (PRU 6, 105,5’ etc.)  du-ma-ti7-qi-[id-“i ] (PRU 6, 78,6 etc.) ≈amìru  za-mi-ir-ti (PRU 4, 17.340,7’ etc.) ≈immàru  zi-im-ma-ri (PRU 4, 17.366,13’ etc.) gabru  gab(?)-ri-n[i(?)] (PRU 6, 96,2’) galbu  gal-ba (PRU 3, 16.170,10’ etc.)

 

520 (table cont.) Vocables

Ugarit Place Names

galìlu

 ga-li-li-tu-ki-ia (PRU 6, 78,9) [] ga-mil-ti (PRU 6, 53,v.9’)  ga-ni-a (PRU 6, 70,17 etc.)  ar-zi-ga-na (Ug 5, 27 etc.)  gi5-bá-la (PRU 4, 17.335+,19)  gu-ub-li (PRU 6, 126,10)  gul-ba-ta (PRU 4, 17.340,v.6’ etc.)  ul-la-mi  (PRU 3, 16.665,5 etc.)  ul-mu-ya (PRU 4, 17.62+,12’)  ¢a-la-n[i ] (PRU 6, 96,3’)  ¢ar-kà-na-a (PRU 6, 77,5)  ¢a-ar-ma-na (PRU 3, 16.170,4’ etc.)

gamiltu gan(n)ì(a)'u gannu giba'lu gubla gulbatu hlm

˙àlu ˙arku ˙armànu ˙asìlu ˙imullu ¢aballù ¢albu

 ¢i-mu-li (PRU 4, 17.340 rev.7’ etc.) [] ¢a(?)-ba-a[l(?)-l ]a(?) (Ug 5, 45,1’)  ¢al-bi (PRU 6, 118,4’ etc.)  ¢al-bi-ni (RS 1929.1,13 etc.)

¢òtamu ¢uldu ¢urru

kappu kibùru

 ¢u-ul-da (PRU 3, 15.132,7 etc.)  ¢u-ur-ßu--i (Ug 5, 102,14’)  ¢u-ri-ka (PRU 3, 11.790,25’ etc.) ›.

ki-bu-ri (PRU 4, 17.62+,8’ etc.)

Alalakh Place Names

 ¢a-sí-lu-u¢-e (161,14 etc.)

 ¢al-ba (161,9 etc.)

 ¢u-tam-me-(na) (152,1 etc.)

[] kap-pa (133,35)

   

521

(table cont.) Vocables kina'nu kumru lab(a)nu liblànu ma"¢àdu ma'qabu ma'rabu magdalu mari"àtu marru maßßibat(u)

ma“kanu ma†qab(u) miràru mi†ru mòr(a)∆u mulukkù

Ugarit Place Names  ki-na-¢i (Ug 5, 36,,6’ etc.)  ku-mu-ri-"a (PRU 6, 164,4)  la-ba-na (PRU 6, 36,11) ›. li-ib-la-ni (Ug 5, 20,19) ma-a-¢a-di (PRU 3, 15.09 ,6 etc.)  ma-a"-qa-bu (PRU 3, 11.841,15’ etc.)  ma-ra-bá  (PRU 3, 16.247,6 etc.)  ma-ag-da-la (PRU 4, 17.62+,6’ etc.)  ma-ri-a-ti7 (PRU 6, 102,3)  ma-ra-il5 (PRU 3, 11.830,10 etc.)  ma-ßi-bat (PRU 3, 11.830,8)  ma-ßa-bu (PRU 3, 11.841,24’)  ma[“(?)]-kà(?)-na (PRU 6, 110,2)  ma-a†-qab (PRU 3, 11.830,9)  mi-ra-ar (PRU 4, 17.62+,12’ etc.) ›. ma-a†-ra-ni (PRU 4, 17.62+,10’)  mu-ur-“a-a (PRU 6, 78,7)  mu-lu-uk-ku (PRU 6, 131,6 etc.)

mutu mwk na'mu nah(a)ru

 -ma-ka (PRU 3, 11.800,9’ etc.)  [i ]a-ku-na-mì (PRU 4, 17.62+,13’ etc.)  na-¢a-[r]a (PRU 3, 16.135,4 etc.)

Alalakh Place Names  ki-in-a-ni (ZA 60 188,8)

 la-ba-ni (17,1 etc.)

 mu-tu-e (ZA 60 185,13)

522

 

(table cont.) Vocables

Ugarit Place Names

Alalakh Place Names

 na-pá-ki (Ug 5, 12,35)  na-ap-“a-ti (PRU 4, 17.62+,17’) nidàbu  ni-da-bi (PRU 4, 17.62+,14’) nqb  na-qa-bi (PRU 3, 11.790,19’) pagalu  pa-ga-lu[?] (PRU 6, 80,9) panùma pa-ni-ì“-ta-a (Ug 5, 26,16 etc.) pa“aràtu  pa-“a-ra-ti7 (PRU 6, 102,1) pi"du or pi"tu  pí-[d ]i (Ug 5, 95,18 etc.) pugùlu  pu-gul-e (PRU 4, 17.62+,18’ etc.) qadùmu qamànuzu  qa-ma-nu-zu (PRU 6, 105,7 etc.) qarìtu  qa-ra-tu (PRU 6, 95,1 etc.) qa†nu qid“u (see dùmatu) qimßu  qi-im-ßi (PRU 6, 78,11) rakbu  ra-ak-ba (PRU 3, 11.800,22 etc.) riqdu  ríq-di (PRU 6, 55,22’ etc.) rò“u  ra-a-“a-sa-ir (PRU 6, 10,8’) ryb  ta-ri-bu (PRU 3, 11.800,32’) sal¢u  sà-al-¢a (PRU 6, 20,8’) s'r see rò“u sil'u  [si ]-il-¢a-na (PRU 3, 15.138,23 etc.) siyan(n)u  sí-ia-an-ni (PRU 6, 45,8 etc.) sld  sú-la-di (PRU 6, 118,2 etc.) su'ru or suhru ßa'qu  ßa-a"-qu (PRU 3, 11.790,11’ etc.) ßà'u  ßa-"i (PRU 6, 78,13 etc.) ßibbìru ßidòna [] ßi-du-[na] (PRU 3, 11.723,2 etc.) ßinnàru  ßí-na-ri (PRU 6, 93,19 etc.) ßrr  ßa-ri-nu (Ug 5, 102,12’) napku nap“u

 qa-du-mì (145,2 etc.)

 qa-†á-na  (259,16)

 su-ú-ri (223,4)

 ßí-bi-ra (343,22)

   

523

(table cont.) Vocables

Ugarit Place Names

Alalakh Place Names

ßubù'u see ¢urru ßurru see 'ènu  ßu-ri-ya (PRU 6, 79,6) “al(i )mu “a-al-ma (PRU 4, 17.62+,23’ etc.) “amnu [] “àm-na (PRU 4, 17.368,v.3’ etc.) “˙q  “a-¢a-qi (PRU 6, 118,5’ etc) “igibìtu  “i-gi-bi-ti 7 (185,13) “m'  -i“-tam-i (PRU 6, 131, v.1’ etc.) “û  “u-ya-a (PRU 6, 111,13) “uqalu  “u-qa-lu (PRU 3, 11.800,29’ etc.) “ur(a)“u  “u-ra-“u  “u-ra-“e (PRU 3, 11.830,5 etc.) (ZA 60 185,2 etc.) tòku see galìlu tunnànu  tu-na-a-na (Ug 5, 95,20) †àbu  †á-ba-ya (342,3) †allu  †á-lu-ya (408,4) †ibàqu  †ì-ba-qu (PRU 3, 11.800,12’ etc.) †ù¢ùya  †ú-¢i-ya (Ug 5, 102,11’) ∆amràyu  “á-am-ra-a (PRU 6, 77,7 etc.) ∆t' see panùma ∆wb  am-mì-“á-bi4 (PRU 6, 78,15)  “á-ba-"i- (PRU 6, 78,12) ya'ru  ia-ar-tù (PRU 3, 11.841,12’ etc.) yaldu  ia-al-da (PRU 4, 17.62+,11’) yammu  -ya-mì (PRU 6, 144,7 etc.) yarqànu  ia-ar-qa-ni (PRU 4, 17.366,15’ etc.) yènu  ye-na (PRU 6, 119,2) yld  ia(?)-la-di (PRU 3, 15.20,3 etc.) ypr  ia-pa-ru (PRU 3, 11.800,23 etc.) ytr  e-tar-dam-[. . .] (165,3)

 

524

The following statistics pertain. There have been 148 vocables identified as contained in place names. 134 different place names from Ugarit possess one or more of these vocables. However, in some cases alternative readings require caution to be used in assuming the identification proposed. Huehnergard’s review of Sivan’s study includes the following four proposals (H 1987a, 723–5):  gi 5-bá-la may not contain the vocable giba'lu but may instead reflect  bá-la.  ¢a-ar-ma-na, associated with ˙armànu, should perhaps be read as  ar-ma-na and be normalized as "armànu, related to Hebrew "armón ‘plane tree.’  na-¢a-[r]a may be associated with the alphabetic form, n¢r( y), rather than with nah(a)ru. Finally,  ßa-ri-nu may be better associated with Ωrn than with ßrr. However none of these suggestions changes the essential identification of the 134 different place names from Ugarit with vocables from the West Semitic world. 31 different place names from Alalakh possess one or more of the West Semitic and related vocables. The smaller number from Alalakh certainly reflects the fewer texts that have been discovered and published from that site. Of the 31 different place names from Alalakh, 23 do not occur at Ugarit. 17 vocables are used for forming place names at Alalakh but not at Ugarit. Seven place names from Ugarit and Alalakh are similar; eight if one counts the name of ‘Canaan’, that is spelled in slightly different ways at the two sites. This means from 23% to 26% of this sample of names from Alalakh have duplicates at Ugarit. However, closer inspection reveals that, in addition to Canaan, Ugarit and Emar can be included among those place names that are found in both archives. Thus the number of attested parallel names from within the borders of Ugarit and Alalakh shrinks to five: ap-sú-na, a-ri (Alalakh a-ri-e), ¢al-bi, la-ba-na and “u-ra-“u (Alalakh “u-ra-“e). 2.2.2

Sources from alphabetic texts

D – L 1996b provide a comprehensive list of place names occurring in the published alphabetic Ugaritic texts. The Ugaritic alphabetic texts contain the following place names that may have syllabic parallels at Alalakh. Only those places not already identified and not obviously located outside of the two kingdoms are listed:28 28

The Ugaritic list derives from a survey of the glossary of G 1965.

    Ugaritic Place Name

Alalakh Place Name

arr (KTU 1.10 iii 30 etc.) ull (KTU 4.68:19 etc.) mld (KTU 4.346:5) 'rmt (KTU 4.355:36)

a-ru-ri-e (85:4 etc.) ul-la (308a:8) ma-al-la-ti (121:4) ar-ma-(at)-te (146:22 etc.)

525

The first site in Ugaritic, arr, may occur in a mythological text, though it is also known as a site in the southern district of Ugarit (P – B 1992, 716). However, the remaining sites occur in administrative documents. They can be identified with places in the region of Ugarit (A 1981a, 6, 9). 2.2.3

Place names along the border

In addition to well known international sites such as Canaan, Emar and Ugarit itself, the name of the same site can occur in both texts when the two archives preserve names of places along or near the border between the two kingdoms. A 1981a, 7–8 identifies several place names along or near the border between Alalakh/Muki“ and Ugarit that are found in both texts. These include: Ugarit Place Name

Alalakh Place Name

mid¢ ayly kmkty sallurba sul˙ana sal¢e arutu

ma"ad¢i baq'at-ala, aila-ma"ad kamkatiya “anur¢e “ul¢ana! sal¢e arutu“i

Since none of these overlaps with the already identified place name parallels, it suggests that the parallels already noted are authentic citations of different places within the two kingdoms rather than citations of the same place along or near the border. An examination of all place names found on the border descriptions of the two kingdom also reveals little in the way of overlap. Indeed, only one additional name, ¢alpi/¢albi/¢alba, is found in both archives. However, even if the Alalakh texts refer to the site on the border of the two kingdoms, not all of the occurrences in the texts from Ugarit refer to this border site. There are four ¢alba’s that occur

526

 

and some of them are found in the southern parts of the kingdom.29 A further source may be found in AT 457, a text from Alalakh Level IV that did not appear in Wiseman’s catalogue and could not be considered by Sivan. This is because, unlike some of the texts originally published by Wiseman and later by Dietrich and Loretz, it was published only recently (W – H 1994). AT 457 is a lengthy text of at least 68 lines of which 54 are legible. It is a census list of personal names followed by their place of origin. Four place names occur and are new to Level IV at Alalakh. Of four place names attested for the first time from Alalakh Level IV, only one, i15-ia-ar-ka-[ni ], corresponds to a place name from texts at Ugarit. It occurs on line 48. At Ugarit documents that define the border between Ugarit and Alalakh list  i-ia-ar-qa-ni as lying on that border.30 In this case it is probably the same place, lying at the border of the two kingdoms. Thus no new place names found at Alalakh are also attested at Ugarit for a separate site within that kingdom. 2.3

Conclusions

Having examined these texts a few observations may be made. First, the actual number of duplicate names is small. There are at most nine names that occur both at Ugarit and Alalakh and that may designate separate towns within the borders of both kingdoms. Thus the relation of the two kingdoms in terms of place names appears to be limited. This is surprising as the two kingdoms border one another and might be expected to exhibit similar cultures with similar naming practices. In fact, they do not and the place names are only one sign of this distinction. Various pieces of evidence that betray West Semitic naming practices are found at Ugarit but not at Alalakh. For example, the texts from Ugarit include place names compounded with alphabetic gt or syllabic gi-ti/gin-ti. These are common in place names from the Palestine and Syria of the Amarna texts and from the biblical texts (A 1974, 274–7; S 1984,

29 P – B 1992, 716 list three place names from Ugarit where homonymy occurs. In addition to the four different ¢alba’s, there are at least two places named "ar( y) and two named ayali. In both of these examples, one is in the north of the kingdom of Ugarit and the other is located in the south. 30 PRU 4, 66 and 70 = RS 17.62+, 66 and RS 17.366, 15’.

   

527

220.). No example of a place name containing this common West Semitic vocable occurs at Alalakh. The same is true for place names beginning with 'n. All these occur at Ugarit and in biblical sources but are absent in the place names from the kingdom of Alalakh (A 1974, 309; S 1984, 206, 210). This is not to assert that West Semitic influence is absent at Alalakh. It is, of course, present in personal names and specific vocabulary as well as larger literary influences. For example, as many as eight out of the 39 personal names in the administrative list AT 457 from Ugarit may contain West Semitic elements (W – H 1994). The style of the Idrimi inscription and the presence of social groups common in the West Semitic world, such as ¢up“u and ¢apiru betray the influence of this culture (H 1994a). However, it is clear that this is not so strong as at Ugarit and the place names attest to this fact. The most obvious reason for this may appear to be the geographical location of Alalakh. It is located as one of the most northerly of all the West Semitic archives of the Late Bronze Age. Thus it lay on the fringe of that influence. However, there is another factor closely related to its geographical position that may explain the lack of West Semitic influence at Alalakh in comparison to Ugarit. It has long been noted that the Late Bronze Age was an international period and that the West Semitic world of the Levant lay in the midst of this interchange, at least from the perspective of the documented evidence. This area itself was multi-cultural and reflected the mixtures of a variety of people groups. This is nowhere better attested than in the Amarna correspondence. The leaders of city-states throughout the Canaan of the fourteenth century  possessed personal names reflecting a variety of cultural origins (H 1993). Many of these were West Semitic. Some were Egyptian, reflecting the domination of the Egyptian New Kingdom and the presence of its bureaucracy. Still others, however, were northern in origin, and included personal names that could be analysed as Anatolian, Indo-Aryan and especially Hurrian. The plotting of these names and the towns and cities that they ruled on a map has revealed certain geographical patterns. For example, almost every city along the coast of Palestine and Syria in the Amarna Age had a ruler who possessed a West Semitic name. The only exception is Acco. Yet this itself is instructive because Acco lay at the western end of the most influential set of routes that cut east-west

528

 

through the hills and mountains, most notably exemplified by the Jezreel/Megiddo Plain. On this plain, within the hill country itself and throughout the Syro-Jordan Valley, the evidence is consistent that there is a mixture of names with northern names predominating among many rulers of population centres. The conclusion is that away from the coast the leadership and the dominant cultural influence of West Semitic diminished and was instead affected by northern influences. This is found both in the personal names of the rulers and also in various aspects of the material culture (Hess 1989). The same phenomenon appears in the north. Ugarit, a city near the coast and with an important port of its own, exhibited a truly international culture. Like coastal cities to the south, it preserved a strong West Semitic influence. Alalakh, however, was removed from the coast. Its livelihood was sustained by the fruitful Hatay plain which it dominated. Like the inland cities to the south, this city was also more limited in terms of the West Semitic influence that it experienced. Thus the linguistic constitution of the place names of Ugarit, when set in their immediate geographical context, suggests a strong West Semitic influence in the midst of Hurrian and other northern cultural influences.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

THE RELIGION OF UGARIT: AN OVERVIEW N W

1

I

While this is intended to be a general survey of the main features of Ugaritian1 religion, in the following discussion I shall avoid reiterating the points made by other contributors to this volume, except where I present an alternative point of view. I should also state at the outset that this study is treated in a phenomenological manner, undertaken on the basis of the integrity and authenticity of the experiences, systematizations and practices we shall be noting. It may seem odd to many readers that such an initial position-statement should be necessary, but it is a fact that the interest some scholars have shown in Ugarit, and in particular in its religious life, appears to have been for purposes of comparison of an invidious kind with biblical religion,2 where a theological agenda appears to have predetermined the outcome. This does not appear to me to be a legitimate starting point for serious research in this discipline. It certainly renders questionable any conclusions that are drawn. We should perhaps define our terms and the scope of this study. The city of Ugarit has yielded texts in a number of languages. It is probable that people speaking Akkadian, Cypro-Minoan, Egyptian, Hittite, Hurrian, Ugaritic and possibly other languages (such as Amorite and various ‘Canaanite’ forms) were resident in the city and its environs. The degree to which they intermarried, and to which

1 The term ‘Canaanite’ is best avoided here, despite common usage. For recent treatment of the issue on the cultural and linguistic levels, with references to earlier discussion, see R 1965b, G 1994, T 1994a and see references in  M 1997, 42 n. 5 (bis!). See also § 15.5.9 below. 2 This is a largely artificial construct, having only a tenuous link with the historical religion of Palestine, as a compendium of late critiques and revisionism, subsequently further removed from its historical roots by its interpretation at the hands of theologians and interpreters of the present common era.

530

 

the city culture formed a mélange of these different traditions, is impossible to quantify with precision. When referring to the witness of texts in Ugaritic, I propose to refer to ‘Ugaritic’ religion, by which I mean the broad synthesis which is apparent from the Ugaritic texts themselves, leaving aside for the present the Hurrian texts,3 which appear to reflect the interests and distinctive religious patterns of a fairly small minority, and the Akkadian texts,4 which represent broad international cultural influences, but do not appear to reflect any wholly independent ‘Akkadian’ tradition of any social sub-group. Where we may suppose that some degree of synthesis has probably taken place, or I wish to speak more generally of the population of the city or kingdom of Ugarit without isolating any one languagegroup or social sub-group, it is better to use the term ‘Ugaritian’, as denoting the broader amalgam of all the sub-groups, though the extent of this is of its nature very hard to evaluate. But we would expect the royal cultus, for example, performed in the name of the kingdom and all its citizens, that is, the kingdom’s ‘political theology’, to fall into the latter category, though almost all the relevant texts are in Ugaritic as the local dominant vernacular. Since it is inappropriate to approach the significance of one religious tradition by reference to another (as is commonly done with Ugaritian religion, which seems almost inevitably to be evaluated in comparison with ‘Israelite’ religion),5 the following observations are offered from the broad anthropological perspective that all religions are symbolic systems designed to give meaning, coherence and purpose to a community, to deal with its inherent alienation from and tension in the face of the experienced world. From this perspective, all religions are ‘true’ in that they are authentic, and offer both a legitimization and a critique of the community’s sense of identity. It is in this framework of understanding that I shall deal with the following issues: cosmology, theology (including the nature of the pantheon), mythology, royal ideology, ritual, other religious manifestations

3

See L 1968, M 1996 and § 3.3 above. Published mostly in PRU 2, 3, 4 and 6, and Ugaritica 5. See also  S 1991a, D 1996 and above § 3.1. 5 O 1969, C 1983,  M 1990. To a lesser extent a similar treatment of other ancient cultures through biblical eyes (or more correctly modern eyes claiming a biblical foundation for their prejudice) has beset many branches of near eastern study. This is perhaps a sub-branch of ‘orientalism’ in Edward Said’s meaning of the term. 4

   :  

531

(oracular systems, vows, blessings etc.), the place of religion in the experience of disease and death, and various non-textual dimensions.

2

C

2.1 The intellectual construction of the world There is no systematic exposition of the Ugaritian world view in any of the texts. They take for granted, however, a certain number of presuppositions to which incidental allusion is made from time to time, particularly in the mythological texts, so that a provisional reconstruction is possible.6 A distinction should of course be made between two modes of spatial thinking. There is evidence of a lively awareness of a real geography, amply attested in many of the nonreligious documents, such as toponymic lists, as well as the extensive diplomatic and commercial correspondance, and even impinging on the religious consciousness in geographical allusions in mythological and other narrative texts. On the other hand we should recognize their use of a symbolic geography, used for the framing of specifically theological constructions in terms of a broad Weltanschauung and the place of the divine and human realms within it. The latter may even be said to be the idiom of the interface between these realms. It is an ‘affective’ construction, even a subjective one in the strictest sense (on which see further below), used for the articulation and authentication of the real world in terms of the ideal world of mythology and cult. It is with the symbolic geography of this ideal world that we are here concerned. The binomial form of the name of the sea-god (zbl ym || ∆p† nhr), for example, suggests that as elsewhere in the ancient world, the cosmic sea was seen both as a sea stretching away from land, but at the same time as a river encircling the land, and forming its cosmic boundary. While theologically and mythologically this sea-cum-river was conceptualized as a god, probably in human form, since he had

6 See W 1987, 1996a and 1996b. The studies of T 1969 and S 1970, while devoted to the cosmology of the Bible, also contain much useful information. W 1916, 1918 give comprehensive accounts of our knowledge of west Semitic cosmology before the discovery of Ras Shamra, which the Ugaritic material now supplements.

532

 

a body described in anthropomorphic fashion which Baal could injure with his weapons (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 iv), at other times it was identified by the more neutral term thm (f.), though here another aspect of its form was expressed in its dual expression thmtm. This suggests that something akin to other ancient Near Eastern structures of the world was envisaged, in which as well as having a ‘horizontal aspect’ (surrounding the earth) the sea had a ‘vertical aspect’ (with waters above and below the earth).7 The sea-god was also identified as ltn (cf. Heb. Leviathan), though this view has been disputed,8 and was thus imagined in draconian or serpentine form. The cosmic waters served as boundary for the habitable world. The term for this, arß, is ambiguous in Ugaritic, denoting both the surface and the underworld below (cf. the ambiguity of Heb. ’ereß, though this term is often contrasted with tèbèl, not thus far attested in Ugaritic). At Ugarit, as everywhere else in the ancient world, the symbolic structure of the world was maintained in religious practice and experience, which defined the realities of myth and cult. We may even legitimately extrapolate features in such a view that are not explicit. Thus while the idea of the omphalos is not explicitly attested, it undoubtedly lies behind the conception of the cosmic mountain, Saphon (ßpn, vocalized ßapunu)9 which ontologically speaking is the reference point of all reality in Ugaritian religious consciousness. Here dwelt all the gods, probably not just Baal, but the entire pantheon, as stated in the title to KTU 1.47 = RS 1.017 (il ßpn). El’s throne stood at the centre, and he remained immobile,10 7 In Mesopotamian tradition we have the apsu (.) above and the ti’amat (temtum, tàmtu) below. The former becomes êbussow in Greek. In Gen 1:6–9 the waters above are separated from those below the firmament as dry land appears from the lower waters. In Egypt the goddess Nut (nwt: ‘waters’), an allomorph of the primordial Nu(n) (nw[n]), forms both the sky and a subterranean current, sometimes shown engraved or painted in both the lid and the base of sarcophagi. This body of water is amorphous. Land, in the form of the bn-stone (symbolized in all temple constructions) emerges from the latter, in an analogue of the biblical account. On the other hand, Ra crosses a river by day (above) and by night (below) in his solar bark. This similarity of mental structuring of the world between ancient cultures should not allow local differences such as those mentioned to be glossed over, but should also not be underestimated. For further discussions see W 1918, K 1959, N 1977, W 1996a, 1996b. 8 Contrast D 1985, 14–5 with W 1985a. A Greek reflex of this figure is found in Ladon, the serpent who guards the golden apples of the Hesperides (G 1960, ii 145–52 § 133: various classical sources cited; cf. F 1959, 236, 370). 9 See W 1995 for discussion and references. See also K 1993. 10 W 1996a, 36–43, 1996b.

   :  

533

in the idiom of the Baal cycle of myths, while the divine conflicts whose outworkings form the narrative of the myth took place all about, with constant reference back to him for purposes of validating the successive achievements of the plot. The kingship of each of the successive gods was achieved by enthronement on El’s throne, a cipher also of the role of the throne in royal ideology. El’s dwelling at the heart of reality is expressed in the allusion to his ‘sevenfold palace’ (KTU 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ v 10–2, 26–7): El replied from within the seven chambers, through the eight façades of the closed rooms.

This idiom of seven concentric boundaries surrounding a god’s shrine appears to establish its central location; it corresponds to the notion of seven barriers in the underworld of both Egyptian11 and Mesopotamian tradition,12 though this idiom is not independently attested at Ugarit. It may also be compared with the seven boundaries represented architecturally in Egyptian temples, most clearly at Edfu. The image of the god here resided in the innermost chamber (the shrine-box) of the building. A similar symbolism, though perhaps not so explicitly developed, probably lies behind the construction of the temples at Ugarit. Another recurrent description of El’s dwelling, where his tent is pitched, reads as follows (KTU 1.2 = RS 3.346 iii 4, 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ v 6–7, 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ iv 21–2, 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ i 33, 1.17 = RS 2.[004] vi 47–8):13 deities travel towards El at the source of the rivers, amidst the springs of the two deeps.

This has been interpreted14 as an underworld location, evidence of El’s deposition by the younger, more vigorous storm-god Baal. But this interpretation depends for its cogency on the restoration of KTU 1.2 = RS 3.346 iii 3, as read by KTU 2, which is gratuitous.15 It also See the gates (seven crytw) in the scenes and texts of the Book of the Dead. See the myths of the descent of Inanna (ANET 50–7) and Ishtar (ANET 106–9, CS i 381–4). The image of the centre of a sevenfold structure is perpetuated in the seven moradas of Teresa of Avila. 13 Cf. KTU 1.100 = RS 24.244.2–4. 14 See P 1955, 1987, K 1959 and O 1969. 15 The restored text reads [m∆pdm.t˙t.'nt.arß.∆l∆.mt˙.Àyrm]: [two layers beneath the springs of the earth, three expanses of the depths.] 11 12

534

 

sits uneasily with the god’s undoubted authority in the narrative poems, and his evidently crucial role in the management of kingship,16 since the king is portrayed mythically as his son. A better understanding is to see El as the supreme deity, representing the highest of a number of levels of divine authority.17 The spatial image of the passage is that of the centre of the world, from which flow four rivers (corresponding to the cardinal points) to water the earth, the whole surrounded by the cosmic sea, the two aspects of which paradoxically meet at the centre. This corresponds both to the Garden of Eden imagery of the Bible, and the ritual significance of the Jerusalem temple, where the Gihon spring supplied the water, while at the same time the river of the same name flowed round Cush (Ethiopia = Abyssinia, ‘land of the abyss’).18 We have evidence in our text of the same cosmological imagery at Ugarit. The scene just described is widely attested in cylinder seal iconography, and may be tentatively reconstructed for Ugaritic thought from the passages just cited. A tension existed between the centre, represented by Mount Saphon and its local allomorphs the city temples, and the boundary at the end of the world. The important ideological myth-and-ritual complex KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002 plays on the paradox, mythic events on the sea-shore being apparently celebrated at the cosmic centre of the temple.19 The position of Saphon as a symbolic centre in the This text occurs at KTU 1.1 = RS 3.361 iii 20 (partially restored) and at 1.3 = RS 2.[014]+ iv 35. In the former passage it clearly denotes the subterranean workshop of Kothar (his western analogues forge their artefacts in volcanoes: was Kothar’s ‘Cretan’ connection the volcanic island of Santorini?), while in the latter it appears to denote Anat’s own dwelling underneath Mount Saphon. In neither instance does it have any bearing on the location of El’s abode. 16 See P 1977. 17 Three, according to P – W 1977; four according to H 1994. 18 I am concerned not to evaluate one tradition in terms of another. But the cautious use of analogies and comparisons between neighbouring cultures (and particularly between evidently cognate ones such as the Ugaritian and Palestinian) in the area of tentative reconstruction of fragmented cosmologies is surely a valid procedure. I am happy to work in principle within the constraints outlined by M. S (1952) 135–6, though he considerably overstates the lack of connections between Ugaritic and Hebrew literature. Many of the more cautious studies of recent years have established extensive continuities between the two cultures. 19 See W 1987 for Ugaritic and biblical passages illustrating this feature. The shrine in question cannot be identified with precision, but may plausibly be identified with a royal chapel at Ugarit, or some such installation at Ras ibn Hani (where the palace extends to within a few metres of the seashore).

   :  

535

Ugaritian mind (though displaced to the north in real terms, and on the psychological principles outlined in my extended treatment of orientation,20 on which see further below for a summary, belonging to the ‘left side’, it was nevertheless architecturally replicated in the acropolitan temples) will be shown below to be also presented in another literary idiom in the pantheon list KTU 1.47 = RS 1.017 and parallels. We should not attempt a harmonization of the details of these various cosmological models. They are evidently of diverse origins, and probably go far back into prehistory and into the diverse earlier worlds of the various ethnic groups of Ugarit, and appear not to have caused any hermeneutical problems to the theologians of LBA Ugarit. Such ideas were also undoubtedly held concurrently with perfectly empirical perceptions of the real world in terms of its geography and practical application of agricultural and industrial technologies. 2.2

The experience of the world: orientation

Relating to cosmological issues is the matter of orientation. All ancient religions, like modern ones, evidence a concern for exactitude in positioning of the worshipping community (an extrapolation from individual experience), as a symbol of the community’s authentic location in the real world. Temple alignments are always significant, for instance, even if we can no longer identify the particular reasons for a given example, and the two acropolitan temples at Ugarit, usually attributed to Baal and Dagan respectively, were orientated north-south. Provisionally, we may note that storm-deity temples at other sites also have a north-south orientation, as at Ebla and Hazor, so that a common tradition may have obtained. The temple aux rhytons in the city-centre, perhaps associated with El (cf. KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258), who was perhaps a lunar deity in origin, was orientated east-west. This may be compared with later Palestinian shrines associated with Yahweh, as at Jerusalem, Arad and Lachish (temple 106). On the broader issue of personal orientation, from which these principles are developed, and the vocabulary used to express it, I have made a comparison of the Ugaritic and Hebrew vocabulary,

20

W 1996c.

 

536

with interesting results.21 Summing up that discussion, it is worth noting the following ‘canonical’ or religious vocabulary, which appears to be relatively constant: D

L

T

M

East

Ugaritic Hebrew Akkadian Arabic

qdm qedem qudmu qadam qidm qidam

‘face’, ‘in front’, ‘past’; ‘face’, ‘in front’, ‘past’; ‘front’, ‘past’; ‘precede’, ‘past’, ‘antiquity’.

West

Ugaritic Hebrew Akkadian Arabic

a¢r ’a˙ar a¢ru dabùr

‘behind’, ‘after’, ‘later’; ‘behind’, ‘after’, ‘later’; ‘future’; ‘west wind’ (√ ‘turn one’s back’).

North

Ugaritic Hebrew Akkadian Arabic

“mal semôl “umêlu “amàl, “imal

‘left’; ‘left’; (ßàpôn = ‘north’); ‘left’; ‘north (wind)’, ‘left’.

South

Ugaritic Hebrew Akkadian Arabic

ymn yàmîn “aplitum yaman, yamin

‘right’; ‘right’, ‘south’; ‘lower’; ‘south’, ‘right hand’.

The same pattern also obtains in other languages such as Sanskrit, and is probably widely attested. Facing into the past, since ‘east’, ‘past’ and ‘face’ all employ the same terminology, indicates the enormous power of memory in the construction of consciousness, and it is perhaps no accident that we can speak of ‘canonical orientation’, for it is above all in religious belief and practice, with its hallowing of tradition (the experienced and reconstructed or invented past), and repetition in ritual of established, normative patterns of behaviour, that we discern the formal impact of accumulated cultural experience on a society. The significance of the psychology to which this evidence witnesses is as follows: it is clear that memory of the past is a vital part in the life of a community. It is the past and the perpetuation of its paradigms and values which legitimizes the present.22 21

W 1996c. It is no accident that the etymological meaning of the Greek term for ‘truth’ (élhyeia) means ‘not-forgetting’. Tradition is ‘true’, and theology is ‘true’ because it is traditional. 22

   :  

537

Theology, mythology and ritual are the means whereby this memory is reinforced by constant repetition, and the unknown future can therefore be engaged with confidence. While orientation is an ultimately subjective experience, its psychological foundations are universal, and consequently, through a shared vocabulary, a measure of objectivity is obtained. Language being experienced as a given, even as ‘god-given’ in ancient psychology, the very articulation of the experience in traditional forms serves to reify it as theological ‘fact’.

3 T 3.1

The nature of the pantheon23

A useful place to start this section is with a brief treatment of the pantheon. This term has two distinct senses. Firstly it may be used to denote the complete number of deities worshipped in Ugarit, a number which can be quantified only approximately, given the uncertainty of meaning of many words in the texts, the incompleteness of the record, and other variables of this kind. It is probably fair to say that no citizen of the kingdom could have given a complete list. The modern scholar certainly cannot. Secondly we have texts which give series of divine names, and are evidently deliberate compositions, attempting to construct some kind of systematic theology. Three tablets—KTU 1.47 = RS 1.017, KTU 1.118 = RS 24.264+, and RS 20.24 (in Akkadian)24—preserve the same list, and constitute as it were a canonical group of gods, classified in KTU 1.47.1 as il ßpn, ‘the gods of Saphon’. They are of course a tiny selection of all the deities who appear in the Ugaritic texts, and the complete list may be supplemented with Hurrian25 and Akkadian divine names, while a number of Egyptian, Hittite and Sumerian names appear, and others are still probably unrecognized. 23

See also § 7.2 above. The fact that we have an Akkadian version of the ‘canonical pantheon’ is significant: it indicates that it is only with great caution that we can assume there to be fundamental differences between the Ugaritic and Akkadian linguistic worlds in terms of their theological implications. 25 See KTU 1.135 = RS 24.295, which L 1968, 508–9 (and further, 518–27) classifies as a ‘list of deities’, while KTU 2 identifies it as a ‘list (sacrifices)’. 24

538

 

Developing del Olmo Lete’s perceptive analysis,26 I have suggested in a recent study27 that the presence of a deity ßpn at a central position in the pantheon lists is a literary representation of the cosmic centrality of the mountain, whose divine status, belonging to a widespread practice of divinizing sacred localities, reinforces the same point. It lies in the middle position of three sets of seven deities, which may indeed have constituted a Vorlage (containing twenty-one names) to the present pantheon list. While as fourteenth overall it is not in the mid-most position in the entire list of thirty-three, there is a broadly chiastic structure to the full list, which further enhances this impression that the divine mountain is at the heart of all reality. This cosmological image is to be perpetuated in the later imagery concerning Mount Zion,28 and has analogues in Egyptian temple traditions, and in the architectural form of ziggurats. A pantheon list is obviously not intended to be a complete account of the divine realm, yet represents such a totality, much as the various enneads of Egyptian theology identified key deities in the great centres in a sacred number, nine being as it were ‘plurality pluralized’, and therefore a figure for totality. The thirty-three deities of the Ugaritic lists were probably based on a similar numbers game (ten times three plus three)29 also intended to encompass all gods and goddesses. Such a grouping of deities, while acknowledging the diversity of symbols and perceived realities of the deities, is also perhaps intuiting an underlying unity, also implicit in the central symbol of Saphon, where they all dwell.30  O L 1986, 1992a, 54–8 = 1999, 71–8. See also above § 7.2.2.1.2. W 1998b. 28 See W 1996a, 31–3 with reference to Ps 48:2–3. 29 The same number is found in the Vedic text B‰hadàra»yaka Upanißad 3.9.1–2. As the context of the dialogue shows, this text too is clearly exploring the question of the implications of a pluralistic symbolism in theology, and concludes that the multiplicity of deities (beginning with three thousand, three hundred and six) really points to one. The Muslim rosary traditionally has thirty-three beads on it: three rounds allow the recital of the ninety-nine names of God (S 1993, 241).  O L (1992a, 91) notes that KTU 1.148 = RS 24.643, which is based on KTU 1.47 and parallels, actually mentions only twenty-eight or twenty-nine of the gods, to accommodate the constraints of the calendar. Perhaps there is also a menological basis to the number? 30 I am not suggesting an incipient monotheism, but rather the coherence of all the deities, their conflicts notwithstanding, in a representation of the life of the community. While a pantheon is to some extent an ad hoc conglomeration of deities who come together through the hazards of history, the growth, mergence and disintegration of states, ethnic changes, migrations, and so forth, the theologians of 26 27

   :  

539

An alternative term for the comprehensive nature of the pantheon is the designation of the gods as ‘the seventy sons (probably rather “children”) of Athirat’ (“b'm bn a∆rt): KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ vi 46. No attempt should be made to argue for inconsistency in view of the discrepancy between thirty-three and seventy. Each figure is an independent numerological metaphor for totality. Similarly, the subsets in the pantheon, consisting of heptads, tetrads and triads, and a final dyad, themselves represent seven totalities on a smaller scale. Each subset stands for all the deities in a certain category, and the seven categories signify the plenitude of divine power. 3.2

Individual deities

3.2.1 The scope of individual theologies in a polytheistic context In addition to comprehensive theologies of the kind suggested above, the full range of which it is impossible to determine, there are individual theologies centring on each of the main deities. This is not the place to give an account of all of them. A number of useful studies are available on individual ones,31 and some general publications

every generation will practise some degree of rationalization, however unconsciously, intuiting meaning, imposing structure and so on. The organization of various pantheon-list traditions represents such processes. They are never static, of course, and every text revealing a structure speaks only to its own generation, constituting a historical document of conditions at such and such a time. 31 See for instance the following short selection of studies (which at times give contrary assessments, and often include discussion of biblical avatars): on Anat see K 1969, P.L. D 1991, 1992, 1995, W 1992, L 1994, C forthcoming; on Athirat see M 1986, O 1988, W 1993, W 1995a, B 1997, C forthcoming; on Athtar see M 1996, X 1996a; on Athtart see W 1995b, C forthcoming; on Baal see K 1952, V 1965,  Z 1972, W 1992a, H 1995a, N 1995; on Dagan see W 1980, H 1977, 1995a; on El, see P 1955, 1987, H 1995b; on Horon see C 1982, R 1995; on Kothar see S 1985, P 1995; on Rapiu and the Rpum (Rephaim) see C 1960, P 1970, 1972,  M 1976, P 1977, C 1987, R 1995, P § 6.4 above; on Reshef see A 1967, 310–4, F 1976, X 1995a; on Yam see F 1977,  N 1994, S 1995. This list, the disparity in the coverage of some deities over against others, and omissions from it, indicate fruitful areas of research still to be undertaken.

540

 

are also of use.32 I shall instead restrict discussion to general theological principles as exemplified in a number of representative deities. Perhaps the best place to start is with the problem of theological scope. Ugaritian religion is commonly described as a ‘fertility cult’. This perception is far too narrow—I am not even entirely clear as to what it means—and is perhaps at least on occasion unconsciously designed as a reductionistic put-down for ideological purposes. We should see in Ugaritian religion neither bad faith, nor moral obloquy,33 nor ‘crisis of polytheism’.34 These are essentially contradictions in terms in a theological context. On the contrary, we have a vigorous series of interlocking theologies, an active cult, a powerful royal ideology and a network of ritual forms which link living and dead, sick and well, good and evil, rich and poor in a homogeneous community. It is in short a typical religious system of its day, not recognizably different in kind, in my view, from Iron Age religion in Palestine.35 Deities are essentially symbolic figures, who will accrete in their personae the accumulated experience of the worshipping community. Individual deities are frequently readily identifiable with various natural phenomena or existential realities (e.g. Shapsh the sun, Yari¢ the moon, Yam the sea, Baal the storm, Kothar the apotheosis of technology, or Kinnar of the lyre, and so on). It is however a mistake to conclude a one-for-one functional relationship between deity and phenomenon. This is to reduce theology at best to allegory, at worst to triviality. The identification, often based on the name,36 is merely the cipher by which an entire range of symbolic potential is tapped. The richer the personality of the deity in myth, the richer, we may infer, is the symbolic base. And because personality, with

32 See in particular the relevant articles in ABD (F ed.) and DDD (  T et al. [eds.]). Some are listed in the previous note. Note also W 1993. 33 Thus O 1969, xi. 34 Thus  M 1986b, 1990, 69–100 = 1997, 71–102. 35 That is, a religion (or religions) as reconstructed through archaeological research and a critical and historical reading of textual evidence, biblical and non-biblical. The Hebrew Bible itself is of course a critique on earlier forms of religion, its own roots included. Cf. n. 2 above. 36 The enormous difficulty sometimes faced in trying to identify the ‘original’ meaning of a divine name (cf. the range of proposals for Anat and Athirat) should give us pause about immediate settlement for what seem like all the easier instances.

   :  

541

all its individual quirks and contradictions, is the means of expressing the theological content of the individual deity, the dramatic conflicts between deities are often represented in the most confrontational terms. It is a serious mistake to take this at face value, seeing in this apparent theological confusion evidence of either primitiveness, or worse still, theological poverty or incoherence. The richness and versatility of polytheism lies in its capacity for resolution of tensions in dramatic terms, in which deities compete in a mythic narrative as a means of expressing the anomies and antinomies of experience. People die of disease: the powerful god Reshef, the personification of pestilence, the very source of the disorder, is the one to whom the religious person turns in distress. War comes to Ugarit: Anat is the very embodiment of all its horrors, but because of her ubiquity, is at the same time represented as a nubile maiden, for whom warriors will perhaps give their all. Her ambiguity, at once attractive and repellant, is a measure of the ambiguity of the warrior’s calling. She symbolizes the utter devotion, the single-mindedness required of the king’s soldiers (and not perhaps without an erotic frisson). As goddess of the hunt (itself an important symbol of royal power) she also embodies the paradox of the love of animals with their wanton destruction. At the other end of the spectrum, there are deities of conception and childbirth, invoked for fruitful marriages and safe parturitions. These are the real ‘fertility deities’. This may be folk-religion,37 but it is vital and powerful, effective in the life of a people. As is characteristic of a pantheon, it appears in its broadest sense to have embodied in divine personae every significant reality of community and personal life, from the very substance of the world (earth, air, sky, mountains and rivers)38 to the

37 The distinguishing of different types of religion along class lines may have its uses for analytical purposes. but in my view threatens to introduce artificial boundaries where none would have been perceived. The emphasis may have been different, as also the elaboration of ritual, between the cult of the great temples and people’s (or groups’) private devotions which have left no trace. The broad nature of the religious experience, and the theological presuppositions, would have been part of a continuum, however, and not disparate units. It remains extremely difficult to estimate the nature of the experience. Texts like KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266 perhaps provide our best clue. 38 These constitute the ‘Urgötter’, the primordial powers who personify the substance of the universe. They are invoked in the messages of the gods (KTU 1.1 iii 13–4 etc.). Are they perhaps also to be identified with the dr il (KTU 1.41 = RS

 

542

practical items of everyday use (pots and pans, chairs, sheep and oxen)39 which constitute the real world of ordinary people. Musical instruments were deified, because they represented a most important point of contact with an ideal world of the inner life.40 I have selected four deities here for further comment. 3.2.2

El

A few observations on El (il, ilu) are in place here. His supreme status in the pantheon is not in dispute, in spite of some teething problems in his analysis,41 and he is the patron of kings (see further below) and ultimate ruler of the cosmos, whose constituent parts appear to have been divided between various of his sons (Baal, Yam and Mot correspond broadly in their nature and roles to Zeus, Poseidon and Hades in the Olympian pantheon). But they evidently defer to him for permission to act, and are dependent on him for the conferment of their power. The only deity who appears to defy his will is Anat, whose special case we shall consider below. Many scholars have remarked on the apparent absence of any cosmogony in Ugaritian religion. F (1965) thought he discerned two types of creation at Ugarit, divided between El and Baal. The cosmogonic status of Baal’s conflict with Yam is in dispute, and any cosmogonic overtones it bears are implicit. But El is called bny bnwt, which is commonly translated as ‘Creator of creatures’, and is certainly the father of the divine beings born in KTU 1.12 and 1.23 = RS 2.[012], 2.002. These however are theogonies rather than cosmogonies, though perhaps this neat category-distinction would not have seemed so obvious to the ancients as it is to us. More promising perhaps for a tentative resolution of the issue is the significance of El’s androgynous nature. In KTU 1.23 he is addressed by his wives as mt, ‘husband’, ab, ‘father’ and um, ‘mother’.42 1.003+.16, [1.87 = RS 18.056.17], 1.176 = RIH 78/26.16) or (the distinct group?) the dr bn il (KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002+.7, 17, 25, 33, [42], 1.65 = RS 4.474.2, 1.122 = RS 24.270[].[3]) on the analogy of the ilànù “a dàràtim (cf. C 1976, 329)? 39 KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ vi 45–54. Cf. the world of abstractions personified as so many divine realities in the ‘genealogy’ of H’s Theogony. 40 KTU 1.47= RS 1.017.32 and parallels. Cf. W 1995d. 41 Cf. references above nn. 14–15. 42 Wilfred Watson suggests to me that this may be simply an instance of parallelism. But even if we concede this for the sake of argument, the fact remains that a form of words may itself both reflect unconscious dispositions and patterns in the mind, and also generate new possibilities, which then lead the mind into further

   :  

543

From these incidental references we may infer that El is the androgynous parent of the goddesses. This invites speculation—and it must remain no more than this, on present evidence—that there lies behind the usage a myth of the kind we find in Egypt with Atum and Amun,43 and in a different form with Ptah, in Greece with Zeus and in India with Prajàpati. These androgynous deities beget-and-bear daughters, who then (except in Zeus’ case) serve as wives for further divine reproduction. Now the point of these traditions is that they are clearly cosmogonic, in spite of the apparently theogonic element (that is, the distinction breaks down in practice). Atum’s children, for instance, are the ‘Urgötter’, the primaeval gods who actually embody the substance of the land of Egypt. In fact we err in distinguishing too sharply between the two aspects of creation (cosmogony and theogony), as suggested above, because such differentiation belongs to later ages of greater abstraction in metaphysics. The wholly sexual imagery of the ancient forms is as much an account of how the world began as it is of human origins.44 It is just that the metaphor has frozen half-developed into abstraction. 3.2.3

Athirat

A well-attested iconogram which perhaps represented Athirat (a∆rt, El’s daughter-wife) is the hand, appearing on cylinder seals,45 and later an important symbol of the Punic goddess Tanit.46 Is this perhaps a pointer to an analogue of the Egyptian titles of the chief queen as ‘the god’s hand’, which may have had ritual significance, symbolizing the daily sexual re-creation of the world? It appears that Asherah in Judah at least had such a symbolic dimension, whatever is to be made of it, since she is both the deity’s daughter, and his wife, and is described as ‘the work of his hand . . . fingers’ (Ps. 19), where both phrases have undoubted phallic overtones. This is

avenues. The whole cognitive content attributed to theological language is in my view largely if not wholly of this kind: the very existence of the word reifies the idea. Thus unicorns and dragons (and gods!) exist in the imagination, because we have imagined them. 43 Particularly in his aspect as Amen-Apet, the self-generating god of Djeme (Medinat Habu), who appears as the ithyphallic deity of the Theban cult. 44 Such mythological forms are precisely the outworking of the subjectivity we noted above, in discussing orientation, which must be the starting point of all experience 45 See S 1983. 46 H – H 1979.

 

544

admittedly all circumstantial, but enables us to build up a tentative picture of a powerful creator god whose prehistory is confidently to be linked to Ugaritic El.47 His making of the world is essentially expressed through the metaphor of his paternity of the divine principles of its constituent parts, the enveloping chaos included. The goddess Athirat has attracted considerable interest among scholars, in particular because of her presence (in the form Asherah) in the Hebrew Bible. Her evident role as Yahweh’s consort has recently been broadly accepted. The pair Yahweh-Asherah seem to point back to the Ugaritian pair El-Athirat. In the latter context her role has been much debated. In KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002—we appear to have a triad of goddesses, Athirat, Rahmay and Shapsh, and I have argued that the former two are geminated forms of the third (see further below). This would imply that Athirat is a sun-goddess, as also argued for instance by Binger. But Athirat’s particular significance in both KTU 1.23 (with her associates) and in KTU 1.4–6 = RS 2.[008]+, 2.[022]+, 2.[009]+ (independently) is in the context of royal ideology. It is here that the significance of her title rbt (Akk. rabìtu), ‘Great Lady’, is significant, used also of Rahmay in KTU 1.23.54.48 This title denotes the dowager queen, who appears to have had an important ritual and ideological function, corresponding to that of the G ebîrâ in the Palestinian kingdoms. The goddess is the divine embodiment of the principle— perhaps mythic rather than real by the LBA—that the incumbency of the throne is transmitted through the female line, a king being legitimized by his maternity and then by marriage to an incarnation of this same divinity. 3.2.4

Baal Hadd

Another important deity who deserves mention is the storm-god. He is most frequently referred to by the title Baal (b'l, ‘the Lord’, or ‘the Master’), but is the great Amorite storm-god Hadd (hd, hdd, ‘the Thunderer’),49 worshipped widely throughout the Fertile Crescent. It 47

See M.S. S 1990, 7–12. It also refers to the dowager queen, presumably with the same ideological role, in the neighbouring kingdom of Amurru. See the divorce correspondence, PRU 4, 125–48. On the considerable role played by queens, enthroned and dowager, in Ugaritian politics, domestic and foreign, see below, §§ 15.6.1.2, 15.6.6.2. 49 The Ugaritic form is hd, var. hdd; in Aramaic he is Hadad, and in Akkadian Adad, where the initial [h] is unrepresented in the syllabic script. In Egypt he is 48

   :  

545

has been customary to describe him above all as a fertility god, and indeed he is master of the rains, thunder and lightning. But this should not be construed as exhausting his character. The sheer range of his titles50 indicates the richness of his conception.51 He is ‘Lord of Saphon’ (b'l ßpn), a position of monarchical power, but one to be construed within an economy ultimately controlled by El. I have argued that Baal’s throne on the mountain is his by right of conquest from Yam, but had been given to the latter by El himself. It is thus a delegated monarchy, which indeed not only derives from El, but is in turn transmitted, through the myth of Athtar’s enthronement, to the earthly kings of Ugarit. It is thus appropriate that the storm-god is also ‘Lord of Ugarit’ (b'l ugrt), the patron and protector of the city, as eloquently evoked in KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266. As champion in the Chaoskampf, Baal is the type of the king as military hero.52 Furthermore, the language of the storm is the conventional idiom for describing theophanies (as for instance in Ps. 29), and thus a sign of his grace to his devotees. This motif, of divine compassion, is also evident in the episode of his intervention on Danel’s behalf (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 15–33). We almost discern, in the localized form of such apparently pluralistic language, the polytheistic idiom for the examination within one divine reality of the tensions experienced in the processing of the real world. That is, Baal, and any other deity active in such a narrative context, is essentially a cipher for the tensions inherent in El himself in the worldprocess. This is therefore a kind of process theology. 3.2.5

Mot

A god somewhat neglected in discussion is Mot (mt).53 He is conspicuous by his absence from the ritual texts, and it is apparent that identified with Seth. Thus the Mami stela from Ugarit (RS 1.[089] + 2.[033] + 5.183) invokes ‘Seth of Saphon’. See Y 1991, 328 fig. 8a. 50 See W 1992, where some twenty-one titles and a further five possible ones are discussed. 51 The judgment of O 1969, 1, that ‘no strange god, however, is depicted more (sic) wicked, immoral, and abominable than the storm god Bacal Hadad . . .’ is not very helpful, except as an example of the kind of attitude deplored in my opening paragraph. He might be defended on the ground that he is merely voicing the biblical prejudice to demonstrate the clash of ideologies, but the rest of his study indicates that he shares it. 52 See W 1998a. 53 For a useful survey see H 1995b.

546

 

no cult was offered to him. He is not mentioned in any pantheon list, and yet features significantly in the Baal cycle of myths. This makes him the more interesting as a deity not so much of the practical life of Ugaritian religion as of its broader metaphysics. On one hand it is not at all surprising that death should be deified, as this is entirely in keeping with the observations of G (1993) in his sophisticated development of the animistic principle. To give a perceived external reality (and especially an external threat) a human face is an effective technique of management: know your enemy (and his name) and you have some defence against him. On the other hand, cult is precisely the response of a practical theology to this need: feed you enemy and you have him in your hand! So why was Mot not worshipped? In a sense he is quite different from that considerable class of chthonian deities and demons who were explicitly managed by cultic procedures in order to control the threats they posed. But Death, itself comparatively rarely personified in the ancient Near East, stands apart. The analogue-figure of Hades, noted above, is not in fact a strict parallel in conception, for he is rather the location and condition of the dead who is collectivized. With Mot the very concept of death is personified. The chief mythological context in which the character Mot appears is in KTU 1.4–6 = RS 2.[008]+, 2.[022]+, 2.[009]+. His role in the narrative has been characterized by P – W (1977) as essentially a doublet54 of the Baal—Yam conflict. It is certainly striking that in view of the wide incidence of the Chaoskampf throughout Eurasia (Amorite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, Hittite and Israelite [biblical] versions are attested, apart from a whole nexus of Indian and Iranian versions), the myth of Baal’s conflict with Mot is unparalleled. Is it too bold to suggest that the very deification of Death as an antagonist of Baal, the god who brings life, is the literary invention of Ilimilku, for his own purpose of sandwiching the myth of Baal’s palace-construction between acosmic threats to it from before and after?55

54 The suspicion that this is the case is strengthened by the fact that similar royal titles are applied to both: Yam is mdd il, Mot is ydd ilm. On the sense of this see W 1985b. Note also that Mot himself compares his appetite with maritime creatures. See in particular my suggestion at KTU 1.5 i 14–6: W 1998c, 116 n. 11. 55 See W 1998a for the rationale of this observation.

   :  

547

This is not to attempt any reduction of Mot’s importance to one literary composition. Rather does it highlight the role of the theologian (Ilimilku was high priest, chief of the temple herdsmen and the king’s sacrificer: KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ vi 55–6)56 in the very initial conceptualization of new metaphysical experience. Many deities presumably had specific historical origins, however hard it may be to identify them. Be this as it may, for it remains conjectural, the divine existence of Mot, yet apparent cultic non-existence, suggests a deity in transition, in process of development. In at least a loose way, he may be linked with the Hebrew constellation of Sheol, itself an inchoate personification of the experience of death, and such biblical figures as Ràcèb, Belial and Màwet, the last-named his precise counterpart. The agricultural significance often attributed to Mot, as a fertility deity, is naturally to be entirely discounted on my interpretation.57 3.2.6

The problem of an adequate assessment of ancient deities

The characters of the gods in the mythological texts have frequently been treated with less than sympathy in modern studies. Thus H (1994, 125–6) calls Baal a ‘strong, virile dolt’ and Anat ‘a spoilt child’,58 while El is construed as a coward in the face of Anat’s tantrums.59 These estimates, little better than the old allegorical identifications which were once fashionable,60 are theologically quite inadequate however, and simply a misconstruction of what mythology and theology within a polytheistic world-view strive to achieve. To begin with, the trickster figure, or the deity who is the butt of humour and figure of fun has an honoured place in religious history.

56

On Ilimilku’s substantial role see § 13.4.2 below. See discussion of KTU 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ ii 30–5, v 11–6 in W 1998c, 135–36, 141 nn. 83, 108. 58 Cf. M 1989a, 477: he claims that ‘A ruthless mysogynist (sic!) and a creature of passion, Anat is a goddess who never “grew up”. She personifies for the poet all that is corrupt and contemptible in Raphaite culture and society’. On pp. 478–9 he writes of ‘the complacent . . . Raphaites, in their passionate devotion and voluntary bondage to a bloodthirsty goddess, are in fact on a path to self-destruction . . .’ Such judgments entirely fail to recognize the logical place of negative principles in a pantheon. To interpret the goddess as a cipher for a corrupt society is absurd: she is entirely the opposite, a sign of the vitality of its moral theology. 59 P 1997a, 254 n. 105. 60 Cf. Gaster’s identification of most of the deities in the Baal cycle of myths with various forms of water, or the vegetation theories of Virolleaud, Dussaud, et al. For references and critique, cf. W 1996a, 144–50. 57

548

 

Such characters reflect the human experience of the incongruous. The contradictions present in the deities of the pantheon are, moreover, faithful reflections in the mythic idiom of contradictions in the real world. Their dramatic interaction in the myths (such as the fights between Baal and Yam, or Baal and Mot, or Anat’s confrontations with El) do indeed reflect a degree of ‘theological relativity’, but this is a strength, not a weakness, in polytheistic thought. For all the anomies of human experience can be worked out ‘intrapantheonically’ through the medium of the mythic narrative, and the broad principle of divine power is not compromised. Anat’s encounter with Aqhat, seen from a theological perspective, warns of the dangers of trifling with the unpredictable and autonomous divine. It may be compared with the story of 2 Sam. 6:1–8, where the modern reader’s sympathy goes out to Uzzah, but in so doing misreads the narrative. Furthermore, this kind of theology, explored almost exclusively in mythological, narrative idiom, or in hymnody which reflects courtly and diplomatic language, is the only medium open to the ancient cultures, before the development of elaborate abstractions of thought.61 The considerable strains that theodicy places upon monotheistic conceptions of the deity, over which the modern systematic theologian agonizes so inconclusively, do not arise.62 The dissonance between ideal and reality is swallowed up in a pragmatism towards and acceptance of the real world. It is futile to criticize this outlook for failing to achieve insights only realized a millennium or more later. Whatever else it may have become as a result of the ever-widening scope of symbolic activity and the expansion of human consciousness, the religions of the early urban civilizations of the near east were very largely a complex system of social, economic and environmental management. Their very longevity is evidence of their efficacy. The besetting sin of too much contemporary scholarship is to look no further than the surface-character of ancient deities,

61

Only Greece appears to develop such language systematically, and even here the narrative mode is the normal discourse of theology. Homeric and Hesiodic thought is expressed in this way. But to sensitive readers, all these ancient thoughtsystems are straining at the limitations of language, and relentlessly pushing forward the boundaries of experience and articulacy. 62 The problem arises out of our academic desire to read systematic theology into the ancient traditions. We then read inconsistencies into the apparent dissonance between different poetic metaphors. This is a measure only of modern, not of ancient incapacities.

   :  

549

and to fail to recognize the depth of the symbolic dimension. And the gods of Ugarit have suffered from this more than most.63 3.3

Demonology

It is in such a perspective that we should mention briefly the presence of demons. I have dealt with these (W 1998b) as essentially transient figures, frozen in the snapshot of a particular context reconstructed through the chance discovery of texts, but more realistically gods in the making or the unmaking, so that a longer perspective would tend to see them either disappearing or achieving divine status. Deities such as Reshef and Horon, of distinctly ‘demonic’ form, being reified horrors, have probably been given pantheonic status as a means of controlling them on the principle outlined above. Some, of course, would hover anonymously on the fringes of religious experience for considerable periods of time, to terrify successive generations of the victims of their attentions, eventually to be tamed by either the powers of exorcism or advances in medicine.

4 4.1

M General considerations

My object here is not a detailed analysis of the individual mythic narratives from Ugarit. This has been amply covered elsewhere.64 Instead a few remarks may be helpful on mythological matters generally, in order to help us appreciate the Ugaritian mentality. It is a feature of all cultures that they express their sense of community identity in the form of narratives. All early historiography, accounting for a people’s present as the product of their past, is in narrative form. Frequently, as is well known, it is clear that myth, legend and ‘real’ history are mingled quite indiscriminately in such compositions. This is certainly the case with any historiographical 63 Any treatment of Yahweh that stopped at the surface would be rightly judged as superficial and inadequate. Scholars (= theologians!) are careful to probe behind Yahweh’s bad temper, his petulance and changes of mind to the symbolic power of this literary imagery. The Ugaritic deities deserve no less. 64 See also section § 6.1 above. For representative bibliographies on all the mythological texts from Ugarit see the heading to each text in W 1998c.

550

 

texts surviving from the ancient near east, including the historiography of the Hebrew Bible. No historiography as such survives from Ugarit, though I have argued65 that the king list in KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257+, now probably in the context of a series of names for invocation in the accompanying litany, reflects a mentality quite capable of drawing up a formal list of this kind, and in so far as it is in all probability a selective list, of making discriminatory judgments about the historical worth of individual people and events. So this is a matter of arguing not for any kind of archaic mentality, on the basis claimed by Lévy-Bruhl66 or Frankfort,67 but rather as proposed by Donald,68 who argues for increasingly complex forms of memory and memorizing with early human development; Ugaritian thought, like all other ancient ones in principle from the earlier literate period,69 had not yet developed techniques of analysis and abstraction. Narrative, therefore, is the recognized mode of dealing with a variety of issues, not least the problems arising in the moral and political life, questions of identity, origins, of authority and ideology (see above) and even of everyday matters like birth, puberty, marriage and death. Myth is the classic medium for representing and resolving such matters and their inherent problems. Through contemporary religious discourse (particularly credal, liturgical, hymnic and the reading of ‘Scriptures’—ancient religious texts) exactly the same pattern of mental processing is carried on today. Indeed the same strategies are pursued today in forensic and commercial contexts, and not merely religious ones, where precise forms of words not only convey precise nuances of meaning, but carry a peculiar authority (legal, con-

65

W 1998a, 1998c, 402–3 n. 13. L-B 1922. Note Margalit’s welcome comment (M 1989a, 10 n. 7). 67 F 1949. For critiques of the views of the Frankforts see R 1974 and W 1996a, 388–98. 68 D 1991, 152. He postulates the following stages in the capacity to memorize: procedural, episodic and semantic. Consciousness is rudimentary in the second of these stages, while the third is dependent on human language and consciousness. 69 The development of writing itself no doubt lent a powerful consciousness to the acts of writing and reading the written word. At a stroke, as it were, the memories of past generations could be preserved, and worlds opened up far vaster than the restricted scope of oral tradition, itself already a powerful tool. The recording of the Ugaritic myths hints at an authoritative text: the very words of the gods were now available independently of the inspiration of the individual poet. There is no clear evidence for the ritual use of writing in Ugarit, though legal texts witness to its inherent binding power. 66

   :  

551

tractual, religious) and are deemed to ‘bind’ people into a system of mutual interdependence. This is the ‘linguistic world’ in which we live. In principle little has changed over the millennia. We may have only a small fraction of the Ugaritian (or even the Ugaritic) myths, and this is due to the good fortune that priestly and royal archives recorded them. Many others would have been transmitted orally, with consequent loss, or the unlikelihood of being able to recover them from later records which have distorted them too much. Where a cognate relationship can be established, as between texts KTU 1.23 and 1.24 = RS 2.002, 5.194, their second millennium congeners70 and later derivatives,71 there has usually been substantial modification. The same is true of the Chaoskampf tradition, which now has a continuous pedigree running from third-millennium Eshnunna through to mediaeval Europe.72 This material is in my view directed primarily at the support of the institution of kingship, though of course it is entirely probable that more generalized mythology was also extant, as indicated by texts such as KTU 1.92 = RS 19.039+, and by such applied myths (generally in relation to medical matters) as are mentioned below. 4.2

The role of Ilimilku

This is perhaps an appropriate juncture at which to comment on the importance of the role of Ilimilku, to which I have already drawn attention above and in previous discussions.73 Its significance here is not so much historical or literary-critical as religious. For here we are able to pinpoint the contribution of a historical individual, whose identity would ordinarily have been entirely lost to us, to specific developments in the religion of an ancient culture. The naming of an author in documents of this period (apart from royal proclamations, and diplomatic, legal and epistolary texts) is quite exceptional, and the accident of the survival of his name in the colopha of different mythical texts affords us an unrivalled opportunity to enquire into his mind and motivations. It is entirely reasonable to take account

70

A 1967, 154–60. W 1996a, 219–68, where it is argued that they constitute the Vorlage of Pss 2, 8, 19, 110, Gen. 16, 19:30–8, Hos. 2, Ezek. 16 and 23. 72 W 1998a. 73 W 1997, 1998a. 71

552

 

of Ilimilku’s priestly and administrative roles, and to conclude that he had a substantially authorial role in the construction of the narratives of the Baal myths, and the Keret and Aqhat stories.74 It is this that is so unusual. We can examine his motivations, for example, in the elaborate building up of the already ancient Chaoskampf motif, now first evidenced a millennium before his time in texts from Eshnunna, and already with widely dispersed congeners in the second millennium (Hatti, Mari, Babylon, India). A case may be made for Ilimilku himself being the author, in the strict sense of inventor and originator, of the conflict between Baal and Mot (KTU 1.5–6 = RS 2.[022]+, 2.[009]+)75 which constitutes the echo of the struggle between Baal and Yam (KTU 1.1–2 = RS 3.361, 3.346, 3.367). This narrative has no parallels elsewhere, and appears to be a construction designed to present a chiastic framework round the central episode of the ‘Baal cycle’, the story in KTU 1.3–4 = RS 2.[014]+, 2.[008]+; that is, its whole raison-d’être is explained by the central narrative. This construction points to the episode of Baal’s ‘palace’ (sc. temple) as the primary element in the mythic story. But further elements in the story, and some of the features it has in parallel with Keret and Aqhat, suggest that the authorial intention is not so much to celebrate the construction of Baal’s temple (though an aetiology certainly exists here, and indeed the liturgical elements to be discerned in this narrative point to some such celebration in the cultus) as to see it as a legitimization of royal claims. Royal ideology as much as theology in the more conventional sense is therefore Ilimilku’s main concern. The cult of Baal would benefit mutually, in that he appears as the patron of the dynasty. Similar intentions appear to lie behind the Keret narrative. It is in all probability a traditional tale, as many have noted. Some of the constructions put upon it are however not entirely plausible. Thus it has been seen on the one hand as the aetiology for the descent of the dynasty of Ugarit from ‘Octavia’,76 the youngest daughter of 74 The same point is made by M. Korpel in her useful treatment of Ilimilku (K 1998, 87–8). 75 The double nature of the construction is discerned by W 1973 and P – W 1977. None of these writers actually attributes the composition of the Baal-Mot conflict to Ilimilku himself, however. 76 For my alternative interpretation of the term ttmnt, see W 1998c, 211–12 n. 155.

   :  

553

Keret by Hurriya. On the other it has been argued that it is intended to cut the royal ideology down to size by denying its extravagant claims of divine kingship.77 Neither view is in my estimate correct: rather is a curse visited upon the youngest daughter because of her sib-solidarity with the accursed Yasib, while the comparison of Keret with gods who die (sc. Baal) is precisely a way of showing that both national deity and national ruler share a theological trait. In the final analysis the cursing of Keret’s line may be the prelude to the assumption of the throne by another line. I shall take up this point below. Our present concern is the theological significance of Ilimilku’s role. As propagandist for the king, he actually creates theology for his age, thus influencing and modifying the thoughts of his contemporaries and of subsequent generations, just as an influential systematic theologian such as Luther or Calvin can have a significant impact on his culture, or as Homer or Hesiod had on early Greek theology. As for the historical context of Ilimilku, this is in process of a revaluation, thanks to the discovery of the Urtenu archive in the southern zone of the city. Thus far we have had no more than hints of the need for reassessment of the evidence, and await the publication of these new texts to lend substance to it. Traditionally the poet-scribe has been dated to the reign of Niqmaddu II, and my attempts to give an estimate of him (W 1997, 1998a, 1998c, 35–6, contrast 21 n. 6) have been on this basis. For a preliminary attempt at interpreting the new material, see S below, §§ 15.6.1.1 and nn. 284, 289, 15.7 and n. 340. His displacement, as appears likely, to the time of Niqmaddu III, will require some adjustments (though not radical ones) to my assessment, since both accessions appear to have followed from some kind of internal political crisis, and these will appear in UF. 4.3 4.3.1

Two myths from Ugarit

KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002

Two further important mythological texts may be discussed here briefly, since they are only touched on elsewhere in this volume.78 The first, of the greatest historical importance, is KTU 1.23 = RS 77 78

P 1977. By G, above § 6.1.

554

 

2.002. It was found in the ‘high priest’s house’ on the acropolis in the second season, in 1930. The edition princeps was published by V 1933. The particular importance of the text was immediately recognized, and a number of studies has been devoted to it.79 The tablet was found in two parts, and the smaller piece, which constitutes the first five lines of the recto, was broken in half vertically, with the right hand portion missing. The result is that the latter half of ll. 1–5 is missing, as is the latter half of ll. 72–5 on the verso. Part of l. 71 is also missing. On the recto a plaque has also broken away from the lower part of the right side, destroying the ends of ll. 16–25 and the corresponding line-ends on the verso, while also on the verso there is some surface damage just below the centre. Several lines have been scored across the tablet, following ll. 7, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 27 and 29 (all on the recto), thus dividing the text into ten sections, of which the last is equal in length to the nine previous ones combined. While a number of purposes appear to have lain behind such lines in various contexts, in the present instance they appear to mark off separate parts of the text which in the earlier part (ll. 1–29) consists of different rubrics, short narrative passages of ritual significance, lines of hymns to be sung (perhaps just the opening lines to prompt cantors), and ritual instructions. From l. 30 to the end (the bottom edge and the verso of the tablet) the text consists of one narrative poem, though here too a ritual instruction appears in the narrative at l. 54. The contents are as follows: I 23.1–7 Hymnic introduction invoking the gracious gods (cf. VIII); [ ]; summons to feast (sc. sacrifice); greetings to assembled personnel (including king and queen); description of opening scene, with figure of Mt-w-”r seated disconsolate and sterile, rod80 in hand. 79

The following translations and studies have also been published, among others: V 1933, G 1935, G 1946, 1950, 225–56, 1961, 418–35, G 1949, 57–62, 1977, 59–64, L 1949, J 1962, 80–4, A 1964, 58–62,  M 1972 ii 17–24, 1987, 117–28, T 1973, 1978, X 1973, C – S – H 1974, 353–79, T 1974, W 1977a, 1987, 1992b, 1996a, 224–9, 1998c, 324–35,  O L 1981a, 427–48, C – M 1982, L… 1986a, S 1986, F 1987, H 1989–90, S 1993, A 1994, 189–92, W 1994a, P 1997a, 274–83, D 1998. 80 Or perhaps ‘rod’, since the term is undoubtedly ambiguous.

   :   II III

555

23.8–11 23.12

‘viticultural’ ritual involving Mt-w-”r. Instruction for sevenfold recital of the mythic narrative (sc. ll. 8–11), and command to the priests to respond. IV 23.13–5 Allusion to the ‘vast steppe’ of Athirat and Rahma (cf. IX), and sevenfold performance of a culinary ritual and of censing. V 23.16–8 Narrative of Athirat and Rahmay setting out [ ]; invocation of their names. VI 23.19–20 Reference is made to the eightfold, sevenfold [ ] of the gods’ dwellings. VII 23.21–2 Mention of the precious stones and garments of the choristers. VIII 23.23–7 Hymnic introduction (cf. I above), invoking the gracious gods, their suckling and rituals (of purification after birth?). IX 23.28–9 Further allusion to the ‘vast steppe’ of Athirat and Rahmay (cf. IV) [ ]. X 23.30–76 Main mythic narrative: El goes to the seashore, meeting two figures (sc. goddesses?), apparently sitting on a cauldron, who address him as ‘father’ and ‘mother’; he has an erection, removes them and takes them to his house. El’s penis appears to be identified with (or at any rate to evoke) the rod mentioned earlier (I); after banter about his potency, El makes love to the two goddesses. He sits and counts the months until they give birth to Shahar and Shalem, and rites of purification are performed. The same narrative of the conception, counting and birth is repeated. This time the offspring are called ‘the gracious gods’. Gluttonous from birth, the two young gods wander off with gargantuan appetites, devouring everything in sight, for seven years. Coming in from the desert, they call on the guardian of the sown land, who makes an entry for them, and responding to their request, offers them food and drink. Readers familiar with the text will appreciate that even in giving a synopsis a number of interpretative choices have been made. Most

556

 

of these have been hotly debated over the years, and they are not all by any means settled. In this author’s view, the ‘gracious gods’ are in fact Shahar and Shalem, the twin sons of the sun-goddess Shapsh, who is geminated for narrative effect and cosmological reasons into the goddesses Athirat and Rahmay.81 Thus only two gods, twins, are to be understood as born to the goddesses, rather than a series of births, which would understand this to be a general theogony. Note is also taken here of Tsumura’s reinterpretation of ll. 49–58,82 which restores the tricolon of ll. 56–7 to a position following ˙m˙mt in l. 51, and interprets it as a counting of months of pregnancy, rather than a fivefold repetition of the impregnation (which with the two described, was formerly understood to give seven overall on the previous interpretation of the the text).83 This is an interesting instance of a text which explicitly combines myth and ritual.84 It therefore seems to envisage a specific application of the myth to a specific ritual context (though that is not identified in the text). In view of the congeners, however, it is probably safe to conclude that any specific application is secondary, and applies to the given context in which it appears a symbolic force to be discerned in the theoretical prototype. While a number of similar myths are told in the ancient near east, of which several are evidently cognate, we cannot hope to recover the original myth, which being absolutely archetypal, must go way back into prehistory. It is even fair to say that if myths are traced back to their origins, only two basic types require to be posited, dealing with conflict (and all resolution of tensions) and reproduction (and by extension other ‘origins’). Here is the primal tale about how the first children were begotten. Other birth-myths, such as KTU 1.12 i = RS 2.[012] and KTU 1.24 = 5.194 (below), are essentially versions of the same theme, adapted to different specific secondary contexts. I have dis-

81 See W 1998c, 333 n. 49, and also my more extensive treatment in W 1996a, 219–82, in which I examine the text in the larger context of its ancient near eastern congeners and biblical derivatives. The latter range indicates the ideological importance of the tradition. See also A 1967, 154–7. 82 T 1978. See also W 1994a, and W 1998c, 332 n. 45. 83 Cf. C – S – H 1974, 376,  O L 1981a, 446. D, above § 5.1.1, retains the older understanding. 84 Contrary to the assessment voiced by  M 1971, 30, I do not feel compelled to accept that all myths are inseparable from rituals. The situation is infinitely more complex. For a recent collection of views see S 1998.

   :  

557

cussed a number of biblical derivatives,85 and here the common element is the same, but with a marked bias towards a royal significance. This is to be expected, since the king, as sacral figure, would tend to have concentrated in his person all the symbolic values of his community. P’s (1997a, 274) assessment that it deals with ‘a pair of relatively minor deities’ is a fair reflection of current opinion on the text, but in my view underestimates their considerable ideological importance as ‘royal gods’, who reflect in their mythology certain important constants. Assessments of the text range from that offered by C – M (1982) as a famine-relief liturgy, by L 1949, L… 1986a and S 1986 as a ‘fertility cult’ myth, to that of P (1997a) as a possible analogue or component of an autumnal vintage and new year festival (cf. KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003+). This divergence of views is natural, given that features of all these types may be discerned; nor are they incompatible with my royal assessment. Further analysis is undoubtedly required. D M (1987, p. 117) has defined the text as a sacred marriage text. This too is reasonable in so far as it actually deals with a marriage, but we need to be clear what ‘sacred marriage’ (hieros gamos) means, and the use of the term sometimes implies that the same kind of significance is to be applied in all cases, as though it is just a tantric use of sex in the cult. It is here that I think the royal dimension is important, and enables us to clarify matters. A mythic paradigm is established here which is used to convey basic notions about the concern of the chief deity for the created order, and the implicit identification of his offspring with kings becomes the means whereby royal duties are represented as actualizing the theological programme.86 4.3.2

KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194

The second text I wish to treat briefly here is KTU 1.24 = RS 5.194, the so-called Nikkal poem, treating the marriage of Nikkal and the moon.87 While complete, the surface of this tablet is eroded 85

W 1996a, 232–68. W 1998c, 325. The myth may not unreasonably be compared with the patriarchal narratives of Genesis, which though written in an entirely different idiom deal with precisely the same theme, that of national survival. 87 The following translations and studies have appeared, among others: V 1936b, G 1937, 1977, 65–67, A 1939, 1964, 63–4, G 1939, 86

558

 

to such an extent that many readings remain uncertain. The text falls into two parts. The first consists of a mythic narrative in which the goddess Nikkal (the Hurrian form of Sumerian .) is seduced by the moon-god, appearing as Yarih, but in all probability the Hurrian moon-god Kusu¢. He then seeks her hand in marriage, and after a number of attempts have been made to fob him off with alternative brides, the wedding is performed, with the requisite payment of bride-price and dowry, both costs borne by the bridegroom himself. The second part is a hymn to the Kotharat, the goddesses of weddings and childbirth. G 1941 understood the myth to be Hurrian, while  O L 1991 has maintained its Sumerian origin.88 Both views may be right of course, since Hurrian religion adopted many features of the cults of the fertile crescent. It is ‘hurrianized’, and no doubt with particular adaptation to the Ugaritian milieu. But I shall suggest an alternative source just below. A Babylonian version89 appears to be part of a childbirth ritual, to ease a difficult parturition. The presence of the hymn to the Kotharat on the same tablet suggests that in the present instance too this may have been the purpose of the myth, though this too is undoubtedly a secondary application of the narrative. I have long wondered whether the myth itself may be related to the narrative of Gen 34 (the story of Dinah and Shechem), for which I have proposed an Indo-European origin, since it is remarkably close to some Vedic material. The possibility that marital circumcision may have been practised in Ugarit (though not referred to specifically in the present text) would support this suggestion.90

G 1941, H 1949a, T 1953, D 1956, 125–7, J 1962, 77–9, H 1968, C – S – H 1974, 381–97, W 1977b, G 1978, 128–9,  O L 1981a, 449–56, 1991,  M 1987, 141–5. 88 See too the interesting discussion of other versions of this myth by A 1967, 80–92, though he did not include KTU 1.24 in his coverage. 89 A 1967, 85, B 1936. 90 On Gen 34 see W 1990a; on circumcision at Ugarit see W 1992b. On the possibility that the present text does in fact deal with circumcision, see A forthcoming, where it is argued that mlk qΩ (ll. 2, 17, 24) denotes the ‘counsellor for circumcision’.

   :   5

559

T R I  U 5.1

General considerations

We have already noted a number of allusions to kingship and its mythic representation in the narrative texts. It is in the nature of an urban archive, where much of the record was generated specifically by the palace and temple bureaucracies, that there should be such an apparent bias towards royal interests, most obvious in cultic matters. On one hand this should warn us of a largely untapped reservoir of ‘popular’ religion, such as must have been practised by ordinary citizens of the several classes and guilds attested in administrative documents, at which the marzi˙u texts hint, for example; and also the cult of minor shrines both in the city and outlying villages, where quite independent cults may have been observed. Such historical realities tend by their nature to go undocumented.91 On the other hand, the royal nature of the bulk of the religious texts, where the ritual ones are devoted largely to procedures in which the king played a leading role,92 and the mythological ones are largely, though not exclusively, related to ideological questions, is a fair reflection of the specific importance of Ugarit as a royal city within the kingdom. Just as the biblical texts generated by the Jerusalem cultus, or the inscriptions from royal cities such as Thebes or Nineveh, naturally reflect the national significance of such sites, so we should expect the same from Ugarit. What is striking about the evidence from Ugarit is the considerable degree of continuity between its royal ideology and that of Jerusalem from the Iron Age.93 This suggests that while local variations undoubtedly occurred, which must not be underestimated, a common West Semitic nexus of ideas about monarchy, in which the same or similar myths of divine parentage, the important ritual functions of the rabitu—g ebîrâ, and similar ritual conceptions and practices obtained. This also must not be underestimated.

91 The poor documentation is noted by   T 1996, 153. For a brief treatment see below. 92 See in particular  O L 1992a = 1999, and above, § 7.1.2. 93 See W 1996a.

 

560 5.2

The divinity of the king

The king is represented in the narrative poetry as bn il. This expression may be interpreted as ‘member of the genus “god”’, which is its sense when applied to deities. It thus appears to include the king in this category. More narrowly, it appears to have the mythological sense ‘son of El’ (that is, of El as chief god), a nuance supported by the corollary, that El is explicitly ‘father’ to the king (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ ii 23–4: db˙ l∆r abk il: ‘Sacrifice to Bull your father, El’, addressed to Keret). El is further identified as ab adm, which in my view has the narrower sense of ‘father of Man (even “Adam”)’ rather than the broader sense of ‘father of mankind’. The latter expression is remarkable enough as a powerful metaphor of kinship relating deity and his people; with the narrower sense it reinforces the specific and peculiar relationship between deity and (divine) king already noted. A further image of the king’s divine status is the broken text at KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ ii 26–8, which proclaims the status of Yasib (Keret’s heir) in these terms: He will drink the milk of Athirat he will drain the breast of Virgin [Rahmay]; the suckling of [goddesses].94

This text has caused some disputation: ‘Anat’ is commonly restored in the lacuna in the second colon, though in my view without justification other than a pavlovian response to the term btlt, while the surviving word in the third is often read with a final t (as m“nq[t]), and translated as ‘wetnurses’. We have here not a sociological observation, however, but a mythological allusion, to royal sons who drink their divinity from the breasts of divine mothers, which is only to be expected if the goddess (there is actually only one, for Athirat and Rahmay are hypostases of Shapsh, as is evident from KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002) is consort to El and therefore the king’s ideological mother. This passage is important not only in establishing Yasib’s ideological status, but also in countering Parker’s claim that the Keret narrative is intended to discredit royal claims to divinity. The overall interpretation of material of this kind suffers in part, I believe, from a tendency for the modern interpreter to attribute to the ancients the same mental attitudes we share. This is not only 94 For justification of this reading and translation see W 1998c, 209 n. 149. All translations from Ugaritic in the present chapter are from this volume.

   :  

561

fashionable since the deserved eclipse of Lévy-Bruhl’s more romantic views, but almost de rigueur in today’s intellectual climate. Carried to extremes, it is absurd. Even people in the seventeenth century had a world-view radically different from our own. It requires a supreme effort on our part even to grasp what Late Bronze Ugaritians thought of the world. The cosmological framework outlined above should warn us against importing too much rationality in our sense of the term. Perhaps the most difficult thing to appreciate is the sliding scale between the human and divine realms. The Ugaritians, like everyone else in the Mediterranean world at least down to early Christian times, inhabited a world populated with spiritual powers in every corner. These could be acknowledged as the vast range of gods worshipped by compatriots and foreigners alike, organized into panthea, though this usually happened only to one’s own gods, worshipped either in organized fashion, as in the royal cultus, which actually invoked a small selection from the pantheon, or worshipped in ad hoc fashion according to personal devotion by private citizens, feared or exorcized as demons, or revered as ancestors. Nor were the ancients averse to seeing such powers embodied in actual people, particularly in kings. The royal ancestors were explicitly called gods (KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257) and invoked at funerals (KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126) while some of their number95 were given the more exalted status of rpum, ‘saviours’, a term which may have corresponded roughly to the ‘heroes’ of Greek cult. The king was a living representative of the royal gods of the past, into whose company he was welcomed at death, and the one person who could most effectively communicate with the divine realm on behalf of ordinary mortals. The language of divine birth and genealogy was of course symbolic—when is language not symbolic?—but all the more real for so being.96 95 The rpum named in the Ugaritic texts do not feature in the king-list. Their precise relationship with the historical kings of Ugarit remains obscure. They are evidently invoked as ‘ideological ancestors’. The r epà"îm of biblical tradition are associated above all with the Hauran, and in this respect perhaps make connection with the Ugaritic rpum. Cf. KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252.2–3, which links Ràpiu, eponymous deity of the rpum, with Ashtarat and Edrei, cities linked with Og, last of the Rephaim, in Deut. 1:4. On Ràpiu and the rpum see n. 31 above. See also references in n. 130. For Pitard’s cautious estimate of the nature and role of the rpum see above § 6.4, 259–69. 96 A similar concern to downplay the divinity of the Pharaoh is evident in some egyptological studies. It goes against the whole weight of the ideological tradition,

562

 

P (1977) suggested that the rhetorical questioning of KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i 9–11, 20–3 (‘Is Keret then the son of El . . .?’) pointed to a negative answer. Gods do not die, but Keret does, and is therefore no god. This overlooks the fact that Baal does die. I have proposed97 as an alternative that the language of this passage specifically compares Keret with Baal, expressing in this way the hope that Keret too, like Baal, will be restored to life. Thus the ideological status of the king is not in question. If anything, it is considerably enhanced by the comparison. This aspect of Ugaritian thought may be the medium through which dead kings achieved a form of deification after death (KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257), by a formal apotheosis indicated by the determinative il, and also by aspiring to the status of rpum. This might be enhanced by the comparison in Keret, in addition to any language used of the reigning monarch.

6

R98

6.1 General considerations The information noted above may be supplemented by reference to the ritual texts from Ugarit. Many of these were discovered within the confines of the palaces, and provide a convenient and eloquent insight into the complex ritual life in which the king played a central role. While the narrative texts appear to accept a principle of ‘divine kingship’ for the monarchy, however precisely this be defined, there is no indication in the ritual texts of the king’s peculiar status. His ‘sacral’ role as a pontifex, a mediator between the divine and human realms, is unquestionable. But he acts merely as a cipher, performing his appointed role in the drama of the cult. No theoretical position on this is even hinted at. The surviving ritual texts from Ugarit are unlikely to record more than a small proportion of the cultic life of the city, and in any case at least in some instances record events taking place in the palace and royal chapels. Our already partial record is thus primarily of and against a basic appreciation of ancient Egyptian psychology. We must attempt to understand the ancients in their terms at least as much as ours. 97 W 1997. 98 See also Sections §§ 7.1–2 above. On the ritual texts see  T 1980, X 1981, C –  T – C 1989,  O L 1992a = 1999.

   :  

563

the royal cultus. General proceedings in the other main city temples on the acropolis and the city centre are simply unknown. What can be stated with certainty is that the mythological texts offer no record of any ritual calendar or theology, as argued by those espousing the seasonal interpetation. The most they offer is occasional snatches of liturgical material embedded in the narrative, and descriptions of divine feasting which are as it were a gods’-eye-view of sacrificial rites. The observances of the characters in the Keret and Aqhat stories no doubt reflect typical ritual practices, but these are entirely incidental to the narratives. The ritual texts, on the other hand, evidently work within a tightly structured cultic calendar, although in view of the fragmentary nature of the record, we are not in a position to reconstruct this adequately, which might allow an appreciation of the overall pattern. The texts devoted to ritual matters are discussed elsewhere in this volume (§ 7). Here perhaps some remarks on the broad nature of ancient ritual, as attested in Ugarit, are appropriate. An interesting pattern emerges from scrutiny of the ancient religions of the Near East. This is the complex relationship with all aspects of human life, and particularly the economic dimension. Whatever the origins of sacrificial practice, it is evident that it was the centre of the temple cultus in all the urban cultures of the ancient Near East. On every occasion where the deities were invoked, offerings of meat, cereals, wine, oil or other material commodities (cloth, metals, votive gifts, incense etc.) were made. In a sense it can be argued that a significant amount of the city-state’s economic production was geared to the demands of the temples. The overall scale of sacrificial demand is not clear from Ugarit, but livestock production would have been in part controlled by its demands,99 with perhaps special diets, selection for special markings, and animals of a certain age and gender selected for ritual use. It is even possible that all meat-production was channelled through the temples.100 Egyptian temples were frequently

99 Note that one of Ilimilku’s offices, no doubt in his capacity as a priest, appears to have been management of temple herds (rb khnm rb nqdm: KTU 1.6 vi 55–6). The influence of the temple-economy on the broader economy should not be underestimated. If the gods demanded richer offerings, agricultural practice had to adapt to the demand, while greater food-production would result in greater surpluses, and therefore enhanced trade, enhanced wealth, and no doubt concomitent population growth. The temples were at the apex of this economic spiral. 100 The ‘secular’ slaughter envisaged in Deut. 12:15–6, 20–5 has the appearance of a departure from an older norm in which all animals were killed not only ritually

 

564

equipped with extensive store-rooms for the storage of the produce of farm-lands controlled by them.101 We should expect similar organization at Ugarit, if on a smaller scale, though presumably any warehouses would have been outside the city-walls, perhaps in satellite settlements. In view of the emphasis on ‘the fertility cult’ which appears to sell student handbooks,102 which conjures up an image of orgiastic rites which I once heard described as ‘a sea of heaving buttocks’, it is worth noting that there is no evidence from Ugarit for practices of this kind. We certainly have mythological begettings, and some deities have voracious sexual appetites, while we have noted a ritual dimension to KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002. The context of this interesting text is however the conception of princes, and it may well be no more than a mimetic counterpart to the actual (highly ritualized) consummation of a royal marriage in Ugarit. An iconographic counterpart may be seen in the ivory panels from the royal bed. We also noted a probable ritual context to KTU 1.24 = RS. 5.194, and shall mention further such material below (§ 13.9). 6.2

A rite of atonement: KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002+

I shall limit my discussion of individual ritual texts to one example. This is the liturgy for the great day of atonement at Ugarit, preserved partially in two tablets, KTU 1.40, 1.84 = RS 1.002 + 1002, 17.100[] + 100[].103 The liturgy appears on the surviving evidence to have been composed of six parts, addressed alternately to men ([], , ) and women ([], , ). Only the final three sections are in a condition to allow continuous translation. Three pairs of victims were offered, two oxen ([, ]), two rams (, ) and two donkeys (, ). Each animal is offered as atonement (npy)104 on behalf of the men (or women) of Ugarit and its surrounding districts (?).

in the most general sense, but in the presence of a deity, and formally as an offering. One reason for this would have been the accumulation of power in the hands of organized priesthoods. 101 They are most graphically evident at the Ramesseum, the mortuary temple of Rameses II. See K 1989, 191–7. 102 See the title of H 1969, From fertility cult to worship. 103 See W 1998c, 342 for bibliography, to which add  T 1998. 104 On the meaning of this key term see W 1998c, 342 n. 2, where I review the different proposals. I have followed P 1991, 1191.

   :  

565

The accusation of sins made by various ethnic and social groups are addressed, and the victim is offered up to El and the pantheon through the mediation of the messenger-gods Thukamun and Shanim. One section (ll. 35–43, § 6), typical in structure to each, may be cited by way of illustration: Now repeat the liturgy for puri[fication], for purification of the won of Ugarit, and atonement for the foreigner within the walls of Ugarit, and [atone]ment for his wife. Whenever your state of grace be changed, whether by the accusation of the Qa[tians, or by the accusation of the Dadm]ians, or by the [accusation of the the Hu]rrians, or by the accusation of the Hittites, or by the accusation of the Cypriots, or by the accusation of the Àbr, or by the accusation of your op[pressed] ones, or by the accusation of your p[oo]r, or by the accusation of qrzbl; whenever your state of grace be changed, either through [your] anger, [or through your impat]ience, or through some evil you have done; whenever [your state] of grace be changed [concerning the sacrifices] and the offering, our sacrifice we offer: this is the offering we [make], [this is the victim we] immolate. May it be borne aloft to the father of the gods, may it be borne aloft to the pan[theon of the gods], [to] the assembly of the gods, to Thukamun [and Shanim]: here is the donkey.

While it is difficult to extract a detailed moral theology from this material, it certainly exhibits a moral dimension of some significance, and a powerful sense of the necessary cohesion of society, while recognizing the centrifugal pressures and tensions arising from the relations between sub-groups. What is interesting is that it is the perception by a sub-group (‘by the accusation [ulp] of the Hittites’ etc.) of wrongdoing by the community at large that is significant, not any proven fault. This suggests a highly developed sense of the importance of people’s feelings, though the term ulp (construed as u + l + p: ‘whether from the mouth of ’) may also have had a specifically forensic nuance,

566

 

suggesting the infraction of a code of practice. The personal involvement of groups in society, rather than any impersonal system of pollution, such as obtains in Leviticus, points to a moral rather than a purely ritual basis for sin. Without doubt the mechanical dimension also existed, but being uncodified has left no evidence. The likelihood that we should discern a moral dimension here is perhaps supported by the moral error into which Keret is perceived as falling in going aside from his journey to visit the shrine of Athirat. In pursuing this undoubtedly worthy religious goal, he violates the principle of absolute and undeviating obedience to El’s commands, which takes priority over any secondary matter. We thus catch glimpses of a highly developed ethical universe, in no way compromised by the polytheistic theology whose workings we sketched above. What the king’s duties may have been in the important ceremony of KTU 1.40 unfortunately remain unknown. We should expect him to play a significant role, on the analogy of Babylonian material such as the Akîtu, but we are ignorant of the occasion or even the frequency of this rite. It may be worth remarking that KTU 1.12 = RS 2.[012], which begins with a theogonic scene, and may thus have royal overtones, appears in its fragmentary conclusion to treat Baal’s death as an atonement of some kind. Does this point, however obscurely, to the king’s ritual involvement? Any answer remains speculative. The gist of the Keret story is also highly conscious of the delicacy of a king’s moral position: any individual departure from proper behaviour threatens not merely a private man, but an entire kingdom. Whether linked to a periodic rite of atonement of this sort, as the Israelite ritual for Yom Kippur appears to have been (Lev. 16), or in its obviously more primitive form still linked to a more informal ad hoc solution to a communal sense of guilt at a serious transgression, KTU 1.127 = RS 24.277.30–2 provides an intriguing antecedent to the biblical account. It prescribes the expulsion of a goat, which will apparently carry away the sins of the community.105

105 See D – L 1990a 32–8, and the remarks by M (ibid., 270–1). A recently discovered text from Ebla also contains a scapegoat ritual: see X 1996b, Z 1998.

   :   7

567

F L   R E

While composed in epic style, and themselves with ideological reference, the Keret and Aqhat stories reveal a number of features of everyday practice which deserve note in giving a rounded picture of Ugaritian religious life. They probably represent fairly conventional attitudes and observances. A powerful sense of clan solidarity appears to have been normal. It is this rather than a developed sense of individual identity (though not entirely discounting this) which underlies Keret’s response to the offer of wealth and power (KTU 1.14 = RS RS 2.[003]+ i 52– ii 5 and parallels): Why should I want silver or yellow gold . . .? It is sons I would beget, descendants I would multiply!

This is almost an example of the ‘biology of religion’,106 in which religious language articulates the norm for patterns of behaviour governing social and reproductive life. The present passage allows Keret to voice a man’s primary duty, to beget sons. It is in these that the true wealth of a man is measured. We almost sense in this response a healthy scorn for the false idols of silver, gold and rich possessions: the acquisitive society was perhaps then only in its infancy. Another well-known and much-cited passage107 is the following (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 23–33 and parallels), which occurs four times. The repetitious nature of such a large block of material suggests that it reflects a popular summation of the duties of the pious son, and the essence of family piety, and is in addition to be considered a central theme of the story. To have a son like this is to be blessed indeed. To lose a son like this (as is Danel in the sequel) is to be cursed indeed. you must surely bless him, Bull El my father, you must (surely) give a blessing to him, O Creator-of-creatures, so that he may beget a son in his house, a scion in the midst of his palace. Cf. the title of the first edition of R – T 1983. See E 1966, K, 1967, H 1979 and   T 1996, 154–65. I am not sure of the categorization of this by van der Toorn under the rubric ‘the cult of the ancestors’. Cf. H 1995. 106 107

 

568

He shall set up the stela of his ancestral god, in the sanctuary the cippus of his kinsman; into the earth sending forth his dying breath, into the dust protecting his progress;108 he shall shut the mouths of his slanderers, he shall drive away those who are ill-disposed towards him. Taking his hand when he is drunk, supporting him when sated with wine; he shall serve up his share in the house of Baal, and his portion in the house of El; he shall plaster his roof on a muddy day, he shall wash his clothes on a filthy day.

This classic formulation of filial piety, to be introduced by the blessing El is exhorted to confer, falls into seven bicola, the first dealing with the begetting of the son (the classic duty of the father), and the other six treating the son’s duties (the filial response). The prosodic structure of the section is complex, and skilfully weaves domestic and ritual tasks.109 We are apt to see in all this expressions of affection. The reality is probably more detached. The performance of these duties is essential for the preservation of the paterfamilias, in whom all the family’s interests are invested. He bears the family name, and this must not be extinguished. Furthermore, his ritual activities benefit the entire family, so that the son performs these when necessary to ensure their regular implementation.

8

O R M110 8.1

Vows

Keret’s vow in KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ iv 34–43 is the only instance of a vow in Ugaritic literature, but provides a classic example of the form: they ca[me] to the sanctuary of Athirat of Tyre and to the goddess of Sidon. 108 For the sense ‘into’ rather than ‘from’, as most interpreters take it, see X 1982a, 194 and H 1995, esp. 124. 109 See discussion and references in W 1998c, 255–59 nn. 23–41. The sevenfold pattern (n. 23) represents completeness, and so perhaps implies all the other social duties incumbent on a son. 110 See also Sections §§ 6.5, 7.3 above.

   :  

569

There Keret the votary vowed a gift: ‘O Athirat of Tyre, and goddess of Sidon, if I take Hurriy to my house, and bring the sacred bride into my court, twice her weight in silver shall I give, and three times her weight in gold!’

As important as this formulation is the logical sequel, after it transpires that Keret has omitted to fulfil this vow (KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 25–30): And Athirat recalled his vow, and the goddess [his promise]. And she lifted up her voice and [cried]: ‘Look, I pray: has Ke[ret broken], or [the king] altered his vow? [So] shall I break [my promise!]’

While the first part conforms to the standard formulaic construction of vows, with the address (the deity concerned) followed by a prodosis (the condition) and then an apodosis (the votive gift promised), the second gives an unusual insight into the putative reaction of a deity to a vow neglected.111 It deconstructs the vow, to reveal the consequence of neglect in so important a sphere. A deity is not to be casually invoked with impunity. A vow entered into cannot simply be ignored. The language has a legally binding force. Everything in the tradition points to the enormous power and authority invested in the spoken word. 8.2

Blessings

Just as vows have their rationale in the potency of the spoken word, so blessings are believed to be efficacious by the mere fact of utterance. The Keret story also provides the classic blessing formula (KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ ii 16–28): [El] took a cup [in] (his) hand, a goblet in (his) [right] hand;

111 In narrative terms this is intriguing in that it also frustrates El’s intention to bless Keret. In theological terms this shows a considerable finesse, all the more interesting because of the undoubtedly unconscious processes which explore the strategic consequences.

570

  He did indeed bless [his servant], he blessed Keret [the votary], [he gave a bless]ing to the gracious [one], heir of El: ‘Take a wife, O Keret, take a wife to your house, bring a sacred bride into your dwelling: she will bear you seven sons, and multiply them eightfold for you. She will bear Yasib the heir: he will drink the milk of Athirat; he will drain the breast of Virgin [Rahmay]; the suckling of [goddesses].

The blessing may continue for several lines, for it is to be understood to include the opening lines of KTU 1.15 iii, concluding, after a list of Keret’s daughters, with the final four cola (13–6): Be greatly exalted, [Keret], among the Saviours of the netherwo[rld], in the convocation of the assembly of Dita[n]. Their last one I shall treat as the firstborn.

This blessing is not simply synonymous with that which is implicit in El’s discursive instructions to Keret (KTU 1.14 = RS 2.[003]+ ii 7–iii 49), which also ends in a divine promise of an heir. It is rather a formal cultic occasion in which the relationship of the king to the city gods (and to El in particular) is affirmed, and has important iconographical and indeed ideological overtones.112 But it also reinforces the king’s crucial role as mediator before the gods on behalf of the whole of society. The blessing formula involving the cup has also been restored in the Aqhat story, at KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 34–6,113 and is important evidence in favour of a royal interpretation of Danel’s position. It is to be noted that while Keret demands only one thing, children, three things are actually promised: children, membership of the select group the rpum, and such wealth as will enable the youngest to be treated as the first-born.114 The vow is a common feature of indi112

Discussed with references in W 1997. See J – D 1975; also W 1998c, 260 n. 42. 114 This is to be understood not in the sense that she will be the first-born, but that there will no need to apportion wealth, so much will be available. Attempts (e.g. G 1964, 60) to see in this the tracing of a line from Keret through his youngest daughter to the Ugaritian dynastic line are misplaced. There is of course a sting in the tail: an equal share in a blessing implies an equal share in a curse. 113

   :  

571

vidual religious devotion in the ancient world, reflecting an essentially pragmatic approach to religion. It was the source of material benefits in a world without the relative stability in health or economic matters the modern urban dweller takes for granted. A less formal blessing (perhaps more of a spontaneous outburst than a liturgical norm, though we should not discount the latter possibility) occurs in Danel’s words to the withered plants he encounters. Here is one example (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ ii 22–5): Oh! May this ear of corn rise from the parched land, may the ear of corn rise up [among the wit]hered stalks! Plant, may the hand of Aqhat harvest you, may it put you into the midst of the granary!

While part of a finely polished literary work, this scene gives a marvellous insight into the real world of the distressed, who will clutch at any straw (as Danel is doing!) in time of deep emotional crisis. Danel does not yet know the cause for this terrible drought, but his heart is full of foreboding as he tries to use the intrinsic power of a blessingformula to redress the balance of nature. The fact that he invokes Aqhat’s name simply adds further irony and pathos to the scene. 8.3 Curses The counter to the blessing is the curse, again based on the power of speech. Three sets of curses survive in Ugaritic literature. The first example occurs twice in quite different contexts, and probably reflects a standard usage. When Keret perceives Yasib’s incipient treachery (which conceivably was inspired by the best of motives) he addresses him thus (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 54–8): May Horon smash, O my son, may Horon smash your head, Athtart-the-name-of-Baal your crown! May you fall down in the prime of life, empty-handed, and humiliated!

The irony in this scene is overwhelming: Keret, who had sought a blessing too many at the hands of Athirat, when he had already received El’s assurance, now undoes even his (El’s) good work by cursing his family back into the condition from which he began. The

572

 

equal blessing promised the youngest daughter now comes to haunt her too, as she is implicitly included in this terrible curse. The same formula is used by Baal against Yam in KTU 1.2 = RS 3.367 i 7–9. In view of what Baal himself does to Yam we may ask whether the curse formula does not belong to a royal headsmashing ritual (as exemplified in Anat’s ritual treatment of prisoners)115 or, as I have suggested, in executions, being a disclaimer by the executioner.116 The idea of invoking the gods to perform a dreadful act, thus exculpating the actual perpetrator, is deeply imbedded in human psychology, ancient and modern. This percept also applies in the case where someone cannot actually wreak vengeance himself, and leaves it to the gods. This is not dissimilar from the curse Danel utters against the falcons (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iii 1–3): The win[gs of the falcons] may Baal sma, may Baal smash [their pinions]! Let them fall a my feet!

In both cases gods are invoked to do violence to a guilty party in the absence of any realistic chance of the victim himself, or his father, wreaking vengeance. The second curse-form is used by Danel in his as yet unfocussed distress in perceiving that something dreadful is wrong (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ i 42–6):117 For seven years Baal shall fail, for eight, the Charioteer of the clouds! No dew, no rain, no welling up of the deeps, no goodness of Baal’s voice!

This is an invocation of drought, for the sources of water, dew, rain and springs, are all to cease. The threefold sources of life-giving water are turned into a tetracolon, and a quaternity, by the theophany-sign of their coming, the voice of the storm-god. The natural world, implicitly all its cardinal points, will thus participate in the mourning for Aqhat, whose life-sustaining blood has been shed, even 115 116 117

See L 1996. W 1998c, 241 n. 297. To the first three cola of the tetracolon cf. 2 Sam 1:21.

   :  

573

though Danel is not yet fully aware of the import of his words. This is in effect a reification of the emotional desiccation felt by someone who mourns the dead, a feeling all the more powerful if it is a parent mourning a child. The final instance is Danel’s cursing of the cities neighbouring the place where Aqhat was murdered. This again is evidently part of a conventional legal process, in which liability is sought in the case of the discovery of a murder victim in open country. This is the last of three towns thus cursed (KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iv 3–7): ‘Woe to you, town of Abilim, because near you was smitten Aqhat the hero! May Baal make your wells dry, henceforth and forever, now and for all generations!’ Afterwards he took his staff in his hand.

In the absence of the possibility of identifying the perpetrator of a homicide, the neighbouring settlements are made legally liable. Their territory is in any event polluted by unavenged blood, so they must resort to purification rites. The same principle is enunciated in Deut. 21:1–9. The reference to Danel’s staff (m†)—the term may also be translated as ‘sceptre’—no doubt alludes to a formal ritual, where some gesture with the staff implements the legal effect of his curse. 8.4

Oracles and omens

Anxiety concerning the future is a natural human trait, the price of consciousness. As a means of addressing this an important aspect of ancient religion was its predictive role. Various techniques were probably used,118 though many of those known are not specifically attested at Ugarit.119 With sacrificial animals being regularly butchered, the priests were familiar with the nature of entrails and other internal organs, and there was an ancient tradition of ‘reading’ these, noting anomalous forms, and making links with historical or climatic events. The gods were believed to reveal these contingencies to the priests. Schools passed on the tradition, and model organs were made with notes drawing attention to certain features. KTU 1.141 = RS

118 119

For a useful survey see L – B 1981. The Ugaritic material is examined in D – L 1990.

574

 

24.312, 1.142 = RS 24.323, 1.143 = RS 24.326, 1.144 = RS 24.327, 1.155 = RS 24.654, are inscribed clay livers, while KTU 1.127 = RS 24.277 is a lung.120 The birth of deformed animals (KTU 1.103 + 1.145 = RS 24.247+)121 or human infants (KTU 1.140 = RS 24.302) were the subject of detailed observations, while celestial events were also read as portents (KTU 1.78 = RS 12.061). This last text is surprisingly the only clear reference we have in Ugaritic to the importance of celestial phenomena. However, the description of Danel’s daughter Pughat as ‘one who knows the courses of the stars’ ( yd'[t] hlk kbkbm: KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ ii 3–4)122 suggests a body of lore on the subject. Bearing in mind that the gods are called ‘stars’ in KTU 1.10 = RS 3.362+ i 4, we should expect a complex theology of the heavenly bodies, complementing the obvious deification of sun, moon and Venus. This is still awaiting discovery. 8.5

Personal piety

Perhaps under the present rubric should also be mentioned briefly various other aspects of personal religion. The correspondance (see also § 8, also dealt with extensively in § 15) gives a number of examples of pious wishes for the welfare of the recipients of letters, illustrating the almost unconscious (certainly unself-conscious) way in which various deities were invoked matter-of-factly. Personal names (see also § 12.1) are a further source of information about individual and clan piety, for although fashions in names may have obtained, it is a reasonable guess that in most cases the deities incorporated into theophoric names (which tend to be transparent, though we should not discount an element of opacity with archaic forms) would focus the fears, aspirations and joys of parents of newly-born children. No personal prayers in the context of everyday life have survived from Ugarit among the tablets published thus far, but KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266, noted above, gives an unusual example of a litany evidently dealing with times of trouble, and therefore an instance of ‘urgent faith’, while the personal prayers embodied as literary forms in Keret and Aqhat are, while themselves honed through poetic usage, no doubt modelled on practical piety. The particular impor120 121 122

See D – L 1990, 5–38; M 1990; above, § 7.3. D – L 1990; above, § 7.3. See W 1998c, 297 n. 209.

   :  

575

tance of Baal in such contexts deserves further study, and shows a lively belief in the efficacy of this god above all in answering the needs of the people from national to individual level.

9 S 9.1

Sickness as a religious matter

Diseases and ailments of various sorts, now the province of medicine, were in antiquity an important aspect of ritual life, as they continue to be in traditional societies. Disorders of the body, the microcosm, were perceived as disorders of the macrocosm. Medicine was essentially holistic. A number of examples are found in Ugaritic literature. Thus we have Keret lying sick in his palace, with El himself interceding to save his servant from death. In the king’s case, the realm is particularly vulnerable, because on his health depends the adequate fulfilment of his royal and social duties, as shrewdly assessed by Yasib (KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ vi 25–38, 39–54). When a king lies at death’s door, the very world mourns in anticipation (KTU 1.16 i 6–9, ii 44–7), and the fertile earth is parched (KTU 1.16 iii 5–11). 9.2 Snakebite Snakebite is the occasion of two interesting incantation texts, KTU 1.100 and 1.107 = RS 24.244, 24.251+.123 The former124 is ‘a spell against the bite of a snake’ (KTU 1.100.4 etc.) couched in the form of a mythic narrative, in which a mare-deity invokes twelve deities (or pairs) in turn for assistance, addressing only at the end the potent god Horon who can achieve the cure.125 KTU 1.107126 appears to be concerned with curing a young medical practitioner who has been bitten. 123

See also RS 92.2014: ET in P 1997a, 327–8. V 1968, 564–74, A 1968, 13–28, C 1969, 241–254,  T 1989, 79–94, L… 1974, D – L 1980a, D – L – S 1975b, G 1975, Y 1977, 1979, P 1978, 1988b, 193–226, 1997a, 295–8, T 1979, B – C 1980, X 1981, 224–240, K 1984, L –  T 1988,  O L 1992a, 241–9 = 1999, 359–73, W 1998c, 378–87. 125 El’s fruitless invocation of the gods to cure Keret, followed by his manufacture of Shatiqat (‘Remover’) in KTU 1.16 v 10 – vi 14 is analogous. In neither case would it be legitimate to infer any theological bankruptcy: the episodes are constructed 124

 

576 9.3

Possession and exorcism

Some form of possession appears to be the subject matter of the incantation KTU 1.169 = RIH 78/20,127 though it has also been interpreted as a cure for impotence. Baal, Horon and Athirat appear to cooperate in the expulsion of the demonic forces. In KTU 1.124 = RS 24.272, an indeterminate sickness is cured by means of an oracle attributed to Ditanu the eponym of the rpum. Another important composition, which however defies clear analysis, is KTU 1.82 = RS 15.134.128 It appears to be an anthology of incantation texts. The interesting text KTU 1.114 = RS 24.258,129 reflecting incidentally the phenomenon of the Marzi˙u, a kind of socio-religious men’s club (cf. KTU 3.9 = RS [Varia 14] for a legal document concerned with such an institution), is an incantation in the form of a myth intended to cure a hangover, though at the same time it reflects on the acceptance of wine-consumption as having religious significance, perhaps as an aspect of spirituality.

10

D   R

10.1 Texts ritualizing death We have cited above the duties of the pious son outlined in KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] i 23–33. Some of these duties involved the son’s for dramatic effect. In the case of Horon, a dangerous power is approached only in extremis. In the case of Shatiqat, El’s making of her highlights his peculiar role in matters of kingship. 126 V 1968, 574–80, A 1968, D – L – S 1975b, X 1981, 241–50, L –  T 1988, P 1988b, 227–57,  T 1989, 95–100,  O L 1992a, 249–51 = 1999, 371–3, W 1998c, 391–4. 127 X 1978a, C 1978–9, 1984, 1989, 53–60, B – C 1980, 346–50, A 1981a,  M 1980a, 1981–2, 114–5, 1986a, 255–7, 1987, 183–6, L – X 1981, S 1982, 1984, F 1991, 1997,  O L 1992a, 259–60 = 1999, 384–6, W 1992b, P 1993a, 211–3. 128 See  M – S 1984,  M 1987, 175–81, C 1988,  O L 1992a, 251–5 = 1999, 373–9. 129 V 1968, 545–51, L 1969a,  M 1969a, 167–75, 1970c, 1984, 1987, 134–7, M (= M) 1970b, 1979–80, 1982, F 1971, p. 22, 1972, P 1972, J 1974, R 1974, 184–7, D – L – S 1975a, X 1977, L’H 1979, 159–69, C – W 1980, D – L 1981, 88–98, 1993, S 1986, 196–202, P 1988b, 13–74, 1997a, 302–5, C 1989, 71–8, W 1990a, ML 1991, 270–4, C 1996, W 1998c, 404–13.

   :  

577

duties after his father’s death. It is above all the duty of the eldest son to perform the obsequies of his father. This is one reason for the peculiar tragedy of a father losing his first son.130 Two important royal texts deal with the rituals of death. The immediate context of KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257 is far from certain, but it involves a liturgy performed, in all probability, as a series of episodes invoking all the dead and now divinized kings appearing in the following king-list. This is conceivably a kispum-rite, as frequently proposed for the following text. KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126131 is perhaps one of the most intriguing ritual texts from Ugarit. It appears to be a combination of order of service for the funeral of the last King Niqmaddu (III?), father of 'Ammurapi, and at the same time a Kispum-rite, invoking dead kings, who are invited to participate in the obsequies and to welcome Niqmaddu into the underworld. Degrees of royal divinity appear to be envisaged, with the ancient rpum being regarded as having more prestige than intermediate kings between their remote and legendary past and the present. The text also illustrates the importance of Shapsh as psychopomp.132 10.2

Tomb construction

So far as practicalities go, the evidence of the tombs is of interest.133 Constructed in the foundations of private houses and palaces alike, they were used for multiple burials as family vaults, and grave-goods, possessions and food, accompanied the dead to their rest. The precise conception of the post-mortem destiny of ordinary people is unclear, though S’s (1986) fulsome account is probably too

130 We may conjecture, since the death of a son is a theme common to both stories, that one of the motives behind Ilimilku’s compositions (or editions) of the Keret and Aqhat stories may have been the death of an heir to the throne. In such a context we should recognize an elegiac quality to the poems. 131 C 1975, 1989, 103–10,  M 1976, 1981–2, 116–7, 1987 165–8, P 1977, 177–81, P 1978, 1987, L’H 1979, 187–93, X 1981, 279–87, B – P 1982, 1991, 151–63, D – L 1983b, 1991b, L –  T 1984, L –  T – R 1997b, T 1988, S 1986, 189–93, L 1989, 5–46, T 1989a, 144–50, 1993a,  O L 1992a, 130–4 = 1999, 193–8, P 1993a, 208–10, 1996a, 1997a, 357–8, A 1994, 157–65, S 1994, 100–20, W 1998c, 430–41. 132 See H 1997. 133 See S 1939a, 53–106, M 1983.

578

 

optimistic. Aqhat’s brisk reponse to Anat (KTU 1.17 = RS 2.[004] vi 34–9) at least reflects a healthy scepticism in some circles, though here too it is premature to assert that he denies any survival of death. P (1994) has recently shown the untenability of Schaeffer’s old idea that tubes allowed the continued passage of food and drink to the dead. 10.3

Mourning rites

Mourning is referred to in both the Keret and Aqhat stories, and the incidental allusions probably reflect common attitudes and practice, albeit handled in epic style. We have already noted the cosmic mourning for Keret in anticipation of his death. KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ i 15–9 alludes to weeping at the tomb entrance by mourning women, and their professional status (on the analogy of the groups in Egyptian tomb paintings) is to be understood from KTU 1.19 = RS 3.322+ iv 9–27, where they bewail Aqhat for seven years, before Danel concludes the proceedings with a sacrifice. Keret’s daughter is to go out into the steppe to weep for her dead father (KTU 1.16 i 28–35; cf. also ii 26–36). Two further passages (KTU 1.5 = RS 2.[022]+ vi 11–25, 1.6 = RS 2.[009]+ i 2–8) deal in an interesting way with mourning rites. They describe the reaction of El and Anat respectively to the news of Baal’s death. The former reads as follows: Then the Compassionate, the god of mercy, went down from his throne: he sat on his footstool. And from his footstool he sat on the ground. He poured the ashes of affliction on his head, the dust of grovelling on his skull. For clothing he put on a loin-cloth. His skin with a stone he scored, his side-locks with a razor, he gashed cheeks and chin. He ploughed his collar-bones, he turned over like a garden his chest, like a valley he ploughed his breast, He lifted up his voice and cried: ‘Baal is dead! What has become of the Powerful One? The Son of Dagan!

   :  

579

What has become of Tempest? After Baal I shall go down into the underworld.’

This text perhaps encapsulates most powerfully the ritual expression of utter despair in the presence of death, but at the same time the acceptance as significant for the mourner of the fate of the dead. The initial pentacolon describes El’s progressive self-abasement, till he effectively shares, emotionally at least, in the annihilation of death. A self-burial rite follows, a mourning garment put on, with selflaceration and the cutting of the hair.134 Only after these mute rites does the mourner give vent to feelings in words. Interestingly, Baal’s death appears to constitute a paradigm of El’s death; when Anat utters these same words, she alters the ard (‘I shall go down’) into nrd (‘we shall go down’), and this very probably reflects or even cites verbatim an actual funerary litany, showing that Baal’s death had religious meaning for human beings as they contemplated their own mortality. Alternatively, this last passage should be corrected to *a !rd . . ., in which case it is El’s words that Anat repeats verbatim.

11

N-L D  U R 11.1

Looking beyond the text

There is perhaps an inevitable, yet too great an emphasis among Ugaritic scholars on the textual aspect of religion. Most of us specialize in the analysis of texts. It should be remembered however that much of the population was probably illiterate, and that although liturgy and mythology played a part in all religious life, it was essentially the behavioural (ritual), aural (musical) and visual (iconographic) images and impressions which were most indelibly stamped on their minds. The ritual aspects we have dealt with briefly above. Here too our evidence is sadly exclusively textual, and we can do little more than evoke from the texts scenes of the banqueting of the gods,

134 These procedures are forbidden in Lev 19:27–8 and Deut 14:1, a sure indication that they were part of ancient Palestinian ritual too. Needless to say, to interpret El’s and Anat’s actions as somehow linked to a seasonal fertility cult is to misread the evidence. Cf. also the distraught behaviour of Keret’s daughter in KTU 1.16 = RS 3.325+ ii 26–50.

580

 

perhaps to be seen as reflexes of sacrificial rites, and their stupendous journeys to one another’s abodes (‘over a thousand miles, ten thousand leagues’), to be interpreted as allusions to cultic processions. 11.2

Music

We have a number of references to the playing of lyres and the singing of songs in the texts135 which may reasonably be interpreted as relating to hymnody in the cult. A remarkable reconstruction of a Hurrian hymn from Ugarit (RS 15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387) has been attempted by Anne Kilmer,136 while Annie Caubet137 has drawn together and analysed the evidence for musical instruments in use in Ugarit. 11.3

Iconography

On the iconographic front a small number of stelae and statuettes have been discovered, which give us a glimpse into the portrayal of some deities, and this allows some supplementation of their literary presentation.138 In some cases a certain amount of comparative data may legitimately be brought to bear. A prolific source of iconographic information, but one that is hard to quantify in terms of purely local influence, is cylinder seals. We shall deal with this material in turn. Some of the images remain anonymous. The following are those than can be identified with a measure of confidence. Stela RS 8.295139 represents an enthroned god, wearing the Atef-crown with bull’s horns, in the presence of a votary, perhaps to be identified with the king, beneath a winged disc. While the precise interpretation of the scene is not beyond doubt, it perhaps represents a divine blessing, such as is discussed above. It has been compared with the scene on

135

See KTU 1.3 i 18–22. See K – C – B 1976. See also G 1970, L 1973, K 1974 and W 1974. 137 C 1996. Cf. also D – G 1981 for comparative Mesopotamian and Egyptian evidence. 138 The main publication where most of this material may been seen together is Y (ed.) 1991. See also § 14 below (Cornelius). 139 Y 1991 (ed.), 336. Cf. W 1983a. 140 J – D 1975, W 1997, 787–9. 136

   :  

581

the royal seal.140 The stela may also be compared with the gilded bronze cult-statuette of a god wearing the Atef-crown (RS 23.394) and with the recently discovered stone statuette (RS 88.70) found immediately north of the temple aux rhytons.141 The former of these has the right hand raised in blessing (corresponding to the left hand on the stela, where internal design has forced a shift) while the latter has an empty socket into which a detachable arm could presumably be inserted. The left hand of the bronze is shaped to be able to hold a detachable object (such as a small gold cup?), while the stone statuette has another empty socket. These artefacts have been understood to represent El. He is shown to be a bearded, patriarchal figure, evidently concerned with the welfare of the king, and through him of society. This is entirely in conformity with the textual evidence outlined above. Baal is without doubt portrayed in the so-called Baal au foudre stela (RS 4.427) found in the Baal temple.142 This shows the god, wearing a horned and pointed cap (a variation on the White Crown?) in the ‘smiting posture’. But instead of grasping a victim he holds a spear which becomes a tree. Below the dagger at his belt stands a votary, dressed apparently in the ritual garment of the king. F (1996) has offered a new explanation for the rippling lines beneath the god’s feet. The upper set he interprets as a serpentine Yam. Stelae whose subjects are indeterminate are RS 17.138 and 23.218, both of a god in the ‘smiting posture’, in the latter instance holding a spear, and RS 23.216 and 23.217, both of a god with a drawn bow. It is tempting to think of Reshef, though his familiar fillet, suspended behind the cap, is missing.143 In the case of the Mami stela, however, this fillet is present, and yet the god is explicitly identified as ‘Seth of Saphon’,144 indicating the confusing fluidity in the portraiture of the two gods. A stela fragment (RS 24.434) shows a god 141 Both illustrated Y 1991 (ed.), 337. She identifies the latter as El on this page, but as ‘a man’ on p. 351. See also Y – G 1989. The stone statuette lacks evidence of an Atef-crown, but may have had detachable horns and feathers. See also § 14, fig. 1. 142 S 1934, Y 1991 (ed.), 331 fig. 11a. She compares the stela with numerous small bronzes in ‘the smiting posture’. C (1994) prefers to designate this iconographic type ‘the menacing god’. See also § 14, fig. 2. 143 On the comparative iconography of Baal and Reshef see C 1994. 144 Y 1991 (ed.), 328, fig. 8, obligingly shows the Seth of the ‘stela of the year 400’ for comparison. It is here the Egyptian iconographic convention which is being observed.

582

 

in smiting posture, with raised mace, shield in the other hand, and a quiver behind him. Two further anonymous stelae show an armed god with a tall plume and horns (RS 2.[037]) and a goddess draped in a long gown shaped like a falcon’s wing and armed with a spear (RS 2.[038]). The latter invites comparison with Anat, though the known iconography of this goddess, like that of Athtart, shows her wearing the Atef-crown.145 Cylinder seals have been found in substantial quantities at Ugarit, and have been published mainly by Schaeffer and Amiet.146 There is no need to attempt any detailed study here. Used as amulets and personal identity-markers, cylinder seals were commonly decorated with religious scenes of a fairly stereotyped form. Variations on individual themes are found from Sumer to Egypt, and they are by and large not very specific to a local tradition, though of course local styles were developed, which no doubt to some extent reflected local theologies. Mythic themes, votive and blessing scenes (cf. the dynastic seal mentioned above), representations of gods dispersing largesse and so forth are standard motifs. One theme worth noting briefly is that of ‘the god on two mountains’,147 which shows the great prestige of Baal of Saphon throughout the east Mediterranean region. A number of ivories have been discovered, of which the most important group constitute the royal bed panels. These have been briefly discussed by S (1954, 51–9 and figs. 3–4, pll. –),148  M (1973), C – S (1980) and myself (W 1995a, 580–3). These illustrate typical royal scenes, of hunting, warfare, and the despatch of prisoners, as well as showing a royal marriage and a goddess (Shapsh) suckling twin sons. They are in short a digest of the main themes of royal ideology. This rich collection of iconographic material is still in need of a comprehensive assessment from a theological point of view. All too

145 For this see L 1960 (Athtart) and W 1984 (Anat). The stela I discussed is of course not from Ras Shamra, being of unknown provenance in the Michaelides collection, Cairo, and now apparently lost. It may be compared with the Anat represented on BM stela 646/191. See also C 1993 and § 14 below. 146 S – F 1983; A 1992. 147 See D 1991. 148 The panels were found in many pieces. The initial publication lacks any RS numbers (actually RS 16.56). In addition to references given see W 1969, 236–7 and figs. 3, 4 and C – S 1980 pll. XXVIIIa, XXIXa.

   :  

583

often such material is given a catalogue-treatment which goes little further than the descriptive. C (1994, and § 14 below) may be cited as a model of the way analysis should be conducted. 11.4

Votive gifts: the anchors

A final note may be offered on the anchors which have been found, mainly scattered around in the precincts of the Baal temple, but also in houses and tombs and even incorporated into building construction. These appear to be votive gifts, and testify perhaps to the piety and gratitude of mariners who, returning to port safely after long and perhaps hazardous voyages, felt the need to make offering to the temple which had guided them safely to land. In some instances a more general symbolism may have obtained, owing something to the economic dependence of Ugarit on the sea. The anchors were probably not carried or dragged from ships, being often unused and presumably made especially for cultic use.149 11.5 The assessment of material remains We have insufficient evidence to reach firm conclusions on the use and significance of this visible and tangible material. On the analogy of better known cultures (particularly Egypt) and reading between the lines of later Hebrew iconoclastic rhetoric, we may suppose a degree of ‘idolatry’. It is possible to use this term in a non-pejorative sense, and it is in such a way that I use it here. To begin with, the stelae and other glyptic representations certainly did not constitute ‘idols’ in the technical sense. The statues are a different matter. The small ones found in profusion in tombs may well have been images used in private devotions, while the gilded bronze of El may have been used in cultic processions, representing the very presence of the god among his devotees. Language such as ‘when Athtart-of-theWindow enters the pit of the royal palace’ (KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005.1–2) is to be construed as meaning that the image of the goddess is carried thither in procession. Similarly in ll. 9–10 ‘the two Gathru-gods come into the royal chapel’, and l. 18 appears to allude to two images

149 F 1991, 357. Some, found at Minet el Beida, may have been left at the port-brothel (id., 358)! Seafarers then, as now, left nothing to chance.

584

 

of Anat. This symbolic use of an icon, ubiquitous in the ancient world and still normal in many contemporary cultures, as the focus of attention in the cultus, as the face to which prayer and offering is addressed, was the focus of the reification in divine personae of all human needs and aspirations, and should not be separated (as it has largely been for polemical reasons) from all other elements such as song and dance, vestments, incense and sacrifice in the sacralization of life and the construction of a universe of meaning. In this respect Ugaritian religion was heir to a hallowed tradition.

12 C I have endeavoured in this survey to do more than offer a cursory glance at the material most commonly treated as ‘religious’, but rather to discern religious sensitivity in a far broader range of human concerns, as I think is necessary for an adequate assessment of the holistic view of life and role of religion in an ancient society. Even today the religious person is wont to say that ‘my faith is more than a religion; it is a way of life’. It is fair to say that while religion has been in retreat in the modern world, not just sociologically, but in terms of the greater fragmentation of life into different special areas (social, moral, political, medical, environmental, and so forth), in the ancient world any such compartmentalization is not only short-sighted in the scholar, but fundamentally misconceived. The gods were as much a part of the ancient citizen’s experience as breathing and thinking. They were invoked at every turn, and were believed to be present, and concerned, in every corner of life. We owe it to any human society under investigation to grant it autonomy and integrity in its structures and values. Any theological basis for wholesale judgments of the kind that have at times been fashionable are entirely misplaced, and while useful comparisons and even connections may be drawn, I remain uneasy that this area of Ugaritic studies should so often be pursued as an adjunct (even a mere prelude!) to biblical studies, even though, given the economic conditions under which our universities currently operate, this is probably inevitable. Let us at least acknowledge on anthropological grounds the utility of dispassionate enquiry: Ugarit has much to teach us in its own terms about the roots of our own cultural heritage. So

   :  

585

it is to be hoped that future research into the religion of Ugarit will tend to be phenomenological in nature, which with due caution, rigour and empathy, can be true both to the tradition under examination and to its adequate setting within the broader frame of human experience.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

THE ICONOGRAPHY OF UGARIT I C

1 I Whenever the name Ugarit is mentioned, people tend immediately to think of the cuneiform texts discovered there. Other important discoveries which were also made at Ugarit and the art treasures found there —stelae, statues, ivory pieces, seals and metalwork—are of no less importance. This chapter deals with the art and iconography. Iconography is here taken to refer to the theme or subject matter of a work of art. Only the motifs and not the technical manufacture or archaeology of the objects will be scrutinized. Architecture is excluded, but included is the specialized subject of the iconography of the deities.1 In order to make it easier for the general reader to find the relevant images, the excavation (RS) number, the present location and museum number and the source of a photograph of good quality are given—as far as possible from ANEP or else from C – S (1980) or W (1985). The Ugaritica volumes edited by S (1939–1978) are quoted only if no new source is available and in cases where these contain detailed analysis. A recent overview of the excavations and discoveries at Ugarit can be found in Y (1992a and 1997).2 Very handy in this regard is also Y (1991a, 275–8, 322, 324–5) for find-spots of the stone stelae. In monographic form there are the earlier overviews of S 1939 and S 1978. All major histories of ancient Near Eastern art have sections dealing with objects from Ugarit (e.g. A 1995, F 1979, O 1975). More specific treatments of Syrian and ‘Canaanite’

1 C 1996b, 530 speaks of the ‘profoundly religious character of their iconography . . .’. 2 A new book by Y (1998a, b) was announced when this chapter had already been completed.

   

587

or ‘Phoenician’3 art appear in the older books of Contenau, Dussaud and Matthiae, with a chapter in G (1964b, Ch. VII). Recent treatments are the catalogue of W (1985, 279ff.)4 and the chapter by C (1995). There is no monograph on Ugaritic art or iconography in general, but individual studies dealing with different artistic media (e.g. the glyptic) have been appearing. These are cited below.

2

S S

The stone sculptures from Ugarit were studied by Y (1991a, 273– 353), who dealt with both the stelae and statues. 2.1

Statues

Earlier excavations revealed Egyptian statuary from the Middle Kingdom (S 1949, 212–25, Figs. 19–25), which reflects the influence of Egypt in Ugarit: a sphinx of Amenemhat III (RS 4.416), a damaged statue of the wife of Senusret II (RS 3.336) and of an Egyptian official Senusret-ankh (RS 4.466 + 5.144 + 5.144). Other examples are monumental statues and some statuettes (Y 1991, 350–2, Figs. 1–3). In 1988 a statue of calcite (25 cm) (RS 88.70 = Fig. 10) was found near the temple of the rhytons (C 1995, 267–9; Y 1990, 1991a, 347–8, Fig. 2a). It shows an older bearded figure seated on a high-backed throne, wearing a high crown and a long garment with rolled borders. Most interpreters identified the figure with El, the father of the gods and the creator of mankind. The high crown is comparable to that of the figure on the (now lost) ‘Job stela’ (C 1994, 145, Fig. 34) containing the inscription ‘El creator of Saphon’. The figure is also comparable to the relief and bronze depicting the older seated ‘father type’ deity discussed below (ANEP §§ 493 and 826).5 Recently N (1998, 28, 65) has proposed that the statue represents a deified king. 3

But note that recently C (1995) still used ‘Canaan’. German and French editions of the catalogue were edited by Strommenger and Kohlmeyer, and Amiet. 5 Cf. also the headdress on the fragmentary stela in Y 1991a, 327 Fig. 7: No. 19. 4

588

 

Fig. 10 Calcite Statue (of El?)

    2.2

589

Stelae

In her detailed study of the stone stelae, Y (1991a, 273–344) gave a detailed catalogue of 19 stelae with regard to the find-spot, the material, iconography and function. Here only a few examples have been selected which reflect the most important iconographic characteristics present in Ugarit. The most prized of all the stelae is still the 1.42 m limestone Baal au foudre stela found 20 m SW of the temple of Baal on the acropolis (RS 4.427 = Louvre AO 15.775 = ANEP § 490, C 1994, 135ff., Pl. 32 [BR1], Y 1991a, 294–9, Figs. 6:5 and 11a [ No. 5] = Fig. 11). This stela reflects a mixture of Hittite, Egyptian and local traditions. Because of the uncertainty regarding the stratigraphy, the date varies from between the MBA and the LBA (i.e. 1900–1200 ). It depicts a young bearded god dressed in a kilt with a dagger wearing a horned helmet and two large curled locks, brandishing a mace above his head and holding in front a spear with the top spreading into a plant (no thunderbolt or lightning!). Another stela (25 cm) which is clearly identified as representing Baal by the accompanying inscription is the stela dedicated by an Egyptian official Mami (RS 1.[089] + 2.[033] + 5.183 = Louvre AO 13.176 = ANEP § 485, C 1994, 151–3, Pl. 39 [BR11], Y 1991a, 284–8, Figs. 6:1, 8a [No. 1]) found in five parts in the temple of Baal. The iconography is similar to that of the Egyptianized Baal (Seth) with a was sceptre but no horns (C 1994, Pll. 35–38, 40). Other stelae with a prominent iconography that need to be mentioned are the so-called ‘treaty stelae’ RS 7.116 (Aleppo 4418 = ANEP § 608, Y 1991a, 303–5, Figs. 7:9, 15a [No. 9]) and the stela with a seated older god with a king in attendance in front of him RS 8.295 (Aleppo 4622 = ANEP § 493, Y 1991a, 305–7, Figs. 7:10, 16a [No. 10]), usually identified as depicting the chief god El. As far as the iconography of the deities of Ugarit (C – S 1980; and C 1994 and forthcoming) is concerned, there are three other stelae as well, RS 2.[033], 2.[038], 4.429 + 5.044 + 5.202 (Louvre AO 13.174, Aleppo 4625, Aleppo 4624 = ANEP §§ 491–2, 489, Y 1991a, 288–93, 299–301, Figs. 6:2–3, 7:6, 9a, 9c, 13a [Nos. 2–3, 6]): (i) a male with a spear and a crook and upturned shoes, and a feathered headdress; (ii) a female wrapped in wings; and (iii) another male with a sword and a sceptre or spear.

590

 

Fig. 11 ‘Baal au foudre’ stela

   

591

It is unclear whether the males are really gods, but the female may be a goddess because of the resemblance with the Egyptian goddesses Nut and Mut. In addition one could mention stelae depicting menacing gods and a god with a bow and shield (Y 1991b, Fig. 7: Nos. 11–15, 17). Because of the bow Nos. 13–14 may be the god Reshep and No. 17 perhaps Reshep, due to the quiver and shield (C 1994, 252–3).6 An aniconic stela (RS 3.487 = Louvre 14.919 = C – S 1980, Pl. XXVI; Y 1991a, 293–4, Figs. 6:4, 10a [No. 4]) shows a four-pointed star on its top, presumably to be connected with El because of the resemblance with the star on the El relief (ANEP § 493).

3

M- 3.1 Statuettes

Small bronze statuettes from the Syro-Palestinian region depicting deities (N 1976) are of three types: (i) ‘warrior’, ‘standing armed’ or ‘smiting or menacing’ figurines; (ii) the seated peaceful ones and (iii) standing ‘peace figurines’. In the past the bronzes depicting the menacing or smiting god (e.g. C – S 1980, Pls. VIIIb–IX) were too easily identified with a specific deity without taking into account any specific criteria (C 1994, 125ff.). Both the gods Baal and Reshep are depicted in this way and the only difference lies in the weapons— in the case of Baal the plant-spear and with Reshep the bow. Because of the prominent horns of the bronze RS 7.160 (Louvre AO 18.511 = C – S 1980, Pl. IXc) similar to the horns of Fig. 11, it may be Baal (Fig. 12). A bronze from Ugarit depicting Reshep could thus far not be identified. The seated peaceful type of bronze (13,5 cm) with gold covering can be identified with El (RS 23.394 = Damascus S 3573 = ANEP § 826, in colour in W 1985, 315)7 comparable to the stone statuette 6 In this regard the figure with the bow (Y 1991a, 327 Fig. 7: Nos. 13–4) has to be added to the material collected in C 1994 (esp. 253). 7 But it is catalogue No. 134 and not 133!

592

 

Fig. 12 Menacing god

   

593

(Fig. 10) and the relief mentioned above. The seated female Louvre AO 19.397 (ANEP § 480) may be the creatress Athirat, the ‘mother of the gods’. She is also shown standing with her hand in a gesture of blessing (RS 23.395 = Damascus S 3574 = C – S 1980, Pl. XIVa) as is the case with with her consort El (relief and bronze statuette = ANEP §§ 493 and 826). A 10 cm bull figurine of bronze (RS 23.391) which functioned as a cultic image hails from Ugarit (ANEP § 828), like the one from Hazor (ANEP § 832) and another famous example from Ashkelon. A Horus falcon in bronze (inlaid with gold) with uraeus between its legs comes from the royal necropolis (Aleppo 4532 = W 1985, No. 137). Weights of bronze and lead in the form of a bull and a lion 9 and 7.6 cm in length respectively (Aleppo 4516, 4520 = W 1985, No. 128) as well as a portrait-like human head (S 1939, Pl. XXI) were also found. 3.2

Weapons and bowls

A sword with the name of pharaoh Merenptah was found at Ugarit, but more important as far as iconography is concerned—and quite impressive from a technical point of view—is an axe (19.7 cm) with a meteoritic iron blade with bronze socket damascened in gold, decorated in the form of two heads, of a lion and a boar, on the back (Aleppo 4520 = S 1939, 107ff., in colour in W 1985, 317 [No. 157]). From an artistic point of view the two famous golden objects found near the Baal temple merit mentioning: a patera (with a flat base and vertical sides) and a bowl (S 1949, 1–48). The repoussé decoration is exceptionally beautifully done—on the outside and the inside. Both examples show definite Egyptian influence, but also reflect Aegean motifs. In the first case (Louvre AO 17.208 = ANEP § 183) the bearded king with bow and quiver on his back—accompanied by his dog— is hunting wild cattle (two bulls and a cow with her calf ) and an ibex from his four-spoked-wheel chariot. The inside pattern has four striding goats (looking like unicorns!). The circular movement of the charioteer and galloping animals is well executed, and one gets a sense of the whirling movement (Fig. 13). The second example (diam. 17 cm Aleppo 4572 = colour W

594

 

Fig. 13

Gold decorated patera

1985, 318 [No. 158]) is even more elaborately decorated and has three concentric friezes. On the bottom is a rosette and a guilloche pattern above the second and third frieze. In the first frieze are five galloping ibexes next to plants; in the second one there are two bulls and two lions with stylized plants between them and pomegranates above them. The outer frieze depicts scenes of battles (from the left) between two human heroes and a lion protecting a reclining stag, a lion killing an ibex, a lion attacking a squatting griffin, in between a winged sphinx and horned winged lion facing a plant, ibexes, and lions attacking bulls. There are branches between all the animals, and birds (vultures?) above the lions attacking the bulls and the ibexes.

    3.3

595

Pendants

Pendants and plaques are decorated with stars or the head of a goddess with Hathor coiffure, navel and pubic triangle, but quite a few examples of the ‘Qedeshet’-type have been published which show a naked female facing the front and holding plants and animals (e.g. C – S 1980, Pls. XVII–XIX).8 The best example comes from the harbour of Ugarit (Louvre AO 14.714 = C – S 1980, Pl. XIXb) and shows a naked woman standing on a lion holding horned animals (antelopes?) by their feet. Behind her waist are stars and interwoven serpents (Fig. 5). Other pendants show a seated women holding plants (N 1976, Nos. 1703–4).

4 I Excavations at Ugarit have revealed the largest collection of ivories from Late Bronze Age Syria, with motifs reflecting local traditions but also Egyptian, Hittite and Aegean influences. The ivories (G 1987, 1992 and C 1995, 2687–8) correspond well with what is found in a Ugaritic text mentioning beds, chairs and cosmetic boxes. The most famous item is the bed panel presently in Damascus (RS 16.56 = C – S 1980, Pls. XXVIII–XXIX; linedrawing in C ‒ P 1987, 285, Fig. 17; cf. ANEP §§ 817–8, 829) called by S (1954b) the largest single-piece ivory carving from the Near East (2,4 m × 1,2 m). There are 16 narrative friezes on various vertical panels: borders with sacred trees, fighting animals, winged lions flanking trees. On the main panels from the upper left are depicted: (i) a naked woman with an ankh symbol and a flower; (ii) an Egyptian king slaying a lion; (iii) a king smiting an Asiatic; (iv) soldiers; (v) a figure carrying a lion; (vi) a male in a gesture of adoration; (vii) a man carrying an ibex; (viii) a hunter with deer; (ix) a lady (queen?) with a vase and a flower; (x) the famous winged horned goddess (identified either as representing Anat or Asherah) giving suck to two lads; (xi) a caressing pair; and (xii) another warrior (Fig. 6). The Egyptian style and motifs are prominent, reminiscent of the free style of Amarna. 8

These will be published in extenso by the author in a study of the iconography of the Late Bronze Age Syro-Palestinian goddesses (C forthcoming).

596

 

Fig. 14 ‘Qedeshet’-type gold pendant

   

Fig. 15 Ivory bed panel: royal couple caressing

597

598

 

Secondly, mention should be made of the box cover from Minet el-Beida (137 mm) now in the Louvre (AO 11.601 = ANEP § 464; C – S 1980, Pls. IV–V) depicting a seated ‘lady of the beasts’ (Potniatheron). Scholars have shown the Aegean influences at work in this piece. Another pyxis with decoration was found in the temple of the rhytons (C – P 1987, 268, Pl. 3). A lesser known ivory tray (more than 1 metre in diam. RS 17.418 = Damascus 4507 = L 1983, Pl. XCVIII:1, line-drawing in C ‒ P 1987, 288, Fig. 20) depicts motifs reminiscent of the golden bowl discussed earlier. Figurines are represented by a small head of a queen with a high headdress and stylized curls (some consider it to be male) (ANEP § 816) now in Damascus. Very interesting is a trumpet cut out of a whole elephant’s tusk depicting a naked woman between sphinxes (Damascus RS 16.404 = C – S 1980, Pl. XVIIIa, linedrawing C ‒ P 1987, 287, Fig. 19; cf. C 1996a, 30 Fig. 9). Small ivory ointment containers are in the form of a swimming duck and a female drummer (Aleppo 4535 and Damascus S 3602 [RS 24.400] = W 1985, Nos. 153–154).

5

G

Different types of seals were found at Ugarit: cylinders, scarabs in the Hyksos tradition (S 1939, Pl. V), seal rings and Hittite seals and impressions (S 1956, 1ff.). The detailed studies of A (1992) and S – F (1983) deal with the types and motifs of the cylinder seals. The iconography is of a religious type (deities, worshipping and mythological scenes), decorative (plants and animals) and there are royal seals as well. Only one example has been selected, a haematite cylinder from Minet el-Beida (RS 3.041 = Louvre AO 14.811 = A 1992, 53, 58, No. 47, S ‒ F 1983, 12–13 = Fig. 16) reflecting an Egyptianized style but also Asiatic traditions. A seated pharaoh is shooting at animals: a bird, a lion and an ibex. Behind him is a figure with one hand raised and an object in the other.

   

599

Fig. 16 Cylinder-seal impression (Minet el-Beidah)

6

C  F

S (1949, 130–300) and C (1978) presented the corpus of pottery from Ugarit. Pottery was mostly manufactured locally, but there are many examples of imports from the eastern Mediterranean, which indicate international contexts (Minoan types of pottery go back to the 4th millennium ). The decoration is in some cases of Mycenaean origin (W 1985, Nos. 141–142). In the temple of the rhytons were found 17 rhytons, local Syrian ones and Cretan and Mycenaean imports (Y 1996, 415; cf. Figs. 4e–f ) (Fig. 17). A decorated pottery mug from the house of a priest (RS 24.440 = Damascus 6886 = C 1994, 225, Pl. 51 [BP1], Fig. 55) may depict the standing Baal serving the seated El. The fragments of an alabaster container is decorated with a queen in Egyptian style serving a seated male, presumably king Niqmad (hieroglyphs!) and his queen (S 1956, 164ff.; W 1985, No. 156). Objects in terracotta have animals but also naked women (goddesses?) and Mycenaean ‘idols’ (M 1987). A terracotta ‘stand’ (75 cm) from the temple of the rhytons (RS 78.41 + 81.3659 = Y 1996, Fig. 4d), now restored, shows a figure dressed as a priest (or a king at prayer), with an Egyptianized winged sun-disk above and

600

 

Fig. 17

Decorated Rhyton

   

601

a floral pattern. On a terracotta libation tube (78 × 35 cm) are depictions of a menacing god holding a bird, a bull, a bird and a deer, an ibex and a bull (RS 24.627 = C 1969, 98–99, Figs. 5A–D; cf. C – S 1980, Pl. XIVb). Zoomorphic containers include terracottas in the form of a bull (RS 61.24.435) and the head of a lion (RS 52.16.52) (Damascus S 6883 and 4217 = W 1985, Nos. 139 [colour on p. 314]–140). Faience containers also reflect local and foreign styles (Damascus S 6881, Aleppo 6203 = W 1985, Nos. 143–4, colour on p. 316). Other examples reflect Egyptian styles, e.g. a plate with fish and lotus buds (RS 63.26.256 = Damascus S 7179 = W 1985, No. 147 [colour p. 317]). There is a spoon-shaped bowl with a handle ending in a duck’s head (Aleppo 4557 = W 1985, No. 145, colour on p. 316), a double-faced cup (W 1985, No. 146), and a vase in the shape of the head of a female (Louvre AO 15.725 = C – S 1980, Pl. XVb). According to C (1995, 2685) the last item was manufactured locally. Such examples were found as far afield as Ur and Rhodes. A frit model is in the form of a chariot with two riders (Louvre AO 18.522 = C ‒ S 1980, Pl. XXVIIb). Finally, mention should be made of a limestone lotion container from a child’s tomb showing a Nubian boy (RS 22.362 = Damascus S 3575 = W 1985, No. 155).

7

C

The items discussed have shown to what extent the art of Ugarit was influenced by iconographic motifs from Egypt (ivory duck and bronze falcon) and the Aegean (decorated pottery, ivories and femalefaced cup). The golden bowls reflect both Egyptian and Aegean styles and the ‘Baal stela’ Syrian, Anatolian and Egyptian elements. Therefore, it has to be asked whether Ugaritic art and iconography are really unique or only a mere imitation as G (1964b, 161, 181) seems to argue. In the art and iconography of Ugarit we find a combination of local Syrian art and Egyptian and Aegean influences, which is due to the contacts in this cosmopolitan centre, where many ideas from all over the Eastern Mediterranean world commingled. Ugaritic art is ‘peripheral’ (F 1979, 207, 244, 254ff.), but perhaps

602

 

its uniqueness lies in the success achieved in taking from the best available and creating a new artistic tradition (cf. also K 1980, 92).9 Ugarit produced no surviving large reliefs or paintings on the scale of Egypt and Mesopotamia, but her artists still produced works of art which stand out in the region of Syro-Palestine (Y 1992a, 705). This art had its influence in later periods as well (L 1983).

9 A so-called peripheral culture draws in a creative and innovative way from the ideas of the great cultures—cf. G 1997, 211ff.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

A POLITICAL HISTORY OF UGARIT I S

1

P R 1.1 History of research

With seventy years of nearly continuous excavation, Ras ShamraUgarit qualifies as the most intensively explored city in Syria. In the last two centuries before her downfall it is also the best documented city in the Levant, due to a rare combination of a sizeable excavated area which remained mostly uninhabited in later periods, and the discovery of the largest and most diverse archives between ›attu“a and Amarna. The importance of Ugarit’s history exceeds by far the local and the regional level, and for the complex questions concerning the transition between the Bronze and the Iron Age, it is a main landmark, providing a unique combination of archaeological and textual sources. The first steps towards the reconstruction of Ugarit’s history were made by the illustrious epigrapher J. Nougayrol, who classified the texts and provided concise commentaries in the Akkadian text volumes (PRU 3, 4, 6 and Ug 5). Similar, though shorter, comments were appended by C. Virolleaud in the volumes of Ugaritic texts (PRU 2, 5). These early efforts have been continued by the present epigraphic teams of the expedition in their publications of the new texts (RSO 7). The first comprehensive histories of Ugarit were published in the sixties: Liverani’s Italian monograph (L 1962) and the more general surveys of R (1965b) and D (1975) are limited to the age of Ugarit’s archives in the 14th and 13th centuries. Klengel’s chapter on Ugarit (K 1969) includes the earlier evidence as well. The publication of numerous new texts, especially relating to the final phases of Ugarit’s history, has prompted a new compendium by Liverani (L 1979a), which remains till now

604

 

the only full-scale history of Ugarit. It covers not only political history, but also various demographic, socio-economic, and cultural topics. Klengel has also updated his chapter on Ugarit in his latest handbook on Syria (K 1992). Many historical studies have since been written, mostly restricted to a specific period or topic.1 It seems, however, that Ugarit’s political history received in recent years less attention than its society, economy and administration,2 not to mention its religion and literature. The present attempt (which has already surpassed the space limitations set by the editors of this Handbook) deals primarily with the political history of Ugarit throughout the second millennium . Socio-economic and cultural issues are only occasionally mentioned, although the chapter dealing with Ugarit’s foreign relations is mostly concerned with international trade. 1.2

Sources

The main source for the history of Ugarit are its own archives. Several thousand cuneiform tablets written in Akkadian and Ugaritic were found in the palace archives and in several ‘private’ archives throughout the city, as well as at Ras Ibn Hani on the coast, perhaps a summer residence of the kings of Ugarit.3 The most valuable texts for the reconstruction of the political history of Ugarit are the international letters, the treaties concluded with ›atti and Amurru, and the various decrees and legal verdicts issued by the Hittite authorities. There is also, of course, a wealth of historical information to be extracted from legal, administrative, and even literary texts. Most of the relevant texts are written in syllabic Akkadian, but some, especially letters, are written in alphabetic Ugaritic which is 1 Various articles on the history of Ugarit are included in the proceedings of conferences dedicated to Ugarit and to the end of the Bronze Age: G.D. Y 1981; W 1992; B et al. 1994; D – L 1995; Y et al. 1995. See also D 1987 on the late history of Ugarit, and I" – S 1990 on the ‘General’s Letter’. 2 See, e.g., Heltzer’s monographs on the rural community (H 1976), on trade (H 1978a), and on the internal organization (H 1982). See further G.I. M 1980 and L 1985 on the juridical texts, A 1989 on the status of women, A 1994 on the royal family, and V 1995a on the army. 3 For the archives and scribal activity in Ugarit, see R 1969;  S 1986; 1991a, 47–231; L 1988b; L 1995a. The texts and other inscribed objects found up to 1988 are conveniently listed in the catalogue of B – P 1989.

    

605

far less well understood.4 Due to inherent difficulties in the correct rendering of non-formulaic phrases, a difficult passage may sometimes produce diametrically opposed interpretations and historical reconstructions, which are then perpetuated in general textbooks.5 As a rule, it seems advisable to adopt far-reaching interpretations based on difficult Ugaritic texts only if they are supported by more reliable Akkadian evidence. It is not surprising to find a cosmopolitan city that has been described as ‘probably the first great international port in history’ (C 1966, 46) mentioned in several foreign archives, including (in chronological order) Ebla(?), Mari, Alala¢, Amarna, ›attu“a, Emar, Aphek, as well as various inscriptions from Egypt. The CyproMinoan documents from Cyprus and from Ras Shamra must also contain evidence reflecting on Ugarit, but they have so far resisted decipherment. Although most of this study is obviously based on written sources, some use is also made of the rich archaeological evidence, especially with regard to Ugarit’s urban development and its destruction by human and natural forces. Of particular importance are the archaeological data pertaining to the city’s final destruction at the beginning of the 12th century, and the Iron Age resettlement of the port-town of Ras Ibn Hani. The combination of textual and archaeological data will no doubt become increasingly important in the coming years thanks to the meticulous and reliable investigations conducted by the new excavation teams of Ras Shamra and its vicinity.6 Finally, a word of caution should be added on the limitations of this study with regard to its sources. Though it is often the fate of the historian that his reconstructions are invalidated by fresh discoveries, in this case the new relevant documents have already been unearthed and await publication. I refer mainly to the 134 letters (about twenty in Ugaritic) found in 1994 in the ‘House of Urtenu’. The preliminary reports (B – M-L 1995; M-L 4

There are also some Hurrian texts, mostly of religious character (n. 58), a few Hittite texts (p. 650), half a dozen undeciphered Cypro-Minoan inscriptions (n. 234), and several Egyptian inscriptions on stone (p. 711). The contribution of these texts to Ugarit’s history is marginal at present. 5 As an example may serve Astour’s widely-quoted article on the end of Ugarit (A 1965), which includes some far-reaching historical reconstructions based on poorly understood Ugaritic letters (e.g., KTU 2.40 = RS 18.040 = PRU 5, 63). 6 For an up-to-date general survey on the site of Ras Shamra (with ample refs. to specific literature), see Y 1997, 1998ab.

606

 

1995b; L 1995a) provide an appetizing glance into the richness of this treasure trove, and obviously the history of the last decades of Ugarit will have to be rewritten once these texts (and those of subsequent seasons) are fully published. 1.3

Spelling of names

A note is due on the reading of PNs in syllabic and alphabetic texts. Many of the names occurring in Akkadian texts are spelled logographically and their reading is open to speculation. It was customary in the past to normalize these names as much as possible, by deciding, sometimes quite arbitrarily, in which language to read them: Akkadian, West Semitic, Hurrian, Hittite. As a rule, Nougayrol’s readings were uncritically accepted and perpetuated in Ugaritic studies. Although in most cases these readings are probably correct, some of them are certainly not, and they can lead to mistaken prosopographies and historical interpretations. To give one example: a certain -lim is the author of a letter sent to the king of Ugarit dealing with some border incidents (RS 17.394 + 427 = PRU 4, 220; see n. 192). Nougayrol rendered the ideogram GUR, ‘return’, with its Akkadian value Itur (see also G 1967, 328). A king Itur-lim is not otherwise attested at Ugarit, and thus he remained in splendid isolation with a dossier of his own (IX A 4). However, if we apply a West Semitic value (see n. 190), we obtain the reading ”àb-ilim, which is borne by a king of Siyannu-U“natu (”a-bi--lim; RS 17.341 = PRU 4, 161ff.), probably identical with the author of PRU 4, 220. The document may now be evaluated for its historical information (see p. 664). As a rule, I have abstained from unproven normalizations and have adhered to the logographic spelling, indicating the suggested reading in parentheses. The same applies to Ugaritic names whose vocalization is not certain. Here also, I have given the original spelling, indicating in parentheses the possible vocalization: e.g., Iwrkl (Ewri-kili ?), TrÀds (Tar¢undi““a?), etc. 1.4

Chronology

The relative chronology of the last two centuries of the history of Ugarit is by now well established.7 The line of eight kings from 7

For the evidence for the chronological framework of the archives of Ugarit, see  S 1991a, Part I.

    

607

Ammi∆tamru I in the first half of the 14th century to Ammurapi at the turn of the 13th is safely set,8 but we lack direct information on the length of each individual reign. For the long centuries preceding the Amarna Age we have practically no chronological data, and the few early kings of Ugarit who are known to us from the Ugaritic King List and from other isolated sources9 cannot be set into a controlled chronological framework. The absolute chronology of Ugarit in the LBA is dependent on synchronisms with the great powers of the era. As the hub of a lucrative international trade, Ugarit’s contacts reached out to most of the ancient Near East, and there are indeed good synchronisms with Egypt, Assyria, and of course ›atti and its Syrian dependencies. Ugarit still has much to contribute in linking together the absolute chronological systems of the ancient Near East, and important data keep streaming out from the new Urtenu archive. The absolute chronologies followed in this study are laid down below, but obviously a justification for their acceptance cannot be presented here.10 For New Kingdom Egypt there is a growing preference for the low chronology, based on 1479 for the accession of Tuthmosis III and 1279 for the accession of Ramesses II.11 In Mesopotamia the Old Babylonian middle chronology, with ›ammurapi’s accession in 1792, is followed, although there is not much reference to this period in the history of Ugarit. More relevant are the still debated dates of the Middle Assyrian kings, where I follow the lower chronology, with 1233 for the accession of Tukulti-Ninurta, suggested by B – W 1979.12 Like the Levant, Anatolia does not have an independent chronological system, and the dates of the Hittite kings depend on synchronisms with Mesopotamia and Egypt. The major recent development in Hittite chronology is the

8 For the elimination of the alleged ‘Niqmaddu IIa’ (inserted between Niqmepa and Ammi∆tamru II), see p. 694. 9 Ibira in RS 4.449 (n. 54), and possibly Puruqqu in AT *358 (p. 619). 10 The dates given in the table of synchronisms for the kings of Egypt and A““ur are quoted from K 1987: 52, and B – W 1979, 38, respectively. The approximate dates for the kings of Ugarit are mine. 11 W – V S 1976; K 1978; H 1987; K 1987;  B 1994a, 1994b. Cf. also H 1987 and 1995 for the Ramesses II date. For a different view, see A 1989, 4–5. 12 See further K 1982: 224, 229–30; W 1991; F 1991a: 11, n. 3, 32;  S 1991a, 44. These dates are about ten years lower than those suggested by B (1977) in combination with Middle Babylonian chronology. See also B apud H  C 1996, 40.

 

608

drastic lowering and reduction of ”uppiluliuma I’s reign from about forty to about twenty years (1343–1322/18) suggested by W – B (1987; W 1991). It seems that this low chronology, which tallies with the low chronologies of Egypt and Mesopotamia, has won increasing support in recent Hittitological studies,13 though some scholars would add a few more years at the beginning of ”uppiluliuma’s reign.14 The approximate dates assigned to the kings of Ugarit have taken into account the recently suggested synchronisms with A““ur (Ibiranu) and with Egypt (Ammurapi). It must be remembered, however, that exact dates cannot be assigned, and even these relative approximations may change with the publication of new data from the Urtenu archive. It seems to me, however, that the recent accumulation of prosopographic data from the archives of ›attu“a, Ugarit and Emar, will lead, before too long, to a more accurate chronological framework for the last century of the Hittite Empire.15

2

U   E   M B A 2.1

Ugarit in the third millennium

BCE

The excavations of Ugarit have revealed a continuous stratigraphy of the site from the 8th through to the 2nd millennium  (Y 1997b, 19, 25, 34).16 The Early Bronze Age city (Level III A) on the acropolis was of considerable size. Its last phase witnessed a rapid development in bronze metallurgy. The site was deserted around 2200  and remained abandoned for a period of a hundred years or more (Y 1997a, 258; 1997b, 26). In third millennium written documents Ugarit has not yet been identified with certainty. Both proposed identifications of Ugarit in the texts from Ebla (A 1987)—U9-ga-ra-at in a list of geographical names and Ù-gu/gú-ra-at/tum in economic texts—have been con-

13 E.g., B 1989, 30; G 1990, 181. K 1992, 132, n. 244, does not take a stand on the new chronology. For a total refutation, see A 1989, 5ff., 77. 14 E.g., F 1992, 39; K 1995, 247; N" 1996, 257. 15 For prosopographical studies on 13th century Hittite nobles and officials, many of whom are attested in the archives of Ugarit, see   H 1995 (with further refs. quoted on p. 1, n. 2; see also S 1997). 16 For the prehistory of Ugarit, see  C 1992.

    

609

tested on both phonetical and contextual grounds (B 1993, 309; A 1995, 57, n. 11). Unlike Byblos, Ugarit is not mentioned in the Ur III texts, which conforms to the archaeological record. There is no certainty that the new settlement of the second millennium bore the same name as the Early Bronze Age city. 2.2

Ugarit in the Amorite Age and the Ugaritic King List

At the beginning of the second millennium , Ras Shamra was resettled by tribal groups designated by Schaeffer as the ‘necklace wearers’ ( porteurs de torques) after the rich metal ornaments discovered in their tombs (C 1979, cols. 1151ff.). No architecture is known as yet from this first phase of the MBA settlement (Y 1997b: 26). The new urban civilization of Ugarit developed in spectacular fashion from the 19th century onwards (Level II). The city covered almost the entire surface of the mound and was fortified with a massive rampart covered with a glacis. Schaeffer dated to this period the two temples on the acropolis and the so-called ‘Hurrian temple’ in the palatial quarter (C 1979 cols. 1195–6). However, more recent studies tend to lower their date to the very end of the MBA, or even to the beginning of the LBA.17 Sporadic traces of the MBA city were also found in other areas of the city (M 1990; 1997; C 1994, 203–4; Y 1998a, 127ff.). On the other hand, a trial pit made in the so-called North Palace in 1994 has shown that this edifice was first erected in the early part of the LBA (C 1986; 1994, 204; Y 1997, 258; 1998a, 26, 72), and not in the MBA as suggested by Schaeffer (S 1970, 209–13; 1972). The exact nature of the transition from the Middle to the LBA at Ugarit has yet to be determined (Y 1998a, 28; cf. also A 1997, 155), but the marked continuity in material culture and the preservation of ancient ancestral traditions seem to speak against drastic changes in the city’s population throughout the second millennium . There are no independent sources from Ugarit on its history in the first half of the second millennium. The documents of the Amorite Age have not been discovered as yet,18 and there are no references 17 Y 1998a, 26. Note in particular the reservations expressed by C (1994, 203 and n. 1) with regard to an early dating, calling attention to the fact that the Temple of Ba'al was partly built over a cemetery of the MBA. 18 Ugarit plays a prominent role in the Mari correspondence (see below) and it

610

 

to Ugarit’s early history in the LBA archives. A notable exception is the text known as the King List of Ugarit, a most important Ugaritic text which was found in 1961, but was fully published and discussed first in the late seventies.19 The very poorly preserved obverse seems to deal primarily with music, and its relationship with the king list on the reverse is not clear.20 The reverse is written in two columns,21 the left one almost entirely lost. The names of the kings listed in the right-hand column are all preceded by the divine lexeme il, the significance of which is debated. L (1974, 340–1; see also S 1996) considered it to be a generic ilu referring to the (unnamed) personal god of each of the listed kings, or to a single dynastic deity repeated in each entry, i.e. ‘the god (of ) PN’. Most commentators, however, maintain that the lexeme ilu deifies the deceased kings of Ugarit who are ritually invoked (P 1988b, 173, n. 25, with further refs.). This interpretation is supported by similar lists of deified kings in the ancient Near East, for example the King List from Ebla, which has the names of ten kings preceded by the divine marker  (ARET VII 150; A 1986; 1988; 1996, 14–5). A further parallel with the Eblaite list is the retrograde order of the royal names, the last name on the right-hand column being that of the founder of the dynasty, Yqr (Yaqarum). Since the tablet is damaged both at the top and at the bottom it is impossible to reconstruct the exact number of the listed kings. Earlier estimates, is inconceivable that no written documents of this period remained at the site. Note, for example, that Mari Age tablets have been discovered at Hazor, at the southern end of the commercial network operating along the Levant (H 1996, with refs.). For the possible location of the pre-Amarna Age archives, see n. 87. 19 KTU 1.113 = RS 24.257; P 1988b, 165–78. The obverse was already published by Virolleaud in Ug 5, 561–2, but the reverse had to await the 1976 edition of KTU 1. A full re-edition, with photographs, was provided in Pardee’s study on the ‘para-mythological’ texts (P 1988b, ch. 5). From the vast secondary literature on the text, see in particular those studies which have attempted to reconstruct the list of kings (K 1977, P 1988b; D 1989; S 1996). Other treatments concentrate mainly on its religious aspects, especially on the cult of deceased kings; see refs. listed in S 1996, 289, n. 1, and Y 1997, 356–7; W 1998c, 399–403. 20 S (1963, 215) noted that the two sides of the tablet exhibit two distinct scripts, with the king list on the reverse written in a smaller, less careful handwriting. P (1988b, 165), however, thinks that the same hand wrote both sides, the smaller script on the reverse being dictated by limitations of space. 21 The dividing line between the two columns is only partially preserved, and S (1996, 298–9) maintains that most of the lines span the entire width of the tablet in one, not two, columns. This would, of course, considerably reduce the number of listed kings.

    

611

however, which reckoned with about thirty names altogether (K 1977; see also A 1994, 7; S 1996), are probably too small. Pardee’s (P 1988b, 173) thorough reexamination of the tablet resulted in at least 26 names in each column, i.e. a total of more than fifty kings. Most of the fifteen well-preserved names recur in the LBA royal line of Ugarit (Ammi∆tamru, Niqmaddu, Niqmepa, Ibiranu, Ammupi), the only names without parallels being Y '≈rd (Ya≈uraddu?) and Yqr (Yaqarum).22 This conservatism in royal namegiving23 may indicate that ancient dynastic traditions were strictly preserved by the rulers of Ugarit for many centuries. However, it should immediately be added that we have no way of examining the credibility of this list, and one cannot entirely rule out the possibility that it was artificially extended to enhance the respectability of the ruling dynasty of the LBA (P 1988b, 175, with n. 37). Obviously, any attempt to calculate the total time-span of the Ugaritic king list is highly speculative and remains unwarranted unless corroborated by other independent evidence.24 Using an average reign of some twenty years25 for each of thirty kings, Kitchen arrived at ca 1800  for the date of Yaqarum (K 1977, 136). The same average with the 52 kings assumed by Pardee would push us back deep into the third millennium. A more restricted average reignspan of some 15 years26 would place Yaqarum at the very beginning of the second millennium, which would agree better with the date of his dynastic seal. The dynastic cylinder seal was used by the kings of Ugarit in the 14th–13th centuries, sometimes together with their own personal seals.27 It had in fact two copies: an original finely 22

As in most studies on the history of Ugarit, the numbering of the kings of the LBA will not take into consideration these earlier homonymous kings of Ugarit. Cf., however, A 1994. 23 As pointed out by L (1978, 152), the names of the LBA kings of Ugarit are linguistically archaic, and do not recur in the regular onomasticon of the period. 24 The restoration of the name [Pr]q in the last line of the left column, and its association with ‘Puruqqa, the man of Ugarit’ in a Level VII text from Alala¢ (AT *358.6–7; see p. 619), is, as stressed by P (1988b, 175–6), tempting but extremely fragile. 25 Eight kings ruled in Ugarit during the ca 160 years extending between the Amarna Age and the fall of Ugarit, i.e. an average of twenty years for each reign. 26 See, e.g. the cases cited by D 1989, 148, n. 51. 27 N 1955, xli–xliii; S 1956, 66–77. There is a rare report on the falsification (or the unauthorized use) of the ‘great seal of the king’, i.e., the dynastic seal (RS 16.249 = PRU 3, 97; id. p. xxv). A similar case of stealing the royal seal, apparently by a citizen of Ura, is reported in a Hittite court protocol (O 1967, 59–60).

612

 

cut cylinder dated to the MBA, and a much inferior duplicate which was probably manufactured at a later stage.28 The Akkadian inscription identifies the original seal owner as ‘Yaqarum, son of Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit’, who must be identical with Yqr of the Ugaritic King List.29 The typical presentation scene portrays a seated deity (perhaps the deified king) who is worshipped by a a standing male figure followed by a supplicant goddess. On the basis of iconography and ductus Nougayrol dated the dynastic seal to the early second millennium (N 1955, p. xli).30 The prolonged use of dynastic seals for enhancing the political legitimacy of the ruling royal families is well-known in the Amorite realm of northern Syria.31 Some difficulty with this early dating for the founder of the dynasty is posed by a legal document which quotes a decree issued by Yaqarum, king of Ugarit, in favour of a certain Ilu-qarradu32 son of Talmiyanu (RS 16.145 = PRU 3, 169). The sealed document is presented to the court by (the same) Ilu-qarradu in a later lawsuit, which would apparently indicate that Yaqaru reigned shortly before.33 Confronted with the apparent discrepancy between this lawsuit and his dating of the dynastic seal, Nougayrol suggested that Yaqarum became a sort of dynastic title borne by the kings of Ugarit, like Tabarna in ›atti and Caesar in Rome (N 1963, 111, n. 10; ibid., 1955, xxxviii, xliii, n. 3). Another explanation could be that the name of 28 S 1956, 73, fig. 96; N 1955, pll. XVI–XVII. The two cylinders were impressed (for the sake of comparison?) on an anepigraphic tablet found in the palace archive (RS 16.393 = Ug 3, 76, fig. 99; PRU 3, pl. XVII, fig. 25). 29 Yaqarum’s father in the seal and his successor in the King List are both named Niqmaddu, which indicates that papponymy was already practised at the outset of the dynasty. Since Yaqarum’s father does not appear in the King List, apparently he was not considered to be a king in the historical tradition of Ugarit. 30 A (1997, 158ff.) has recently questioned Nougayrol’s dating and suggested a mid-15th century date instead, in conformity with his new dating of Yaqarum on the basis of unpublished material (see n. 33). He compares the iconography of the seal with the yet unpublished cylinder seal of Uri-Te“ub, and claims that the cuneiform sign forms are archaizing. 31 To the inscribed dynastic cylinder seals from Ugarit, Alala¢ and Emar listed by A (1991) one may add the anepigraphic cylinder seal of Aziru, which is also fashioned in a typical Amorite style (Ug 3, figs. 44–45). 32 This reading of the name is proposed by A 1996, 48, n. 6, replacing Nougayrol’s dQarradu. 33 A (1996, 48, n. 6; 1997, 155, n. 28) has noted in passing that according to unpublished documents Yaqarum was a contemporary of Idrimi of Alala¢ who ruled at the turn of the 15th century. Until the evidence for this drastic change in Yaqarum’s dating is presented we follow the traditional view based on Yqr’s relative place in the Ugaritic King List.

    

613

Yaqarum was simply copied from the dynastic seal and quoted as a source of authority ( S 1991a, 14, n. 130). This possibility is supported by a very fragmentary legal text in which the dynastic seal is designated as both ‘the seal of Yaqarum’ and as ‘[the seal (of Niqmepa, son) of Niqmad]du, king of Ugarit’ (RS 17.053 = PRU 6, 27, no. 25). Despite the deplorable scarcity of data on the earliest phases of Ugarit’s history, the combined evidence of the dynastic seal and the Ugaritic King List seems to indicate that the kings of 14th–13th century Ugarit traced back the origins of their royal house to the outset of the second millennium .34 Unless both documents reflect an ingenious late attempt at an artificial extension of the dynasty’s history,35 the foundations of the kingdom of Ugarit seem to be firmly set within the context of the Amorite expansion in Mesopotamia and Syria at the turn of the second millennium . This conclusion is also supported by various cultural elements, such as Ugaritic language,36 religion and mythology.37 An intriguing reference to the ancestors of the dynasty is found in a late 13th century liturgical text lamenting the death of Niqmaddu III and hailing the new king Ammurapi (KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126 = RSO 7, no. 90). The spirits invoked include the ‘Council of the Ddn’ (qbß ddn), who also occur in the Krt epic (qbß dtn; KTU 1.15 = RS 3.343+ iii 4, 15). Ugaritic Dtn/Ddn has convincingly been identified with Didànum/Ditànum/ Tidànum, an Amorite tribal group inhabiting northeastern Syria from the late 3rd millennium  onwards (for refs. see L –  T 1984, 654–5). They are also encountered as ancient eponyms in the Assyrian King List, a further indication for the common ancestry of the various Amorite tribes. Many attempts have been made to locate the original homeland of the Ugaritians more exactly on the basis of various cultural and 34 To be sure, this does not necessarily mean that an unbroken dynastic line remained in power for eight centuries or so, a possibility which was already questioned by N, 1955, xli–ii. See also D 1989, 148. 35 For the function of genealogies and the problem of their historicity, see the references quoted in P 1988b, 175, n. 37. 36 For the place of Ugaritic among the Semitic languages, see P 1997c, with refs. to the vast literature on the subject. He concludes (p. 131) with the statement that ‘Ugaritic shows archaic features characteristic of old Canaanite and it may be a remnant of a Western “Amorite” dialect.’ 37 For the Amorite sources of Ugaritic mythology, see, e.g., D 1993; B – P 1993, W 1998a.

 

614

linguistic traits. A survey of these laborious quests, extending from the Euphrates to the plains of the Bashan, is beyond the scope of this historical overview.38 However, mention should be made in passing of the latest current of theories hinging upon the recent discovery at Ugarit of a cuneiform abecedary arranged in the order of the South Semitic alphabet (B – P 1995a; H – T 1997). This prompted a re-examination of the relationship between the Ugaritic and (proto-) Arabic languages leading to the suggestion that southern ethnic elements migrated to Ugarit towards the middle of the second millennium  (D – L 1989, 111–2; D – M 1995, 39). Other explanations for the appearance of two different orders of the alphabet at Ugarit may also be suggested (see e.g. R 1998), and the whole issue needs to be further investigated. At any rate, it is well to note that there seems to be nothing in the archaeological record of Ugarit that would point to a sudden change in its material culture during the second millennium . On the contrary, the marked continuity of Ugarit’s culture seems to speak against any major changes in the composition of the city’s population. 2.3

The Levant and the Egyptian Middle Kingdom

The question of the nature of Egyptian involvement in Asia during the 12th and the 13th dynasties is one of the recurring problems arousing arduous debates.39 The early view, as stated for example by A (1935, 221), was that ‘the Pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty claimed, and often held, the suzerainty over Palestine and Phoenicia, extending their influence as far as Ugarit and Qatna’. It has also been argued that the Egyptian officials took their sculptures to their outposts for eventual burial in the Levant (G 1981, 57). A closer scrutiny of the archaeological evidence has shown that the Middle Kingdom statues of Egyptian kings and nobility excavated in the Levant, including Ugarit, were deposited in their findspots decades or centuries after their manufacture, and therefore could not provide evidence for Egyptian occupation (W 1975, 1–16). 38 For the location of places mentioned in Ugaritic myths and rituals, see, e.g., M 1981a;  S 1994, 369 (with extensive refs.). 39 For an updated state-of-the-art survey, with extensive references to primary and secondary sources, see R 1992, ch. 4.

    

615

Moreover, the inscriptions on these statues clearly indicate that they were originally erected in temples and graves in Egypt itself and have no connection whatsoever to their secondary findspots (H 1995, 88–9). The alternative explanation is that the Middle Kingdom statues found throughout the Levant, and even as far as southern Anatolia and Crete, owe their provenance to a vast pillage of royal and private tombs by Hyksos rulers, who then traded their prestigious loot at foreign courts (H 1976, 101–14; 1995, 87–90; see also C 1979: cols. 1155–6). Other scholars have fully rejected this alternative theory (e.g., G 1981, 57), or have taken a ‘middle road’ by suggesting a distinction between royal and private statues, the former being indeed sent as diplomatic presents by Middle Kingdom Pharaohs (W 1979, 799; S – M 1989, 135ff.). The controversy over this early Egyptian presence in the Levant received an additional boost with the publication in 1980 of an inscription of Amenemhet II describing the dispatch of a sea-borne military force to Khenty-she, i.e. the Phoenician coast.40 The main problem is the identification of two fortified towns, Iw3y and I3sy, which were destroyed by the Egyptian task force, capturing 1554 Asiatics and a very large amount of booty, including weapons, copper ingots, and luxury vessels of gold and lapis lazuli. The second name is identified by some with Ala“ia/Cyprus, but the evidence is questionable.41 For the first name H (1989, 28) suggested an identification with Ura on the Cilician coast, which is most unlikely. From the presently available evidence it would seem that the 12th dynasty kings carried out occasional military operations in the inland of Palestine and maintained a more permanent presence along the Lebanese coast, especially at Byblos. There is no evidence, however, for an Egyptian presence as far north as Ugarit, neither of a diplomatic, nor of a military character. This also tallies with the geographical horizon of the Egyptian Execration Texts, where the northernmost localities are Ullaza and Arqata in the area of Tripoli (R 1992, 87ff.). As for the Middle Kingdom statuary, both the archaeological and the inscriptional evidence lend strong support to Helck’s suggestion that we have to do with one of the earliest 40 See R 1992, 78–9 (with earlier literature). The inscription was published by A – M 1991; M – Q 1992. 41 Helck first argued for a location of Asiya in southwest Anatolia (H 1983), but later (1989, 109; 1995, 90) identified I3sy in the Amenemhet II inscription with Ala“ia/Cyprus.

616

 

examples of the ‘antiquities trade’, distantly recalling the Roman pillage of Greek statuary. What does Ugarit contribute to this vexed issue? First, it yielded one of the largest collections of Middle Kingdom statues and objects in Asia: two sphinxes of Amenemhet III, a statue of the vizier SesotrisAnkh with his mother and sister, a statuette of the princess Khenemetnefer-khedjet, the wife of Sesotris II, and a bust of an unidentified 12th Dynasty queen (for refs. see G 1981, 56f.; 1986, 839). In addition, there are inscribed seals, pearls and beads, and a large quantity of uninscribed objects. The second significant point is that the statues were found beheaded, and they were probably deliberately mutilated (S 1939b, 13; C 1979, cols. 1155–6; Y 1997b, 28). It is hard to tell, however, whether this was simply a consequence of their being stolen and carried over long distances, or whether it was due to a violent action performed in Ugarit itself. Schaeffer even blamed this ‘clumsy barbarian’ act on ‘a rising of the natives, amongst whom were Hurrites . . . who were now in power at Ugarit’ (S 1939b, 13). Lastly, it is highly significant that many of these objects were found in the area of the temples of Ba'al and Dagan (Y 1991a, 275–6, 278ff.), and may very well have been ex-votos presented to the gods of Ugarit by whoever brought them there. 2.4 Mari and Ugarit In the Amorite Age the kingdom of Yam¢ad, with its capital at ›alab (Aleppo), replaced Ebla as the dominant power in northern Syria. It is usually asserted that Ugarit belonged to the sphere of influence of the kings of Yam¢ad (e.g., K 1997, 365), but direct evidence about the exact nature of this bond is lacking. Our information on Ugarit in the Amorite Age comes primarily from the archives of Mari, first a close ally, later an enemy of Yam¢ad. The most prominent event relating to Ugarit is the well-documented journey of Zimri-Lim to Ugarit (V 1986; see also B 1997, 135–6). In the ninth year of his reign (1765), probably in the winter months (S 1984, 248), Zimri-Lim set out from Mari, accompanied by a grand entourage of courtiers, merchants and artisans. Some eighty preserved documents, written en route, describe in unusual detail the course of this journey, which advanced along the Lower ›abur and the Lower Bali¢ and then traversed the

    

617

Euphrates towards ›alab. Here Zimri-Lim was probably joined by his father-in-law, Yarim-Lim, and the two continued together to Ugarit, via Muzunnum, Laya“um, ›azazar, and Ma¢rasa (see map in V 1986, 395). This grand tour of the West served both ideological and practical purposes. Although it was certainly nonmilitary in character (V 1986, 393, n. 46; contra S 1984, 251), the voyage fitted well into the long Mesopotamian tradition of reaching the edge of the Great Sea, a ritual act symbolizing the victory of the Storm-god over the Sea (D 1993; M 1998, with previous refs.). On a more ‘mundane’ level, the journey enabled Zimri-Lim to strengthen his western alliances, just before a projected military campaign in the east against Larsa (V 1986, 408–9). Last but not least, during his stay in the various Syrian localities, Zimri-Lim and his men were engaged in lucrative commercial exchanges, both with the local authorities, and, through messengers, with distant rulers. The Mariote expedition received numerous golden and silver vessels, but also less valuable presents, such as wine and honey. In return, they distributed precious textiles, jewellery studded with lapis-lazuli, and, most significantly, large quantities of tin which was brought by Elamite merchants from the east (V, 404–5). Consignments of tin were sent out from Ugarit as far as Qatna and Hazor, and were also sold to Cretan merchants.42 The information on Ugarit, where the expedition spent at least one month (for the dates, see V 1986, 390–1), is disappointingly meagre. Not even the name of its ruler is indicated, unlike that of many other localites mentioned in this prolific documentation. More than twenty texts were written in Ugarit itself, documenting the exchange of presents with Crete and various Syro-Palestinian destinations. It seems that Mari had a special depot in Ugarit from which this voluminous flow of goods was controlled. It is less clear what was traded with Ugarit itself. One document records the purchase of gold in Ugarit for the manufacture of a golden seal mounted in lapis-lazuli, presented to the queen of ›alab (ARMT 25.340: 16–7; V 1986, 406). 42 A 1973, 21 (with refs.); L-P 1990, 122. Note also the year-name ‘when the Cretans (KapitariyuKI ) built a ship’ (V 1986, 402, n. 106), which is explained by Villard as a visit of Cretans to Mari. For the Middle Minoan pottery found in Ras Shamra, see S 1948, 66; A 1973, 19; LP 1990, 69–70; Y 1994b, 430–1; C – M 1995, 103–4. Chemical analysis of the Canaanite jars found at Kommos in Crete may indicate that some of them were made in Ugarit (L-P 1990, 69).

618

 

Another ring that was sold in Ugarit was made of iron and gold, with a lapis-lazuli seal (ARMT 25.48+: rev. 3’–5’; V, 1986, 406). Perhaps artisans of Ugarit assisted their Mariote colleagues in manufacturing some of these exquisite objets d’art. A glimpse into the nomadic countryside of Ugarit is provided by the letter exchange between two tribal leaders from the region extending between ›alab and Ugarit (A 2094; V, 1986 411–2, Annexe no. 2). The chief of the Uprapi is accused by the chief of the Benê-Sim"àl of pillaging his territory and of jeopardizing ‘the ¢a-a-ri-ni of Ugarit [leading to(?) the templ]e(?) of the Storm-god of ›alab’.43 Villard thought that the obscure vocable must designate some ritual related to a peace agreement concluded between the two groups before Addu of ›alab. I wonder whether it could rather stand for the Hurrian word for ‘the road’ (with article).44 If so, the angered chief was simply expressing his concern that the unruly Uprapeans might block the roads between Ugarit and ›alab. Shortly after his journey to Ugarit, Zimri-Lim’s father-in-law and ally Yarim-Lim died and was succeeded on the throne of ›alab by ›ammurapi. The latter showed far less cordiality towards ZimriLim, and eventually collaborated with his famous namesake in Babylon in bringing about the downfall of the last king of Mari. But before this happened, ›ammurapi of ›alab transmitted a short message to Zimri-Lim, in which an unnamed king of Ugarit (lit. ‘the Man of Ugarit’) expressed his wish to visit the palace of Mari.45 Is there anything in the archaeological record of Ugarit that relates to the lengthy stay of Zimri-Lim and his entourage in the city? There are certainly objects of eastern origin at Ugarit,46 but it would be hard to establish a connection specifically to Mari. There is, however, an intriguing fragment of a cuneiform inscription incised on a polished green stone which was found in 1932 at the entrance of the Temple of

43 ll. 9f.: [“u]m-ma ¢a-a-ri-ni “a Ú-ga-ri-timKI [i-n]a(?) É(?) dIM [“ ]a ›a-la-ab (followed by a large gap). 44 For ¢ari = ni, see L 1976–7, 94, and esp. the obscure ¢a-a-ri-e-ni in KBo 15.72 i 6. 45 Literally, ‘the house of Zimri-Lim’; V 1986, 410, nn. 160–162 (with previous refs.). It seems that Dossin’s original interpretation that the visit was intended to reach the palace of Mari itself is preferable to other suggestions, such as a visit to a Mariote domain in the west. 46 For the MBA cylinder seals from Ras Shamra, see C 1979, cols. 1194–5; A 1992, nos. 19–44; 1995, 239–40; A 1997.

    

619

Ba'al.47 All that remains are a few signs written between neatly prepared division lines (three lines are uninscribed). In view of its archaeological context,48 the fragment could perhaps belong to an object offered by the Mariote expedition to the local god, or vice versa, something prepared in Ugarit in anticipation of the forthcoming visit to Mari. One can only wish that more pieces of this intriguing inscription would turn up in the future. For the next two centuries or so there is only a single mention of Ugarit in an Alala¢ tablet of Level VII (AT *358; W 1954, 27). Puruqqu,49 ‘the man of Ugarit’, who made a delivery of wool to the palace of Alala¢, does not have to be a ruler of Ugarit, although this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. There is nothing in the Hittite record to indicate that the campaigns of ›attu“ili I and Mur“ili I to northern Syria had any direct effect on Ugarit, but, in the long run, the drastic changes in the geo-political structure of the region had also been felt in the Levantine kingdom. 2.5

Ugarit and the Mittannian confederacy

The geo-political void left by the Hittite destruction of the old Amorite centres of Syria, in particular Yam¢ad/›alab, was gradually filled in during the 16th century by the growing power of Mittanni. For the next two centuries or so most of Syria and southern Anatolia formed part of a loose confederacy controlled from Wa““ukkanni. For a short while the Mittannian domination was threatened by the campaigns of the Egyptian kings of the early 18th dynasty, but already by the mid-15th century50 the two empires agreed on a division of Syria, with Qadesh on the Orontes marking the borderline. Ugarit

47 RS 4.458; Thureau-Dangin apud S 1933, 120, n. 1; see photograph in RSO 5/1, 35 (a). 48 According to V (1936a, 21) the inscription was found next to the sphinx of Amenemhet III and it is engraved on the same kind of green stone as the Egyptian statue. The same area produced more Middle Kingdom statuary, as well as other Egyptian small finds, such as beads, figurines and scarabs, which were all given as ex-votos to the temple (ib., 15). This rare cuneiform inscription may have had a similar dating and function (A 1996, 47–8, n. 6; 1997, 151f.). 49 Arnaud reads the name as Burruqu, a name attested in the texts from Alala¢ and Ugarit (A 1997, pp. 153f., with refs. in n. 18). For the suggestion to restore this name in the King List of Ugarit, see n. 24. 50 For Mittannian overtures for peace already in the seventh year of Amenophis II, see S 1983, 94; S 1988a.

620

 

was never directly integrated into the Mittannian confederacy,51 but it maintained close neighbourly relations with one of Mittanni’s vassals, Alala¢/Muki“. A small fragment from Alalakh IV contains a stipulation concerning the judgment and extradition of runaways crossing from one kingdom to the other (AT 4; W 1953, 32).52 It could belong to an accord between the two lands comparable to the treaties concluded between Alala¢ and its other neighbours, Tunip (AT 2) and Kizzuwatna (AT 3).53 An actual case of theft (of three horses) and the extradition of the thief is dealt with in a letter found in the courtyard of the Temple of Ba'al in Ugarit.54 It was sent by Niqmepa, most probably the successor of Idrimi on the throne of Alala¢, to Ibira, an otherwise unknown 15th century king of Ugarit.55 The limited Mittannian influence on the northern Levantine coast is reflected in the toponymy56 and the onomasticon of Ugarit (A 1978, 13; S 1995, 92–3). Whereas in neighbouring Alala¢ more than half of the population bore Hurrian names according to the Level IV texts (K 1959), only a few of Ugarit’s permanent residents had names that can positively be analyzed as Hurrian. This is all the more prominent in the royal line of Ugarit which only includes one possibly Hurrian name.57 In that respect Ugarit differs sharply from its southern neighbour, where ‘Hittite-

51 A 1981a, 10. Other scholars have pleaded for a stronger political influence of Mittanni on Ugarit (D 1975, 133; L 1979a, 298). 52 Another fragment from Level IV contains little more than the otherwise unknown name ‘Tanuwati of Ugarit’ (AT 442e; W 1954, 3). 53 Cf., however, the different interpretation of A (1996, 54, n. 37; 1997, 157), who suggests that AT 4 is a letter sent to the king of Alalah by the king of Mittanni or one of his ‘officers’. 54 RS 4.449 (Virolleaud 1936a, 21ff.) is the only tablet found in the area of Temple I (A 1996, 47, n. 1), which has also yielded Middle Egyptian inscriptions and statuary, as well as a small fragment of a cuneiform inscription incised on green stone (RS 4.458; see p. 618). RS 4.449 has often been discussed in later studies, some of which have improved over the readings of Virolleaud’s editio princeps. See L 1948, 112–3;  S 1991, 215ff.; H –  S 1991, 197; A 1996, 47–54; M R 1997, 192. 55 But cf. A 1996, 48, n. 6, who mentions unpublished sources according to which Ibiranu succeeded Yaqarum, the founder of the dynasty of Ugarit (see n. 33 above). 56 According to A (1978, 13) the Hurrian toponyms attested in the Ras Shamra texts are mostly located in the territories beyond the Orontes, which were annexed to Ugarit by the Hittites. 57 For Ar-¢alba, see p. 637. L (1978, 152–3) noted that members of the royal family of Ugarit who did not become kings often bore Hurrian names. However, most of the quoted examples are the sons of Amurrite princesses who married kings of Ugarit: ›i“mi-”arruma and ÌR-”arruma were the sons of A¢at-Milku (p. 642),

    

621

Hurrian’ names became the rule after Amurru’s defection from Egypt to ›atti (L 1978, 150–1; S 1991a, 182ff.). On the other hand, Hurrian impact was more extensive in cultural domains, such as religion and literature.58 Lexicographical texts often have a Hurrian column in addition to the Sumerian, Akkadian and Ugaritic ones. Ugarit has also produced a fair number of Hurrian religious texts, both syllabic and alphabetical, some of which consist of divine lists. An Akkadian-Hurrian bilingual text belongs to the genre of wisdom literature. Finally, the Hurrian texts with musical notation, the oldest in western civilization, have raised special interest. An intriguing Hurrian letter found in the royal palace seems to contain valuable historical information, but its understanding is further hindered by the fragmentary state of preservation (RS 11.853 = PRU 3, 327; RSO 5/1: 61). Both Ugarit and Carchemish are mentioned, and the address ‘my lord’ (rev. 13) discloses the hierarchical relationship between the correspondents. Salvini’s tentative translation (S 1995, 96) of several phrases may hint at a military context: ‘you will smite Carchemish’ (l. 7), ‘entering Carchemish’ (l. 8). However, the repeated occurrence of pa““- ‘to send’ (ll. 3, 9, 14) and pa““it¢e ‘messenger’ (l. 4) may also indicate a commercial or diplomatic context.59 L (1955. 329) assumed that the letter was sent to Ugarit by a high official of Carchemish, but this fails to explain its language. A better alternative would be that the letter was sent from Mittanni or from the successor state of ›anigalbat, but the full significance of this rare Hurrian epistle remains to be revealed.

3

U  E I 3.1 The early 18th dynasty of Egypt

The Egyptian campaigns of the early 18th dynasty kings reached as far as the Euphrates and the ›alab area. Along the coast the

and Utri-”arruma was the son of the bittu rabìti (p. 681). Therefore, these cases may have been influenced by name-giving practices current in Amurru, rather than in Ugarit. Of more weight would be the case of Talmiyanu, if this is indeed the name of Niqmaddu III before his coronation (see p. 700). 58 For some recent discussions (with refs. to the texts), see S 1995b, 93ff.; D – M 1995; 1997; M 1996; P 1996b. 59 Gernot Wilhelm, personal communication.

 

622

northernmost strongholds fortified by Tuthmosis III were Ullasa and Íumur on both sides of the Eleutheros River (S 1991a, 139), whereas inland, he attempted to consolidate a defensive line centered on Tunip and Qadesh on the Orontes. There is no evidence whatsoever for Egyptian involvement further north on the Syrian coast. A vase with the cartouche of Tuthmosis III allegedly found in the palace of Ugarit (PRU 4, 28) has never been published, and its existence is doubtful (A 1981a, 13 n. 53; G 1986, 839). The annals and the geographical lists of Tuthmosis III contain numerous Syrian localities, none of which is located west of the Alawite range. An alleged identification of Ugarit in Amenophis II’s Year 7 campaign has been convincingly refuted on both phonetic and geographical grounds (D 1975, 133; A 1981a, 13–4, with previous refs.). Ugarit first enters firmly into the orbit of Egyptian interests under Amenophis III. Its name appears in Egyptian geographical lists (Karnak and Soleb in Nubia; G 1986, 839), and the correspondence between the two lands is partly preserved in the Amarna tablets. 3.2

Ammi∆tamru I (?–ca. 1350)

The earliest document emanating from Ugarit is EA 45 sent by [Amm]i∆tam[ru]60 to Egypt, either in the late reign of Amenophis III,61 or in the first years of Akhenaten.62 The very damaged letter opens and ends with emphatic promises of allegiance to Egypt. The occasion for this declaration of loyalty seems to be the repeated threat to Ugarit by the king of a land whose name is unfortunately broken off. Ever since Knudtzon, the standard restoration of the name has been ›atti, and the threat has been associated with an early foray of ”uppiluliuma I. Another candidate, suggested by L (1962: 24), could be Abdi-A“irta of Amurru, whose hostile actions against Ugarit are mentioned in the treaty between Aziru and Niqmaddu (RS 19.068.8; PRU 4: 284–6). But then, as pointed out by The name of the sender was first correctly restored by A 1944. K 1962, 34f.; K 1969, 340; D 1975, 133; A 1981: 17ff. 62 N" (1996) has recently put forward a daring restoration and interpretation of EA 45. He suggests that the letter refers to an incident in which Ammi∆tamru detained messengers sent from Amurru to ›atti and intended to extradite them to Egypt. When the news reached the king of ›atti he repeatedly threatened Ammi∆tamru, and the anxious king of Ugarit turned to Akhenaten for assistance. See further n. 77 below. 60 61

    

623

A (1981, 17), it is unlikely that the renegade Abdi-A“irta would be designated as a ‘king’, especially in a letter written to Egypt.63 Mittanni was on friendly terms with Egypt in this period and Ammi∆tamru would hardly have reason to complain about this overture. It thus seems best to follow Knudtzon’s intuition, but if one accepts the revised chronology of ”uppiluliuma’s reign (see p. 608), then the Hittite king in question could only be one of his predecessors, possibly his father Tud¢aliya.64 Indeed, a fragment in the Deeds of ”uppiluliuma (Frg. 8; G 1956, 62) describes a military campaign led by his father to Mount Nanni (probably the Anti-Casius)65 on the northern border of Ugarit: K 1970, 35; A 1981a, 18–9). His adversaries in this operation appear to be Sutu-troops (.“ Sú-te-e), i.e. tribal groups in the highlands of Ugarit who were often employed as mercenaries.66 Two further very fragmentary letters, EA 46–47,67 also claim Ugarit’s ongoing loyalty to Egypt, and may belong to the same correspondents.68 The Ugaritian king’s statement that ‘my ancestors did service [for] your [ancestor]s . . .’ (EA 47: 8–9; M 1992, 119) is occasionally quoted as a proof for Ugarit’s submission to Egyptian overlordship in the early 15th century. However, such hyperbolic expressions do not necessarily reflect real historical circumstances (see below). 63 For Abdi-A“irta’s quest for recognition see, recently, S 1991a, 141ff. (with further refs.). 64 For the now unequivocal identification of ”uppiluliuma’s father, see O 1995, 8. 65 For the identification of the twin mountains ›azzi and Nanni, attested in Hittite texts, with Mt. Casius (Íapunu) and Mt. Anti-Casius, respectively, see K 1969, 354, 410, n. 29; 1970, 34ff.; B 1989b;  S 1994, 367. For the proposed vocalization Íapunu see W 1995a. For other identifications of Mt. Nanni, see D 1991, 133ff., 137; P 1998: 124. 66 The two persons mentioned in the fragment, Zittara and ›alpamuwa, are otherwise unknown. (›alpa-A.A in the tribute list KUB 42.29 ii 15’ belongs to the 13th century; S 1986, 141ff.). 67 A third fragmentary letter, EA 48, was sent by a certain [. . .-› ]eba to her lady (with a present of balsam). The two are usually identified as a queen of Ugarit and a queen of Egypt respectively (A 1944, 33; D 1975, 134; M 1992, 120). In fact, the only reason for Knudtzon’s attribution of this letter to the correspondence of Ugarit was the similarities of its clay and script to those of the other letters (A 1944: 30–1). For two Ugaritic letters traditionally dated to the Amarna age, KTU 2.23 = RS 16.078+ and KTU 2.42 + 43 = RS 18.113, [], a late 13th century dating is claimed in this study. See pp. 713 and 677, respectively. 68 The mention of the Egyptian envoy ›anya in EA 47:23, also known from other Amarna letters, does not provide an accurate chronological clue, since he probably kept his office during the reigns of both Amenophis III and Akhenaten (C 1964, 127).

624

 

An intriguing reference to Ugarit in the Amarna Age is found in EA 1, sent by Kada“man-Enlil I to Amenophis III (see L 1990, 274, with further refs. in n. 1). In his long letter dealing with royal marriages, the Babylonian king, quoting from an earlier letter, expresses his doubts about the identity of the girl who was shown to one of his messengers in Egypt. Was she really his sister, or rather ‘the daughter of some poor man (mu“kênu), or of some Gagean(?), or the daughter of some ›anigalbatean, or perhaps someone from Ugarit?’ (ll. 37ff.; M 1992, 1). I wonder whether this is merely an arbitrary list of possibilities,69 or rather the Babylonian king had in his mind actual cases of foreign princesses sent to Egypt. The first name is corrupt,70 but Mittannian princesses were indeed present in Amenophis III’s harem (for refs. see, R 1974, 19; P 1978, 15ff.). Admittedly, we have no direct evidence for royal marriages between Egypt and Ugarit in the Amarna Age, but perhaps the Egyptian alabaster vase on which Niqmaddu is portrayed with an Egyptian lady (see below) may show that the bond between the two lands was indeed cemented by an ‘exchange’ of noble brides. In this respect, it is interesting to observe that Ugarit is the only site outside Canaan that has yielded a large scarab issued to commemorate the marriage of Amenophis III with Tiy in the second year of his reign (Ug 3, 223: fig. 204). Amenophis III’s cartouche also appears on at least five alabaster vessels,71 on one of them (RS 17.058) together with Queen Tiy. 3.3 Niqmaddu II (ca. 1350–1315) The exact date of Niqmaddu’s accession to the throne is not known, but he must have been a contemporary of both Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. Ugarit’s cordial relations with Egypt continued for a

69 That ‘the daughter of some poor man’ (mu“kênu) precedes the princesses from three lands does not necessarily imply, as usually assumed, that these lands are viewed upon in a derogatory way. I think that the writer simply wanted to distinguish between two categories—a girl of inferior birth, or a princess from a country other than Babylon. 70 If indeed KUR Ga-ga-ia refers to the Ka“ka ( S 1965, 80), perhaps the author confused it with another Anatolian land which sent a princess to Amenophis III, namely Arzawa (EA 31–32). 71 RS 11.329; RS 1–11.[116]; RS 16.340; RS 17.058; RS 17.[476]. See refs. in RSO 5/1.

    

625

while, at least until its submission to ”uppiluliuma I around 1340  (see p. 632). In EA 49 Niqmaddu requests an Egyptian physician and two palace attendants from Cush (M 1992, 120). The Egyptian envoy to Ugarit, [›a]ramassa, is also known to have represented his country at the court of Tu“ratta of Mittanni (EA 20). The flow of prestigious presents from Egypt went on as before, as shown by the hundreds of pieces of alabaster vessels, many of them inscribed, found throughout the city and in the port of Minetel-Beida (C 1991a, 209–14; Y 1994b, 427). One of them carries the cartouches of Akhenaten and Nefertiti (RS 15.202 + 15.203; Ug 3, 167, fig. 120). Another inscribed fragment depicts ‘Niqmaddu the Great One of the Land of Ugarit’ (wr n ¢3st ik3riyty nyk3m'dy) in the presence of a lady dressed in Egyptian style (RS 15.239; Ug 3, 165, fig. 118; D-N 1956). Although the artist exhibits a high degree of familiarity with Egyptian conventions, minute details in the iconography and the Egyptian script disclose that the vase was probably of local manufacture, probably imitating Egyptian prototypes (D-N 1956, 218–9). Unfortunately, the name of the lady portrayed in a bridal posture, if it was ever indicated, is not preserved. This opens a whole range of possibilities with regard to her identity, from a daughter of Akhenaten to a Syrian princess depicted à la égyptienne.72 The truth may lie in between. As clearly stated in EA 4: 9ff., Egyptian kings were not in the habit of marrying their own daughters to foreign rulers. They could, however, send other ladies of noble rank to fulfil this important diplomatic task. This is exactly what the Babylonian king asks for: ‘Send me a beautiful woman as if she were [you]r daughter’ (M 1992, 9). In view of Kada“man-Enlil’s incidental mention of Ugarit in EA 1: 37ff. (see p. 624), I would opt for the possibility that there was indeed an exchange of royal brides between the courts of Egypt and Ugarit. If the Egyptian lady depicted on the vase was indeed Niqmaddu’s bride,73 one is faced with the difficult question of her relationship 72 For the former possibility, see D-N 1956, 204ff., and esp. p. 219, n. 2; see also G 1986, 839. There is a general agreement that the Niqmaddu depicted on the vase is identical with the 14th century king, but P (1978, 78–9) preferred to identify him with Niqmaddu III, for reasons which are no longer tenable ( S 1991a, 13, n. 115). 73 It is not clear to me on what evidence R (1974, 19) categorically states that the wedding took place in Amenophis III’s 36th year. The vase is usually dated

626

 

with Queen Pißidqi, who is usually identified as Niqmaddu’s spouse.74 One possibility would be to equate the two ladies (cf.  S 1991a, 13, n. 115), assuming that the Egyptian bride was given a Semitic name when she came to Ugarit.75 In that case, she must have been very young when she married an already aging Niqmaddu. Pißidqi still appears as the queen of Ugarit in a legal text dated to Ammi∆tamru II (RS 15.086 = PRU 3, 54f.), who succeded Niqmepa after his half century long reign. Perhaps it is better to separate the two spouses of Niqmaddu II (A 1994, 27–8), although it would not be easy to explain how a prestigious Egyptian bride could deteriorate to a humiliating secondary rank in the court. Could this be connected to Ugarit’s political shift from the Egyptian to the Hittite camp? In concluding this chapter of close Egyptian-Ugaritian contacts in the Amarna Age, we may attempt to define the political nature of this relationship more closely. On the basis of the same sources, most scholars have maintained that Ugarit was a vassal of Egypt,76 whereas others have argued for her full independence (A 1976). There are of course many definitions that fall between the two extremes, simply describing Ugarit as belonging to the Egyptian sphere of influence without a more definite geo-political definition (e.g., D 1975, 133). Nougayrol even spoke of a Hurrian-Egyptian condominium in Ugarit (N 1956, 57). Having refuted the flimsy evidence for an Egyptian takeover of Ugarit in the early 18th dynasty, the decision really rests on the evaluation of the Amarna correspondence and the Egyptian finds from Ugarit. Considered without bias, nothing in these two bodies of evidence argues for a state of vassalage. The expressions of subordination and loyalty in the epistles of the kings of Ugarit are hardly more than polite hyperbole anticipated from a state of inferior political status in its dealings with a great power (A 1976; cf. also

to the reign of Akhenaten (or even later) on both stylistic and historical considerations (L 1962, 31). 74 In the legal text RS 16.277 (= PRU 3, 50–1) ratified by Niqmaddu, ‘Pißidqi the Queen’ exchanges real estate with Nuriyanu, Niqmaddu’s brother. See  S 1991, 7. 75 G (1956, 129) analyzed the name as Bi-Íidqi < Bit-Íidqi, ‘Daughter of Justice’. 76 L 1962, 24–5; ibid., 1988a, 566; ibid., 1990, 142; K 1962, 35; C 1964, 121; A 1981b, 15ff.; Z 1990, 68.

    

627

K 1992, 133, n. 250). Actually, various elements of style and content clearly distinguish these letters from those of real Egyptian vassals in Canaan, who regularly paid taxes and fulfilled corvée duties. To give one example, Niqmaddu’s demand for an Egyptian physician and Cushite attendants (EA 59) would be considered as a brazen breach of etiquette on the part of a simple vassal state. The same applies to Niqmaddu’s ‘Wedding Vase’, which shows, if anything, that Ugarit enjoyed a privileged status. ‘Independence’ is perhaps too modern a political concept to describe the status of a relatively small ancient Near Eastern state, but an autonomous status with strong Egyptian influence could be the best way to describe Ugarit’s position before its submission to ”uppiluliuma I. Egypt had free access to the ports of Ugarit, and thence to the rest of the northeastern Mediterranean. This lucrative maritime trade was probably valued too highly to endanger it by excessive interference. The Hittites, who were to become far more demanding overlords, nevertheless adopted a similar policy towards Ugarit.

4

U U H R

4.1 The Levantine alliance of Ugarit and Amurru The bond with Egypt, although economically lucrative and culturally influential, could hardly secure Ugarit’s borders and its autonomous political status. Probably the first to exert considerable pressure on Ugarit in the changing political conditions towards the mid-14th century was its southern neighbour Amurru. This newly established kingdom on the northern confines of the Egyptian Empire promptly accumulated considerable military strength under the able leaderships of Abdi-A“irta and his son Aziru (see recently, S 1991a, 141ff., with further refs.). In their recurring complaints to the Pharaoh, the rulers of Byblos, Rib-Haddi and Yapa¢-Addu, claim that the entire coast from Byblos to Ugarit banded together with the resented Amurrites, against Egyptian interests (EA 98; cf. EA 126: 6). Ugarit’s siding with Amurru against Egyptian interests could hardly have been voluntary. According to the accord between Aziru and Niqmaddu, the animosity between the two kingdoms went back to the days of Ammi∆tamru I (RS 19.068.8), although its background

628

 

is not specified.77 Aziru, having thrown in his lot with the Hittites quite early in his reign (S 1991a, 155ff.), could not risk confronting hostile neighbours on both his southern and northern flanks and must have exerted considerable pressure on Ugarit to come to terms with him. His accord with Niqmaddu is unique in the context of ancient Near Eastern treaties (RS 19.068 = PRU 4, 284ff.; K 1971). Formally, it has the appearance of a treaty between equal states, but the actual stipulations bring it closer to a vassal treaty between a stronger and a weaker party. Ugarit consented to pay the considerable sum of 5,000 silver shekels for her military protection78 and for Amurru’s renunciation of all future claims on Ugarit’s client states of Siyannu and Zinzaru. The relative dating of this accord is open to speculation (L 1962, 36–7; K 1969, 284–5; S 1991a, 156–7). It most probably predates Niqmaddu’s treaty with ”uppiluliuma, and could be more or less contemporary with ”uppiluliuma’s treaty with Aziru.79 Against the background of the new alliance between the two Levantine kingdoms and the stormy developments on the political scene of the Near East, one should be able to find a suitable historical context for one of the most intriguing documents discovered in Ugarit, the so-called ‘General’s Letter’ (RS 20.033 = Ug 5, no. 20). The long Akkadian letter, about a third of which is missing, was sent by the military commander ”umi[—] to the King, his lord. He asks for urgent reinforcements to complete his mission, guarding a strategic pass between the sea and Mount Lebanon in the Land of Amurru, in anticipation of an impending Egyptian attack. The dramatic situation described in this rare document of military intelligence may fit into several historical contexts, and indeed, different datings have been suggested, ranging from the mid-14th to the early

77 Recently N" (1996) suggested that the claims of Ba'aluya (Aziru’s son) against Niqmaddu mentioned in the accord refer to a political entanglement between the Levantine states, in which the king of Ugarit detained messengers of Amurru who were sent to ›atti and intended to extradite them to Egypt (see also n. 62 above). According to Na"aman, the 5,000 shekels were paid to Amurru as a compensation for the damages caused by Ugarit and Siyannu to members of Aziru’s family. 78 This sum is more than half of what Ugarit paid to the Hittites for her exemption from military duties: 50 golden minas, equalling some 8,000 silver shekels (see p. 683). 79 For an entirely different chronological reconstruction of the events relating to Amurru’s and Ugarit’s contacts with the Hittites, see F 1992 (with table on p. 96).

    

629

12th centuries (for refs. see I" – S 1990, 14ff.). Almost half a century after its discovery the ‘General’s Letter’ still defies an unequivocal interpretation, but the possibilities are gradually being reduced, especially through linguistic criteria. Schaeffer’s far-fetched setting of the events (S 1968, 638–91) within the context of the invasions of the ‘Sea Peoples’ in the early 12th century (partly based on the findspot of the tablet in the Rap’anu archive) has generally been refuted.80 Many have found an appropriate historical setting in the era before or after the Battle of Qadesh.81 But after all, Nougayrol’s initial conviction (N 1968, 69–79) that, despite its archaeological context, the letter’s script and language place it within the Amarna Age, has recently received strong support through linguistic and historical reevaluations.82 The resulting historical reconstructions agree on the occasion for the General’s mission: Amurru’s defection to the Hittite camp and an anticipated Egyptian retaliation. However, the identity of the correspondents is still open to speculation. Two of the suggested possibilities are: a pro-Hittite Syrian prince (possibly ”umit[tara]) posted in Amurru, whose letter to the Hittite king or viceroy travelled through Ugarit83 (Singer in I" – S 1990); or, an 'Apiru commander writing to the ruler of Amurru who was visiting the king of Ugarit (M R 1996). Whether the prospected Egyptian campaign to Amurru ever took place is questionable. After the sudden death of Akhenaten the Egyptian retaliation was postponed until the Ramesside era. 4.2 Fire in the palace of Ugarit In its heyday the palace of Ugarit, covering an area of nearly 7,000 m2 (Y 1997b, 46), was no doubt one of the most spectacular

80 Cf., however  M 1996b, 232–3, who relates the letter to an alleged flight of Queen Tausert and Beya to Syria in 1190. 81 E.g., L 1962, 76ff.; C 1970; R 1971a; 1973; S 1992; K 1992, 137. 82 I" 1988; I" – S 1990. See also L 1992; D 1992; R 1993; L 1995a: 70; M R 1996b. Cf., however, S 1992, who suggests that the letter was sent to the king of Ugarit by ”umiyanu, father of Rap’anu, in the early 13th century. 83 That the correspondence between Amurru and Carchemish occasionally passed through Ugarit is also shown by a courtesy letter sent by Bente“ina to the King, his lord (RS 19.006 = PRU 6, 2). This address can only refer to the ‘King’ par

630

 

edifices in the Levant.84 When Rib-Hadda of Byblos wanted to describe the wealth of the king of Tyre he compared his residence to that of Ugarit (EA 89: 51). No wonder that when the palace of Ugarit was (partly) destroyed by a fire the rumour spread swiftly throughout the Levant and the event was promptly reported to Egypt by Abi-Milku of Tyre (EA 151: 55): ‘Fire destroyed the palace of Ugarit; (rather), it destroyed half of it and so hal of it has disappeared. There are no Hittite troops about’ (M 1992, 238). The passage raises several problems of interpretation (L 1962, 27ff.). First, the repetition of the information about Ugarit is odd and most interpreters have corrected it to mean that one half of the palace was burnt whereas the other half was not. Of more weight is the question whether the subsequent mention of the Hittite troops is related to the fire in Ugarit, and if so, how.85 The passage goes on to report on other news from Canaan (clashes between Etakkama and Aziru), and most commentators tend to disconnect the various pieces of information reported by Abi-Milku (e.g., L 1962, 30). However, it is difficult to fathom the sense of the phrase concerning the Hittite army unless the sender sought to emphasize its relevance to the calamity in Ugarit. The letter is dated to the last years of Akhenaten (C 1964, 127), and it coincides with ”uppiluliuma’s ‘one year campaign’ (or ‘First Syrian War’) to Syria around 1340  (F 1985, 41; B 1989, 30; Singer in I" – S 1990, 155ff.). From the later record we know that Ugarit was never militarily attacked by the Hittites and it is unlikely that they were responsible for this fire. There is, however, a much better candidate for causing this calamity in Ugarit. The ”uppiluliumaNiqmaddu treaty reports a joint attack of the anti-Hittite confederacy of Muki“, Nu¢¢a““i and Niya on Ugaritian territory, which may very well have culminated in a destructive raid on the capital itself. Abi-Milku’s report may refer exactly to the fact that ‘there are no Hittite troops about’ who could rescue Ugarit from its enemies. Only

excellence, i.e. the king of Carchemish (K 1969, 214, 375; S 1983b, 13, n. 16; 1990, 173) and not to the king of Ugarit (N 1970, 2). 84 For the palace of Ugarit, see C 1979, 1217ff.; M 1995; Y 1997b, 45ff. The new palace apparently replaced the Northern Palace which was built in the 16th century and went out of use around 1400  (Y 1997b, 70ff.). 85 CAD, I-J: 230b implausibly places the Hittite troops near the fire: ‘Fire has consumed Ugarit, that is, it consumed half of it but did not consume the other half nor the Hittite troops’. Moran’s translation (above) is no doubt preferable.

    

631

later, when Niqmaddu gave in to the growing pressures on him and asked for Hittite intervention did the army of ”uppiluliuma come to the rescue and expel the Syrian enemies from its territory. Conclusive archaeological evidence for this conflagration has not yet been identified, but there are certain indications in the palace area which may perhaps be related to it. Schaeffer noted an early destruction level which separated two building phases (S 1937, 137ff.; 1938, 194–5; 1948, 9). He attributed this destruction to an earthquake followed by a raging fire dated to ca 1365 , but both his archaeological data and his historical conclusions have been questioned (see, e.g.  S 1991a, 220). Recent investigations, however, seem to bear out his distinction between two conflagrations, the later one certainly marking the final destruction of Ugarit (M 1995a, 191–2). As for the earlier destruction, which is discerned only in the western part of the palace, two possible datings have been considered in recent studies: either the Amarna Age fire reported by Abi-Milku (EA 151), or a mid-13th century earthquake whose effects can also be discerned in other parts of the city (C 1986, 748; 1994, 204–5).86 When the palace was rebuilt the ruined parts were probably covered and levelled, which may perhaps explain the fact that no documents earlier than Niqmaddu II87 were discovered in the palace area.88 Another possibility could be that the conflagration mentioned in EA 151 refers to the Northern Palace (L 1988b, 128), which was abandoned in the 14th century (Y 1998a, 72).

86 Arnaud (apud C 1994, 205) refers to an alleged mention of (this) earthquake in a verdict of Ini-Te“ub (RS 27.052.6 = PRU 6, no. 36), but the evidence is doubtful. 87 For the lowering of the dates of KTU 2.23 = RS 16.078+ and KTU 2.42 + 43 = RS 18.113[], the only allegedly pre-Niqmaddu II tablets from the palace archives, see n. 67. For RS 4.449, the only tablet discovered in the temple area on the acropolis, see n. 54; it was sent by a king of Alala¢ to a 15th century king of Ugarit, which may indicate that the pre-Niqmaddu II archives may still be discovered somewhere outside the palace area (cf. N 1956, 57). 88 For the refutation of Schaeffer’s reconstruction of a two-level archive (before and after the fire mentioned in EA 151), see L 1988b. The two levels may perhaps correspond to two stories of the building, but joins made between tablet fragments found in both levels seem to disprove this explanation as well ( S 1991a, 72; L 1995a, 73).

 

632 4.3

Ugarit joins the Hittite camp

An early contact between Ugarit and the Hittites may be referred to in the opening lines of ”uppiluliuma’s letter to Niqmaddu: ‘As previously your forefathers were at peace with ›atti . . .’ (RS 17.132. 7–9 = PRU 3, 35). This may mean nothing more than the fact that there was no enmity between the two parties in the past (K 1969, 350), but it could also refer to more concrete circumstances. The era of the Old Hittite kings’ campaigns to Syria (A 1981a, 11) must probably be excluded. On the other hand, a campaign of ”uppiluliuma’s father near the northern border of Ugarit, at Mt. Nanni, is actually recorded in a Hittite text (see p. 623). Perhaps it was this early show of arms that led Ammi∆tamru I to conclude a peace agreement with the Hittites. There is, however, no direct evidence for this alleged early submission of Ugarit to the Hittites. The first clear record of Ugarit’s passage from the Egyptian sphere of influence to the Hittite fold is connected to ”uppiluliuma I’s ‘one year campaign’ in Syria, around 1340 . To understand fully the rich Hittite documentation on the circumstances of Ugarit’s submission it is necessary to explain briefly the Hittite sense of historical justice in their dealings with other states. The Hittites had a longstanding claim on northern Syria, going back as early as the late 17th century. In the early 14th century Tud¢aliya I reconquered much of northern Syria, but this was a short-term success and ›atti fell back into one of its perennial setbacks. The opportunity to regain Syria arose a few decades later when the Hurrians attacked a Hittite vassal on the Upper Euphrates front. This time they were confronted with a brilliant strategist who swiftly brought Mittanni to its knees and took over all its possessions west of the Euphrates. For the Hittites this was a clear case of self-defence which justified their military occupation of the central Syrian kingdoms. Amurru and Ugarit, however, did not qualify for this manifestation of historical justice, for they were never Mittannian vassals.89 Therefore, other explanations were necessary to justify their joining the Hittite fold. Amurru was an acknowledged Egyptian vassal,90 and therefore the treaties 89 For this reason Ugarit and Amurru are not mentioned in the treaty between ”uppiluliuma and ”attiwaza (CTH 51; B 1996c, no. 6), since the historical introduction of this document only covers lands that formerly belonged to Mittanni. 90 Contrary to an often quoted view (see, recently, R 1992, 177), the Hittites never claimed that Amurru once belonged to Mittanni. On the contrary,

    

633

concluded with her repeatedly stress the fact that Aziru appealed for Hittite vassalship out of his own initiative, and his country was never taken by force (S 1990, 144ff.). As for Ugarit, whose ties with Egypt were less binding, a ready legitimization for Hittite intervention was supplied by Niqmaddu’s request for protection from his aggressive neighbours. The recurrence of the ‘deliverance motif ’ in many Hittite treaties (A 1984) calls for caution in reconstructing the actual course of events. On the other hand, it should not automatically deny the historicity of these accounts. Even if, as stated by one authority ‘. . . the Hittite chancery had no difficulty at all in “reconstructing” the past in such a way as to arrange a suitable basis for an optimal organization of the present and the future’ (Z 1990, 71), the basic elements of the ‘narrative’ can usually be demonstrated to rest on real facts, even when these are compromising to Hittite interests. The first Hittite overture is recorded in ”uppiluliuma’s letter to Niqmaddu II (RS 17.132 = PRU 4, 35–7; B 1996c, 119–20). The Hittite monarch, recalling the good relations between ›atti and Ugarit in the past, offers military assistance in case of an attack on Ugarit from Muki“ and Nu¢¢a““i. The anti-Hittite Syrian coalition91 must have countered with an offer of its own, or indeed, with an open threat on Ugarit. Between ‘hammer and anvil’, Niqmaddu’s decision was anything but easy. His energetic southern neighbour, Aziru, had already cast in his lot with the Hittites, and he exerted pressure on Ugarit to follow his example.92 Niqmaddu could not hope for much assistance from his weakening Egyptian ally, and with Hittite forces on both his northern and southern borders he could not for much longer sit on the fence. The final push towards the Hittite camp was probably given by the joint attack of Muki“, Nu¢¢a““i and Niya on Ugaritian territory, which is reported in the historical in the treaties with Amurru it is repeatedly stated that Aziru defected from the camp of Egypt. For the seemingly aberrant statement in the ”au“gamuwa Treaty, see S 1991c. Cf. also Z 1988. 91 Note the absence of Niya, which is mentioned later in Niqmaddu’s treaty as the third member of the anti-Hittite confederacy. In the time interval separating the two documents the pro-Hittite ruler of Niya, Takuwa, was replaced by his brother Aki-Te“ub who, as reported in the ”attiwaza treaty, conspired with the kings of Muki“ and Nuh¢a““e (B 1996c, 39, obv. 30ff.). 92 On the early dating of Aziru’s submission to the Hittites, probably in the wake of ”uppiluliuma’s ‘one-year-campaign’ to Syria, see Singer in S – I" 1990, 155ff.; 1991, 153ff.

 

634

preamble to the Niqmaddu treaty (RS 17.340.1ff. = B 1996c: §§ 1–2). It has been suggested above that the fire which partially destroyed the palace of Ugarit (EA 151) was caused by this sudden raid. ”uppiluliuma responded immediately to the call for help and sent his generals to drive out the enemy from the territory of Ugarit, leaving the rich booty to Niqmaddu as a prize for his loyalty. Now it was time to conclude the promised treaty, which was symbolically signed at Alala¢, the capital of the defeated enemy.93 4.4

The first vassal treaty of Ugarit

The treaty between ”uppiluliuma and Niqmaddu has been preserved in several Akkadian duplicates and an Ugaritic version (PRU 4, 37–52; B 1996c, 30ff., 151ff.).94 Besides the regular treaty stipulations, it included a detailed list of Ugarit’s tribute, and a list of towns delineating Ugarit’s northern border with Muki“. This rich documentation shows that all copies of important political documents were meticulously collected and kept for future generations.95 When a tablet was broken new copies were immediately prepared, as shown by ”arreKu“u¢’s letter to Niqmaddu which was ratified and sealed by IniTe“ub (RS 17.334.20–23 = PRU 4, 54ff.; B 1996c, 120–1).

93 Probably ”uppiluliuma had already turned Muki“ from a kingdom ruled by a local dynasty into an administrative unit ruled by a Hittite governor who stood under the direct jurisdiction of the viceroy of Carchemish (N 1968, 92–3, n. 3; K 1965, 252–3; L 1979a, 1306). When the ‘people of Muki“’ appealed to Mur“ili to restore their lost territories (see p. 639), their land was no longer a separate kingdom. The Hittite prince ”ukur-Te“ub, probably the appointed governor of Muki“, sent his letter of introduction to Ammi∆tamru II (RS 20.003 = Ug 5, no. 26). 94 All the Akkadian duplicates (RS 11.732, 17.227+, 17.340, 17.369 = PRU 4, 40ff) were found in the so-called ‘Hittite archive’ in the Southern Palace, Rooms 68 and 69 near Court V. The Ugaritic version (KTU 3.1 = RS 11.772+) was found in the Western Palace Archive. It is noteworthy that not even a single fragment of an Ugarit treaty has turned up as yet in the Bo[azköy archives, whereas we have copies of four successive Amurru treaties. This may have something to do with the observation recently made by N (1995, 125–6), that the ductus of RS 17.340 (= PRU 4, 48) differs from the one employed in ›attu“a in this period, and it rather points to Syria, probably Carchemish, as the chancellery where the treaty was written down. This again conforms perfectly with Otten’s observation (O 1995, 24, 27) on the place of manufacture of the seals of the Hittite kings that were used in Ugarit (see n. 109). 95 Relevant documents were deposited in the ‘Hittite archive’ at least as late as the mid-13th century as shown by RS 17.334 with the seal of Ini-Te“ub (n. 99).

    

635

The stipulations of the treaty itself are unusually scanty and deal only with Ugarit’s right to retain fugitives from neighbouring lands. The standard demand for the prompt dispatch of auxiliary troops is missing. Probably the Hittites were content with the huge amount of yearly tribute comprising gold and dyed wool and garments (RS 17.227+ = PRU 4, 40ff.).96 In addition to the main tribute consisting of 500 shekels of ‘heavy’ gold (compared with only 300 imposed on Aziru), Ugarit sent gold and silver cups to the king, the queen and six other Hittite high officials (PRU 4, 38). Combined with the 5,000 silver shekels paid to Aziru for future military assistance, it is quite obvious that the treaties with her neighbours weighed heavily on Ugarit. No doubt, Niqmaddu would have preferred to keep his loose, far less demanding, alliance with Egypt had the political circumstances allowed him to do so. The economic burden exerted by the bonds concluded with ”uppiluliuma and with Aziru was somewhat compensated by the territorial gains granted to Niqmaddu as a reward for his loyalty. The list of towns given to Ugarit by ”uppiluliuma I (RS 17.340 = PRU 4, 48) was later re-confirmed by Mur“ili II in his treaty with Niqmepa (RS 17.237 = PRU 4, 63ff.), despite the protests of the citizens of Muki“ (see p. 639). The 42 toponyms are located in the northernmost part of the kingdom, bordering on Muki“, and they stretch from the Orontes to the Mediterranean (N, PRU 4, 14). Astour has attempted to show that some of these places are situated east of the Orontes, even as far as the region south of ›alab (A 1969, 404; 1981a, 21; 1981b; 1995, 57–8). This would vastly increase the size of the kingdom of Ugarit at the expense of the rebel kingdoms of Muki“, Nu¢¢a““i and Niya.97 More realistic estimates, however, tend to limit the territory of the kingdom within the bend of the Orontes, with a territory of about 2,000–2,200 km2, comprising the area between Jebel al-Aqra (Íapa/unu/Mt. Casius) in the north, the Alawite range ( Jebel Ansariyah or Mt Bargylus) in the east, and Nahr es-Sinn in the south, which preserves the name of the ancient kingdom of

96 For the yearly tribute sent by Ugarit to ›atti, see E 1950; K“ 1960, 65ff.; D – L 1966a; Z 1973, 155–6; P 1984b, 245; L 1990, 269–70. 97 According to his 1969 study the size of Ugarit almost quadrupled. In later studies A (1981b, 21; 1981a, 11; 1995, 55) reduced his estimate to about 5,425 km2, still a territorial state of considerable size.

 

636

Siyannu. It corresponds largely to the area of the modern province of Lattakiyeh.98 4.5

The loyalty of Ugarit tested

The loyalty of the Levantine allies of ›atti was put to the test a generation later when the inner-Syrian states, led by Tette of Nu¢¢a““i and Aitakama of Kinza, repeatedly revolted against the Hittites ( M 1983; B 1988). The aging Aziru sent out his son Te“ub to help the Hittites (CTH 62 II B obv. 13ff.), and Niqmaddu was also summoned to attack Tette in a letter sent to him by Piya“ili/ ”arre-Ku“u¢, king of Carchemish (RS 17.334 = PRU 4, 54–5; B 1996c, 120–1).99 As in the earlier documents of ”uppiluliuma, Niqmaddu was promised as a reward that he could keep for himself all the captives that he would take from the enemy’s army. Whether Niqmaddu fulfilled his military duty is not known, but the secession of the kingdom Siyannu-U“natu from his jurisdiction in the reign of Niqmepa is often seen as a punishment for his half-hearted stance when called to duty (e.g., L 1988a, 567; K 1992, 134). The anti-Hittite insurrections were no doubt instigated by the Egyptians, whose interventions in Syria are reported in the 7th and 9th years (ca. 1316–1314) of Mur“ili II’s annals (G 1933, 80ff.; K 1969, 169). The Syrian rebellions were suppressed in Mur“ili’s 9th year, but the resurgent Egyptian activities against Hittite interests in Syria, initiated by Horemheb,100 gradually gained momentum and finally culminated in the Battle of Qadesh fourty years later. Niqmaddu II101 witnessed the most important political development in the LBA history of Ugarit: the shift from the loose hegemony of Egypt to full integration into the Hittite Empire. Niqmaddu 98 B 1989b, 269–70; L 1990, 84, n. 16; S 1979, 33; P – B 1992, 715–6;  S 1994, 366, n. 13; Y 1997b, 19. 99 RS 17.334, found with the rest of the Hittite political documents in the Southern Palace Archive, is actually a copy made by Ini-Te“ub, after the original tablet signed by his grandfather had broken (lines 20–23). 100 For the revival of Egyptian militarism in Asia under Horemheb, see R 1992, 179, and the literature cited by him in n. 258. Ugarit appears with other Syrian localities in a topographical list from Karnak dated to Horemheb (S 1937, 47, 50ff.). For the alabaster vase with the name of Horemheb allegedly found in Ugarit, see p. 637. 101 For the redating of the seal ring of a Niqmaddu to Niqmaddu III in the late 13th century, see p. 693.

    

637

played his cards carefully, most of which were kept in his opulent treasuries rather than on the battle front. With the exception of a brisk raid by his neighbours which probably destroyed part of Ugarit, Niqmaddu wisely managed to keep his kingdom far from the stormy events that brought havoc upon his neighbours in the east and north. The new tripartite political axis linking ›atti, Ugarit and Amurru held out until the very end of the Hittite Empire. 4.6

Ar-¢alba (ca. 1315–1313)

Two of Niqmaddu II’s sons succeeded him on the throne, one after the other. Very little is known about the short reign of Ar-¢alba who is attested in only six juridical texts (RS 16.344, 15.91, 16.144, 16.160, 16.278, 16.142 = PRU 3, 75–7). The most telling of these is his ‘last will’ in which he warns his brothers not to marry his wife Kubaba after his death, contrary to the levirate custom.102 This intriguing document has given place to plenty of speculation on the circumstances of Ar-¢alba’s end (see L 1962, 64; 1979a, 1306, with refs.). The mystery is further enhanced by his non-Semitic name, which stands out in the otherwise uniform picture of Ugaritic royal names. It has even been suggested that this name indicates that the legitimate heir to the throne was not Ar-¢alba, but rather his brother Niqmepa who bore a normal Amorite name (L 1978, 152). The standard historical scenario incriminates Ar-¢alba with collaboration with the pro-Egyptian insurrection of Tette of Nu¢¢a““i.103 Support for this is ostensibly provided by an unpublished alabaster vase with the cartouches of Horemheb, mentioned in preliminary reports, but never seen since.104 After the suppression of the mutiny the Hittites supposedly forced Ar-¢alba to abdicate his throne in favour of his brother Niqmepa (N 1956, 57; A 1981a, 24). A forced change on the throne of Ugarit is purportedly hinted

102

RS 16.144 (= PRU 3, 76). I follow van Soldt’s translation of lines 4–9 ( S 1985–6, 70, n. 13), which is entirely opposed to previous interpretations of the passage: ‘If in the future I will die, then the one from among my brothers who marries Kubaba daughter of Tak"ànu, my wife, may Ba'lu wash him away . . .’. 103 N 1956, xxxvii–xxxviii; 1956, 57; L 1962, 58ff.; 1979a, 1306; K 1965, 254; 1969, 360; D 1975, 139; D 1989, 150. 104 RS 17.[477]; S 1954a, 41; N 1956, 57. According to B – P 1989, 152 the inscription is mentioned in a letter of J. Vandier. Cf. also G 1986, 841, n. 14.

638

 

at in the fragmentary opening lines of the Mur“ili-Niqmepa treaty:105 ‘[I have joined you] Niqmepa with your brothers, and I, the King, have placed you upon the throne of your father and returned the land of your father to you’. Comparison with the ”uppiluliuma-Aziru treaty (which also supplies the restoration) shows that the reference is not to Niqmepa’s blood brothers but rather to his peers in Syria, i.e., all the vassal kings who have been granted treaties with ›atti (K 1969, 275; K 1975, 240; Singer in I" – S 1990, 148). The rest of the sentence is also standard in the terminology of Hittite treaties (for parallels see K 1975, 241–2, n. 8;  M 1986, 46ff.). The only unusual thing is the lack of the customary historical introduction summarizing the past relations between the contracting parties. Whether this is a tactful omission intended to cover up recent grievances in the relations between ›atti and Ugarit (L 1962, 69; K 1975, 241, n. 7) is also questionable (cf. also  M 1986, 7–8 and n. 3, 46ff.). As a rule, the Hittites did not hesitate to denounce disloyal elements in vassal countries and eagerly stressed their own intervention in support of loyal partners.106 In short, although the standard reconstruction of the political circumstances which led to the quick changes on the throne of Ugarit may make good sense, the evidence for it is entirely circumstantial. Ar-¢alba’s prompt disappearance could simply have been caused by non-political circumstances, such as sudden illness and death. The only solid conclusion concerns the brevity of his reign, probably not more than a couple of years extending between Mur“ili’s 7th and 9th years (K 1969, 359–60;  S 1991, 4–5). 4.7 Niqmepa (ca 1313–1260) We return to more solid historical ground with the coronation of Niqmaddu’s second son, Niqmepa. His half-century-long reign stretches from Mur“ili II’s 9th year into the reign of ›attu“ili ‘III’.107 Most

105 RS 17.349+ = PRU 4, 85ff.; K 1974b; K 1975b;  M 1986; B 1996c, 59–64. 106 See, e.g., the historical introduction to Mur“ili’s treaty with Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya (B 1996c, 69). 107 V S 1991a, 5ff. See p. 660 for the decree issued by ›attu“ili ‘III’ to Niqmepa concerning the men of Ura (RS 17.130 = PRU 4, 103–5).

    

639

historical reconstructions tend to find some connection between Niqmepa’s accession to the throne and the suppression of the proEgyptian insurrection in Syria. According to this scenario Niqmepa was not involved in his brother’s rebellious policy and may even have been forced to flee temporarily from Ugarit. After the suppression of the mutiny, Niqmepa was ostensibly rewarded by the Hittites with the throne of Ugarit, after the elimination of his treacherous brother. As already stated above, nothing in this scenario is based on solid evidence and the circumstances of Niqmepa’s coronation remain unknown. 4.7.1

Territorial issues

The numerous fragments of the treaty with Niqmepa,108 ratified with the seals of Mur“ili II,109 have been reconstructed as belonging to at least three Akkadian copies of the text. The structure closely resembles that of ”uppiluliuma’s treaties with Aziru of Amurru and with Tette of Nu¢¢a““i, which may point to an early date for its composition, immediately after Niqmepa’s accession to the throne ( M 1986, 5ff.). Its structure already follows the ‘classical’ type of Hittite treaties, which includes stipulations of loyalty to the Great King and his descendants, offensive and defensive alliances, and detailed instructions on the extradition of fugitives. The treaty is concluded with a full list of divine witnesses (compared to the brief list in the Niqmaddu treaty), and with the standard curse and blessing formulae. Like the Niqmaddu treaty, the Niqmepa treaty also has supplements dealing with Ugarit’s tribute and with the delineation of its northern border. ‘The sons of Muki“’ sued Ugarit at law to return

108 PRU 3, 84–101, 287–9; PRU 6, 127–9; K“ 1960; K 1974b; K 1975;  M 1986, 4–5; B 1996c, 59–64.  M (1986, 8, n. 2) observed that copy B was written in Ugarit, whereas copy A exhibits unmistakable (ortho)graphic features of a Hittite scribal school. 109 The treaties are ratified with two royal seals of Mur“ili II, which, as recently demonstrated by O (1995, 26–7), are not identical with the seal impressions from Bo[azköy. Since the same applies to the seals of ”uppiluliuma I, Otten suggests that the Hittite royal seals employed in Syria were locally manufactured, probably by the court of Carchemish (ibid., 24, 27; cf. n. 94 on the ductus of the Niqmaddu treaty). This important observation throws new light also on the unique stone seal of Mur“ili II discovered in 1950 (RS 14.202; Ug 3, 87–93; 161–3), which some consider to be an ancient forgery (N 1995b, 124–5, with previous refs.; cf. M 1987, 211–2). For the interpretation of this seal, see also S 1990, 423–6; 1995b, 96–7.

640

 

to them the territories annexed by ”uppiluliuma to Ugarit, but after carefully weighing the case, Mur“ili decided to reconfirm the borders established by his father and repeated the list of northern toponyms belonging to Ugarit (RS 17.237.3–16 = PRU 4, 63–70; A 1969, 398–405; 1981a; B 1996c, 159–60;  S 1997).110 Niqmepa fared less favourably on his southern border. Here Mur“ili accepted the petition of the client state of Siyannu-U“natu to be separated from Ugarit, and he placed its king Abdi-Anati under the direct jurisdiction of the Hittite viceroy of Carchemish (RS 17.335+, 17.457, 17.344, 17.368, 16.170, 17.382+ = PRU 4, 71–83; A 1979; B 1996c, 160–2). The loss of about one third of its territory was a serious blow to the economy of Ugarit, but at least the Hittites agreed to reduce her yearly tribute accordingly (RS 17.382+ = PRU 4, 79–83; K 1969, 368). The demarcation of the new border between Ugarit and Siyannu-U“natu (somewhere south of Gibala/ Jebleh) was a complicated matter and was to keep the Hittite foreign office occupied in the next generations.111 It is usually assumed that Mur“ili’s decision to the detriment of Ugarit was in retaliation for her behaviour at the time of the Syrian insurrection (L 1962, 60; 1988a, 567; D 1975, 139). The real reason may have had more to do with divide et impera politics than with the punitive mood of the Hittite monarch. It was in his best interest to keep the Syrian provinces as partitioned as possible, without drastically breaking the traditional geo-political division lines.112

110 L (1979a, 1306; 1990, 83–4) assesses the evidence differently, claiming that Mur“ili displaced the border again, this time at the advantage of Muki“. 111 For the various stages of the border demarcation, which continued at least as late as the reign of Tud¢aliya ‘IV’, see A 1979;  S 1998. A further document has recently been added to this dossier through the cleaning of a tablet which was previously illegible, except for the seal impression at its centre (RS 17.403 = Ug 3, 137–9). Eleven lines of the obverse were almost fully recuperated, and they contain a donation deed of a border area (. “a qanni ) to Ugarit (ML 1995c, 37–8). Mention is made of Mur“ili (with the unusual spelling Mu-urzi-i-li ) and a division of fields between the king of Ugarit and the king of another country whose name is unfortunately not preserved. As suggested by ML (ibid., 38), all these indications point towards a late ratification of the decree of Mur“ili II dividing the border territories between Ugarit and Siyannu. Two Hittite officials are mentioned in the tablet: ›i“ni . URU Ka[rgami“] (S 1997, 420) and Tagi-”arruma  [ME” .], a restoration which corresponds with the title on his seal impressed on the tablet. 112 A similar political step was taken by Mur“ili in western Anatolia. In order to prevent the re-emergence of a strong Arzawa he divided it into several kingdoms which were in constant competition with each other (H-K 1977, 121ff.)

    

641

The annexation of Siyannu-U“natu to Ugarit was an outcome of the Aziru-Niqmaddu treaty, and the Hittites were in no way obliged to sanction a political accord which did not best serve their interests. The creation of a buffer kingdom tucked in between Amurru and Ugarit was a wise pre-emptive step intended to prevent the development of an excessively large geo-political union controlling the Levantine coast all the way from Muki“ to the Egyptian border. The constantly strengthening political bond between the royal houses of Amurru and Ugarit shows that in the long run this was not an ungrounded political whim. 4.7.2 Strengthening the bond with Amurru The political bond established between Amurru and Ugarit in the Amarna Age was continuously cultivated in the following generations. Two royal marriages in succession, in both cases an Ugaritic king wedding an Amurrite princess, established intimate contacts between the two royal houses, as well as close commercial and cultural contacts between their lands. The first marriage was Niqmepa’s with A¢at-Milku, one of the best known queens of Ugarit. Her exceedingly wealthy dowry list carries the anepigraphic dynastic seal of Amurru, identified in the text as ‘the seal of king -Te“ub’ (RS 16.146 + 161 = PRU 3, 182–6). The only plausible way to account for this signature is that the wedding occurred in the reign of -Te“ub, most probably her father.113 This dates the event towards the end of Mur“ili II’s first decade, i.e., at about 1314 ( S 1991a, 14; S 1991a, 159; A 1994, 30). According to standard Near Eastern custom, girls were given in marriage at a very early age, sometimes even before they reached puberty (L… 1981, 81, n. 8). A¢at-Milku

113 In order to solve the chronological problems raised by the apparently excessively long period of A¢at-Milku’s activity,  S (1985–6, 70; 1991a, 14–5) suggested that her marriage took place during the reign of Duppi-Te“ub or even Bente“ina, i.e., at an advanced stage of Niqmepa’s reign. Firstly, this would differ from other kings of Ugarit who married early, even before their accession to the throne (A 1994, 30). More importantly, this would squarely contradict the whole sense of the statement that the document was signed by the seal of DUTe“ub. The case of RS 17.360+ (= PRU 4, 139ff.) is quite different because it carries both the dynastic seal (identified in the text as the seal of Aziru) and the personal seal of ”au“gamuwa. Whether -Te“ub was A¢at-Milku’s father or not does not affect the chronological calculations.

642

 

must have been in her early teens when she arrived at Ugarit and began her long and eventful career. She gave birth to several sons, including the next king of Ugarit, Ammi∆tamru II. The latest documents mentioning A¢at-Milku deal with the deportation of her sons ›i“mi-”arruma and Abdi-”arruma to Ala“ia (RS 17.352, 17.35, 17.362, 17.367 = PRU 4, 121–4). These verdicts are ratified by IniTe“ub and by Tud¢aliya ‘IV’, the latter providing a terminus post quem after 1239 (E 1976, 29). Thus, A¢at-Milku must have been at least 90 years old when her sons were transferred from Ugarit to Ala“ia. Some scholars raised doubts whether the ‘early’ and the ‘late’ A¢at-Milku could be one and the same person.114 But there are many examples of similar longevity in antiquity (e.g. Pudu¢epa) and as long as there is no positive evidence for the existence of two queens named A¢at-Milku, it is better to reconstruct one long queenship, which extended into the reign of Ammi∆tamru II. Amurru’s highly-paid protection services were no doubt fully employed by Ugarit, but we learn details of such interventions only in rare cases. In a letter sent to Ammi∆tamru II (RS 17.286 = PRU 4, 180), the king of Amurru, probably ”au“gamuwa,115 refers to a previous incident in which Bente“ina was asked to mediate between Ugarit and the hostile Manda troops. A generation later the same situation recurred and the troops were again sent from Amurru to Ugarit to settle their problems.116 The Umman Manda (.“ Man-dáME”) are better known from first millennium contexts, where the term usually refers to northern warriors of Indo-European origins, such as Scythians, Cimmerians, and Medes (L 1962, 121–4; 1988d). In the second millennium they appear as military men from 114 Whereas N (1956, 10, 295) still hesitated, L (1979a, 1308) distinguished between the early A¢at-Milku, spouse of Ar-¢alba or even Niqmaddu in his old age, and the late A¢at-Milku, spouse of Niqmepa and mother of Ammi∆tamru II. 115 The sender could theoretically also be ”abili, who was placed on the throne by Muwatalli after the Battle of Qadesh. Note that he does not refer to Bente“ina as his father, whereas he refers to the father of his correspondent without mentioning his name. 116 It is quite possible that this letter was given by the king of Amurru to the chiefs of the Umman Manda who presented it to the king of Ugarit. Perhaps the mysterious single sign IGI at the end of the letter (following a division line) conveys some sort of (secret?) message from one king to the other (related to the verb ‘see’?). For lack of a better solution Nougayrol suggested (n. 2) that the scribe who was used to write juridical texts automatically inserted ‘witness’ ( IGI) when he finished writing the letter, but I find this explanation difficult to accept.

    

643

the Old Babylonian period onwards, including Old Hittite sources (B 1992, 72–3). Whether already at this stage the Umman Manda consisted of Indo-European tribesmen117 is impossible to prove. In LBA Ugarit the term must probably refer to tribal groups from the highlands, who were sometimes recruited as mercenaries, like the Sutu or the ¢abiru. The relation of protector and protected between Amurru and Ugarit finds its appropriate expression in the courtesy terminology used in their letter exchange. The Amurrite senders address their Ugaritian correspondents as ‘son’ and ‘daughter’. In some cases this may indeed reflect real familial relations,118 but in others this terminology can only be explained as status ranking between the two kingdoms.119 Although Ugarit as the ‘rich relative’ was begged for luxury goods (p. 666), there is a constant reminder of who was the stronger partner in the union of ‘Amurru and Ugarit who are but one (country)’.120 4.7.3

The Battle of Qadesh

With the seizure of power by military men after the failed bid of Tutankhamun’s widow to ”uppiluliuma, Egypt renewed its aggressive policy in western Asia, preparing to revenge her humiliating defeat by the Hittites and the loss of Amurru and Qadesh. First attempts to instigate disorder in Hittite Syria are attributed to Horemheb (see n. 100), but the decisive move was left to the Pharaohs of the 19th Dynasty. Sety I, after quelling disorders in Palestine, advanced up the Phoenician coast to Amurru, and then crossed over to Qadesh and captured the strategic city in ca. 1290 (KRI I, 24; S 1979, 34; M 1985, 80ff.; R 1992, 181). Bente“ina of Amurru had little choice but to surrender to the approaching Egyptians, and 117

K 1969, 414, n. 85; 1992, 137, n. 278 (with further literature). E.g., Ulmi in RS 16.111 (= PRU 3, 13) could very well be the mother of A¢at-Milku (S 1991a, 160). 119 As in the letter of the governor of Amurru sent to his ‘son’, the governor of Ugarit (F 1984). Another letter (RS 15.024 + 15.050 = PRU 3, 18) is sent by a certain Abu“ga to his ‘brother’, the governor [of Ugarit]; it contains a mere declaration of mutual assistance between the two lands, without any specific request. A somewhat similar declaration is found in the Ugaritic letter RS 18.075 (= PRU 5, no. 65), but there is no evidence that it was sent from Amurru (S 1991a, 162, n. 38). 120 RS 20.162.18–9 (= Ug 5, 115); for parallel expressions of unity, see ML in B (ed.) 1991, 48. 118

 

644

returned his land to his previous overlord after half a century of Hittite rule (S 1991a, 165–6).121 Distant Ugarit had less to fear from an Egyptian military operation and Niqmepa probably remained loyal to the Hittites. He even sent his contingents to the Battle of Qadesh (1275) in accordance to his treaty with Mur“ili II.122 After Muwatalli’s decisive victory, Bente“ina was deposed and deported to ›atti, but not for long. After a short period of ‘re-education’ at the court of ›attu“ili ‘III’ in the Northern Land, he was reinstated on the throne of Amurru and remained a loyal and highly-appreciated agent of Hittite interests for the rest of his reign (S 1991a, 167ff.). Amicable relations with Ugarit were also resumed and fostered, but sometimes the good intentions led to deplorable results, as in the case of the ill-fated princess from Amurru, the bittu rabìti (p. 680f.). Another converted ally of the Hittites was Niqmaddu of Kinza/ Qadesh. After the assassination of his father Aitakama he was captured by Mur“ili II, but was reinstalled on the throne and became a faithful defender of Hittite interests in Syria. He also kept good relations with Ugarit.123 4.7.4

Ur¢i-Te“ub in Syria

When ›attu“ili ‘III’ captured his nephew Ur¢i-Te“ub in ”amu¢a, he deported him to Nu¢¢a““i and gave him fortified cities there (Apology § 11 = iv 7–40;   H 1997, 203). However, when the famous exile sought to recruit Babylon to support his cause he was transferred to a place ‘alongside the sea’ (iv 36). Various locations have been suggested for this unnamed place on the seashore, the most plausible being Ugarit.124 Perhaps an even better possibil121 The ‘General’s Letter’ (RS 20.033) which was usually considered to reflect conditions on the eve (or immediately after) the battle of Qadesh has been redated to the Amarna Age (see p. 628). 122 G 1960, 58; "Ikrt is listed (in the longest enumeration of allies in P 43ff.) after Krkm“ and before Qd and Nwgs (Nu¢¢a““i). For the battle of Qadesh, see the refs. cited in R 1992, 184, n. 284. For the identification of Qd, see n. 428. 123 Niqmaddu (.-d) is the addressee of two letters discovered at Tell Nebi Mend/Qadesh, one of which was sent by a king of ›alab (M 1979–80, 202). He is probably the author of a letter sent to Niqmepa of Ugarit (RS 17.315; see n. 202). 124 L 1962, 79; C 1989a, 361, n. 3. Other suggestions that have been put forward for locating this ‘seacoast’ (.. tapu“a) were Ala“ia and Mira in western Anatolia (for refs. see H  C 1974, 139).

    

645

ity would be to locate Ur¢i-Te“ub’s last place of exile in Syria in Amurru,125 which would explain Bente“ina’s appearance in RS 17.406 (see below).126 Bente“ina was a protégé of ›attu“ili ‘III’ (CTH 92 §§ 4–5; B 1996c, 96) and he would have been trusted to keep a vigilant eye on the royal exile. In any case, both in Ugarit and in Amurru it would have been easy to catch a boat or a caravan descending to Egypt, and indeed Ur¢i-Te“ub is last heard of in the correspondence between Ramesses II and the Hittite royal couple before the royal marriage in 1245 (H 1963; E 1994, ch. ii D). Ur¢i-Te“ub’s period of exile in Syria in the sixties of the 13th century raises the possibility of attributing to him some of the occurrences of the name Ur¢i-Te“ub in documents from Ugarit. However, it is now clear that at least one further person bore the same name, namely a Hittite official operating from Carchemish at the very end of the 13th century. In a letter found in the Urtenu archive this Ur¢i-Te“ub (without any title) addresses the great ones and the elders of Ugarit, including Urtenu and Yabinina, promising the dispatch of rescue forces from Carchemish (RS 88.2009; M-L 1995c, 39–40; see p. 729). Perhaps this same official is the author of a courtesy letter in Ugaritic addressed ‘to the queen, my lady’ (KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199; P 1984a, 213–5; C 1989a, 359ff.). A further Ugaritic occurrence of an UrÀ-T“b, in a fragmentary list of rations (KTU 4.410 = RS 18.250.30 = PRU 5, no. 162), cannot be readily attributed to one of the two candidates, and may perhaps belong to a third namesake. We are left with two legal documents which may reasonably be attributed to the deposed Hittite king. RS 17.346 (= PRU 4, 175–7) is a verdict delivered by Ini-Te“ub in a financial dispute between Ugarit, represented by its governor, and the merchant Ma“anda who

125 Of particular interest in this connection is a letter of Ramesses with the report that the people of Amurru and two other lands asked the Egyptians for a safe passage for Ur¢i-Te“ub and his party (E 1994, i 64–5; II: 102). The implications of this intriguing document deserve a separate study. 126 It is perhaps of interest to note in this connection that at Tell Kazel, possibly the royal residence of Amurru (S 1991a, 158), a Hittite seal impression was found. Unfortunately, the legend is unreadable in the published photograph, but the three concentric rings around the central field indicate that the owner was a very important person, probably of royal descent. The same building has also produced two Hittite button seals (for refs. see S 1991a, 185).

 

646

accused the king of Ugarit of appropriating from his caravan 400 donkeys worth 4,000 silver shekels. Reference is made to an earlier verdict given by Ur¢i-Te“ub in favour of Ma“anda, in which he made the king of Ugarit pay a fine of 1⅓ talent of silver. If this Ur¢i-Te“ub is indeed the ill-fated successor of Muwatalli II, we must conclude that during his exile in Syria he was given some authorative powers as an arbitrator in local disputes (N 1956, 175; L 1962, 78–9; K 1969, 416, n. 123). Alternatively, the verdict could have been given during his short reign in ›atti (H  C 1974, 138). The second alternative is perhaps supported by another, very fragmentary, legal text mentioning Ma“anda (RS 17.406 = PRU 4, 181).127 This is a rare name (G 1967, 342: L 1966, 115) and the high probability that the same person is referred to in both texts is further supported by the few remaining data in the fragment, which mentions Ugarit, Bente“ina, and most significantly, the phrase ‘(I) the Great King have written a tablet [. . .]’ (frgm. A, 10’). Could this be the very verdict of Ur¢i-Te“ub mentioned in RS 17.346.10–1?128 If so, the title ‘Great King’ would date this document to his short reign in ›atti, since Ur¢i-Te“ub would hardly have dared to use it during his exile in Syria. It is also possible that the complicated financial lawsuit of Ma“anda, probably a wealthy Hittite merchant, lingered on into the following reign of ›attu“ili ‘III’, who would then be the author of RS 17.406.

5

U   A  ‘PAX HETHITICA’

Sixteen years after the Battle of Qadesh Ramesses II and ›attu“ili ‘III’ decided, each for his own reasons, to bring to an end the century-long enmity between their countries. The peace treaty concluded in 1258 after lengthy negotiations inaugurated a period of unprecedentedly close connections between the two empires. The 127 Ma-“a(?)-an-dá (fragm. A, ll. 5’, 8’; fragm. B, l. 5’). There is some doubt with regard to the second sign (“a or ta), but the reading of the name is practically certain. Both RS 17.346 and 17.406 were found in the so-called ‘Hittite Archive’ in the rooms located south of Court V. 128 Ma“anda testifies that he had broken the sealed tablet with Ur¢i-Te“ub’s verdict (RS 17.346.12–3). If so, RS 17.406 must be the copy kept by the governor of Ugarit.

    

647

new age of cooperation was particularly beneficial for Ugarit, who resumed her role as the hub of eastern Mediterranean trade. Except for the troubled years before and immediately after the Battle of Qadesh, Ugarit never really severed her traditional ties with Egypt. Now, however, the cosmopolitan city became the main stage for trade between ›atti and Egypt, a role which brought her unsurpassed prosperity. The exact dating of the growing number of late 13th century documents is notoriously difficult. Kings, queens and governors129 were not usually addressed by name in their letters, and other absolute criteria are also conspicuously missing ( S 1991a, 1). The evaluation of these late sources will follow two separate tracks. The individual reigns of the last kings of Ugarit will be discussed individually wherever possible, especially with regard to succession, marriages and foreign relations. But before that, subjects of less transient character, such as international trade, will be surveyed as a whole for the entire age of ‘Pax Hethitica’. Cross-references will be generously provided. Better to understand the mechanism of Hittite rule in Syria in general, and their special relations with Ugarit in particular, a brief description of the political climate in the Hittite Empire after the victory at Qadesh is necessary. As often happens in history, what appears to be the apex of success turns out in reality to be the beginning of the end. The economic burden of the ‘Great War’ with Egypt, and even more so the civil war which broke out shortly afterwards between the factions of Ur¢i-Te“ub and ›attu“ili mark a decisive turning point in Hittite history. Although in many respects the age of ›attu“ili and Pudu¢epa is characterized by successful measures at home and a conciliatory policy abroad,130 the moral consequences of ›attu“ili’s usurpation weighed heavily on the Hittite state and eventually contributed to its ruination. To atone for his sin before gods and men ›attu“ili appointed his other nephew Kurunta as king of Tar¢unta““a, the capital founded by Muwatalli in southern Anatolia (see p. 660). Numerous concessions were made to the

129 The logogram “, ‘governor’ (‘préfet’ in the French translations) must be read at Ugarit as sàkinu, rather than ràbißu. See H 1989, 67, 360, 378 (with refs.); L 1995a, 69, n. 17. 130 For the foreign policy of ›attu“ili and Pudu¢epa, see recently H  C 1996 (esp. pp. 73–5), with extensive refs. to previous literature.

648

 

benefit of the sister state, first by ›attu“ili and then by Tud¢aliya, but nothing could appease the rival king’s legitimate yearning for superiority. It is not yet clear whether the political rivalry led to outright warfare between the competing ‘Great Kings’,131 but, in any case, the problem dominated the political agenda of ›atti in the last decades of its existence. In religious and political documents issued from ›attu“a there is a growing preoccupation with problems of dynastic legitimation and loyalty, which eventually develop into an obsessive fear of treason and betrayal even from the king’s closest allies and associates (O 1963). External circumstances, with serious military threats from east and west and an increasing food shortage, only aggravated the burdened atmosphere of concern and pessimism. In this state of mind it was only natural that the last kings of ›attu“a sought to keep their only quiet border in the south as peaceful and cooperative as possible. The Syrian tribute was also the biggest source of income for the impoverished treasuries of ›atti. Ugarit was the ‘Jewel in the Crown’ of Hittite Syria and the point of entry for the desperately needed grain bought in Egypt. As long as Ugarit complied with her vassal obligations most of her wishes were willingly granted. In her complaint against the abuses of the merchants of Ura (see p. 660), and in other lawsuits (e.g., in the bittu rabìti affair; see p. 680f.), the court of ›atti repeatedly took the side of Ugarit against her adversaries, including Hittite officials and merchants. A special decree issued by ›attu“ili provided the extradition of Ugaritian fugitives from Hittite frontierlands, contrary to normal vassal treaty provisions (see p. 682). Clearly, in the first stage of Pax Hethitica ›atti was eager to gratify her wealthy vassal as much as she could. To be sure, this positive disposition towards Ugarit was not insensitive towards consecutive developments in the political arena, not to mention individual moods of the respective monarchs. There even came a time when Ugarit became so assertive towards her overlord that harsh reprimands became necessary, though quite ineffective. In sharp contrast to its Anatolian relatives, the dynasty of Carchemish kept a remarkable stability which continued unshaken from the foundation of the empire to well after its collapse (H 1988; G 1992). Already at the time of Syria’s conquest Carchemish on the Euphrates was chosen to become the hub of Hittite rule in 131 For the various views on the results of the rivalry between the royal houses of ›atti and of Tar¢unta““a, see S 1996b.

    

649

Syria. ›alab’s military and administrative role gradually faded, though she remained a revered religious centre. The more ›atti was preoccupied with internal problems, the more authority was assumed by Carchemish, an inverse ratio clearly reflected in the documents from Ugarit (L 1960). Already in the 14th century some of the most important state documents relating to Ugarit were prepared in Carchemish, including the royal seals ratifying them (N 1995b, 129; O 1995, 27; see n. 109). This tendency probably culminated in the able reign of Ini-Te“ub, probably the Hittite monarch most frequently mentioned in Ugarit. By the early 13th century Carchemish developed a centralized government in most of Hittite Syria, either in the form of fully integrated territories ruled by Hittite governors (such as Muki“), or as subordinate kingdoms directly controlled from Carchemish (such as A“tata/Emar). The only vassal states which kept a more-or-less autonomous status were Ugarit, Amurru, and Kinza/Qadesh, i.e. the kingdoms which in the age of the ‘Great Game’ for the control of Syria had promptly joined the Hittite camp. But even the borders of these usually loyal kingdoms were not guaranteed. When opportunity arose Carchemish carved away from Ugarit the sub-kingdom of Siyannu/U“natu, thus creating a buffer state between the strong kingdom of Amurru and the wealthy kingdom of Ugarit (see p. 640). The special type of political condominium in Syria shared by ›attu“a and Carchemish, compared by Nougayrol to the double-headed Hittite eagle (N 1956, 149), needs to be more closely defined, especially with the recent increase in late 13th century documents. The general impression one gets is that, although the appearance of ›attu“a’s superiority was scrupulously maintained, for example in the clear distinction between the titles of the ‘Great King’ or the ‘Sun’ (d-”I) of ›atti and the ‘King’ of Carchemish, in practice the everyday government of Syria, including its military defence, was organized by the Viceroy of Carchemish and a host of royal princes who travelled between the vassal courts solving local disputes and securing the interests of the central government. It seems that in their dealings with Syria the rulers of ›atti concentrated mainly on the enforcement of imperial etiquette (e.g., regular visits of the vassal rulers to His Majesty), the tightening of dynastic bonds through royal marriages (first with Amurru and later with Ugarit), and, most importantly, with securing the constant flow of high quality tribute and presents to ›atti (see p. 693ff.). According to the vassal treaties

650

 

set down in the 14th century, the yearly tribute of Ugarit went directly to ›atti where it was distributed between the king, the queen and their leading officials (see p. 635). There is nothing in the prolific 13th century correspondence to indicate any change in this policy. On the contrary, when the kings of Carchemish reprimand the kings of Ugarit for not sending sufficient presents, the destination of the dispatches, whenever clearly stated, is to ›atti, never to Carchemish (e.g., RS 34.136 = RSO 7, no. 7; p. 694). It is possible, of course, that the king of ›atti shared some of his Syrian income with the Viceroy of Carchemish, but there is nothing to suggest a direct flow of tribute from Ugarit to Carchemish. Strange as it may seem, Carchemish and the adjacent areas dependent on her, such as Emar, traded with Ugarit on a regular basis of give and take (see p. 653ff.). Finally, a brief remark should be added on the cultural impact of Hittite rule in Ugarit (N 1995). A century and a half of close political and economic ties have yielded surprisingly little evidence for Hittite influence upon the cultural life of the people of Ugarit. Only a handful of Hittite texts have been found: a legal text probably originating from ›attu“a,132 a few literary fragments found in 1992 (N 1995, 127), and a trilingual fragment of a well-known literary text (‘Message of Ludingirra to his mother’) which was also brought to Ugarit from ›attu“a (Ug 5, 319ff., 773ff.). In other words, probably nothing was written in Hittite in Ugarit itself, a conclusion also supported by the quadrilingual vocabularies (Sumerian-AkkadianHurrian-Ugaritic) which did not bother to add a Hittite column. Even the Hittite hieroglyphic seals which became very fashionable among the upper classes of Hittite Syria (Amurru, Emar), were not adopted at the court of Ugarit (S 1977, 184). The explanations for this apparent lack of interest in Hittite culture must be discussed in a broader context, but one of the reasons could be the fact, that, in sharp contrast to Amurru (S 1991a, 177; 1992), the royal house of Ugarit did not marry into Hittite royalty until the very end of the the 13th century, and even then with very limited success.133

132 RS 17.109 = Ug 5, 769. For a drawing and a photograph of this tablet, see S 1995a. 133 To ‘even out’ the record, one may observe the surprisingly few mentions of Ugarit in the Bo[azköy texts: in two inventory texts (see n. 325), in a small historical fragment (KBo 16.39, 4’), in ›attu“ili’s letter to Kada“man-Ellil (KBo 1, 10 rev. 14; see p. 652), in another small fragment of a letter (KBo 28.91, 9’; H-

     5.1

651

Security problems

Prosperity often brings with it chronic problems of security, and the late documentation in Ugarit is abounding with references to theft, robbery, and caravan hijacking. The identity of the marauders was not always known, but in any case, compensation for the loss of life and property was demanded from the ruler in whose jurisdiction the casualty occurred. The matter was settled in a legal procedure in which all parties involved appeared before a royal arbitrator, usually the king himself or an official appointed by him for this occasion. A typical lawsuit is RS 17.229 = PRU 4, 106, ratified by the seal of ›attu“ili and Pudu¢epa. The merchant Talimmu sued the inhabitants of Apsuna, a town in the northern part of the kingdom of Ugarit (see n. 403), for killing his associates. The citizens of Apsuna were required to compensate Talimmu with one talent of silver.134 The town must have been notorious for its insecurity, for we find another fragmentary lawsuit where Apsuna is associated with a case of murder.135 The king of Carchemish, Ini-Te“ub, was very active in setting up a supportive legal framework for trade in Syria, guaranteeing proper compensation for the families and the business associates of the ill-fated merchants who were killed in his jurisdiction. An accord between Carchemish and Ugarit, witnessed by the main deities of the two kingdoms, sets a compensation of 3 mina of silver each for merchants killed in each other’s territory (RS 17.230, 17.146, 18.115, 18.019 = PRU 4, 152–60). This very law was applied by Ini-Te“ub in his verdict against the citizens of Ugarit who were responsible for the murder of a merchant of the king of Tar¢uda““i (RS 17.158, 17.042 = PRU 4, 169–72); they were condemned to pay a compensation of 180 silver shekels to Ari-”imiga, a ‘brother’ of the murdered merchant. In another verdict of Ini-Te“ub, the citizens of Ugarit were sentenced to pay 1,200 shekels to a certain Aballa whose domicile  1989, 353), and in the evocation texts with the mappa mundi (KUB 15, 34 i 53; KUB 15, 35 + KBo 2, 9 i 27; KUB 26, 66 iv 5). 134 Probably the same Talimmu is mentioned in passing in a lawsuit (arbitrated by Ini-Te“ub) in which the king of Ugarit claims that the tablet dealing with Talimmu’s compensation was allegedly broken by a certain Ma“anda (RS 17.346.14– 21 = PRU 4, 176–7). For the Ma“anda affair, see p. 646. 135 RS 17.369 + 17.069 = PRU 4, 239–40. The two texts could perhaps refer to the same incident, but here the claimants are apparently listed by their names (ll. 12’ff.).

652

 

is not known (RS 17.145 = PRU 4, 172–3). The perils of travel within the kingdom of Ugarit must have cost its treasury a fortune.136 A case of highway robbery with international implications is reported in the long letter of ›attu“ili ‘III’ to Kada“man-Enlil II (KBo 1.10+; B 1996c, 132–7). The king of Babylon complained that his merchants were killed in Amurru, in Ugarit, and in a third land whose name is not preserved (§ 10; rev. 14–25). In his reply the Hittite king exonerates himself from all blame by giving a lengthy discourse on the interdiction of homicide in ›atti (K 1980; L 1990, 99–100). Finally, he puts the blame on some Subarians who do not fall within his jurisdiction. Nevertheless, he proposes that his correspondent send the relatives of the dead merchants to ›atti in order to investigate their lawsuit. Security problems on the roads leading from Babylon to ›atti, crossing through the land of Su¢i, are also discussed in a letter sent by Ini-Te“ub to ”agarakt[i-”uria“] found in 1994 in the Urtenu archive (M-L 1995b, 111; B – M-L 1995, 445, 448). As in the Mari period (see p. 618), most of the problems on the roads were caused by tribal groups such as the Sutu, the ¢abiru, and the Manda.137 In a letter to Ammi∆tamru the king of Carchemish (Ini-Te“ub) announces that he is about to send (to Ugarit) a certain Arwa““i to decide the case of the ¢abiru (.) who are not in Carchemish (RS 16.003 = PRU 3, 4).138 According to another letter the Suteans have taken a hostage who was later ransomed for 50 silver shekels (RS 8.333 = PRU 3, 7–8; cf. A 1941, 44–6). A servant of the king of Ugarit reassures his lord that he will inform him about anything he finds out about the Suteans (RS 34.151 = RSO 7, no. 13). The instability caused by tribal groups became in due time one of the main factors that brought about the collapse of the traditional LBA states, in particular in the inland areas of Syria.139

136 For other verdicts of Ini-Te“ub, see the refs. listed in K 1992, 143, n. 311. For RS 17.346 (referring to a verdict of Ur¢i-Te“ub), see p. 645f. 137 For Amurru’s mediation between Ugarit and the Manda troops (RS 17.286), see p. 642. 138 Cf. ›attu“ili ‘III’’s edict pertaining to fugitives from Ugarit seeking refuge in the ¢abiru territory of His Majesty (RS 17.238; see p. 682). 139 See, most recently, F forthcoming, with refs. to the new evidence supplied by the texts from Meskene/Emar, Tell ”ei¢ Óamad and Tell ›uera.

     5.2

653

The international trade of Ugarit in the 13th century

Despite the perils of highway robbery and similar problems, the Age of Pax Hethitica was an incomparably lucrative era for the entire Levantine Crescent, and especially for Ugarit, the hub of international trade. In the following entries the evidence for Ugarit’s foreign relations will be classified according to her main trading partners. As already mentioned, it is very difficult to establish a chronological order for this type of economic documents. An entry on ›atti is not included because no trade in the regular sense of the word is involved, but rather payment of taxes to an overlord (described in the respective chapters). On the other hand, with Carchemish (and Emar) Ugarit maintained normal trade exchanges based on reciprocal interests. Too little is known about Ugarit’s trade contacts with A““ur and Babylon, although they surely must have existed, at least in peaceful times.140 5.2.1

Carchemish and Emar

Ugarit’s commercial relations with Carchemish should presumably have been different from her relations with other foreign lands with whom the exchange was based on unadulterated reciprocal interests. However, a closer look at the relevant documents reveals that, beyond the obvious protocol between suzerain and vassal, when the correspondence gets down to actual business it follows the same principles of supply and demand as with other lands. As pointed out above, all Ugarit’s yearly tribute went to the court of ›atti and none to Carchemish. In the documents dealing with commercial transactions, the representatives of Ugarit usually state what they expect to receive in return for the goods they are sending to Carchemish, and, as far as one can tell, the exchanged goods are more or less equivalent. Although citizens of Carchemish were probably exempted from the high custom tolls demanded by Ugarit from merchants of other lands,141 even this prerogative occasionally required perseverance on the part of Hittite officials. In his letter to the king of Ugarit, Pi¢a-ziti142

140

On trade with Assyria, see n. 291. See, e.g., the strong protest aired by a king of Tyre(?) concerning the high customs his agents were required to pay by the harbourmaster of Ugarit (RS 17.424+ = PRU 4, 219; see p. 672). 142 Perhaps identical with Pi¢a-ziti, an official of the king of Carchemish, who 141

654

 

protests that some workers143 of the king were required to pay taxes and threatens to bring up the matter at the court (RS 25.461; L 1989, 317–8). The trade with Ugarit was mostly held in the hands of the royal family of Carchemish. ›e“mi-Te“ub (RS 20.184 = Ug 5, no. 28) was Ini-Te“ub’s brother,144 Upparamuwa, Mißramuwa (RS 17.423 = PRU 4, 193), Ali¢e“ni (RS 15.077 = PRU 3, 6) and Tili-”arruma145 were his sons, and Pi¢a-d was his grandson.146 Other Hittite dignitaries active at the court of Carchemish, such as Zulanna (RS 17.144 = PRU 6, no. 6), ›e“ni,147 Taki-”arruma and Tulpi-”arruma (RS 17.251 = PRU 4, 236), were also members of the royal family.148 Some of these Hittite nobles are also known from the archives of Meskene/Emar, where they fulfil top administrative functions (B 1995). Thus some of their letters may have actually been sent to Ugarit from their ‘offices’ in Emar or from other centres in the vicinity of Carchemish.149 Ugarit maintained a regular mission in Carchemish, a sort of diplomatic corps representing the interests of the vassal kingdom at the court of the overlord. Obviously, the diplomats sent out to Carchemish were most competent and influential persons. Taku¢linu, for example, after the completion of his mission in Carchemish, climbed to the

demanded compensation from Ugarit for the losses of Ma““ana-ura, probably a Hittite official active in Ugarit (RS 17.248 = PRU 4, 236). Note the clay bulla with the impression of the governor Ma““ana-ura (., .) which was found in Court V (RS 18.070 = Ug 3, 62, fig. 87; 156–7). This Pi¢a-ziti should probably be distinguished from the merchant of Ura in RS 17.319.22, 32 (= PRU 4, 182–4). 143 For the .“ ßariputi, see H  C 1983–4, 50: ‘presumably workers of a relatively low social standing’. 144 A 1974; K 1975, 60–1; S 1983b, 8; H 1989, 18ff. 145 RS 18.114, 17.028 (= PRU 4, 108–10); K 1969, 363, 365. Prince Tili”arruma appears in a legal transaction from the Emar region (HCCT-E 5; T 1984). Probably the same Teli-”arruma is also attested in a tablet from ›urbe/Tell Chuèra dated to the second half of Tukulti-Ninurta’s reign (K 1995, 211, 217–8); he is a Hittite diplomat bringing tablets and presents to the king of A““ur. 146 RS 17.148 (= PRU 6, no 7). On Pi¢a-dIM, see I 1987, 192ff., and n. 158 below. 147 RS 17.403; M-L 1995c, 37–8; S 1997, 120. For Prince ›e“ni see also H  C 1996, 61ff. (with further refs.). 148 For the debate over the meaning of ‘king’s son’ (.), see, most recently, S 1997, 418–9 (with previous refs.). 149 For an attempt to date the letters sent from Carchemish on the basis of their epistolary formulae, see Y 1992.

    

655

topmost posts in the administration of Ugarit (S 1983b, 6–18). In his letters to his lord (RS 17.383; 17.422 = PRU 4, 221–5), no doubt Ammi∆tamru II, Taku¢li(nu) reports that the king of Carchemish (Ini-Te“ub) was infuriated when he was presented with some simple stones (kamma) instead of the requested lapis-lazuli (uqnu). He implores his king to find the genuine stones wherever he can and send them urgently lest people become hostile towards him in the ›atti land.150 In these letters there is no indication what goods were sent by Carchemish in return, but from another letter we know that Taku¢li was active in transporting horses from Carchemish to Ugarit (RS 20.184; see below). Besides genuine lapis lazuli, Taku¢li asks his king to send him also dyed wool for his own needs, namely, the presentation of an offering to the deity Ap“ukka of Ir¢anda who saved him from a serious illness.151 Taku¢linu was probably replaced by Amutaru152 as the ambassador of Ugarit in Carchemish. Ammi∆tamru turned to ›e“mi-Te“ub to intercede on behalf of Amutaru at the court of his brother IniTe“ub (RS 20.184 = Ug 5, 97ff., no. 28). The king of Ugarit desired two exquisite horses and one quality bow from ›anigalbat and sent to ›e“mi-Te“ub in return one large linen garment of high quality and one ordinary linen garment. Another envoy to Carchemish was -”arruma,153 the author of a letter addressed to the king of Ugarit, his lord, found in the Urtenu archive (RS 34.140 = RSO 7, no. 11).154 The fragmentary text seems

150 Contrary to Nougayrol’s assumption, the letters were probably sent from Carchemish, and the remark on the hostility of the land of ›atti must refer to the Hittite realm in general (S 1983b, 8). There are other similar indications that the region of Carchemish was already considered to be (part of ) the ›atti Land before the fall of the Hittite Empire (see n. 170). 151 A city Ir¢anda appears in Hittite sources ( M – T 1978, 143), but its location cannot be established. 152 This Amutaru is probably identical with the merchant Amutarunu who was richly endowed by Ammi∆tamru II (S 1983b, 8, n. 10). 153 The reading ›e“mi for PU that was suggested by Güterbock and Laroche (Ug 3, 117ff.) is no longer tenable (S 1985, 113–4;   H 1995, 128ff.). For another possible reading (Taki-), see   H 1995, 136. The material from Ugarit could allow for several other identifications of -”arruma as well: e.g., Anani-”arruma, a messenger employed in the commercial firm of ”ip†i-Ba'al and Urtenu (RSO 7, nos. 32, 34), or Irr-∆rm who asks for horses in KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402 (see p. 724). None of these readings, however, can be substantiated at the moment. 154 According to the opening address this -”arruma must have been a servant of the king of Ugarit. Representatives from Carchemish, who were usually of royal

656

 

to deal with the payment for horses that had been delivered by PU”arruma to his lord: 100 silver (shekels), 4 talents of copper, and one muttiru stove.155 The importation of equids to Ugarit is also dealt with in two letters sent to the governor of Ugarit by Hittite nobles who were active in Emar.156 In the past Zulanna had supplied an iron blade and a garment to his correspondent (RS 17.144 = PRU 6, no. 6). Now he was asked to send a horseman (lit.: ‘chief ’), a mule and a horse, but he can only comply with a mare and an excellent boy who can be trained in horsemanship. He does not have mules to hand, but he promises to send a good one as soon as he can get it. In return Zulanna asks for gold, raw glass(?),157 and a bronze alallu. A double letter to the governor of Ugarit was sent by Lady Yabinen“e and Pi¢a-d (RS 17.148 = PRU 6, no. 7).158 The former sends a scarf, an embroidered belt, two ma“¢uranna and 100 (shekels) of red purple-dyed wool; she asks for much silver. The latter sends a mare for which he expects to obtain 30 silver shekels and a bronze alallu. He offers to send more quality horses in the future. Another prince who demands to be reimbursed for a horse he had delivered last year is Tapa"e (RS 34.155 = RSO 7, no. 21). He leaves it to his correspondent (Ea-d) to determine the proper price. Evidently, quality horses were one of the most expensive items traded by nobles and merchants from Carchemish and Emar in return for their voluminous imports from the west.159 That this horse blood, address the kings of Ugarit as their subordinates (e.g., ›e“mi-Te“ub in RS 20.184 and Kila’e in RS 19.070). 155 This is a simple commercial transaction and not a demand for troops, as indicated in the title of RSO 7, no. 11. 156 For the Hittite administration of Emar, see Y 1993; B 1995; S forthcoming b. 157 meku: e¢lipakku. For mekku, ‘a type of (raw) glass’, see CAD, M/2, 7. For the Hurrian gloss e¢lipakku, see L 1976–7, 76 (who compares NA4 TI ‘stone of life’). 158 The fact that Yabinen“e and Pi¢a-d share a tablet in their letters to the governor of Ugarit could indicate that they are mother and son; the husband/father is Upparamuwa (see p. 654). Their addressing the governor of Ugarit as ‘my son’ and ‘my brother’, respectively, should not be taken in a literal sense (as assumed by N 1956, 10, n. 1), but rather as an indication of their relative hierarchy (S 1997, 421). 159 To the examples already cited add RS 16.180 (= PRU 3, 41), where Pillaza, the equerry (¢uburtanuru) of the king of Carchemish, sells a horse for 200 silver (shekels). Cf. also RS 34.152 (= RSO 7, no. 39), where Mut-ra’i offers to send d .. (Adad-nàdin-“umi?) 200 sheep as an advance payment for requested horses and mules.

    

657

trade extended beyond the frontiers of the Hittite Empire is shown by the Egyptian correspondence (p. 674), as well as by a rare letter from a man of Mari found in the Urtenu archive (RS 34.142 = RSO 7, no. 47).160 Whether the horses were locally bred in the kingdom of Carchemish, or whether they were brought from more northerly areas, is not stated in these documents. It remains the task of experts to reconstruct the parameters of horse breeding and horse trade in this period of long-distance mercantile connections.161 Less is known about other items travelling from Carchemish and Emar to the west. Mention is occasionally made of rare objects162 and plants,163 whose exact nature often escapes us.164 Another source of income for the Hittite nobility was the sale of slaves to wealthy Ugaritians. Princes Taki-”arruma and Tulpi-”arruma sell to Uzzinu, the governor of Ugarit, a man (Tar“azida) for forty shekels of silver (RS 17.251 = PRU 4, 236–7). Seventy shekels are paid by the queen of Ugarit to redeem ‘her compatriot’ ( -sa), Uri-d,165 from the hands of the palace official Tabrammi (RS 17.231 = PRU 4, 238).166 Ugarit exported to the east dyed wool, linen garments, oil, alunstone, lead, copper and bronze objects.167 Some of these products 160

The details of this intriguing but difficult letter, which mentions among other things an ‘enemy’ who has pillaged the sender’s house (ll. 36ff.), need further investigation. It seems that the letter refers not to conditions in Ugarit, but rather to those in the Euphrates region. 161 For the breeding and training of quality horses in ›atti, see now S 1995, with previous literature on the subject. For the hippiatric texts from Ugarit, see C – S 1983; P 1985; C 1996. See also C 1990 and Y 1995, 440ff. for archaeological evidence on horses and chariots in Ugarit. 162 E.g. the exquisite bow mentioned in RSO 7, no. 30: 31, 34. A special piece of linen fabric for a garment was sent by the author of RS 20.227 (Ug 5, no. 57) to the queen of Ugarit (left edge 3–4). 163 .›,› (nu¢urtu) in RS 34.133.40 (= RSO 7, no. 36) is probably asa foetida, a bad-smelling resin used as an antispasmodic. It also appears among the presents sent from Qadesh to Ugarit (n. 205). 164 pànu in RSO 7, no. 30: 37 and uban in RS 34.133.41 (= RSO 7, no. 36) are unidentified. 165 Perhaps identical with Ur-Te“ub, a business associate of E¢li-Te“ub and A¢iMilku (““-) and Urtenu (B – M-L 1995, 446; ML 1995b, 105; see p. 671). 166 For this influential Hittite official, see H 1993. In RS 17.337 (= PRU 4, 168–9), a lawsuit decided before Ini-Te“ub, he claims from the king of Ugarit the households of three of his servants. 167 Occasionally the merchandise was bought in Ugarit itself, e.g., ‘”unailu, son of ›ayamuli, the kartappu of His Majesty, who has bought bronze objects in the land of Ugarit’ (RS 17.244.5–8 = PRU 4, 231–2). The domicile of Lady Aru“-›eba

658

 

were no doubt imported to Ugarit from other lands, such as Cyprus and Egypt. The valuable merchandise coming from the west was used for local consumption in the land of Carchemish, but surpluses were further traded with the Assyrians. There is growing evidence both in Hittite and Assyrian sources that the bellicose encounters between ›atti and A““ur in the early reign of Tukulti-Ninurta gave way in the latter part of his reign to a political detente accompanied by extensive trade contacts (see n. 291). The Assyrians were eager to buy from Carchemish large quantities of linen (CK 1996, 117ff.), which may originally have come from Ugarit and from other western lands. There is also an interesting reference to a convoy from Carchemish trading east of the Euphrates in oil and in bronze utensils (ibid., no. 6). A special dossier from the archive of Urtenu covers the correspondence of a large business enterprise operating between Ugarit and Emar (A, RSO 7, nos. 30–36).168 The firm was headed by ”ip†i-Ba'al, the son-in-law and commercial agent of Queen ”arelli (p. 697), who was also active in the trade with Egypt and the porttowns of Phoenicia (p. 671). The everyday management of the caravan procedures, including the prolific correspondence revolving around it, was carried out by Urtenu and his business associates Dagan-bèlu and Tuna. The caravans themselves were accompanied by their sons and subordinates—Anani-”arruma, Uri-Te, Uzziltu, Bi“u, Ba'al and Purru. Business was not restricted to Emar; some of the caravans continued their voyage along the Euphrates to Carchemish and further north. For example, Tuna announces to his correspondent Uzziltu169 that he is about to descend to ‘the land of the King’ (RS 34.133.30–1 = RSO 7, no. 36). Thereafter he lists the products that are needed ‘in the Land of ›atti’ (l. 32), which appears to be a mere synonym for the previous geo-political term.170 who asks the governor of Ugarit (who used to be a good friend of her deceased husband) to send bronze in exchange for a ma“iyannu-garment (CAD M/1: 398b; CHD 3/2: 205f.) is unknown (RS 25.131 = L 1989, 318). 168 Two more texts from earlier excavations must be added to the Emar dossier: RS 20.227 (= Ug 5, no. 57) addressed to ”ip†i-Ba'al, and the very fragmentary letter RS 12.005 (= PRU 3, 16–7). Another letter sent from the Euphrates region to Ugarit is RS 92.2007, discussed by A 1996, 58ff. (see p. 708). Unfortunately, the extant tablets from Meskene/Emar do not contain any letters sent from Ugarit. 169 Uzziltu may well be identical with Urtenu’s son 'zlt who writes in RS 92.2005 to ‘my master and my mother’ (B 1995a, 2). 170 It would seem that the term ‘›atti Land’ already comprised within it the

    

659

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between ‘native’ Ugaritians and Emariotes in this correspondence, although most of the persons mentioned were probably citizens of Ugarit, at least originally. An exception could be Zu-A“tarti of RS 34.153 (= RSO 7, no. 35), a very popular name in Emar (see, e.g., B 1996c, 138) but not in Ugarit. In his letter to Urtenu, Zu-A“tarti recounts his mishaps on a trip that brought him to Sidon and U“natu (see further p. 665). To conclude this survey of trade between Ugarit and Carchemish mention should be made of a particular topic which may be classified under both ‘commercial’ and ‘military’ contacts. I refer to the shared control by the two states over the fleet moored in the ports of Ugarit. Most commentators agree upon the fact that Ugarit did not possess a separate military fleet (V 1995a, 159ff., with refs. in n. 2). Rather, some of the commercial ships were used in times of war for the transportation of troops and for fighting the enemy. Because of the vital strategic importance of this fleet, both in times of peace and in war, the Hittites insisted upon keeping a careful eye upon the movements of Ugarit’s ships. In his response to the queen of Ugarit, the king (of Carchemish) sets a limit on the distance to which some ships are allowed to sail— as far as Byblos and Sidon but no further away (RS 34.145.9–14 = RSO 7, no. 9). The letter from the Urtenu archive must be dated to the troubled times of Ugarit’s last period.171 Another document from the Urtenu archive lists the ships of the king of Carchemish that are no longer in a condition to sail anywhere (RS 34.147 = RSO 7, no. 5). The fourteen ships are identified by their owners or captains, including a Sidonian and a man of Akko. The document is ratified with the seal of Kumma-walwi son of Upini, probably the representative of the king of Carchemish.172 Ships of other lands were also moored in the ports of Ugarit on a long-term basis. Amurru agrees to put some of her ships at the disposal of Ugarit in anticipation of an enemy attack (RS 20.162 = domains of Carchemish in the late imperial period, anticipating the full shift of the term to northern Syria in the Iron Age (n. 150). 171 Zuzuli in l. 7 must be the kartappu of the king of Carchemish who presides in a lawsuit between Niqmaddu III and a merchant from Ura (RS 18.020 + 17.371 = PRU 4, 202–3; see p. 692). Y (1992: 444) tentatively dates the letter to the reign of Ibiranu according to its epistolary style. 172 It seems that Ugarit also possessed at least one ship in Carchemish, but the evidence is not entirely clear (KTU 4.779 = RIH 83/22.8–13; B et al. 1984, 433).

 

660

Ug 5, no. 37; see p. 721). Other ships are leased from Byblos (KTU 4.338 = RS 18.025; see p. 669). The evidence for the role of Ugarit’s fleet in the transportation of grain from Egypt to Anatolia will be discussed separately (p. 715ff.). 5.2.2

Tar¢unta““a

When the Hittite king Muwatalli II, the illustrious victor of the battle of Qadesh, transferred his capital from ›attu“a to Tar¢unta““a, he laid the foundations of an appanage Hittite kingdom which stretched along the Mediterranean coast from Cilicia Aspera to Antalya and as far north as the Konya Plain. This kingdom, which competed with ›attu“a over dynastic legitimacy, maintained close commercial ties with Ugarit until the very end of the Hittite Empire (see n. 177). The evidence from Ugarit refers mainly to the port of Ura in western Cilicia,173 which was the main terminal for the ships sailing from Ugarit to Anatolia. The rich Hittite merchants of Ura, who were the main entrepreneurs in the voluminous trade flowing from and into Hittite Anatolia, started to invest in real estate and posed a growing threat to the delicate social fabric of Ugarit (R 1963; H 1978: 153ff.; V 1985). Responding to a complaint of Niqmepa, ›attu“ili ‘III’ issued a decree forbidding the men of Ura to acquire real estate in Ugarit and ordering them to return to their homes in the winter season.174 A quasi-duplicate found in the house of Urtenu adds to Ura another Anatolian town, Kutupa.175 If 173

For an up-to-date survey on Ura and its localization at Silifke, see L 1993. The Hittite merchants are variously designated as ‘merchants of Ura’ (RS 17.319 = PRU 4, 182–3), ‘merchants of His Majesty (RS 17.316 = PRU 4, 190), and ‘merchant(s) of the king of Tar¢uta““a (RS 17.158; 17.042 = PRU 4, 169–71). 174 PRU 4, 103–5. Three duplicates of this text were found in close proximity in the palace archives (room 68), and a fourth quasi-duplicate in the Urtenu archive (RSO 7, no. 1). The main text, RS 17.130, carries the seal impression of ›attu“ili and Pudu¢epa; the large duplicate RS 18.003 carries the seal of ›attu“ili alone; RS 17.461 is a small fragment. It is noteworthy that both impressions were applied on the edge of the tablet (Ug 3, 16, fig. 21), rather than in the centre of the obverse as is customary in other Hittite political documents. The fragmentary tablet from the Urtenu archive (RS 34.179 = RSO 7, no. 1) does not carry a seal impression, but this could have been applied on the missing edge of the tablet. 175 RS 34.179 (= RSO 7, no. 1). Kutupa can hardly be identical with Katapa or with Kutpa (as suggested by M-L 1991, 15, n. 4), both of which must be situated in northern ›atti. It should rather be another Anatolian port trading with the Levantine coast.

    

661

an Ugaritian is unable to pay back his debt, the king of Ugarit must turn over that man together with his family to the merchant of Ura, but his property cannot be claimed. The fact that the text is preserved in (at least) four copies (in two versions) testifies to the importance of the decree, which probably had to be ratified periodically. Legal disputes between citizens of Tar¢unta““a and Ugarit were judged fairly by the king of Carchemish and his representatives. IniTe“ub imposed a compensation on the citizens of Ugarit who were found responsible for the murder of a merchant of the king of Tar¢uda““i (RS 17.158, 17.042 = PRU 4, 169–72; see p. 651). On the other hand, the lawsuit between Niqmaddu III and Kumiya-ziti, probably a rich merchant from Ura, was decided by Zuzuli in favour of Ugarit (RS 18.020 + 17.371 = PRU 4, 202–3; see p. 692). Prince Arma-ziti was also condemned to a large compensation to Ugarit in a lawsuit witnessed by four citizens of Ura (RS 17.316 = PRU 4, 190; see p. 685). Perhaps we should add to this group of legal cases the letter of His Majesty to Ammi∆tamru (signed with the seal of Pudu¢epa), in which the damage caused by a certain ”ukku to the ship and cargo of an unnamed citizen of Ugarit was acknowledged and reimbursed (RS 17.133 = PRU 4, 118–9; B 1996c, 164).176 To the last period of Ugarit belong the documents which refer to the shipment of large quantities of grain to Ura. In an Akkadian document the king of Ugarit is asked to supply a ship and its crew for the transportation of 500 (measures) of grain from Muki“ to Ura (Ug 5, no. 33; see p. 716). In a Hittite draft the sender expresses his anger over the fact that a grain-laden ship was held up and urges his correspondent to dispatch the ship immediately either to Ura or to La“ti[- (K 1969, 324–5; see p. 718). There is no information on other merchandise that was traded between Ugarit and Tar¢unta““a. The only exception is the fragmentary letter of an unnamed king of Tar¢u(n)ta““a to Ammurapi in which he requests small ropes or belts.177 Finally, it should be noted that there is nothing in the texts from Ugarit to reflect animosity between the competing kingdoms of ›atti 176 Cf. also n. 27, on a Hittite text mentioning a citizen of Ura involved in the theft of the royal seal. 177 RS 34.139.19 (= RSO 7, no. 14): i-bi-¢i tur.me“. Could these objects be somehow connected to ship building or navigation? In this case they would have been essential for the shipping connection with Ugarit, and would not be as ‘carefree’ as they seemed to N (1995b, 124).

 

662

and Tar¢unta““a. A smooth importation and distribution of the vital shipments of grain was obviously in the best interest of both kingdoms. At the same time, it is only fair to admit that the evidence from Ugarit is too meagre to play any serious role in the reconstruction of the relations between the two Hittite kingdoms in Anatolia at the end of the 13th century.178 5.2.3

Siyannu—U“natu

The double kingdom of Siyannu—U“natu179 was probably the state most closely related to Ugarit, and yet, as often happens, the two lands were in constant dispute with each other. At the time of the Hittite takeover of Syria, Siyannu was an appanage kingdom of Ugarit and it remained so throughout the reign of ”uppiluliuma I (p. 628). For the political reasons explained above (p. 640), Mur“ili II supported Siyannu’s aspirations to secede and transferred the kingdom to the direct supervision of Carchemish. The territorial division between the two kingdoms proved to be a complicated matter which periodically had to be re-examined and ratified by the imperial administration.180 The border between Ugarit and Siyannu twisted around in a rich agricultural region of the coastal plain, and quite often minor border incidents between farmers flared up into serious conflicts which could only be settled through the arbitration of the Hittite overlords. Special delegations were sent from Carchemish to delineate the border and set up border stones (RS 17.368 = PRU 4, 76–7; see p. 685). Special attention was also paid to a fair division of economically important resources. For example, the salt fields of Atalig were divided by Mur“ili II, who gave one and two-thirds of iku to Ugarit and one and a third iku to Siyannu (RS 17.335 + .57–63 = PRU 4, 74). An accord signed by Padiya king of Siyannu181

178 For the later history of Tar¢unta““a and its relations with ›atti, see S 1996b (with further refs.). 179 The names Siyannu and U“natu are used intermittently, but they are never juxtaposed to each other (A 1979, 13). For similar ancient Near Eastern ‘personal unions’, see B 1967, ch. III. 180 One of the latest ratifications of this decree must be the one preserved in the recently recovered tablet RS 17.403 (= Ug 3, 137–9) sealed by the Chief Scribe Tagi-”arruma (see n. 111). 181 The cylinder seal impressed on the tablet belongs to a certain Sassi who must have been the founder of the dynasty.

    

663

divided the sacred vineyard of dI“tar ¢urri182 between the marzi'u183 of Siyannu and the marzi'u of Ari, a coastal town which belonged to Ugarit (RS 18.001 = PRU 4, 230; A 1979, 22; 1995, 63–4).184 Despite these careful precautions the borders were often violated by both sides. Besides verdicts and letters from the Hittite authorities, most of the relevant documents can be defined as formal complaints sent from Siyannu to Ugarit, or, more rarely, vice versa. Often, but not always, Ugarit appears as the superior side in the introductory formulae of these letters ( S 1991a, 78, n. 210). The name of the sender from Siyannu is usually indicated, but that of the addressee, either the king or the governor of Ugarit, is not. This complicates the construction of a chronological order of the dossier, one of the largest in the foreign correspondence of Ugarit. The recurring subjects provide a typical cross-section of problems occuring along a hostile borderline within an ancient Near Eastern imperial system: violent razzias and annexation of territories, stealing or destruction of agricultural produce, and even abduction of people and selling them into slavery. A verdict of Ini-Te“ub185 imposes upon the people of Siyannu a threefold compensation in case they are found guilty of the following grave offences:186 the demolition of a (watch-)tower,187 the pruning188 of vineyards belonging to Ugarit, and the selling of the (stolen) wine to merchants from Beirut.189 Also, the King made provisions

182

For the various interpretations of ¢urri in this context, see P 1993 (with refs.). Probably identical with marzi¢u/mrz˙, for which see, most recently, P 1996a. 184 ›ebat of Ari figures prominently in texts of Ugarit as a divine witness (e.g., PRU 4, 137ff., 239). Was she perhaps assimilated with d“ ¢urri to whom the vineyard of Ari was dedicated? 185 RS 17.341 (= PRU 4, 161ff.). RS 20.174 (= Ug 5, no. 25), with a warning to the king of Ugarit about the consequences of his violation of the borders of U“natu and the capture of one town, may also be ascribed to Ini-Te“ub (Y 1992, 444–5). As suggested by Yamada, the town in question may well be ”uksi, an enclave of Siyannu within the territory of Ugarit. 186 Note the pejorative use of the designation ¢abiru for the criminals who have commited the crimes. For the same usage in the Amarna correspondence, see the refs. cited by L 1990, 103, n. 28 and by R 1995. 187 For dimtu (É..), ‘tower, castle’, see N 1955, 217–8. 188 Lit. ‘cutting’, which could also mean the destruction of the vineyards (so N 1968, 126, n. 2). However, since in the next paragraph the Siyannites are accused of selling the wine to Beirut, it is more logical to think that they were stealing from the vineyards rather than destroying them. 189 The so-called ‘wine war’ (N 1968, 126, n. 2) is probably also referred to in RS 21.183 (= Ug 5, no. 41), a letter sent by the king [of Siyannu] to the 183

664

 

for an exchange of citizens resident in each other’s lands and made the two parties swear not to sell these foreigners to a third party. The king of Ugarit is not named in this verdict; the king of Siyannu is ”àbilim.190 Probably the same king of U[“natu]191 is the author of a complaint sent to the king of Ugarit.192 ”àbilim protests against the trespassing of some Ugaritian farmers into his territory, probably under the protection of maryannu troops. They had already started to sow grain in the occupied fields, but ”àbilim threatens to harvest it himself unless the king of Ugarit removes his men. Besides the crops of the field and of the vineyards, cattle was perhaps also stolen by infiltrators.193 The grimmest aspect of the ‘economic war’ between Ugarit and Siyannu was the abduction of people, probably wealthy merchants, and their subsequent sale into slavery. Two documents prove that the provisions made by Ini-Te“ub in this respect were not merely theoretical.194 As already observed by N (1968, 127, n. 3), it is not without interest to note that the human ‘merchandise’ was purchased by Egyptians, as in Genesis 37. Apart from the reciprocal ‘repatriation’ of citizens as decreed by Ini-Te“ub, there was apparently no agreement for the extradition of

king of Ugarit. The last fragmentary passage mentions the men of Beirut who take namzaktu (‘beverages’?) from Ugarit. See further H 1990. 190 The name ”a-pí-ilim () is usually read as ”apilim and is analysed as an Akkadian formation meaning ‘according to the pronouncement of the God/El’ (e.g., G 1967, 47). However, a West Semitic analysis of the name, i.e., ”àb-ilim (cf. Ug. Ôbil ), ‘God has returned (to) me,’ as suggested by Gordon and endorsed by R (1971b, 164), is also supported by the new reading of the name -lim as ”àb-ilim suggested below, n. 192. 191 The traces of the first sign in the name of the land could belong to an u“. 192 RS 17.394 + 427 (= PRU 4, 220). Nougayrol read the name --lim as Itur-lim, deriving it from the Akkadian reading of , ‘to return’ (tàru). However, a West-Semitic reading, ”àb-ilim (see n. 190), is preferable in this case since this name is found both in Siyannu-U“natu and in Amurru (S 1991a, 183 with n. 73). 193 Two ‘unclassified’ documents dealing with stolen cattle share the characteristics of the dossier of the ‘economic war’ between Ugarit and Siyannu. In RS 20.239 (= Ug 3, no. 52) Mada"e categorically demands that the governor of Ugarit look into the matter of the cattle stolen from him by the men of Rakba. The author of the fragmentary letter RS 15.018 (= PRU 3, 11–2) threatens to turn to the King (of Carchemish) if he is not given proper compensation for his stolen cattle. 194 RS 20.021 (= Ug 5, no. 42) and 34.158 (RSO 7, no. 16). Probably both documents refer to the same case of the sale of Ba'aliya by his business partner, probably a resident of Ugarit.

    

665

outlaws. Rather, each state was expected to judge its own criminals according to the testimony of witnesses who were sent to appear at the trial. In his letter to Ugarit, a certain “-d195 announces that he personally went to Siyannu to punish the person(s) who had transgressed against his correspondent’s authority (RS 20.219 = Ug 5, no. 44).196 A similar message is conveyed by a certain Eppiqu to the governor of Ugarit, his lord (RS 17.393 = PRU 4, 226–7). In his letter to the king of Ugarit (‘my father’), the king of U“natu volunteers to serve as the arbitrator in a financial dispute between subjects of the two lands (RS 17.083 = PRU 4, 216); alternatively, he suggests sending the opponents to appear before the king of Ugarit. When it came to citizens of a third country, the authorities of Ugarit and of Siyannu made a point of referring the case to the appropriate court. Two documents may be combined to reconstruct the ventures of a citizen of Emar. In his letter to Urtenu, Zu-A“tarti (see p. 659) recounts that from Sidon197 he arrived to U“natu where he was detained (RS 34.153 = RSO 7, no. 35); he probably expected his correspondent to intervene on his behalf. Finally, he asks Urtenu to inquire whether the king had already handed over the horses to the messenger from Ala“ia. From a letter of -d,198 king of U“natu, to the king of Ugarit we learn that the king of Carchemish himself had intervened to ensure a proper trial in the lawsuit between a man of Emar (the above-mentioned Zu-A“tarti?) and a man of Siyannu (RS 17.143 = PRU 4, 16). The king of U“natu, however, declares 195 This seems to me a better reading of the name than ”i-ni-d as read by Nougayrol. Cf. ”u-kúr-d in RS 20.003 (= Ug 5, no. 26). 196 The nature of their offence is not quite clear. I wonder whether the alleged ‘turning of the sceptre (?)’ in l. 16 ( GI”-ka) could actually be read as a misconstrued Kar-ka-mi“ !? 197 Zu-A“tarti was moored somewhere in the sea (l. 14f., ina .. a“baku) when he was taken by a “a-a-ru to Sidon (l. 15f.). A (RSO 7, 76; 1992, 182, n. 11) compared this “àru with Ugaritic ≤r and biblical ≤ar, ‘prince’, suggesting that this might be an early reference to a Philistine ruler (cf. I Sam. 18:30). Cf. however H (1997), who in his review of RSO 7 translates the respective sentence as following: ‘I was sitting (immobile) in the sea; when the wind (finally) took me, I reached Sidon’. 198 The name -d is traditionally rendered with Hurrian values, Ar(i)-Te“ub. However, since the kings of Ugarit bear Semitic names (with the possible exception of Ar-¢alba), more caution is advised in reading the ideographic spellings of the names of the kings of Siyannu (see also G 1957, 25). -d could also have a Semitic reading, such as B'l-ytn, d-mateni, or the like (see G 1967, 147), and until some compelling evidence for the correct reading turns up it is better to keep to the ideographic spelling of this name.

666

 

himself incompetent in the case, because, as it turns out, the adversary is not a resident of Siyannu but rather of Ari, a coastal town which belonged to Ugarit. 5.2.4

Amurru and Kinza/Qadesh

Among the Hittite dominated lands of Syria, only Amurru and Kinza/Qadesh maintained an independent correspondence with Ugarit on a state level, i.e., between kings and governors.199 These two kingdoms were the first to join the Hittite camp in the Amarna Age, and had consequently preserved, together with Ugarit, a semiautonomous status. There is also an exchange of letters with Emar (see p. 658), and perhaps with other cities along the Euphrates,200 but this is between individual merchants and not the respective royal courts. The close relations between Ugarit and Amurru find their expression mainly in the military accords (see p. 627) and in the royal marriages (see p. 641) between the two courts. Much less is known about their economic ties, and the extant letters refer mostly to Amurrite requests for (semi-)precious stones. In two companion letters the king of Amurru and his governor express their wish to buy parri“¢i/parru“¢a at any price.201 In a letter found in the Urtenu archive a certain GAL-gina attempts, on behalf of the king of Amurru, to urge the transport by ship of a building stone (algami“u) needed for the repair of his king’s residence (RS 34.135 = RSO 7, 46ff.). Less specific are the requests of Ulmi, probably the queen of Amurru, from her ‘daughter’, the queen of Ugarit (RS 16.111 = PRU 3, 13–4). The same applies to the letter of Abu“gama (of Amurru) to the governor (of Ugarit) in which he proposes mutual assistance between their respective lands (RS 15.024 + 50 = PRU 3, 18). The dating of all these documents is difficult to establish (L 1962, 146; S 1991a, 160ff.). In any case, the cooperation between the two Levantine kingdoms seems to have continued to their very

199 There is also a single letter from the king of Barga, a small kingdom in inner Syria (K 1992, 152), but only a few lines are preserved (RS 15.019 = PRU 3, 13). 200 For a possible Mari provenance of RSO 7, nos. 40, 47, see pp. 657, 728. 201 RS 17.152 (= PRU 4, 214) and F 1984. For the possible identification of the stone, see refs. in S 1991a, 161, n. 36.

    

667

end, and Amurru sent ships to assist the fleet of Ugarit (RS 20.162 = Ug 5, no. 37; p. 721). Qadesh lost some of its strategic importance after the peaceful settlement of the long-standing struggle between Egypt and ›atti. Still, as an important stage on the inland route to the north, its participation in the defensive system of Syria was highly treasured by the Hittites. Two letters from the Urtenu archive relate the efforts of Carchemish to mobilize the armies of Qadesh and Ugarit for a large manoeuvre perhaps directed to fend off an Assyrian offensive (p. 687). Some half dozen letters may be attributed to the correspondence between Ugarit and Kinza/Qadesh. The earliest is the letter of Niqmaddu, probably the king of Qadesh,202 to his ‘brother’203 Niqmepa (of Ugarit), dealing with the extradition of a runaway. Three letters are addressed to Uzzinu, one of the last governors of Ugarit (see p. 700). Two of them are related to each other and deal with the settling of a complicated financial dispute.204 The third is almost entirely broken (RS 20.200 = Ug 5, no. 40). A letter sent by the king of Qadesh to the king of Ugarit, his ‘brother’, should probably be dated to the same period; in this he announces the dispatch of his governor Betilum with offerings to (the temples of ?) Ugarit: 30 he-goats, 3 donkeys, and asa foetida.205

202 RS 17.315 (= PRU 4, 111). Since no land is mentioned in the letter, the identity of the correspondents is open to speculation. Because of the provenance of the tablet, it is usually assumed that Niqmepa was the king of Ugarit. Various identities have been suggested for Niqmaddu: the predecessor of Niqmepa on the throne of Ugarit (G 1966, 6, n. 28); a blood brother of Niqmepa (L… 1981, 81); the king of a neighbouring land, either Muki“ (N 1956, 111, n. 1;  S 1991a, 216–7), or, more probably, Qadesh (K 1962, 37; M 1979–80, 202). An entirely different interpretation has recently been put forward by A (1996, 48, n. 6), who suggests that the tablet is a copy that was kept in Ugarit, in which case Niqmaddu would be the king of Ugarit (the successor of Ibiranu of RS 4.449) and Niqmepa would be the king of Alala¢. 203 This ‘brotherhood’ indicates that the correspondents were of equal political status. I do not understand Millard’s statement (M 1979–80, 202) that the address reflects the relationship between an inferior and a superior king. 204 Both letters were sent to Ugarit’s governor Uzzinu, one by the king of Kinza (RS 34.146 = RSO 7, no. 15) and the other by its governor Betilum (RS 20.158 = Ug 5, no. 51); strangely, they were found in different archives, Urtenu’s and Rap"anu’s, respectively (L 1995a, 73). Betilum, the governor (“) of Kinza, is also mentioned in RS 20.172.23 (see below). 205 RS 20.172 (= Ug 5, no. 39). Perhaps ].› .› [ (l. 22), a variety of asa foetida, see n. 163 (N 1968, 121, n. 4, with refs.). The same plant is

668

 

The most substantial information on commerce between the two kingdoms is found in the letter of Padiya, the governor of Qadesh, to the king of Ugarit (RS 20.016 = Ug 5, no. 38). In an exceedingly flattering manner, going as far as describing his correspondent as a ‘great king’,206 the governor politely but firmly exposes the reduced weights of the large metal consignment that he had received from Ugarit: the ostensible 20 talents of bronze are short by one talent and a thousand and [×-] hundred (shekels); the 8 talents of tin (annaku) are actually only 700 (shekels?); and a bronze basin (agannu) that should weigh one talent is 100 (shekels) short. According to his calculation, the king of Ugarit still owes him 10 talents of bronze for 5 donkeys. Ugarit’s role as an intermediary in the trading of tin and bronze goes back at least to the Mari period (p. 617).207 Padiya also mentions the prices for sheep, head coverings, eagles(?), and asa foetida, which were probably sent to Ugarit. 5.2.5

The ‘Phoenician’ port-towns

The borrowing of this first millennium geo-political term serves merely as a convenient framework for the characterization of Ugarit’s ties with the Levantine coast south of Amurru (A 1992; X 1995b). Ugarit’s commercial ties were naturally stronger with the Lebanese coast, i.e., the kingdoms of Byblos, Beirut, Sidon and Tyre, and weakened considerably further south along the coast of Palestine. Still, there is ample evidence that seamen and merchants from Akko, Ashdod and Ashkelon maintained commercial ties with Ugarit (for refs. see A 1992, 192). This geographical orbit is also reflected in a late letter of the King (of Carchemish) to the queen of Ugarit in which he authorizes her to send her ships only as far as Byblos and Sidon but not to more distant destinations (RS 34.145.9–14 = RSO 7, no. 9). There are very few chronological indications in the

mentioned in another letter from Qadesh (RS 20.016.34), and in a letter belonging to the correspondence between Emar and Ugarit (RS 34.133.40; see n. 163). 206 I agree with Nougayrol that in this context ‘Great King’ refers (in an exaggerated manner) to the king of Ugarit, and not to the Hittite king, as suggested by L 1962, 150. 207 For the Ugaritic terminology for ‘copper/bronze’ (∆l∆) and ‘tin’ (brr) and their prices in Ugarit, see Z 1970, 317ff. A new text from the Urtenu archive, which specifies the quantity of brr needed for the manufacture of forty frames (krkb; B – M-L 1995, 447, 451), may perhaps throw some doubts on the identification of brr as ‘tin’.

    

669

correspondence with the ‘Phoenician’ port-towns, but most of the material must probably be dated to the last period of Ugarit (A 1992, 179–80). The majority of the epistles contain little more than the customary greeting formulae between ‘brothers’. Only occasionally is a business transaction or some other concrete event more specifically discussed. Byblos (Gubla) received from Ugarit 25 textile and clothing items, including ‘seven removable ship-covers(?)’ (A 1992, 159), through the intermediation of a certain Abi¢ilu.208 A case of the ‘leasing’ of Byblian ships by Ugarit is apparently recorded in an economic text which has received extensive attention.209 From the fact that it was found in the so-called ‘baking oven’ in Court V, some have concluded that it reflects the acute political situation characterizing the last years of Ugarit (e.g., H 1979, 383). However, this find-place can no longer be used as a dating tool (see n. 705), and the ‘leasing’ may actually reflect normal mercantile procedures (D – L 1990d, 96). Beirut210 sent four letters to Ugarit: one from king to king (RS 86.2212; A 1992, 192); two from the king of Beirut to the governor of Ugarit (RS 11.730 = PRU 3, 12–3; RS 34.137 = RSO 7, no. 37); and one from Ewri-kili to the king of Ugarit (A 1992, 192). In RS 34.137 the king of Beirut wishes all the best to his brother (the king of Ugarit) who is on a voyage outside Ugarit. Could this trip refer to Niqmaddu III’s visit to ›atti implied from other documents (see p. 700)? Beirut was also involved in the ‘economic war’ between Ugarit and Siyannu revolving around the trade in wine (RS 17.341.14’, 17’ = PRU 4, 161; see p. 663). In addition to these Akkadian documents there is also an Ugaritic legal text recording the redemption of seven men from Ugarit from the hands of the men of Beirut for one hundred silver shekels (KTU 3.4 = RS 16.191 + 16.272 = PRU 2, no. 6; K 1979, 449–50); it is 208 RS 19.028 = PRU 6, no. 126. The same agent, Abi¢ilu/AbÀl, may be attested in other economic texts, in connection with oil and with animal hides (see refs. in L 1994, 118). The assumption that he originated from Ashdod rests on a dubious restoration. 209 KTU 4.338 = RS 18.025 = PRU 5, no. 106; see L 1994, 118ff., with further refs. The Ugaritic translation of a letter sent by the king of Byblos, found near KTU 4.338 = RS 18.025, is too fragmentary to provide any information (KTU 2.44 = RS 18.134 = PRU 5, no. 159; L 1994, 124). 210 A (1984; 1992, 182, n. 9) attempted to distinguish between two Beiruts; the other he identified with Ras Ibn Hani.

670

 

ratified with the seal of Niqmaddu (III?; see p. 693). The benefactor is a certain Iwr-kl, possibly identical with Ewri-kili (CK 7; A 1992, 192). Sidon seems to be the foremost amongst the ‘Phoenician’ kingdoms (A 1992, 184–5).211 The letters from Ugarit and some seals provide the names of some of its rulers, but as yet these do not fit into a clear chronological framework.212 A dossier of documents is consecrated to the ‘great sin’, a highly interesting source for the religious practices of the period.213 It seems that some citizens of Ugarit have commited a great offence against the Storm-god of Sidon, probably by entering the holy of holies of his temple without authorization. The enraged citizens of the city demand that the offenders (designated as ‘dogs’) be stoned and impaled (A 1992, 190–1; B 1995a, 3), whereas the king of Sidon would be content with expiatory offerings (including fine oil brought from Egypt) to all the gods of the kingdom and a large monetary compensation. The epistles from Tyre (Íurri ) are perhaps the most variegated in the ‘Phoenician’ dossier, but their interpretation is often very difficult (A 1992, 194; X 1995, 260).214 A tablet from the Museum of Lattaquieh contains a letter sent by the king of Tyre to the king of Ugarit dealing with an ‘unpaid bill’ (A 1982b). Two Ugaritians, Ea-rabi and the ‘harbourmaster’ (rab kàri ) ”ip†i-Ba'al, have taken ‘large doors’215 from the house of Dadami but failed to pay their price. This is the second appeal of the king of Tyre on this matter;

211 The importance of Sidon in the 13th century is also demonstrated by a tablet from Tell Chuèra (dated to the second half of Tukulti-Ninurta’s reign) according to which a Sidonian diplomat (Milku-ramu) forwarded some letters from Egypt to Assyria (O 1995, 216). 212 A 1992, 193; X 1995b, 259–60; M-L 1995b, 104. Imtu (RS 11.723), Yapa-d (RS 25.430) and d-I“me (RS 34.149) appear in letters; Addumu and his son Anni- appear on seals. 213 RS 18.054; 86.2208; 86.2221+; 86.2234; A 1992, 189ff. A (ib.: 189, n. 48) tentatively proposes to include in this dossier also RS 20.182 (+) , a letter to Ramesses II dealing with a lawsuit between ‘the sons of Canaan’ and ‘the sons of Ugarit’ (see p. 674). 214 The ‘revised edition’ (1997) of H.J. K’s History of Tyre (1973) has not been updated with the new material from Ugarit published since the early seventies. (The ‘as yet unpublished’ document mentioned on p. 58 is RS 19.042 = PRU 6, no. 79, published in 1970!). 215 The first sign in .ME” is somewhat obliterated in the copy. If this reading is valid, I wonder whether it could refer here not to ordinary doors, but rather to writing-boards (which are also designated daltu) like the one found in the shipwreck from Uluburun.

    

671

after his first appeal the king of Ugarit responded that the respective persons were presently not in Ugarit. ”ip†i-Ba'al must be the well-known son-in-law of Queen ”arelli and her business agent in a wide range of trading activities extending from Emar to Egypt (A 1982b, 105–7). ”ip†i-Ba'al (Ôp†-b'l ) himself is the author of an Ugaritic letter addressed to his lord (KTU 2.40 = RS 18.040 = PRU 5, 63). After the courtesy formula the author announces that: 'bdk b lwsnd w b ßr 'm mlk, ‘your servant (is) in lwsnd and in ßr with the king’ (ll. 9–12). In his editio princeps Virolleaud identified the second location as referring to the city of Tyre. A (1965, 257) emended this reading into [ y]bßr, ‘he fortified’, and identified the first locative with the eastern Cilician town of Lawazantiya, identified with Lusanda in a Neo-Assyrian document. From this identification he developed a farfetched historical scenario (cf. L 1979a, 134) according to which ”ip†i-Ba'al was ‘the Ugaritic commander on the northern front’ who fortified himself together with the Hittite king in Lusanda ‘after all of Anatolia had already been lost almost up to the Amanus’. Taking into consideration the abundant new data on ”ip†i-Ba'al, and especially the above-mentioned Lattaquieh letter, it may be safer to return to Virolleaud’s original rendering and conclude that the letter was probably sent by ”ip†i-Ba'al from the court of the king of Tyre. An unusually large tablet (RS 34.167 = RSO 7, no. 25), probably dispatched from Tyre, contains the letter of Ur-Te“ub to his ‘brother’ A¢i-Milku/Malki (““-)216 recounting the lethal disease (perhaps a plague) of his son who was sent away from Tyre to a relative residing in the Cape of Tyre (URU. Íurri ). In the second part of his long letter the sender requests his correspondent to send to him 50 jars (ME” ) of [oil?], 30 silver (shekels) and one talent of copper. In return he proposes to send several items, including purple-dyed wool and a talent of (dried) fish, both typical products of Tyre. Ur-Te“ub was the head of a large Ugaritian firm trading especially in the export of oil to ›atti and to Egypt (B – M-L 1995, 446, 449). Four letters addressed to him were found in the Urtenu archive in 1994, two from A¢i-Milku/Malki and two from E¢li-Te“ub, a scribe who was active under Niqmaddu III (M-L 1995b, 105; see p. 691). 216 For the readings of these names, see B – M-L 1995, 446 and M-L 1995b, 105.

672

 

One should probably add to the correspondence of Tyre a letter whose author was thought to be a king of Amqi.217 d..218 complains before the governor of Ugarit, d..,219 about the outrageous custom tolls that his agents were required to pay to the ‘harbourmaster’220 Abdu son of Ayya¢i: 100 [silver shekels] for 14 jars of oil.221 Finally, we have the much-discussed Ugaritic translation of the letter sent by the king of Tyre to the king of Ugarit concerning the salvation of his fleet returning from Egypt.222 Various interpretations have been accorded to this letter (for refs. see C 1989a, 349–50). Those who (following Gordon) have connected the vocables mtt and rb tmtt with the verb ‘to die’ have envisaged a more ‘tragic’ course of events. It seems preferable, however, to follow a more ‘mundane’ interpretation (e.g., C 1989a, 349ff.), according to which the fleet was caught up in torrential rain but found refuge in Tyre and in Akko. The rb tmtt 223 had emptied the grain224 from the ships and the king of Tyre made sure to send the

RS 17.424 + 397 (= PRU 4, 219). Instead of Nougayrol’s URUAm(?)-qí one should probably read with A (1996, 63, n. 94) URUÍur KI (either in status absolutus, or with the omission of the final -ri ). Amqi/a in the Lebanon Valley was not a unified geo-political unit ruled by a single king (A 1953; S 1988a, 3). 218 Nougayrol reads the name Addu-dayyanu. This king of Tyre is also attested in a new document from the Urtenu archive (M-L 1995b, 104; A 1996, 63, n. 94). An Amarna Age king of Tyre probably bears the same name (EA 295.3: ]-.; M 1992, 337), which may be a dynastic name. 219 N (1956, 219) reads the name as U-zakaptu. 220  kàri, to be read either as akil kàri, or, more probably, rab kàri (A 1996, 61). The Ugaritic equivalent could be either rb m"i¢d (for which see V 1965, 14–5; A 1970; L 1979b: 499), or rb tmtt (A 1996: 63, n. 95). The ‘harbourmaster’ was responsible for collecting the custom taxes in port towns, whereas the ‘tax collector’ (màkisu) did the same along the land borders of Hittite Syria (A 1996, 61). The collection of various taxes and tolls (mana¢tu, miksu) figures prominently in the new texts from the Urtenu archive (ML 1995b, 106). 221 For a new translation and interpretation of this text, see A 1996, 63. He tentatively suggests (n. 96) that the ‘oil’ coming from Tyre could actually be scented oil, i.e. some perfume (perhaps of Egyptian origin), which would explain the high custom taxes paid for it. 222 KTU 2.38 = RS 18.031 = PRU 5, no. 59. A 1992, 194 mentions a further letter sent from a king of Tyre to the king of Ugarit (RS Varia 25). 223 For the various interpretations of the office of the rb tmtt, see C 1989a, 354–5, n. 17 (‘head of team’), and add A (1996, 63, n. 95), who proposes that it is the Ugaritic equivalent of rab kàri, ‘harbourmaster’ (see n. 220). 224 For the different meanings of ≈r'/dr', see C 1989a, 355 n. 19 (with refs.). 217

    

673

cargo and the crew safely to Ugarit. This interpretation would fit perfectly within the context of the grain exports from Egypt to ›atti at the end of the 13th century (see pp. 715–9). 5.2.6

Egypt and Canaan

The ‘Egyptian alternative’ never really vanished from Ugarit’s perspective. With a strong mercantile and maritime orientation, Ugarit’s natural major partner was Egypt, rather than the continental Hittites. The vigorous Syrian policy of the kings of the early Hittite Empire forced Ugarit to curtail for a while her traditional ties with Egypt, especially on the eve of the battle of Qadesh. However, with the advent of the Silver Treaty signed between ›attu“ili ‘III’ and Ramesses II in 1258, Ugarit was among the first to exploit the huge commercial benefits of the Pax Hethitica. The resumption of full-scale contacts with Egypt and her Canaanite provinces is documented both in the written and in the archaeological record of Ugarit. About half a dozen stone and alabaster vases carry the cartouches of Ramesses II, matching more-or-less the quantity of such finds from the Amarna Age.225 Egyptian merchants were active in the economic life of Ugarit, trading not only in commodities226 and real estate,227 but also in slaves. ›e¢ea, the Egyptian, released an undefined number of persons for 400 shekels (RS 15.011 = PRU 3, 19). In a letter exchange between the kings of Ugarit and U“natu it is reported that the Egyptians have released a person who was sold to them by his companion, though they kept his belongings (RS 20.021 = Ug 5, 126ff.; see n. 194). Canaanites were well distinguished from Egyptians in the documentation from Ugarit (A 1981a, 25). A fragmentary letter

225 RS 11.261; 11.848; 11.869; 1–11.[115]; 15.201; 34.030 (see C 1991a, 214, and refs. cited in RSO 5.1). Large quantities of alabaster vessels were found in the so-called ‘House of the alabaster vessels’ east of the royal palace (Y 1997b, 76). On Ugarit’s preference for Egyptian artistic styles, see Y 1994b, 427–8 (with further refs.). 226 In KTU 4.352 = RS 18.042.4 = PRU 5, no. 95 Egyptians receive a large quantity of oil. In RS 16.341 = PRU 2: no. 113 Egyptians receive rations of wine from the royal palace. 227 According to RS 16.136 = PRU 3, 142 the Egyptian Pa'a¢i received a large domain from king Ammi∆tamru II.

674

 

deals with the settling of a large monetary dispute (one talent and 500 shekels of silver) between the ‘sons of the Land of Ugarit’ and the ‘sons of the Land of Canaan’ (RS 20.182 + 20.181= Ug 5, no. 36; augmented and collated by L 1994). In the fragmentary opening lines the king of Ugarit addresses Pharaoh (Ramesses II) with the flattering epithets, ‘powerful king’ (“arri qarradi ) and ‘lord of all the lands’. Bur¢anuwa (l. 10’) is no doubt the well-known Egyptian messenger Pari¢nawa who travelled between the courts of Egypt and ›atti at the time of the Silver Treaty in 1258 and the royal marriage between Ramesses II and a Hittite princess in 1245 (Y apud N 1968, 112, n. 3; E 1976, 79). The regulation of the caravan routes linking Egypt and ›atti and their passage through the territory of Ugarit is the subject of several documents. A decree of Tud¢aliya empowers Ammi∆tamru II to prevent the transfer of horses from ›atti to Egypt and vice versa from passing through his territory (RSL 2 = PRU 6, no. 179).228 The full significance of this prohibition is not known, but it may have to do with the lucrative trade in quality horses frequently alluded to in the letters from Ugarit (cf. N 1970, 129, n. 3; S 1983b, 27, n. 3). The itinerary of the trading routes between ›atti and Egypt is also discussed in the Ugaritic translation of Pudu¢epa’s letter to Niqmaddu III (KTU 2.36 = RS 17.435+; see p. 693). The meaning of the fragmentary passage is not entirely clear, but it seems that the king of Ugarit complained that caravans were by-passing his kingdom, probably using an alternative inland artery along the Orontes valley.229 The reason for Ugarit’s concern is obvious: the merchants passing through the territory of Ugarit not only traded imported merchandise for local produce, but also paid high custom tolls which enriched the treasuries of the city.230 In the private correspondence of the great merchants operating the caravan routes along the Levant there is often mention of trips 228

Cf. also the small fragment Ug 5, no. 47 which seems to deal with commerce with M ]u-uß-ri-i (probably Egypt, despite the unusual spelling). 229 The fragmentary passage mentions NÀ∆/Nu¢¢a““i (l. 17), Qd“/Kinza (l. 27’), and possibly N[iya] in the ‘Valley’ (l. 18: 'mq; or perhaps the land of Amqi ?). 230 See, e.g., p. 672 on the custom tolls paid to the harbourmaster of Ugarit by some merchants from Tyre (PRU 4, 219). Contrary to the above interpretation of the passage from Pudu¢epa’s letter, D (1989, 145) assumes that the king of Ugarit sought to divert the caravans away from his kingdom because of some damage caused by them.

    

675

to Egypt. Ur¢ae, whose regular business was with ›atti, eagerly proposes to join his colleague Yabninu on his next trip to Egypt (RS 19.050 = PRU 6, no. 14). According to another letter he sends him a horse, perhaps as an incentive for further cooperation (RS 22.006 = PRU 6, no. 16). Another entrepreneur who was active along the ‘Phoenician’ coast and in Egypt was ”ip†i-Ba'al, the well-known agent of the queen of Ugarit (p. 697). In RS 34.173 (RSO 7, no. 33) Dagan-bèlu informs Urtenu that his master (no doubt ”ip†i-Ba'al) will write to him soon about his Egyptian affairs. Luxury goods were traded with Egypt throughout the period under consideration, but the last decades of the Hittite Empire added a new dimension to these close commercial ties. The importation of grain from Egypt to ›atti and Ugarit’s vital role in this trade will be described in the entries dealing with the last period of the city (p. 715ff.). 5.2.7 Cyprus and the Aegean The first commercial contacts between Ugarit and the eastern Mediterranean islands go back to the early part of the second millennium  (see n. 42). After a considerable decrease in these ties around the mid-second millennium (LH I and LH II), there is again an upsurge of demand for western products in the 14th–13th centuries.231 However, the early theory of the existence of a Mycenaean colony in Ugarit has categorically been refuted (A 1973b, 25, with refs.; C 1987, 216–7). In the vast written documentation from Ugarit there is not a single record of an Aegean merchant trading in the city, and none of the hundreds of names can be shown to be of a clear Aegean type (A 1981b, 29). Juxtaposed with the evidence for the presence of countless other foreigners in Ugarit— Egyptians, Canaanites, ‘Mesopotamians’, Ala“iotes, not to mention Hittites—this absence can hardly be accidental and must indicate that most232 of Ugarit’s lucrative trade with the Aegean was in the hands of Syrian merchants and Cypriot intermediaries. A rare textual

231

A 1973a, 24ff.; C 1979, 1204ff.; 1987; C – M 1995,

104ff. 232 That some ships from the Aegean must have reached the Levantine coast is shown by the clause in Tud¢aliya’s treaty with ”au“gamuwa of Amurru which imposed a blockade on the trade between Assyria and ships of [A¢]¢iyawa (K – O 1971, 16–7). For the refutation of S’s (1989) alternative restoration of

676

 

attestation of direct sailing from Ugarit to Crete is found in a legal document in which Ammi∆tamru II exempted the merchant Sinaranu from taxes, including those on his ship returning from a voyage to Kapturi.233 Contrary to the circuitous contacts with Crete and the Aegean, relations with Cyprus, just over 100 km from the ports of Ugarit, were intense and manifold, especially in the last phases of the LBA. About half a dozen objects inscribed with Cypro-Minoan characters were found at Ugarit.234 Except for her pivotal role in the maritime trade between east and west, Ala“ia also served as a place for the banishment of high-ranking political deportees from ›atti and from Ugarit.235 The main export item of Cyprus was of course copper, both as raw material or in the form of manufactured objects.236 Evidently Ugarit also had a bronze industry of its own, as shown, for example, by the stone mould for casting ox-hide-shaped ingots found in the Northern Palace of Ras Ibn Hani (B et al. 1987, 11, fig. 8; L 1987, 284). An Ugaritic text mentions a ship from Ala[“ia] moored in the town of Atalig with a cargo of 15 talents of co[ pper?] and other metal implements (KTU 4.390 = RS 18.119 = PRU 5, no. 56). Cyprus also exported to the east large quantities of ceramics, both of local manufacture and brought from the Aegean.237 Ugarit exported to Cyprus not only her own goods, but many other items brought to her markets from all over the Near East.

the fragmentary name as ‘[ba]ttle ships’, see S 1991a, 171, n. 56; L 1991, 111, n. 11. 233 RS 16.238 (= PRU 3, 107–8). As recognized by Nougayrol, the ideographic pun  -ri (l. 10) must be read as Kaptu-ri (see also A 1973a, 25–6). It is not entirely clear whether the Ugaritic occurrences of krty refer to Crete or rather to a PN (W 1994c, 498). For a renewed attempt to identify Yman in KTU 1.4 = RS 2.[008]+ i 43 with Ionia, see D – L 1998 (with refs. to previous bibliography). Cf. however, A 1995, 60ff., who locates Yman in the eastern part of the kingdom of Ugarit. 234 RSO 5/1: 418, to which add a new bulla from the house of Urtenu (Y 1995, 441, fig. 7). 235 For the deportation of the princes ›i“mi-”arruma and -”arruma, sons of A¢at-Milku, see p. 642 (RS 17.352). The brothers Amar-d and Yadu-d who fled from Ala“ia were passed on from ›attu“ili ‘III’ to the king of Carchemish, who in his turn gave them to his son Tili-”arruma (RS 18.114 = PRU 4, 82). 236 M-L 1995b, 105. A Cypriot bronze tripod was found in the socalled ‘Temple of rhytons’ (RS 80.5102; Y 1994b, 430–1). 237 For the Cypriot and Helladic pottery and figurines from Ugarit, see C 1978, 282–363; C – M 1995 (with further refs.).

    

677

Horses bred in the east were given by the king of Ugarit to a messenger of Ala“ia (RS 34.153 = RSO 7, no. 35; see also ML 1995b, 105). A large quantity of oil (660 measures) was alloted to an Ala“iote according to an Ugaritic inventory list (KTU 4.352 = RS 18.042 = PRU 5, no. 95).238 The shipment of oil is discussed in a letter of Niqmaddu (III) to his ‘father’, the king of Ala“ia (RS 20.168 = Ug 5, no. 21; see p. 720). There is no evidence as yet for the participation of Ala“ia in the vital trade in grains.239 In a new letter from the Urtenu archive an Ugaritian scribe residing in Ala“ia asks his king to send him a table and five chairs (M-L – B 1995, 445). The maritime trade with Cyprus was mostly held in the hands of a few wealthy merchants who possessed the necessary capital for large-scale and risky investments. One of these must have been Yabninu, probably the last resident of the large Southern Palace which also yielded, in addition to sixty Akkadian and five Ugaritic texts, two Cypro-Minoan documents (C 1990; Y 1998a, 61ff.). In concluding this brief overview of trade contacts with Ala“ia, mention should be made of a much-discussed Ugaritic letter dealing with the purchase of ships (KTU 2.42 + 2.43 = RS 18.113 (+)  = PRU 5, no. 8; P 1987c, 204ff.). It contains the intriguing expression nmry mlk 'lm, ‘Nmry, king of the world/eternity’ (l. 9), which has caused much confusion with regard to the destination of the letter and its dating. Virolleaud took nmry as an alphabetic spelling of Nimmuria (Nb-m3't-r' ), the prenomen of Amenophis III, an identification which has been accepted by most commentators.240 If so, this would be the only letter in the palace archives which predates the conflagration mentioned in EA 151 (see p. 630), and, as observed by L (1962, 28, n. 6), this fact in itself raises serious doubts

238 Persons from Ala“ia appear in many Ugaritic lists, such as rations distributed from the palace of Ugarit (K 1983, 43; W 1996). The fragmentary Akkadian colophon of an Ugaritic census of thirty households (including women and children) reads Ala“ia (KTU 4.102 = RS 11.857). This solicited various interpretations (L 1962, 92ff., with previous refs.; M 1978), the most plausible of which is that the list refers to citizens of Ugarit who lived in Ala“ia (L 1962, 94). 239 The letter of Pgn (KTU 2.46 = RS 18.147) which was thought to originate from Ala“ia has plausibly been associated with the Hittite official Pukana on a seal from Tarsus (see p. 718). 240 E.g. L… 1977; P 1987c, 207; K 1992, 149, n. 356. Cf. however, the doubts raised by L 1962, 28, n. 6 (but cf. 1979a, 1303), R 1974, 188, and  S 1991a, 88.

 

678

about its early dating. He also called attention to the fact that the tablet was found in close proximity to a group of Ugaritic texts dealing with maritime trade, which can hardly be dated as early as the Amarna Age (L 1979b, 499). ‘Nmry, king of the world/eternity’ follows after a list of deities invoked by the sender: Ba'al-Íaphon (L 1979a, 1303; Pardee 1987, 206–7), ‘the Eternal Sun’ (“p“ 'lm), Astarte, Anat, and all the gods of Ala“ia. It is usually assumed that he is the addressee of the letter and the beneficiary of the blessings (L… 1977; P 1987c, 207), but K (1983, 40, 42) has raised the possibility that the Egyptian king is invoked here as a deity. I would go a step further and reject the whole Egyptian connection, adopting a brief remark of R (1974, 188) who derived nmry from Ugaritic *mrr, ‘to bless, strengthen’. Thus, the last deity in the invocation may perhaps be rendered as ‘the blessed/strong one, king of the world/eternity’, which could be an appellative for the supreme god of Ala“ia.241 With the alleged Egyptian connection removed, the letter easily finds its Sitz im Leben in the rich 13th century documentation on maritime trade in the eastern Mediterranean (K 1983, 42–3). The anonymous sender of the letter is probably a ‘harbourmaster’242 who serves as an arbiter between merchants from Ala“ia and Ugarit, seeking to obtain the approval of the king of Ugarit for the transaction. It is only natural that in blessing his lord he should invoke the gods of both countries. 5.3

Ammi∆tamru II (ca. 1260–1235)

Niqmepa was succeeded on the throne by his son Ammi∆tamru II, who has direct synchronisms with Pudu¢epa (RS 17.133), Tud¢aliya ‘IV’ (RS 17.035; 17.159), Ini-Te“ub (RS 17.352), and ”au“gamuwa 241 Although I cannot suggest an identification of this deity, it is well to remember that we know very little on the theonyms of second millennium Cyprus. For the epithet ‘king of eternity,’ which seems to imply a chthonian character of the deity, see Pardee 1988b, 89–91 (KTU 1.108 = RS 24.252.1; with ample refs. to Egyptian, Phoenician and biblical parallels). 242 The fragmentary title rb m’i[. . .] has variously been restored as rb m’i[¢d ], ‘harbourmaster’ (V 1965, 14–5; A 1970; L 1979b, 499), rb m’i[“mn], ‘chief of the seal’ (L… 1977, 214), or rb m’i[t], ‘chief of the hundred’ (D – L 1976, 21–2; K 1983, 39;  S 1991a, 88). The first restoration seems best to fit the contents of the letter, which deals with the sale of ships.

    

679

(RS 16.270).243 His mother A¢at-Milku survived her husband and continued to be active as Queen Mother till a respectable old age (see p. 642). A legal text dated to Ammi∆tamru (RS 16.197 = PRU 3, 150–1) is sealed with her cylinder seal,244 which indicates that she acted as regent for her son during his youth (L 1962, 99–100; 1979a, 1308). Actually, Ugarit shared the custom of ›atti where the reigning queen (tawannanna) retained her position until her death and participated in various state functions.245 This often caused tension between the dowager queen and the wife of the ruling king, and it stands to reason that Ugarit did not avoid the bitter fruits of this competition.246 Ammi∆tamru had two (older?) brothers who were exiled from Ugarit to Ala“ia under mysterious circumstances (PRU 4, 121–4). The verdicts of Ini-Te“ub (RS 17.352) and of Tud¢aliya (RS 17.035 with dupls.) only state that the sons of A¢at-Milku, (›)i“mi-”arruma247 and -”arruma, have committed an offence against Ammi∆tamru (and against their mother).248 In consequence, their mother gave them their share of inheritence249 and deported them to Ala“ia. They were

243 It is needless to postulate an ephemeral ‘Niqmaddu IIa’ between the reigns of Niqmepa and Ammi∆tamru II on the basis of KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.434.36–7; the letter was most probably sent by ›attu“ili’s widow Pudu¢epa to Niqmaddu III (see p. 693). 244 Her seal impression is almost entirely effaced (Ug 3, 83). Ammi∆tamru’s own Ugaritic seal (Ug 3, 81, 83; figs. 103–5) is impressed above the (original) dynastic seal of Ugarit on his agreement with ”au“gamuwa concerning the bittu rabìti affair (RS 16.270 = PRU 3, 41). 245 This can be demonstrated for several queens of Ugarit ( S 1985–86, 72). The queen mother probably had the same status in Amurru (S 1991b, 335, n. 22), and perhaps also in ancient Israel (K 1973, 180–1). 246 Though we are not directly informed, as in ›atti, about rivalries between queen mothers and their daughters-in-law, one can still speculate about the real causes for some of the more unfortunate episodes in Ugarit’s history, such as the persecution of the ill-fated bittu rabìti (p. 680), or the E¢li-Nikkalu affair (p. 701). 247 Ini-Te“ub’s text spells ›i-i“-mi-, whereas Tud¢aliya’s has I“-mi- (× 2); is this merely a scribal error or perhaps a phonetic difference in the pronunciation of the initial sound? 248 Note that according to Tud¢aliya’s verdict (ll. 7–8) the offenders have sinned both against A¢at-Milku and Ammi∆tamru, whereas in Ini-Te“ub’s verdict (l. 6) only against Ammi∆tamru. Perhaps Tud¢aliya wanted to add more weight to the undefined offence in order to better justify the deportation of the brothers. Note also the difference between the two verdicts in the list of property given to the brothers sent to exile (see following note). 249 In Ini-Te“ub’s verdict their inheritance consists of ‘silver, gold, their utensils, and all their possessions’ (ll. 8–9); Tud¢aliya’s verdict is more specific: ‘their silver, their gold, their bronze, [their] beds, their chairs, [their tables?], their donkeys, their

 

680

made to swear before I“tar of the Field that in future they would never challenge this arrangement. Behind these laconic sentences may hide a grievous drama. The nature of the brothers’ offence is nowhere stated, but it probably had to do with the struggle for the throne of Ugarit. The aged mother had to give her consent to the banishment of two of her sons in order to safeguard the throne for her third (and youngest?) son. Is it too sentimental to imagine that it was their mother’s intervention that saved them from an even harsher destiny and secured for them at least a comfortable exile in Cyprus? 5.3.1

Marital problems

Once his throne was secured, Ammi∆tamru set out to find a suitable bride, and following his father’s example he married a princess from Amurru. His marriage, however, did not meet with a similar success, but turned into one of the most notorious scandals of antiquity (S 1991a, 174–5 with previous literature; A – S 1993). After the reinstatement of Bente“ina, Amurru became the most favoured Hittite vassal in Syria. Three royal intermarriages between the courts of ›atti and Amurru followed in close succession: Bente“ina married Ga““uliyawiya, the daughter of ›attu“ili ‘III’; the latter’s son Nerikkaili married an (unnamed) daughter of Bente“ina; and Tud¢aliya gave his sister (another daughter of ›attu“ili) to ”au“gamuwa. The court of Amurru became virtually Hittite, in blood and soul (S 1991a, 177; 1992). From the first marriage the daughter who became the spouse of Ammi∆tamru was born. She is never mentioned by name, reference being made only to her noble descent: ‘daughter of Bente“ina’, ‘sister of ”au“gamuwa’ and ‘daughter of the Great Lady’ (bittu rabìti ), referring no doubt to the official title of Ga““uliyawiya, a Great Princess (. ) of ›atti.250 Obvi-

sheep, and all [their possessions]’ (ll. 12–16). One gets the impression that Tud¢aliya’s more elaborate text is the original verdict and Ini-Te“ub’s is a summary of it. 250 The equation between ‘the daughter of Bente“ina’ and ‘the daughter of the Great Lady,’ first suggested by Schaeffer in the fifties (S 1956, 32), is by now practically certain (see S 1991a, 174–5; 1991b, 334–5, with refs.), although it is still considered with some hesitation by some leading authorities (L 1979a, 1309; L… 1981, 91; K 1992, 142; N 1995b, 120–1; B 1996c, 166). The problem of the exact definition of the title .  in Hittite sources cannot be discussed here. See S 1991b; N 1995b, 121; K 1996, 215–6; H  C 1996 (with further refs.).

    

681

ously, the troublesome divorce of a princess of such distinguished birth was a most embarrassing matter which occupied the various courts of the Hittite Empire for many years; practically everyone involved in the lawsuit was a close or a distant relative of the divorcees. The various stages of the case, which fills out a dossier of at least fifteen different documents,251 may briefly be summarized as follows. After several years of marriage which produced at least one son (Utri-”arruma), the daughter of Bente“ina and Ga““uliyawiya ‘sought trouble for Ammi∆tamru’. As in the case of Ammi∆tamru’s brothers, her sin is never specified. Some have envisaged adultery, but political intrigue seems more likely (K 1973, 183ff.; K 1992, 141; A – S 1991–2, 20). The marriage was dissolved and the estranged wife was sent back to Amurru with her share of property. After a while, however, Ammi∆tamru categorically demanded her extradition and was even ready to resort to force if necessary. His demand was eventually granted, not without the intervention of the highest imperial authorities. Neither her (half-)brother252 ”au“gamuwa, who meanwhile became king, nor her uncle Tud¢aliya, who enforced the final verdict, flinched from this sacrifice in order to restore peace and unity in the Hittite commonwealth. The blood money paid by Ammi∆tamru to ”au“gamuwa for the right to do with the bittu rabìti as he pleased was proportionate to her high standing: 1,400 golden shekels!253 At one point along the ordeal, Utri-”arruma,254 the legitimate crown-prince, was given the choice, to stay with his father in Ugarit and succeed him on the throne, or to side with his mother and lose all his dynastic rights. His decision is not stated, but another son of Ammi∆tamru, Ibiranu, became the next king of Ugarit.

251 See refs. to the Akkadian texts in A – S 1993, 8–9. The Ugaritic letter KTU 2.72 = RS 34.124 (= RSO 7, no. 88), probably sent by Ammi∆tamru to his mother, also deals with one of the stages of the ill-fated marriage (P 1977; but cf. B – P 1991, 150). 252 For ”au“gamuwa’s mother, see K 1991, 234; H  C 1996, 53–4. 253 As pointed out by N (1956, 130), this high sum probably took into account the property that was confiscated from her in Ugarit. 254 It is interesting to note that the princes born from Amurrite mothers were given names with the theophoric element ”arruma: (›)i“mi-”arruma and -”arruma, the sons of A¢at-Milku, and Utri-”arruma, the son of the bittu rabìti. Crown princes must have adopted standard Ugaritic (i.e. West Semitic) names at coronation.

682 5.3.2

  Concessions from the overlords

Whereas we possess a full series of Amurru treaties from ”uppiluliuma I to Tud¢aliya ‘IV’, no comprehensive treaty with Ugarit is known after Mur“ili’s treaty with Niqmepa. This may be due to the fortunes of excavation, but there is also a possibility that the standard comprehensive type of treaty was partially replaced by a series of more specialized decrees. For example, ›attu“ili ‘III’ issued an edict pertaining to fugitives from Ugarit which echoes similar provisions in standard treaties (RS 17.238 = PRU 4, 107–8):255 ‘If some subject of the king of Ugarit, or a citizen of Ugarit, or a servant of a subject of the king of Ugarit departs and enters the territory of the ¢abiru of My Majesty, I, Great King, will not accept him but will return him to the king of Ugarit’ (B 1996c, 163). The ¢abiru territory may refer to scarcely-inhabited highland areas north of Ugarit, but the decree deliberately does not cover the possibility of a citizen of Ugarit seeking refuge in the heartland of ›atti. Even so, this edict, which may reflect the basic division of Ugaritic society (H 1976, 4–5), is exceptionally favourable towards Ugarit. As a rule, the Hittite king demands the immediate extradition of people who fled from ›atti, but he reserves to himself the right to keep back fugitives of vassal states who found refuge in his land (K“ 1960, 70).256 This includes Mur“ili’s treaty with Niqmepa; the king of Ugarit may ask for the extradition of his runaway citizens, but the king of ›atti is in no way obliged to fulfil his request (B 1996c, 62, §§ 9, 12). The significant change in policy to the benefit of Ugarit may in fact be one of the reasons why the Hittite king did not want to lay down such a preferential precedent in a standard type of treaty. Even more exceptional is the edict issued by Ini-Te“ub in which he releases the king of Ugarit257 from his vassal duty to send chariots and infantry to participate in the imminent war against Assyria 255

Note also RS 17.361 (= PRU 6, no. 76), a label written in Akkadian: ‘This tablet concerns fugitives’ (see  S 1989b, 380, 384, no. 27). 256 See e.g. in the treaties with Aziru of Amurru (B 1996c, 35, § 10), with Tette of Nu¢¢a““i (ib.: 52, § 9), and in all the Arzawa treaties (H-K 1977, 103ff.). In the late treaties with Amurru (Bente“ina and ”au“gamuwa) the respective paragraphs are not preserved. 257 His name is broken away (l. 4), but Nougayrol’s restoration Ammi∆tamru seems to have been universally accepted. Theoretically, Ibiranu, in whose reign the war with Assyria flared up (p. 686), cannot be excluded.

    

683

(RS 17.059 = PRU 4, 150–1; B 1996c, 167–8).258 The price paid for this exemption, 50 mina of gold, was obviously not too high for a king who paid more than half of it (1400 gold shekels) for the right to execute his estranged wife. The amount was delivered in ten shipments259 from the sealed storehouse of Ugarit. Soon enough after this payment, however, when the Assyrian danger became more acute, the Hittites went back on their agreement and demanded the mobilization of the army of Ugarit (see p. 686).

6

T W G   H 6.1

Ibiranu (ca 1235–1225/1220)

Ibiranu was probably appointed as crown-prince (u“riannu)260 already in the reign of his father Ammi∆tamru,261 perhaps after his (elder) brother Utri-”arruma had chosen to follow his mother back to her homeland (see p. 681). It is not known who was Ibiranu’s mother, the ill-fated princess of Amurru, or, more probably, another spouse of Ammi∆tamru about whom we have no evidence. His reign must have began before 1233, if one accepts the attribution of RS 34.165 (= RSO 7, no. 46) to Tukulti-Ninurta (see p. 689).262 Ibiranu is mentioned by name only in relatively few documents (K 1992, 144, n. 319, with refs.), but more texts can perhaps be ascribed to him on circumstantial evidence. The conciliatory rapports between ›attu“ili and Ammi∆tamru manifestly changed in the reigns of their successors. With growing difficulties on the eastern front and complicated dynastic problems 258 This restricted edict cannot be considered to be a veritable treaty between Tud¢aliya and Ammi∆tamru, as suggested by L 1995, 87. 259 For ¢arrànu (l. 18) in the meaning of ‘caravan’, see N 1956, 151; K 1992, 140, n. 293; A 1996, 60, n. 75. 260 For the equation between mur"ù u“riyanni and mur"ù of Ibiranu, a group of liaison-men or officers of the king, see N 1956, 186; L 1962, 125; H 1982, 154ff.;  S 1991a, 11–2; S 1995b, 460ff. 261 A Hurrian text found in the so-called ‘House of the Hurrian priest’ may perhaps contain the liturgy of a ritual commemorating the death of Ammi∆tamru II (KTU 1.125 = RS 24.274; D – M 1997a). 262 Clearly, even if one rejects the purported synchronism with Tukulti-Ninurta, Ibiranu’s reign could not have started as late as 1213 ( S 1991a, 10). Raising the dates of his reign also conforms to the new information concerning the length of the reigns of Niqmaddu III and Ammurapi.

684

 

at home, Tud¢aliya and his representatives grew ever more impatient with Ugarit’s assertiveness and lack of cooperation (L 1979a, 1311–2). Several small fragments may arguably form part of a decree issued for Ibiranu by his overlord, but very little can be said about their contents.263 Of more value is the letter sent to him by Prince Pi¢awalwi (RS 17.247 = PRU 4, 191).264 Ibiranu, who conspicuously is not designated as king of Ugarit, is scolded for not appearing before the Great King since he ascended the throne of Ugarit. He did not even send his messengers with the obligatory presents, which caused much anger at the court of His Majesty. In a similar letter, a representative of His Majesty invites [the king of Ugarit], either Ammi∆tamru (K 1992, 144, n. 318) or Ibiranu,265 to come on board his ships to his overlord, not forgetting to bring with him the obligatory presents, including gold and [silver] as well as alkaba“u and kabdum stones (RS 20.255 = Ug 5, no. 30). Contacts with Carchemish seem more relaxed and routine. In RS 17.385 (= PRU 4, 194) the viceroy asks Ibiranu to send him two juniper logs according to the required measurements.266 In a typical presentation letter, the king (Ini-Te“ub) anounces that his son Mißramuwa, brother of Upparamuwa, will take up residence in Ugarit as a guest of -”arruma (RS 17.423 = PRU 4, 193). Perhaps Ibiranu was not too pleased with this visit, if he is indeed the author of the fragmentary letter RS 20.243 (= Ug 5, no. 32), which apparently raises a formal complaint to His Majesty (l. 6’) about the conduct of Mußramuwa (sic). Three letters announce the forthcoming visit of two officials, Ebina'e and Kurkalli,267 who are charged with marking Ugarit’s borders in accordance with Arma-ziti’s instructions. The letter sent by the King 263 N 1956, 289; L 1962, 126. RS 19.122.5’ff. (= PRU 4, 289) has the appearance of a stipulation instructing the vassal not to heed slander directed against His Majesty; for similar paragraphs in Hittite treaties, cf., e.g., B 1996c, 85 (§ 13), 101 (§ 10). In RS 18.273 (= PRU 4, 196) only Ibiranu and His Ma[ jesty] are preserved, whereas in RS 17.018 (= PRU 4, 195) only [Ibi]ranu and his soldiers and chariots. 264 Pi¢awalwi is probably identical with Pi¢a-.› whose objects were stolen by Ma““u according to a lawsuit decided by Ini-Te“ub (RS 17.108 = PRU 4, 165–6). He may also be identified with the scribe Pi¢a-.› attested in Hittite texts and on seals (L 1966, 141). 265 I fail to see on what evidence L (1995, 86) dates this letter to Ammurapi. 266 For GI”daprànu, see L 1962, 126, n. 12. 267 A Gur-ga-li-e“ is connected to the palace of Carchemish in a fragmentary Hittite ritual text, KUB 48.113, 5’ (K 1965, 66).

    

685

(RS 17.292 = PRU 4, 188) and the one sent by Prince Ali¢e“ni268 (RS 15.077 = PRU 3, 6–7) are addressed to Ibiranu; Ebina'e himself addresses the governor of Ugarit (RS 17.078 = PRU 4, 196–7). None of these letters refers to the border in question, but the choice is practically reduced to Muki“ or Siyannu, more probably the latter (see p. 640). Prince Arma-ziti is well-known from Hittite texts dating to ›attu“ili ‘III’ and Tud¢aliya ‘IV’ (I 1987, 197ff.; 1988). He was a scribe who fulfilled important functions in the religious administration. Although his official title is not stated,269 he is often involved in bird oracles which are usually performed by the uriyanni.270 According to one of the texts dealing with the border dispute between Ugarit and Siyannu, it was the uriyannu who divided the territory and set up the boundary stones between the two kingdoms.271 It is quite possible that this complicated matter was taken up again in the reign of Ibiranu: Arma-ziti fixed the borders (through bird oracles?), and two officials, Ebina'e272 and Kurkalli, were sent out to mark them. Arma-ziti appears in two other texts from Ugarit. In RS 17.314 (= PRU 4, 189) he officiates as judge in a lawsuit between Pu“ku, the merchant of the queen of Ugarit, and the custom-official (màkisu) Aballà. In RS 17.316 (= PRU 4, 190) Arma-ziti himself is being accused and sentenced to pay 300 silver shekels to the king of Ugarit and to the sons of Mußrana. The four witnesses are all citizens of Ura, merchants of His Majesty. Each of the two documents carries a different hieroglyphic Hittite seal of Arma-ziti (Ug 3, 37–8, figs. 48–51; S 1983b, 5, n. 4).

268

For Ali¢e“ni in the Hittite sources, see I 1975, 115–6; 1987, 196–7. An Arma-ziti (d-) ‘chief of the tapri- men’ appears in fragmentary context in a text dated to ”uppiluliuma II (KUB 21.7 iii 3’, 5’). Could he be identical with Arma-ziti who was already active in the reign of ›attu“ili ‘III’? 270 L 1962, 73; P D 1982, 266ff. For the various attempts to equate the uriyanni/u with other cuneiform titles, see A 1991, 323–4 (with previous refs.). See also R 1993, 68–9. 271 RS 17.368 (= PRU 4, 76–7) is usually dated to Mur“ili II, but in fact it could be a later ratification of Mur“ili’s decree quoted in extenso in the first part of the text. Note also the label carrying the inscription ‘Document concerning the borders which the uriyannu established for the king of Ugarit’ (KTU 6.29 = RS 17.364 = PRU 2, no. 171  S 1989a, 380, no. 30), which could have been attached to RS 17.368 (found in the same room). 272 The fragmentary hieroglyphic seal impression on RS 17.368 is not reproduced in the publication, but, according to L (PRU 4, 76), the first and the only preserved sign in the name is I/E (L 209), which could perhaps belong to Ebina'e mentioned in RS 17.078 (= PRU 4, 196). 269

686

 

Other documents within the corpus of the anonymous correspondence between Ugarit and Carchemish may also belong to Ibiranu’s reign, including letters written in Ugaritic, probably by messengers of the king of Ugarit residing in Carchemish.273 6.1.1

Ugarit and the Assyrian war

A group of letters deals with the projected inspection of the troops and the chariots of Ugarit by Hittite representatives. Unfortunately, only one of these letters addresses the king of Ugarit by name as Ibiranu (RS 17.289 = PRU 4, 192). The king of Carchemish announces that the kartappu of His Majesty, -d,274 will soon be sent to Ugarit to determine whether the number of its soldiers and chariots complies with the demands of the Great King. He concludes his letter with the dramatic exclamation: ‘(It is a matter of ) death (or) life!’275 Several other documents may be related to the same event on circumstantial evidence.276 RS 20.237 (= Ug 5, 102–4) is the reply of the king of Carchemish to an inquiry of the king of Ugarit as to the number of chariots and troops he is supposed to supply. Most of the viceroy’s answer is unfortunately broken, but he concludes with the order ‘Go to His M[ajesty]!’ In RS 15.014 (= PRU 3, 5) I[biranu?] reports to the viceroy that he had sent the requested batch of 1600 arrows with his messenger A¢altena.277 Finally, a tiny fragment mentions [Ibi]ranu and 300 [soldiers?] (RS 17.018 = PRU 4, 195).278

273 E.g. KTU 2.75 = RS 34.148 (= RSO 7, no. 91); KTU 2.20 = RS 15.158 (= PRU 2, no. 11). 274 This could be read either as Ura-Tar¢unta or as Talmi-Te“ub (L 1966, 198). Opting for the latter possibility, L… (1981, 89, n. 53) suggested that this kartappu may be identical with the future king of Carchemish, Talmi-Te“ub son of Ini-Te“ub. Although chronologically this might be possible, the two persons should be kept apart (I 1987, 201). A crown-prince of Carchemish would have been presented quite differently to the king of a vassal state. Compare, e.g., the letter of introduction of Mißramuwa to Ibiranu (RS 17.423 = PRU 4, 193; see p. 684). 275 The same exclamation recurs in RS 20.121 (= Ug 5, no. 33), in which His Majesty orders the king of Ugarit to send him grain-laden ships urgently (see p. 716). 276 A dating of RS 20.237 and 34.138 to the reign of Ibiranu was also deduced by Y (1992, 444) on the basis of stylistic considerations. 277 But cf. the doubts raised by L (1962: 127, n. 13) concerning the sender of the letter. RS 11.834 (= PRU 3, 17) is a small fragment mentioning ‘troops’ and the ‘king of Car[chemish]’. 278 Two further letters from the Urtenu archive deal with military matters, but

    

687

The dispatch of another kartappu of His Majesty (›é-r[u-?) is announced in a letter of the king of Carchemish (RS 34.138 = RSO 7, no. 8). He is supposed to carry with him a tablet of His Majesty and only upon its presentation should the king of Ugarit meet his request. Terms related to the army do not occur, but nearly half of the tablet is mutilated. The forthcoming visit of one of these kartappu to Ugarit may well be the subject of another letter from the Urtenu archive, RS 34.150 (= RSO 7, no. 10). -d (Ewri-Te“ub?) announces to his king that a messenger of the king of Carchemish was sent out to inspect the troops of Qadesh, and will subsequently continue to Ugarit. The well-informed servant advises his king not to show any of his chariots and troops to the messenger of Carchemish, who intends to put them on march with provisions for five [days?].279 Perhaps these documents dealing with a projected muster of armies280 in central Syria may be related to a letter found on the surface in 1971 in the area which later turned out to be Urtenu’s residence (RS 32.204 = RSO 7, no. 19; B 1981, 43). It is a double letter sent by Kila"e to the queen and the king of Ugarit, announcing the departure of the King (of Carchemish) towards Nirabi (Neirab, near ›alab) the following day.281 Kila"e politely proposes that both the king of Ugarit and a certain Bin-Kabkamma (perhaps a representative of the queen of Ugarit) should come to Nirabi to meet the viceroy in person. In his preliminary notes (quoted in RSO 7, 51) Nougayrol assigned to this letter a legal context, i.e. a lawsuit between

they seem to be dated later; RS 34.150 (= RSO 7, 35–6) and 34.143 (= RSO 7, 27–9) will be dealt with under Niqmaddu III and Ammurapi, respectively. 279 Five days could be the time needed to cover at a fast pace the distance of ca 150 km from Ugarit to ›alab. Of course it took Zimri-Lim and his large entourage much longer to cover the same distance, with stopovers of undefined length in four towns (V 1986, 395). See p. 617 above. 280 A simultaneous mobilization of the armies of Qadesh and of Ugarit is also dealt with in a letter found in 1994 in the Urtenu archive, in which the uriyannu urges Niqmaddu to join forces with the armies of Qadesh and to meet the king of Carchemish at ›alab (M-L 1995b, 106). If indeed the addressee is Niqmaddu III this letter can hardly be related to the dossier dealing with the military manoeuvre dated to Ibiranu, unless one assumes a prolonged period of activity which coincided with the shift on the throne of Ugarit. 281 Neirab is a common toponym in Syria. N (cited in RSO 7, 51, n. 48) opted for the one located near Ma’aret en-No’màn, but the site located 6 km southeast of Aleppo seems to me a better choice. For the exploration of this site in the twenties, see refs. in K 1970, 85.

688

 

Kila"e and Bin-Kabkamma; but I doubt whether this alone would have sufficed to summon the kings of Carchemish and Ugarit to this exceptional meeting far from their respective residencies. Rather, there must have been a more urgent agenda, probably related to the general military manoeuvre whose purpose remains to be elucidated. The author of the above letter, Kila"e, appears to have been a very high-ranking Hittite official who was also involved in judicial affairs in Ugarit.282 He presided over a lawsuit between two citizens of Ugarit, Iluwa and Amar-d, the son of Mut-d the “erdanu (RS 17.112 = PRU 4, 234). He is described as ‘the man of ›i“i““iba’283 and his office is that of ‘the kartappu who is at the head of the (“a) re“i “ [arri ]’, apparently the topmost functionary in the Hittite ‘foreign office’ (P D 1977, 174; S 1983b, 10). He is most politely addressed as ‘our father’ in a letter of introduction sent by the king and the queen of Ugarit announcing the dispatch of their messenger Ili-Milku (RS 19.070 = PRU 4, 294).284 As for the military context of all these documents, the only major reason I can think of for the urgent Hittite demands for a general mobilization of the armies of their Syrian vassals could be the deterioration in the relations with Assyria and the ensuing outburst of hostilities.285 For quite some time ›atti had prepared herself and her allies for the unavoidable clash with the emerging military power in the east. A trade blockade against Assyria was imposed on ”au“gamuwa, including Assyria’s maritime trade with [A¢¢]iyawa (see n. 232), and he was also ordered to mobilize Amurru’s army (KUB 23.1 iv 19–23; B 1996c, 101, §§ 12–13). With the ascent of TukultiNinurta to the throne of Assyria, there was a brief attempt to cool the tense relations by a diplomatic exchange of letters with Tud¢aliya ‘IV’ (S 1985, 102–3, with refs.; B 1996c, 141–2). However, 282 His prominent status is also demonstrated by his fragmentary hieroglyphic seal impression in the centre of tablet RS 17.112, which probably reads Ki-lá-[ (L 446– L 445). For a photograph of the tablet, see Ug 4, 62, fig. 46, lower right. 283 Could this name be a variant of the northern Anatolian town of ›i“a“(¢)apa ( M – T 1978, 111–2)? 284 Ili-Milku is the addressee of a letter sent by a certain Belubur asking for a favourable presentation of his case before the Queen (RS 6.198; see n. 289). Both could be identical with the well-known scribe Ili-Milku who was active in the last decades of Ugarit, and not in the 14th century as previously thought (B – M-L 1995b: 447–8). 285 K (1996, 559) tends to connect this event with the situation on the Euphrates frontier, but I doubt that insurrections of tribal groups in this remote region would have led to a full mobilization of Hittite Syria.

    

689

Tukulti-Ninurta soon revealed his real plans when he opened a vigorous offensive on the northern front of Ni¢riya. As frankly admitted in a Hittite text,286 Tud¢aliya was deserted by his ally (probably I“uwa) and was utterly defeated by the Assyrians, who lost no time in spreading the news in Syria. An Assyrian letter (from the Urtenu archive) sent to [Ibira]na king of U[garit]287 describes in detail the circumstances which led to the decisive battle (RS 34.165 = RSO 7, no. 46; L 1982; S 1985). Unfortunately, from the name of the sender only the second element in Shalmaneser’s name is preserved (), which must belong to Tukulti-Ninurta’s filiation.288 If so, this letter provides an important synchronism between Ugarit, ›atti, and A““ur. The battle probably took place in TukultiNinurta’s first year (1233), which may provide a terminus ante quem for Ibiranu’s ascent to the throne. The Assyrian king’s very act of reporting his victory to an acknowledged Hittite vassal was no doubt more than a simple act of courtesy. It was an overture for cooperation with Ugarit, practically ‘over the head’ of Carchemish, in a renewed attempt to gain access to the Mediterranean. Ugarit’s reaction to this political bid is not known, but probably she was not entirely uninterested.289 The same applies 286

The redating of KBo 4. 14 (CTH 123) to Tud¢aliya ‘IV’ suggested by S (1985, 109ff.) has been accepted by   H 1989, 273ff.; H 1995, 58; K 1991, 238 n. 91; CHD, L-N: 372; F forthcoming. (L 1991, 123, n. 28 accepts the re-dating, but erroneously attributes it to Otten, who in all the articles cited tended towards a ”uppiluliuma II dating.) 287 K (1992, 140, n. 290) maintains that ‘it is uncertain which king of Ugarit ruled at this time, but Ammi∆tamru II cannot be excluded’. 288 I have also considered the possibility that  could belong to the epithet ., ‘hero’, but, as far as I can see, this epithet is not attested in the titulary of the Middle Assyrian kings (S 1967). The attribution of the text to TukultiNinurta I on the basis of its correlation with CTH 123 (S 1985) has been criticized by H (1987, 142, 261), L (1990, 169) and Z (1990, 41–2) who prefer dating the letter to Shalmaneser I. 289 RS 6.198 is a letter sent by a certain Be-lu-bu-ur to . (Ili-Milku?). Thureau-Dangin, who published the text (T-D 1935; see also L… 1981, 87–8, n. 44), identified this Belubur with the Assyrian official Bèlu-libùr who was active under Adadnirari I, Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I. This identification has been refuted on phonetic grounds (see  S 1991a, 28, with previous refs.), but is still uncritically cited (e.g., by M 1995b, 208, 211). If . is indeed identical with the well-known scribe and entrepreneur Ili-Milku, who is now safely dated to the late 13th century (B 1995b, 448; P 1997a, 241, n. 3), then the identification of Belubur with Bèlu-libùr is practically impossible. The identity and domicile of Bèlu-bùr, who asks Ili-Milku to transmit his letters favourably to the queen (”arelli?), remain unknown. An unnamed Assyrian servant is perhaps mentioned in RS 20.150 (= Ug 5, 149–50).

 

690

to Amurru, who exchanged messages and presents with the Assyrian king according to a new document from Tell Chuèra/›urbe.290 The letters with military content exchanged between the courts of Carchemish and Ugarit may be conceived either as hasty preparations before the battle of Ni¢riya, or, more probably, as a defence organized after it, for the eventuality that the Assyrians would want to capitalize on their victory and attack on the Syrian front as well. Fortunately for the Hittites, Tukulti-Ninurta soon turned his aggression towards Babylon (M 1995b, 213ff.), and he even resumed normal diplomatic relations with ›atti, which seem to have lasted to the very end of the Hittite Empire.291 6.1.2

Queen ”arelli

Queen ”arelli (Ugaritic Ôryl ) is prominently documented in texts dated from Ammi∆tamru II to Ammurapi ( S 1991a, 15ff.). At first, when reliable chronological information on her queenship was still missing, some scholars proposed regarding ”arelli as a Hurrian equivalent of Semitic A¢at-Milku, which was understood to be the ‘sister of the king’ (N 1968, 262; L 1978, 153; L… 1981). Various chronological clues gradually started to indicate that ”arelli was active during the last decades of Ugarit and could therefore not be identical with A¢at-Milku, who was Niqmepa’s spouse. Clinging to the purported meaning ‘sister of the king’, Nougayrol put forward an alternative explanation according to which ”arelli was not a PN but rather a (Hurrian) title or cognomen which could be assumed by every queen of Ugarit.292 However, the alleged Hurrian meaning of the name has also been questioned on linguis290 K 1995, 219 (92.G.212: 9–10); the diplomatic journey of Yabna-ilu of Amurru to Assyria took place in the eponym year of Ninu’àyu, in the second half of Tukulti-Ninurta’s reign (ib.: 206; F 1991a, 156). 291 F 1991b, 31; F forthcoming. This late détente in the relations between Hittites and Assyrians is now amply documented by the Middle Assyrian tablets from Tell Chuèra/›urbe and from Tell ”ei¢ Óamad/Dur-Katlimmu. In the former, mention is made of the Hittite diplomat Teli-”arruma, who, at the head of a large retinue, brought messages and presents to the Assyrian king (K 1995, 211, 217–8; see n. 145). In the latter, the merchants of the king of Carchemish and of his governor Tagi-”arruma travel in Assyrian-held territory, selling oil and copper vessels (C-K 1996, 117ff., no. 6; see p. 658). Both texts are dated to the latter half of Tukulti-Ninurta’s reign, the one from Tell ”ei¢ Óamad to the eponym year of Ina-A““ur-“umi-aßbat. 292 N 1968, 261–2; B – P 1982, 128 (but cf. their revised view in RSO 7, 162).

    

691

tic and cultural grounds,293 and it seems that the whole theory has meanwhile been abandoned. As for ”arelli’s exact dating, she was considered to be Ammurapi’s spouse because she appears next to him in the liturgical text commemorating his coronation.294 However, she is already attested as queen in texts preceding Ammurapi’s reign and was therefore provisionally ‘matched’ with Niqmaddu III (e.g., B 1983, 77). This again had to be revised in view of a text from the Urtenu archive which proves that Niqmaddu III married a Hittite princess (RS 34.136; see p. 695). Simply by a process of elimination one is left with Ibiranu, as tentatively suggested by  S (1991, 18; cf. also A 1994, 34). At any rate, ”arelli apparently outlived both her husband and her son and was actively involved as dowager queen in various state affairs. This exceptional status may explain why she was hailed at the coronation of her grandson Ammurapi by which time she must have reached a respectable old age. The new documents from the Urtenu archive reveal her deep involvement in the foreign trade of Ugarit, regulated by her son-in-law and commercial agent ”ip†i-Ba'al (B – M-L 1995, 444). Since most of her dated texts fall into the reign of Niqmaddu III, ”arelli’s manifold activities will be dealt with in the next entry. 6.2

Niqmaddu III (ca. 1225/1220–1215)

Until recently Niqmaddu III was the least documented king of Ugarit (L 1962, 129; K 1992, 147). This situation has changed drastically with the discovery of the Urtenu archive in which Niqmaddu III appears to be the best documented king (M-L 1995b, 106, 111). There are four legal documents from the palace archives in which Niqmaddu’s filiation to Ibiranu is explicitly mentioned. The only fully preserved text was written by the sukkallu and scribe E¢liTe“ub,295 and was sealed with the (original) dynastic seal declared to 293 L 1976–7, 218; D – L 1983c, 303;  S 1985–6; 1991a, 16, nn. 142–3 (with further refs.). 294 [Ô ]ryl in KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126.32 (= RSO 7, no. 90); B – P 1982, 128; L –  T – R 1997b, 357–8. 295 In the new documents from the Urtenu archive E¢li-Te“ub appears as a business associate of Ur-Te“ub and of A¢i-Milku/Malki (““-), the three of them heading a wealthy firm trading in particular with Tyre and Sidon (B –

692

 

be the seal of Niqmaddu (RS 18.021 = PRU 6, no. 45). Three other documents are very fragmentary, but the restoration of the king’s name and his patrimony is practically certain (RS 17.350 = PRU 6, no. 46; 16.198 and 15.113 = PRU 3, 168–9), thus refuting the attempts to identify Ibiranu and Niqmaddu as brothers (H 1978; L –  T 1984, 654). Several texts belong to a Niqmaddu without a mention of his patrimony (PRU 4, 199ff.), but their attribution to Niqmaddu III is quite plausible, and there is no need to add an alleged ‘Niqmaddu IIa’ to the royal line (see p. 694). RS 18.020 + 17.371 (= PRU 4, 202–3) is a lawsuit between Niqmaddu and Kumiya-ziti, probably a rich merchant from Ura. The verdict in favour of Niqmaddu was given by Zuzuli, the kartappu of the king of Carchemish.296 The witnesses are from Ura and from Ugarit, and the tablet was written by SIG5d .11. (Nu'me-Ra“ap?) son of Abaya, a well-known scribe who was active from the days of Ammi∆tamru II onwards ( S 1991a, 10, 22). A further legal text, the case of Kiliya the priest of I“tar of Zinzaru, is witnessed by the same scribe and two further witnesses who are also present in the previous document (RS 18.002 = PRU 4, 201). An Ugaritic legal text dealing with the liberation of a slave (͆q-≤lm) is signed with Niqmaddu’s seal (KTU 2.19 = RS 15.125 = PRU 2, no. 5). Niqmaddu is also the author of a fragmentary letter to Ala“ia dealing with an oil transaction (RS 20.168 = Ug 5, no. 21). The subordinate position of the king of Ugarit with respect to his correspondent is reminiscent of the Ala“ia letters dated to the last years of Ugarit (p. 720). Evidently, there were at least half a dozen documents plausibly dated to Niqmaddu III even before the discovery of the Urtenu archive, which has now added some twenty new letters addressed to this king (L 1995a, 70, n. 22; M-L 1995b, 106).297 Thus, his reign was not as brief and negligible as had preM-L 1995, 446; M-L 1995b, 105; see p. 671). E¢li-Te“ub and Ili-Milku, two scribes active under Niqmaddu III, are addressed by their ‘brother’ in the second part of a fragmentary letter found in the Urtenu archive (RS 34.171 = RSO 7, 52–3, no. 20); the first part of the letter mentions the royal messenger Anantenu. 296 The tablet is sealed with the Hittite seal of Zuzuli, ‘’ (L 289), the hieroglyphic title corresponding to cuneiform kartappu. Probably the same person appears on a seal impression found at Samsat Höyük, north of Carchemish (D 1992). 297 For the letter supposedly addressed to Niqmaddu by the uriyannu urging him

    

693

viously been assumed, and may have lasted as much as a decade. Two legal documents carry the impression of a fine seal ring with the Akkadian inscription ‘Seal of Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit’ and an illustration showing a person (the king?) in kneeling position attacking a lion with a long spear (Ug 3, 78–9, figs. 100–2). The seal is usually ascribed to Niqmaddu II who reigned in the 14th century , but a better case can probably be made for an ascription to Niqmaddu III. RS 17.147 (= PRU 6, no. 29) is a fragmentary land donation deed of Ammi∆tamru, son of Niqmepa, to a certain [Amut]arunu(?). If the seal belongs to Niqmaddu II we have to assume that Ammi∆tamru II used in this document the seal of his grandfather instead of using the dynastic seal, which would be the normal procedure. A better alternative seems to be that an original deed of Ammi∆tamru II was later ratified by Niqmaddu III. An even better case for a Niqmaddu III ascription can be made in the case of the Ugaritic text KTU 3.4 = RS 16.191 + 16.272, which records the redemption of seven Ugaritians from Beirut (see p. 669). A lawsuit between Ugarit and Beirut, ratified with the seal of the king of Ugarit, would suit the context of the late 13th century better. Finally, a glyptic consideration in favour of Niqmaddu III is the fact that all the personal seals from Ugarit, both royal (A¢at-Milku, Ammi∆tamru II) and non-royal ( passim), are much later than Niqmaddu II. Perhaps a decisive argument will appear in the new documents of Niqmaddu III found in the Urtenu archive. 6.2.1

Reprimands from the overlords

The Ugaritic letter of Queen Pudu¢epa (PdÀb) to Niqmaddu has stirred up many debates about the identity of the correspondents.298 Despite its fragmentary state and the usual difficulties with Ugaritic lexicography, the contents of the long letter can more or less be fathomed. After the customary opening formulae, Pudu¢epa reprimands Niqmaddu for his reluctance to send sufficient tribute and to pay the obligatory visit to his overlord. These are recurrent themes in ›atti’s correspondence with the last kings of Ugarit, but here they to join forces with the armies of Kinza/Qadesh and to come to meet the king of Carchemish at ›alab (M-L 1995b, 106), see n. 280 above. 298 KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435 + 17.436 + 17.437; C 1978b; P 1983–4; S 1987, 414–5; C 1989a, 363ff.; D 1989, 141–145;  S 1991a, 8ff.; K 1992, 139, n. 289.

694

 

seem to be aimed specifically at Niqmaddu’s relations with the Great Queen of ›atti. There may even be some reference to a visit paid by Niqmaddu to the king’s palace, in which he failed to appear before Pudu¢epa as well.299 In the next paragraph Pudu¢epa responds to a complaint of Niqmaddu regarding the itinerary of the caravans travelling to Egypt by-passing his kingdom through inner Syria (see § 15.5.8 above). The last part of the letter seems to deal again with the unsatisfactory tribute.300 As shown elsewhere (S 1987, 414–5; C 1989a, 381ff.), the alleged chronological difficulties in identifying the correspondents as the famous Hittite queen and the penultimate king of Ugarit can easily be dismissed,301 without the need to add an alleged ‘Niqmaddu IIa’ to the well-documented LBA royal line of Ugarit.302 A new document from the Urtenu archive considerably augments our information on the last kings of Ugarit and their relations with the royal court of ›atti.303 It is a letter sent by the King (of Carchemish) to the king of Ugarit containing the usual complaints about the inadequacy of the gifts sent to Hittite officials. More specifically, he reprimands his correspondent for sending insufficient presents to the ‘Chief Scribe’ (tuppalanuri ), in defiance of his categorical instructions. To demonstrate what the consequences of this assertive conduct could

299 See the interpretation of Cunchillos for lines 8–12, but cf. Pardee’s translation. If these clues about Niqmaddu’s visit to ›atti are valid, they could well correspond to the information provided by the Ugaritic letters of Talmiyanu, which could well be Niqmaddu’s name before his coronation (see p. 700). 300 Lines 29’ff. (P 1983–4, 329). For argmn, ‘tribute’, in this text, rather than ‘purple-dyed cloth’ (as suggested by D 1989, 144), see  S 1990a, 344, n. 164, DLU i 48–9. The tribute, which consists of qnum, ‘blue-dyed cloth’ and p˙m, ‘red-dyed cloth,’ is comparable to the tribute imposed on Ugarit in ”uppiluliuma’s treaty with Niqmaddu. For the interpretation of qnum as ‘blue stone, lapislazuli’ (Akkadian iqnu/uqnu), see the extensive discussion in C 1989a, 411ff. See also p. 697 on RS 12.033 (= PRU 3, 14–5), which also has the appearance of a tribute list. 301 Pudu¢epa married ›attu“ili, no doubt at a young age (H  C 1996, 55, n. 35), immediately after the Battle of Qadesh in 1275. With a probable synchronism between Ibiranu and the beginning of Tukulti-Ninurta’s reign (1233; see p. 689), she would have been in her seventies when she wrote to Niqmaddu III. 302 The case of this ephemeral ‘Niqmaddu II’ was recently taken up again by D 1989, who seeks support in unwarranted chronological postulates and questionable restorations of the Ugaritic King List. For the refutation of his arguments, see  S 1990a, 344–5, n. 164; 1991a, 8ff. 303 RS 34.136 (= RSO 7, no. 7). V S (1989b, 390) had already discussed the important implications of this letter before its publication in RSO 7, using the photograph published in Ug 7, pl. 18.

    

695

be, the king of Carchemish recalls an embarrassing incident from the recent past when the messengers of Ugarit were humiliated in ›atti for bringing unworthy presents: ‘At the time of your father, the in-law304 of His Majesty, how was he treated on account of the gifts in ›akapi“a and in Kizuwatna? Did they not bind his servants? Now, perhaps because of me they did not do anything against your servants, (but) never again act like this!’ (ll. 25–38). Van Soldt has already concluded that the letter was probably written to Ammurapi,305 without however providing any binding arguments.306 Some support for this dating may perhaps be supplied by the prominent status of the Chief Scribe which is also reflected in other very late texts from the Urtenu archive (see below p. 708). The important implications of RS 34.136 for the problem of the Hittite princess(es) married in Ugarit will be discussed below (p. 701). At this point it will suffice to observe the growing dissatisfaction of the Hittite authorities with the tribute sent by Ugarit to ›atti and the resulting tensions. This tendency, which was first noted in the reign of Ibiranu, must have reached a new peak when the messengers of Niqmaddu III were put in prison (ll. 31–2). The formulation of the letter clearly implies that the king of Ugarit was himself present at this humiliating incident. It has also been noted that in the Ugaritic correspondence of the king (and of Tlmyn) with his mother there are indeed indications for a visit to ›atti (p. 700). Obviously, Niqmaddu prefers not to mention in his letters to his mother (”arelli) the hardships of the trip, and comforts her by saying that the face of the ‘Sun’ shone upon him. Eventually, Niqmaddu must have managed to appease the angry Hittite king, for a Hittite princess was given to him in marriage (see p. 701). Marital connections with the imperial family were usually considered as a great privilege for a vassal king, but surely, they were no less in the interest of his suzerain. The Hittite king and his resourceful mother may have thought that 304 V S 1989c, 390 and M-L 1991, 30–1, translate ‘son-inlaw’, ‘gendre’, but ¢atànu is any relative by marriage (CAD, ›, 148) and could thus refer also to a brother-in-law of His Majesty, like the case of ”au“gamuwa, brotherin-law of Tud¢aliya ‘IV’ (KUB 23, 1 + i 9 and passim; K – O 1971, 23–4; B 1996c, 98ff.). 305 Followed by D 1990, 99. In her edition of the text M-L (1991, 31) suggested that the son-in-law of His Majesty could be either Ibiranu or Niqmaddu III. 306 The only reason given for this dating is that ‘Ibiranu is possibly attested in one letter, but most prominent is the last king of Ugarit, Ammurapi . . .’.

696

 

a suitable match would provide a good possibility of keeping an eye on this assertive vassal. An intriguing detail in the letter of the king of Carchemish is the destination of the Ugaritian delegation to ›atti: not the imperial capital ›attu“a, as one would expect, but rather ›akapi“a and Kizzuwatna (l. 28f.). ›ak(a)m/pi“(a) was the seat of ›attu“ili’s subkingdom in the Upper Land before his usurpation of the Hittite throne. He later appointed his son and successor Tud¢aliya as highpriest in ›akpi“a and Nerik (H 1970, 13–4). The later history of the town is not known. Kizzuwatna is in this period a synonym for the famous cult-centre Kummanni in eastern Cilicia (Comana Cataoniae). Was the king of ›atti at the time of Niqmaddu’s visit celebrating in one of these holy cities?307 Or did perhaps the king of Ugarit meet his future bride E¢li-Nikkalu in one of them?308 These questions remain open for the present, but they may hold the key to a more exact dating of this eventful visit. 6.2.2

The correspondence of the Queen of Ugarit

The important role of the queen of Ugarit in this period finds its best expression in her prolific correspondence, both in Akkadian and in Ugaritic. If A¢at-Milku was the dominant queenly figure of Ugarit through most of the 13th century, ”arelli replaced her in this role in the last decades of the city. It is easy to understand why the two queens were considered for a long while to be one and the same person (see p. 690). Although ”arelli must have started her illustrious career as the queen of Ibiranu (see p. 691), most of her activity falls within the reigns of her son Niqmaddu III and her grandson(?) Ammurapi. Probably, it was she who received most, if not all, the late letters addressed to an unnamed queen, but this premise cannot be conclusively proved. The following discussion will first cover the documents in which ”arelli is mentioned by name, and thereafter the letters which are addressed to an unnamed queen. The clearest prosopographical evidence for ”arelli is provided by three legal documents dealing with land transactions found together 307 The religious activities of a Hittite king (probably Tud¢aliya ‘IV’) in Kummanni and in Nerik are mentioned in several oracle texts discussed by H  C 1996, 65ff. 308 See p. 701ff. below, and note that E¢li-Nikkalu apparently returned to ›api““e, which, as suggested by A (1980a, 106–8), may be a variant spelling of ›akapi“a. Cf. however K 1992, 148, n. 348.

    

697

in Room 66 of the Central Archive (Ug 5, 261ff.). On one of them ‘”ar-el-li the queen’ is explicitly attested (RS 17.086 = Ug 5, 262–3), and on another her name may plausibly be restored (RS 17.325 = Ug 5, 264). All three documents carry the impression of a seal ring inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs (Ug 3, 85–6, figs. 106f.). It was logically assumed that the seal should belong to queen ”arelli, but it was impossible to read her name in the hieroglyphs (Ug 3, 81, n. 3). It was later realized that the legend actually reads ‘the seal of the herald Spd-B'l ’ (Ug 5, 261), and it belonged to the first witness, ”ip†i-Ba'al, who sealed the document on behalf of the queen.309 This ”ip†i-Ba'al emerges from the new documents from the Urtenu archive as a very important personage in late 13th century Ugarit, who was both the son-in-law and the main business manager of the queen. His intensive contacts with Egypt and with the ‘Phoenician coast’ (see p. 670) may explain his preference for an Egyptian seal (cf. V – G 1997). The special prestige enjoyed by ”arelli is best exemplified by her international correspondence, which covers ›atti, Carchemish, some of their Syrian vassals, and perhaps even lands beyond the confines of the Hittite Empire. One is constantly reminded of the outstanding political role played by her contemporary, Great Queen Pudu¢epa of ›atti. In the so-called ‘Assyrian letter’ (RS 6.198; T-D 1935), a certain Belubur310 asks his correspondent Ili-Milku311 to transmit his letters in good spirit to the Queen. A similar request is aired in the Ugaritic letter KTU 2.14 in which Iwr≈n (Ewri-“enni?) demands his correspondent Iwrpzn (Ewri-pizuni?) to ask ”arelli to recommend his name to the king (B 1982, 5ff.; 1983; C 1989a, 291ff.). A most interesting letter to ”arelli is RS 12.033 (= PRU 3, 14–5). The name of the ‘Lady of the land of Ugarit’ (l. 2) was read by Nougayrol as Ne-e-“e(?)-ti(?), which was then related to N∆t in a ritual text (KTU 1.40 = RS 1.002+ .36). Both readings have meanwhile 309 Besides the seal of ”ip†i-Ba'al, RS 17.325 (= Ug 5, 264) also carries the impression of an anepigraphic cylinder seal (Ug 3, 86, fig. 107), which must belong to another person mentioned in the document, either one of the witnesses, or the original owner of the property, Yamuna son of Bazute. 310 See n. 289 for the distinction between this Belubur, whose identity remains unknown, and the Assyrian official Bèlu-libùr. 311 Probably identical with the well-known scribe Ili-Milku who was active under Niqmaddu III (see nn. 284, 289, 340).

698

 

been corrected and the alleged Ne“eti has had to be erased from the list of Ugarit’s queens: the alphabetic word should probably be read a∆t, ‘wife’, whereas the syllabic one is simply ”ar-e-li ( S 1991a, 13). The letter was written by an important person, who was at least on equal standing with the Lady of Ugarit.312 First he specifies the manner in which a consignment of grain had been transported to her, and, after a large gap, he informs the queen about the arrival of a present from Urdanu313 and the consequent dispatch of his own present to her, which consists of one golden cup, one linen garment, 100 shekels of red (¢a“mànu)314 and 100 shekels of blue (takiltu) purple-dyed wool (ll. 5’ff.). Now this list corresponds exactly with the yearly tribute sent by Ugarit to the queen of ›atti according to the provisions of the treaty between ”uppiluliuma I and Niqmaddu II (RS 17.227.25–6 = PRU 4, 42; B 1996c, 152, § 3). Who could be the high-ranking person who sent these luxury items to the queen of Ugarit, who would then forward them to the queen of ›atti? A clue may be provided by Abimanu, the messenger who transported the valuable objects. The name is quite frequent in Ugarit (G 1967, 315, 360), but two candidates readily present themselves: Abimanu mentioned by -d, king of U“natu, in his letter to the king of Ugarit (RS 17.083 = PRU 4, 216), and Abimanu the owner or the captain of a damaged ship of Carchemish (RS 34.147 = RSO 7, no. 5; see p. 659). The two may, in fact, be one and the same person, a seaman operating between Ugarit and Siyannu-U“natu. If so, the author of RS 12.033 could be a king of Siyannu-U“natu (perhaps -d) who exchanged valuable presents with Queen ”arelli. Alternatively, he could be someone writing from a more distant place, and the grain transport would obviously direct us towards Egypt or Canaan.315

312 His name or title in the opening line of the letter is obliterated. Nougayrol suggested to restoring , but that would imply that the sender was either the King of Carchemish or the King of Ugarit. In view of the letter’s contents (transportation of grain and presents) neither of the two options seems plausible. The author could be a king of Siyannu-U“natu (see below). 313 This must be a variant spelling of Urtenu, the well-known business manager associated with ”ip†i-Ba'al and with the queen of Ugarit. 314 For this spelling see H 1989, 354, n. 4. For the colour of ¢u“mànu, see the references cited in Ug 5, 136, nn. 1–2. 315 Cf. e.g. the grain consignment sent from Canaan to Ugarit by Adduya, an intermediary from Akko mentioned in the Ugarit letter found at Tel Aphek (ll. 32–3; see p. 716).

    

699

In the correspondence of Carchemish with Ugarit there are letters addressed solely to the queen, and a double letter from Kila’e in which the queen is addressed before the king (her son?), a clear indication of her relative status (RS 32.204 = RSO 7, no. 19; see p. 687). In RS 34.145 (= RSO 7, no. 9) the king (of Carchemish) responds to several inquiries of the queen of Ugarit: 1) With regard to the compensation for (the murder of ) Ananae316 the King had instructed (the kartappu) Zuzuli (see p. 692) to take care of the matter; 2) As for the ships (of Ugarit), they may sail as far as Byblos and Sidon but not to more distant places; 3) The requested seals will be sent back to their destination; 4) Concerning the taxes of [. . .]luwa317 the Queen should consult her messenger Urtenu; 5) The last intriguing passage apparently deals with some damage inflicted by locusts (5.). As one would expect, several letters are addressed to the queen of Ugarit by noble ladies from other courts. Foremost of these is the unnamed Hittite princess who addresses the queen of Ugat318 as her ‘sister’ and offers her an exchange of presents (RS 34.154 = RSO 7, no. 18). Could she be the future bride of Ugarit’s king, E¢liNikkalu (see p. 701)? Three other ladies who exchange presents with the queen, their lady, are ›ebat-azali,319 Alluwa,320 and -]wanna[.321 There is also an Ugaritic letter to the queen written by her (unnamed) ‘sister’ (KTU 2.21 = RS 15.174 = PRU 2, 32). The letter mentions a certain "ibrk≈ 322 who spoke with the ‘steward of the vineyard of the queen of Ugarit’.323 ”arelli or the queen is addressed in three Ugaritic letters sent by a certain Tlmyn, her son (KTU 2.11, 2.12, 2.16 = RS 8.315, 9.479, 316 A messenger called ’Ann’a is mentioned in a fragmentary Ugaritian letter sent by a servant to his king (RS 34.148 = RSO 7, 163–4). 317 Perhaps [A]l-lu-wa (?) as in RS 25.138 (n. 320 below)? 318 The -ri- is twice omitted in the letter (ll. 2, 8); is this omission merely accidental or does it perhaps reflect a weak r typical for Hittite phonology (F 1960, 33, § 30b)? 319 RS 20.019 = Ug 5, 135–6. For the Hurrian element azalli, see L 1976–7, 66. 320 RS 25.138 = L 1989, 318–9. Cf. n. 317 above. 321 RS 20.151 (= Ug 5, 138–9). Since -]wanna[- addresses the queen of Ugarit as ‘my lady’, her name cannot be restored as [Ta]wanna[na], a title reserved to queens of ›atti. 322 Perhaps Ewri-Ku“u? See G 1967, 237; C 1981b, 46. 323 skn gt mlkt ugrt (ll. 8–9). D (1987a, 40, n. 14) suggests emending gt into bt, ‘house’.

700

 

15.008; L… 1981, 91ff.). Three more were sent to the queen by her (unnamed) son, the king (KTU 2.13, 2.30, 2.34 = RS 11.872, 16.379, 17.139). Finally, one letter from Ras Ibn Hani was sent to the queen by her son (KTU 2.82 = RIH 78/12; P 1984a, 221–2 with further refs.). All these letters exhibit a very similar formulation and it is tempting to regard this Talmiyanu as the name of Niqmaddu III before his coronation, still used by him in his letters to his mother.324 Most of these letters contain little more than the standard greeting formulae, but some of them seem to be reporting the author’s visit in ›atti and his successful audience with His Majesty (KTU 2.30 = RS 16.379.12–4) and with the queen (KTU 2.13 = RS 11.872.14–5). These reports may well have been sent to Ugarit on the same trip as the one reported in Pudu¢epa’s letter (KTU 2.36+ = RS 17.435+; see p. 695). Perhaps Niqmaddu brought to ›atti in person the tribute of the Hittite queen which is mentioned in RS 12.033 (= PRU 3, 14–5; see p. 697).325 It could have been on this very occasion that his marriage with the Hittite princess E¢li-Nikkalu was arranged (see below). This would indeed be a fitting finale for the ageing Pudu¢epa, crowning her long and successful career of royal matchmaking. To conclude this survey on ”arelli’s long political career in Ugarit mention should be made of her fragmentary stele with a dedication to Dagan found in the court of the temple (of Dagan?) on the acropolis of Ugarit (RSO 6, 302–3; figs. 7, 14b; Y 1997b, 144, no. 19). Next to it was found a similar fully preserved stela with a dedication to Dagan by 'zn, probably identical with Uzinnu, one of the last governors of Ugarit (see p. 667).

324 The proposal of L… (1981, 91–2; cf. also K 1992, 140) to identify Talmiyanu with Ammi∆tamru II is refuted by the new data on ”arelli’s dating. Talmiyanu could also be a brother of Niqmaddu ( S 1991a, 18, n. 161; A 1994, 39), but in that case the letters sent to the queen by ‘your son, the king’ must be dissociated from those sent by Talmiyanu. 325 The ‘tribute of Ugarit’ is mentioned in a fragmentary Hittite inventory text (KUB 26, 66 iv 5–8; K“ 1982: 67; S 1986, 108). Unfortunately, from the list itself only ‘one stone (of ) 10 shekels’ is preserved. The previous entry has ‘]× mina and 30 shekels of iron’, but the origin of this consignment is unknown. Another inventory text mentions some sort of exchange between ›attu“a and Ugarit involving Hurrian shirts and two boys (KUB 42.84 rev. 23–27; S 1986, 128–9).

     6.2.3

701

The Hittite princess

Ugarit joined relatively late the circle of privileged vassal states whose kings were granted the right to marry a Hittite princess. Amurru had already exchanged royal brides with ›atti after the Battle of Qadesh and consequently her kings were counted among the foremost members of Hittite nobility.326 Ugarit already had recourse to the institution of political marriages in the 14th century, when Niqmaddu II married an Egyptian lady (see p. 625). It is difficult to tell whether the Ugaritian court refrained of its own will from marrying into the Hittite nobility, and if so, why this policy was changed towards the end of the 13th century. At any rate, this late family connection between the courts of ›atti and Ugarit did not meet with the same success as in Amurru. At first, only one Hittite princess who married a king of Ugarit was taken into consideration: E¢li-Nikkalu, who allegedly divorced Ammurapi and returned to her homeland (PRU 4, 205ff.; A 1980a). The matter became more complicated when a reference to another royal bride of ›atti was discovered in a letter from the Urtenu archive ( S 1989c). In the above-quoted passage from RS 34.136 (= RSO 7, no. 7; see p. 695) the king of Carchemish refers to his correspondent, most probably Ammurapi, as the son of the ‘in-law’ of His Majesty, which inevitably means that Niqmaddu III, if he was indeed Ammurapi’s father, also married a Hittite princess. The search began for this other princess in the sources from Ugarit, and two candidates have readily been suggested: Tbßr ( S 1989c) and Anani-d. (D 1990). A reexamination of the evidence may in fact show that there was no other Hittite princess in Ugarit, and RS 34.136 refers to the same E¢li-Nikkalu who was Niqmaddu III’s widow, rather than Ammurapi’s spouse. It is best to start this quest for Hittite princesses in Ugarit by briefly recalling the evidence on E¢li-Nikkalu. Her name is first encountered when her marriage was no longer extant. Two edicts of Talmi-Te“ub of Carchemish divide the property between her and the state of Ugarit: the manor of the princess was returned to

326 Both Bente“ina and ”au“gamuwa were invited to attend the ceremony at the conclusion of the treaty between Tud¢aliya of ›atti and Kurunta of Tar¢unta““a (Bronze Tablet iv 30–43; B 1996c, 117, § 27).

702

 

Ammurapi (RS 17.226 = PRU 4, 208), whereas she was allowed to keep all her movable property, including servants, gold, silver, copper utensils, oxen and asses (RS 17.355 = PRU 4, 209–10). A third, related document327 is a letter sent by the king of Carchemish to the king of Ugarit (both unnamed) concerning the latter’s unworthy treatment of ‘the daughter of the Sun’ (RS 20.216 = Ug 5, no. 35). He quotes a fascinating Hittite fable whose sarcastic allusion to the affair of the princess is difficult to fathom.328 The general assumption has been that Ammurapi was the king who divorced E¢li-Nikkalu, because the documents recording the division of the property were issued by Carchemish in his name. However, this is by no means the only logical possibility. Nothing in Talmi-Te“ub’s decrees necessarily implies that Ammurapi was E¢liNikkalu’s husband.329 She could have been married to Ammurapi’s father, Niqmaddu III, in which case she would have maintained her position and property in Ugarit after her husband’s death. This would be the normal procedure, as no doubt happened in other cases in which Hittite princesses marrying abroad survived their husbands.330 However, in this case the royal widow must have chosen (or was urged to choose) to give up her residence in Ugarit, perhaps for the prospect of re-marriage elsewhere. Naturally, she had to renounce all her real estate in Ugarit, which was given back to the new king, Ammurapi.331 To my mind, this is at least as logical a scenario as the one that envisages a troublesome divorce between the last king of Ugarit and the daughter of the Great King of ›atti. It is well to

327 There is also a letter sent to E¢li-Nikkalu among the tablets found in 1994 in the Urtenu archive (M-L 1995b, 109). 328 ‘One man was detained in prison for five years, and when they told him: “Tomorrow morning you will be set free”, he strangled himself. Now you have acted in the same way.’ (ll. 5–13; A 1980a, 104; cf. B 1996c, 170). The rest of the letter is in a deplorable state of preservation which does not allow a clear picture of the reprimands of the king of Carchemish. 329 D (1990, 98–9) has already considered this possibility, but then rejected it. After going half-way in proving that E¢li-Nikkalu need not be Ammurapi’s divorcee, he categorically states, without explaining, that ‘E¢li-Nikkalu cannot have been this Hittite wife of Ammurapi’s father’. He then develops his theory on Anani., for which see below. 330 A similar situation would have occurred, for example, if Ga““uliyawiya, the Great Lady (rabìti ) of Amurru, survived her husband Bente“ina (S 1991b, 335, n. 22). 331 See n. 347 for a possible reason for E¢li-Nikkalu’s departure from Ugarit.

    

703

note that nothing in the available texts suggests that the alleged ‘divorce’ was the outcome of any grave marital problems, as was the case with the ill-fated bittu rabìti from Amurru (p. 680f.). Her alleged abduction and mistreatment are based on a damaged passage,332 and it is better to refrain from reconstructing far-fetched historical dramas based on it (see e.g. L 1995, 86). The same applies to her later destiny. The otherwise unknown Tan¢uwata““a, king of ›api““e (RS 17.355.6–8), who is usually assumed to be her next husband, could just as well be her brother or some other relative with whom she stayed after she had left Ugarit. If our assumption that E¢li-Nikkalu was Niqmaddu III’s spouse is valid, we may speculate further about her royal parentage. ”uppiluliuma II could hardly have had a daughter old enough to be married to Niqmaddu III. His brother Arnuwanda III died after a short reign and left no offspring.333 The choice is practically reduced to a daughter of Tud¢aliya ‘IV’, i.e., a sister of the last two kings of ›atti.334 Her mother may also be referred to in a very fragmentary letter apparently dealing with the journey of a ‘daughter of the Sun’, who could be E¢li-Nikkalu, either as a bride travelling to Ugarit, or, more probably, as a widow leaving the city.335 If indeed the ‘Sun’ in this text refers to Tud¢aliya ‘IV’, the Great Queen would be his Babylonian spouse.336 The existence of other Hittite princesses married in Ugarit is quite doubtful. The label KTU 6.24 = RS 17.072 (= PRU 2, no. 175) with the inscription ‘Document tbßr (of ) the bride, the daughter of the Sun’ (spr tbßr klt bt “p“ ) could very well refer to the dowry of E¢li-Nikkalu returned to her in Talmi-Te“ub’s edict.337 Van Soldt 332 RS 20.216.13–5’: ‘. . . whoe[ver] exiled the daughter of the Sun, hers[elf ], from her land’ may simply refer to her passage from her homeland to Ugarit. 333 KUB 26, 33 ii 1’–9’; O 1963, 3. The text says that he had no ‘seed’ (NUMUN), but this could arguably refer to male offspring only. 334 Theoretically, a daughter of ›attu“ili ‘III’ would also be possible, but she would probably be too old to marry the penultimate king of Ugarit. 335 RS 17.429 (= PRU 4, 227–8; A 1980, 105, n. 19). The fragment mentions (l. 5’) ‘[the m]en of the Great Queen’ (]ME” . ) and (l. 7’) ‘the daughter of the Sun, her daughter’ (. d-”I .-“i ). 336 For the Babylonian princess who married Tud¢aliya ‘IV’, see H  C 1996, 64ff., and the refs. quoted by him on p. 43, n. 5. 337 The label was found in Court V in the Southern Palace, not far from the edicts concerning the property of E¢li-Nikallu (Room 68). It could, in fact, have been attached to them or to some other inventory of E¢li-Nikkalu’s dowry, comparable to A¢at-Milku’s trousseau (D 1990, 99).

 

704

attempted to make a case for Tbßr being the PN of the bride, but as he himself admits ( S 1989, 391) his Hurrian reconstruction of the name (*Tubbi-“ !arri ) is quite problematic and as yet unattested. It is preferable to take tbßr as a Semitic verbal noun with the meaning ‘cutting off, separation, division’ (D 1990, 97–8), which would be a most fitting designation for E¢li-Nikkalu’s returned property. Dijkstra suggested identifying the elusive Hittite bride of Niqmaddu III with a certain Annpdgl in a fragmentary liturgical text (KTU 1.84 = RS 17.100.3) which also mentions a Nqmd.338 If the two are queen and king (presumably Niqmaddu III), this *AnaniPeddigalli would be tentatively equated with Anani-., the author of a fragmentary letter sent to her lady [. . . n]uwiya (RS 19.080 = PRU 6, no. 2). This letter is a touching testament of an ailing lady who seeks to secure the future of her daughter (Ammaya) and her other descendants. Her correspondent (hardly the queen) is asked to intercede with the Chief Scribe to grant asylum to her descendants in the event that their situation in Ugarit worsens (see p. 708). Anani. may indeed have been a foreigner in Ugarit, or a local citizen threatened by some opponents, but her identification as the Hittite princess married to the king of Ugarit rests on a chain of unwarranted assumptions. In conclusion, the information presently available unequivocally identifies only one Hittite princess married in Ugarit, E¢li-Nikkalu, who probably left the city after the death of her husband Niqmaddu III.

7

T L Y  U

Documents belonging to the last period of Ugarit have been found in all the archives of Ugarit and Ras Ibn Hani. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear in recent years that most of the tablets found at Ugarit belong to the last fifty years of its history (L 1995a, 70). The most significant new evidence is supplied by the archive discovered in the southern part of the city, in the building

338 Not ‘together’ as stated by Dijkstra, but rather 37 lines later, in a totally destroyed passage.

    

705

known as the House of Urtenu.339 The texts unearthed in 1973 and published in 1991 (RSO 7) have already opened new vistas into the study of Ugarit’s late history, and the preliminary information on the finds from the 1994 season, which yielded 134 letters (twenty in Ugaritic), promises exciting new insights.340 Important results have also been achieved through meticulous reexamination of the archaeological data from the earlier excavations. For example, the long-held view about ‘the last tablets of Ugarit’ which were placed in a ‘baking oven’ ( four aux tablettes) in Court V of the royal palace shortly before Ugarit was destroyed (S 1962, 31–7) has been conclusively refuted. It is now evident that the oven was installed by squatters after the destruction of the palace and it has nothing to do with the tablets which probably fell down from an upper floor where they were originally stored.341 Thus, none of the more than 150 tablets and fragments found there may automatically be dated to the last years of Ugarit simply on the evidence of their findspot. Information for their dating must be sought painstakingly in the contents of these documents, and the same holds true for the other archives of Ugarit.342 For example, the tablets found in the palace archives span the entire last century and a half of Ugarit’s history and it is impossible to date any of these tablets simply on the basis of their archaeological context (L 1988b, 126ff.). There are some promising beginnings, though, in the development of dating tools based on script, orthography and grammatical features.343 339 For the circumstances of the discovery and the archaeological evidence, see Y 1995; L 1995. For the identification of the residence of Urtenu, see B – P 1995b; B – M-L 1995b, 444. 340 B – M-L 1995; M-L 1995b; L 1995a. One of the important discoveries in the new archive is a mythological fragment whose colophon identifies the scribe as Ili-Milku (Ilmlk), probably the same scribe who wrote most of the Ugaritic mythological texts (see, most recently, W 1997, 1998a). Ili-Milku is known to have acted under king Niqmaddu, and it is now evident that this must be the late 13th century king, and not his mid-14th century name-sake, as previously assumed (B – M-L 1995, 447–8). 341 C 1990, 40, n. 2; L 1995, 228–9; M 1995, 119; Y 1997b, 54. This is demonstrated, among other things, by fragments found several metres away from the ‘oven’ that joined with one of the tablets allegedly found within it (L 1995, 229). 342 For a recent survey on the distribution of tablets in the various archives of Ugarit, see L 1995a (with refs. to earlier studies). 343 H 1989, 341–2;  S 1991a; 1995c. See e.g.  S 1995c, 208, for a differentiation between the spelling of documents from the reigns

706

  7.1 Ammurapi (ca 1215–1190/85)

The coronation of the last king of Ugarit, Ammurapi, was celebrated in a fascinating ritual, the text of which was discovered in 1973 in the area which turned out to be the residence of Urtenu.344 The liturgy proclaimed at the funerary ritual of Niqmaddu III was intended to assure the legitimacy of the new king by invoking the deified ancestors of the dynasty: the spirits (rpum) of the netherworld, the council of the Didanites (see p. 613), four individually named rpum,345 and two departed kings, Ammi∆tamru and Niqmaddu. The latter must be the dead king Niqmaddu III, who is mourned in the following lines. As for Ammi∆tamru, it is usually assumed that the 13th century king is referred to, but then, it is not clear why Ibiranu, Niqmaddu III’s father (see p. 691), should have been omitted. Perhaps the ritual invoked a more illustrious forefather of the new king, either his grandfather, or perhaps even a more remote ancestor. The last king of Ugarit, Ammurapi,346 was a contemporary of Talmi-Te“ub of Carchemish (RS 17.226 = PRU 4, 208) and, by extension, of ”uppiluliuma II, the last king of ›atti. The length of his reign was once considered to be very short (e.g., L 1983, 89–90; K 1992, 148), but the new documentation, in particular some valuable Egyptian synchronisms, have extended it to over twenty years, spanning the turn of the 12th century (see p. 715). Ammurapi’s filiation used to be considered problematic, and it was even suggested that, though related to the royal family, he might have usurped the throne of Ugarit (L 1962, 131; 1979a, 1312; K 1992, 148). The only possible mention of Ammurapi’s filiation is in the very fragmentary land grant RS 17.322.2’ (= PRU 6, no. 47), [A(m)-mu-ra-a] p-i(?) ! Níq-ma-d, but this restoration is far from certain ( S 1991a, 3, n. 29). However, the legitimacy of his royal descent is now rendered more probable by a letof the first kings of Ugarit (Niqmaddu II, Ar¢alba, Niqmepa) and the last ones (Ammi∆tamru II, Ibiranu, Niqmaddu III, Ammurapi). 344 KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126 (= RSO 7, no. 90). The first reliable publication based on a collation of the original tablet was provided by B – P 1982. For the extensive bibliography on this text, see the updated list in RSO 7, 152, to which add L –  T – R 1997 and W 1998c, 430. 345 These four rpum (ulkn, trmn, sdn-w-rdn, ∆r-'llmn) are otherwise unknown. 346 A seal ring bearing the name of Ammurapi written in cuneiform Akkadian has turned up on the antiquity market, but its provenance from Ras Shamra cannot be ascertained (S 1954, 34, n. 2; N 1956, 205, n. 1).

    

707

ter from the Urtenu archive in which the king (of Carchemish) recalls an embarassing incident which took place ‘at the time of your father, the in-law (¢atanu) of His Majesty’ (RS 34.136 = RSO 7, no. 7). If the letter was addressed to Ammurapi, which seems highly probable (see p. 695), his father must have been the king of Ugarit who married a Hittite princess (see p. 702). Three of the documents dated to Ammurapi deal with the property division between him and the Hittite princess E¢li-Nikkalu, but, as suggested above, she was not Ammurapi’s divorcee but rather Niqmaddu III’s widow.347 Nor was ”arelli, who was hailed at the coronation of Ammurapi (KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126.33, [∆]ryl ), his spouse, but rather his grandmother who lived to a respectable old age (see p. 691). The only candidate for Ammurapi’s queen remains a certain lady A“dadà who appears in a yet unpublished legal document sealed with ‘the seal of the queen’ (RS 22.002;  S 1991a, 18). The tablet was found in a ‘private archive’ dating to the end of Ugarit (ib.: 19), and if she was indeed a queen she may well be ‘matched’ with Ammurapi, the only ‘single’ king of Ugarit. The reign of Ammurapi is marked by two drastic developments which accelerated the collapse of the Hittite Empire: the food shortage which had already been felt by the mid-13th century and had now reached devastating proportions, and the destructive movements of the seaborne enemies known as the ‘Sea Peoples’ who were probably driven by the same famine. These topics will be dealt in separate entries after the description of Ugarit’s foreign relations. 7.1.1

More reprimands from the overlords

The last king of Ugarit received his share of reprimands for disobeying his Hittite overlords, perhaps even more than his predecessors. In an Ugaritic translation of a letter sent to him by the ‘Sun’ (KTU 2.39 = RS 18.038 = PRU 5, 60) he is categorically reminded of his position and his duties: ‘You belong to the Sun your master; a servant indeed, his possession are you. . . . To me, the Sun, your master, why have you not come for one year, two years?’ (P 1981, 152). After this harsh scolding Ammurapi is further reprimanded

347 It is inconceivable that E¢li-Nikkalu was Ammurapi’s mother. If he was indeed the son of Niqmaddu III, he must have been the son of another wife of his father. This may have played some role in E¢li-Nikkalu’s departure from Ugarit.

708

 

for being late in sending the much-needed food consignments to ›atti (see below p. 717). A similar letter of reprimand was sent to Ammurapi by the King (of Carchemish), but only its opening lines are preserved (RS 13.007 = PRU 3, 6). The Urtenu archive added in 1994 some half a dozen letters to the correspondence of Ammurapi.348 A long letter was sent to him by the ‘Chief Scribe (and) Chief Equerry (tuppanura ¢uburtinura),349 the Great, noble of ›atti’ to his ‘good brother’ Ammurapi; it deals with various diplomatic and political matters and a quasi-duplicate was sent by the Great King (M-L 1995b, 106, n. 6). Another letter mentions the Chief Scribe as the chief authority in matters of custom tolls paid by merchants upon their entrance into Hittite Syria (RS 92.2007; A 1996, 58ff.). The leading role played by the Chief Scribe in this period is best exemplified by the letter already discussed in which the king of Carchemish (probably Talmi-Te“ub) reprimands the king of Ugarit (probably Ammurapi) for sending inadequate presents to the Hittite dignitaries, especially to the tuppalanuri 350 (RS 34.136 = RSO 7, no. 7; see p. 694). To these letters from the Urtenu archive we may add another from the Southwest archive, in which a certain Anani-Nikkal beseeches her lady [. . . n]uwiya to intercede for her with the tuppanuri who is in the position to save her descendants from misery in Ugarit (RS 19.080 = PRU 6, no. 2).351 Perhaps all these late texts refer to the same influential dignitary who at the end of the Hittite Empire accumulated considerable political and economic power. 7.1.2

The rising ‘Sun’ of Egypt

A fascinating letter from the Urtenu archive unveils a yet unsuspected facet of Ugarit’s foreign policy in the last decades of its exist348 L 1995a, 70, n. 22; M-L 1995b, 106, who mentions that one of the topics dealt with in the letters sent from the Great King of ›atti is the performance of some rituals. 349 The two terms are juxtaposed and probably refer to the same dignitary (M-L 1995b, 106, n. 6). A [¢ubu]rtanuri (?) is probably also addressed in a letter sent by Ammi∆tamru (RS 20.200  = Ug 5, no. 29; following the collation by A 1996, 60, n. 76). 350 The term appears in Ugarit both as tuppanura (> tuppan+ura) and as tuppalanura (> tuppalan+ura). For the Luwian etymology, see L 1956, 27ff.; see also A 1996, 59f. It seems that the form tup-pa-at-nu-ri in RS 92.2007 (A, ib.) is merely a spelling variant of tup-pa-la-nu-ri; for the confusion of the signs la and at in Hittite texts, see S 1996a, 136–7, n. 307. 351 For a tentative interpretation of this letter, see A 1996, 60–1.

    

709

ence (RS 88.2158; L 1995b). It is the response of Pharaoh Merneptah352 to a previous missive from Ugarit extensively quoted in the long letter. The letter-head with the name of the addressee is unfortunately missing, but the possibilities may be reduced to either Niqmaddu III or Ammurapi, probably the latter (see below p. 713). The elaborate greeting formula, partly lost, contains Pharaoh’s approval that ‘[. . . your] ancestors (were) indeed the servants of the king, [the excellent son of Ra]; you too (are) the servant of the king, the excellent son of Ra (d-a), like them’. We shall return to this significant statement, but first to the no less remarkable contents of the letter. The king of Ugarit had requested that an Egyptian sculptor be sent to Ugarit to make an image of Merneptah in front of the statue of Ba'al in his renovated temple in Ugarit (ll. 10’–16’; L 1997). Merneptah responds evasively: ‘The sculptors who work here in Egypt are engaged in fulfilling their duty for the great gods of Egypt. Behold, since the king has taken his seat on the throne of Ra, these have worked for the great gods of Egypt. But as soon as they finish, the king will send to you the carpenters that you have asked for in order that they may perform all the tasks that you will command them (by saying): “Do them!”’353 Unless this is a totally groundless excuse, Merneptah’s answer must refer to his own coronation in 1213. Assuming that the letter of the king of Ugarit was sent on the occasion of the change of rulers in Egypt, RS 88.2158 must be dated not too long after this date, a valuable chronological anchor which may perhaps be related to events in Ugarit itself. Recent archaeological investigations have shown that large parts of the city, including the temple of Ba'al, had to be rebuilt in the second half of the 13th century , possibly as a result of a seismic event (C 1994, 197ff.; L 1995b, 78–9). The polite refusal to meet Ugarit’s exceptional request is counterbalanced by a strikingly rich consignment of luxury goods that is 352 Ll. 12’–13’: Mar-ni-ip-t[a-a¢] ¢a-at-pa-mu-a. The second word is the cuneiform rendering of an Egyptian epithet (˙tp m3't) meaning ‘he who is content with justice’ (Y apud L 1995b: 78). As identified by Lackenbacher (1994), the same epithet appears in a Bo[azköy text which mentions the ‘son of Marnipta¢’ (KUB 3.38 obv. 5’f.). 353 Lines 17’–25’. It is noteworthy that Merneptah opens by saying that the sculptors (lú bur.gul.me“, lit. ‘stone-cutters’) are busy, and concludes by promising to send carpenters (lú nagar.me“). Lackenbacher (1995b, 80) assumes that the reference is to another request from Ugarit, but this sudden switch in subject may simply be a polite way to inform the king of Ugarit that he should content himself with whatever artisans he will get from Egypt.

710

 

about to be loaded onto a ship returning to Ugarit. It contains various textile and clothing articles totalling 102 items; 50 large baulks of ebony; 1,000 plaques of red, white and blue stones; altogether 12 large packages sealed with the royal seal. After these rather conventional luxury goods, which find good parallels in the Amarna letters and in the Hittite-Egyptian correspondence, the list of presents continues with more exceptional prestige items: 800(!) whips or flails (i“tu¢¢uME” ME”), 4 . . . -fish (lippatu ku6.me“), 2 large girgû-cords (L 1996), 8 large ropes with a total length of 1,200 cubits.354 The letter concludes with the announcement that the messenger of Ugarit will soon be sent back to his country in the company of the royal messenger of Egypt, Ammaia, ‘Chief of the ships of the treasury’.355 The same messenger (bearing the same title) appears in another Akkadian letter of Merneptah (RS 94.2002 + 2003 rev. 3), and probably also in an Ugaritic draft of a letter of Ammurapi (RS 34.356.3; see below p. 712). This could indicate that the addressee of Merneptah’s letters was the last king of Ugarit, a valuable synchronism indeed. The list of Egyptian presents in RS 88.2158 provides an excellent example of the continuing demand for fashionable prestige items at the royal courts of the Near East until the very end of the Bronze Age. The valuable construction materials may have served for the adornment of the new temple of Ba'al, but some of them could have been used for other purposes in Ugarit itself or forwarded to other destinations.356 Nothing is said in the letter about the price paid by Ugarit to match such a bountiful Egyptian present in size and quality.357 One may perhaps recall in this context the well-known sword inscribed with a cartouche of Merneptah that was found in the residential quarter east of the palace (S 1956; cf. H 1995, 93). It may have been a present sent by Merneptah on some other occasion, or perhaps vice versa, a luxury item manufactured in Ugarit

354

Cf. the list of presents sent from Egypt to the ruler of Byblos according to the Report of Wenamon, which includes thirty baskets of fish and five hundred ropes (S 1973, 151). 355 Lines 31’f.: lú gal gi“.má.me“ “a é [ú-de-]e. For this messenger and his title (with textual refs.), see the extensive commentary of L, forthcoming. 356 Note, e.g., the small ropes (ibi¢i tur.me“) requested by a king of Tar¢unta““a from Ammurapi (RS 34.139 = RSO 7, no. 14; see n. 177). 357 Note, however, the 2,000 (shekels?) of silver mentioned in the fragmentary letter KTU 2.81 = RIH 78/3 + 30.12’f., which also belongs to the Egyptian correspondence (see p. 712).

    

711

which for some reason never reached its destination in Egypt (Y 1997b, 81, 178). Whether a statue of Merneptah was ever erected in the temple of Ba'al is hard to say, but it is quite tempting to recall in this context an Egyptian pedestal found in the Southern Palace in 1955 (RS 19.186 = Ug 4, 124, fig. 101; RSO 5/1, 226). It carries an offering formula invoking Ba'al,358 but unfortunately the donor’s name is broken off. As noted by V (Ug 4, 133, 135), the base has a hole into which a statuette, probably of an Egyptian person, was fastened. The piece is dated to the 19th dynasty, and in view of the mention of a Seth-like deity, Vandier suggested the reign of Sety I, but obviously, a dating to Merneptah is just as possible. Another relevant object is the votive stele found in 1929 in the temple of Ba'al, which carries an inscription of the royal scribe and overseer of the palace treasuries M3my, dedicated to Ba'al Íaphon (RS 1.[089]+ = AO 13176; RSO 5/1, 39, fig. b; G apud Y (ed.) 1991, 286–8; also ib. 328 fig. 8a). All in all, this exchange of letters can point to nothing less than a forthright overture to restore the traditional political ties between Egypt and Ugarit, notwithstanding the latter’s obligations towards her Hittite overlord. Such an official correspondence could hardly have escaped the notice of the Hittite foreign office which operated scores of diplomats and messengers both in Ugarit and in Egypt. Despite the tolerance with which the Hittites traditionally viewed Ugarit’s foreign relations, this explicit overture towards Egypt must have been regarded as crossing the red line of double allegiance,359 especially in a period of growing dissatisfaction with Ugarit’s performance as a vassal state. I wonder whether Merneptah’s polite refusal to set up his statue in Ugarit may be interpreted as a cautious abstention from provoking his Hittite allies with whom he maintained a lucrative trade. At any rate, such a bold political move by Ugarit could hardly have been made a few generations earlier, and it is yet another indication for the waning reverence for Hittite authority in Syria. The letter of Merneptah, RS 88.2158, is an invaluable addition to a small group of documents belonging to the correspondence 358 The iconography of the relevant hieroglyph identifies the god as Ba'al, rather than Seth. Cf. G 1986, 840; C 1994, 134ff. I wish to thank Dr Deborah Sweeney for her remarks on this inscription. 359 Cf. L’s (1995b, 83) similar interpretation of the evidence.

712

 

between Egypt and Ugarit in the late 13th century. It has recently been announced that a further letter of Merneptah (RS 94.2002 + 2003) was discovered in the house of Urtenu in 1994 (L, forthcoming), and it mentions consignments of grain sent from Egypt to relieve the famine in Ugarit. The remaining documents in the Egyptian dossier, three in Ugaritic and one in Akkadian, are very fragmentary and add little to our information on the exact nature of these contacts. Three Ugaritic drafts for letters sent by the king of Ugarit to the ‘Sun’ of Egypt, his lord, were discovered in the seventies. The name of the sender, Ammurapi (ll. 2, 11: 'mrpi ), is preserved only in KTU 2.76 = RS 34.356 (B 1982, 10–2), which was found on the surface of the mound in the area of the Urtenu archive. The small fragment seems to contain two separate opening formulae (1ff. and 9ff.), which perhaps served as standard models for addressing the Pharaoh. It also contains the name of the messenger (mlak) Nmy or Amy (l. 3). If the latter reading is valid, Amy could be the Ugaritic equivalent of cuneiform Ammaia, the head of the Egyptian expedition in the letters of Merneptah (RS 88.2158.31’; RS 94.2002 + 2003 rev. 3–4; L, forthcoming; see p. 710). A very similar elaborate address is better preserved in a fragment from Ras Ibn Hani: ‘[ To the Sun], the great king, the king of Egypt, [the graciou]s [king], the just king, [the king of ki]ngs, the lord of all the land [of Egyp]t’.360 The identity of the sender is almost entirely lost,361 but the close parallel with RS 34.356 suggests Ammurapi. The fragmentary reverse of the text mentions362 some monetary transaction amounting to 2,000 (shekels?) of silver (l. 12’f.), some cargo,363 the sea, and the people of Ugarit.364

360 KTU 2.81 = RIH 78/3 + 30; B – C 1980, 356–7; P – B 1992, 711. For the epithets, see M 1983. 361 ‘Your servant’ in l. 5 is preceeded by either ]r, which could be the last letter of Ammi∆tamru, or by ]k which could be restored as mlk ‘the king’ (B – C 1980, 357). Although the former possibility cannot be entirely excluded, an attribution of the letter to Ammurapi is far more likely. 362 The isolated ully in l. 2’ was identified by B – C (1980, 357) as the PN Uliliya, but the context is too fragmentary. 363 Ugaritic ≈r' (ll. 3’, 5’) is usually rendered as ‘shipment, cargo’, but, as suggested by B – C (1980, 357), it could also be a variant spelling of dr', ‘seed (of grain)’. Cf. also D – L 1966b, 129; H 1979, 387–8, DLU 141. 364 L. 15’ Ugrtym is rendered as either the ethnicon ‘Ugaritians’, or as Ugrt-ym,

    

713

The third Ugaritic letter to a Pharaoh, KTU 2.23 = RS 16.078 + 16.109 + 16.117 (PRU 2, 18), has traditionally been dated to the Amarna Age. Since the sender solemnly intercedes with Ba'al Íaphon, Amon, and the gods of Egypt to assure a long life for his lord, the letter has been dated either before Akhenaten’s reform (V 1957, 35; H 1971, 194, n. 52; G 1986, 839), or after it (L 1962, 32; C 1989a, 311, n. 13). The possibility that the letter should rather be attributed to the late 13th century was first raised by K (1969, 347), who noted that the tablet was found in the same context as KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402, a late letter in Ugaritic dealing with the enemy in Muki“ (see p. 724). This ingenious suggestion gained much in probability after the discovery of the other Ugaritic drafts of letters sent to Egypt. The elaborate opening formulae are missing in this letter, which starts ex abrupto with a quotation from a previous letter of Pharaoh (ll. 1–2). The very fragmentary central part of the letter apparently deals with an exchange of messengers (l. 6), and the well-preserved end contains the above-mentioned blessings for the life of Pharaoh. Nothing in this letter provides a reliable dating, but it generally recalls the two smaller fragments mentioned above, one of which is safely dated to Ammurapi. In fact, I wonder whether these fragments could be drafts for the official letter,365 translated into Akkadian, which was sent to Merneptah and was extensively quoted in his response. The intercession of the king of Ugarit with his lord Ba'al-Íaphon to grant long years to Pharaoh (RS 16.117+) curiously recalls his request to erect a statue of Merneptah in front of the statue of Ba'al of Ugarit (RS 88.2158). Needless to emphasize, this tentative suggestion to identify the corresponding monarchs of Egypt and Ugarit as Merneptah and Ammurapi respectively, may add a valuable synchronism which at present cannot be conclusively proved. The last document in the correspondence with Egypt is the muchdiscussed letter of Beya found in 1986 in the Urtenu archive (RS 86.2230).366 Unfortunately, only the opening lines are preserved in ‘Ugarit-on-Sea’, (like ßdn-ym, ‘Sidon-on-Sea’ in Phoenician inscriptions), which could refer to Ras Ibn Hani where the tablet was found (B – C 1980, 357). 365 Note that RS 34.356 seems to consist of models for a letter-head, whereas RS 16.117 skips over the opening. However, the large distance between the findspots of the two tablets precludes the possibility that they once belonged to the same letter draft. 366 A apud B 1987, 297; A 1992, 181, n. 6. Photographs of

714

 

the Akkadian letter addressed to Ammurapi by Beya, ‘Chief of the troops of the Great King, King of the land of Egypt’.367 The greetings open with blessings to Amon, Ra and Seth, the gods of Egypt: ‘May they protec[t . . .’.368 It was immediately recognized that Beya is most probably identical with B3y, a renowned figure in late 19th dynasty Egypt (A 1986–7, 188; F 1988).369 Of northern origin, he adopted an Egyptian name (R'-mssw-h' m-n∆rw) but continued to use his Asiatic name in his inscriptions and correspondence. He is first heard of under Sety II when he bears the title ‘royal scribe and royal butler’. After the death of Sety II Beya played a dominant role in placing Siptah, the young son of a concubine, on the throne of Egypt. In concert with Queen Tausert, Sety II’s widow, he acted as guardian to the young king, and in fact took over the government of Egypt, bearing the exceptional title ‘Great chancellor of the entire land’. He even built himself a tomb in the Valley of the Kings next to that of Tausert, a privilege granted only to members of the royal family. After the premature death of Siptah, Tausert crowned herself as Pharaoh and B3y probably kept his office until her throne was usurped by Sethnakht, the founder of a new dynasty (K 1995, 87). B3y’s enemies later denigrated his memory and depicted the ‘empty years’ of his rule as a period of confusion and anarchy (see refs. in  M 1996b, 224, n. 17). The identification of Beya with B3y, which has meanwhile been broadly accepted,370 has been sharply criticized by K (1995, 86), partly on misconstrued evidence.371 He claims that the Akkadian title of Beya cannot be reconciled with the Egyptian titles of B3y, the fragment were published in A 1993, 248–9, no. 222; Y 1997b, 137, no. 4. 367 Lines 2–3: . .“ ¢u-ra-de4ME” “a .   Mi-iß-ri-m[a] (A 1992, 181, n. 6; missed by L 1996, 32, n. 48, who, following H 1995, 93–4, erroneously assumes that the cuneiform title of Beya is  me“edi ). ¢uràdu/¢rd in Ugarit designates groups of soldiers or civilians who perform civil service for the king (M R 1995, 263–4;  S 1995b). 368 Lines 7–9: a-na-ku a-qa-ab-bi a-na dA-ma-ni a-na d d“ .“ “a  Mi-iß-ri ma-a li-iß-ßu-r[u . . . (A, ib.). 369 For the Egyptological literature on B3y, see refs. in F 1988;  M 1996b, 217ff.; H 1995, 93–4; K 1995, 86–7. 370 V S 1991a, 45–6; Y 1992c, 119; H 1992, 49; D 1993, 6; H 1995, 93–4;  M 1996b, 217ff.; L 1996, 32; B 1996, 215. 371 Incorrectly referring to Freu, he implies that the cuneiform title of Beya includes ‘Vizier’. For the correct title, see n. 367 above.

    

715

and ‘so, it is better to identify the Ras Shamra Beya with some Chief of the bodyguard and/or (northern) Vizier *Piay, otherwise unknown to us—which robs this tablet of any chronological value’ (K 1995, 86–7). The independent correspondence of an Egyptian official, other than the Pharaoh himself, with the last king of Ugarit is hardly imaginable, unless he was the most prominent figure in Egypt. Transmitting official titles from one language to the other is always difficult, and particularly so in the case of Egyptian titles.372 It is most unfortunate that the letter apparently does not contain any additional information which might help us to reach a conclusive identification. Even so, there is a very high probability that Beya and B3y are one and the same person,373 and this provides a most valuable terminus post quem for the fall of Ugarit within the reign of Siptah or Tausert, i.e. between 1194 and 1186 (see n. 10). Another result of the new Egyptian letters is a considerable extension of Ammurapi’s reign, which was once considered to be very short. Assuming that Ammurapi is the addressee of RS 88.2158, his rule must have begun in the first years of Merneptah, and it extended into the period when Beya, the Great Chancellor of Siptah and Tausert, still held office. 7.1.3

Grain shipments from Egypt

First signs of a grain shortage in ›atti already appear towards the mid-13th century. In a letter to Ramesses II the Hittite queen Pudu¢epa urges him to take over as soon as possible the horses, cattle and sheep given to the Hittite princess as her dowry, because, as she says, ‘I have no grain in my lands’ (KUB 21.38 obv. 17f.; E 1994, i 216–7). Soon after the signing of the peace treaty in 1258 a high-ranking Hittite expedition went down to Egypt to procure barley and wheat and to organize its prompt shipment to ›atti.374 This vital import of food to ›atti must have reached sizable proportions towards the end of the century, when Merneptah boasted that he ‘caused grain to be taken in ships, to keep alive this land of Hatti’ (KRI IV 5,3).

372 For the cuneiform equivalents of Egyptian titles, see, e.g., S 1983b, 20–1; E 1994, ii 277ff. 373 According to B – M-L 1995, 445 the new documents from the Urtenu archive mention Ramesses, Merneptah and Sety. If the latter is Sety II, this would provide further support for the Beya = B3y equation. 374 KUB 3. 34 rev. 15ff.; E 1994, i 184–5, ii 281–2; cf. also K 1974, 167.

716

 

The port of Ugarit375 and its commercial fleet played a pivotal role in this trade, as shown by various Akkadian and Ugaritic documents.376 An Akkadian tablet discovered at Tel Aphek (some 10 km. east of Tel-Aviv) contains a letter sent (around 1230) from Taku¢linu, the governor of Ugarit, to ›aya, the Egyptian governor of Canaan (O 1981; S 1983b). It deals with a transaction of 250 parisu (about 15 tons) of grain, mediated by a certain Adduya of Akko. The grain is paid for with silver, but the governor of Ugarit sends an extra present of 100 (shekels) of blue and 10 of red purple-dyed wool. The efforts invested in procuring such a relatively small amount of grain only emphasize the severity of the situation. The cereals bought in Egypt and in Canaan were shipped along the Levantine coast to Ugarit and Muki“ and thence to the ports of southern Anatolia, in particular to Ura. A letter sent from Tyre recounts the adventures of some grain-laden ships returning from Egypt that were caught in a storm near the coast of Tyre (RS 18.031; see p. 672). An Akkadian letter sent by the ‘Sun’ of ›atti to the king of Ugarit reprimands him for disobeying the orders of the King (of Carchemish) in the matter of a vital grain shipment (RS 20.212 = Ug 5, no. 33). He reminds his vassal of the obligations he took upon himself in return for his exemption from corvée duties (ilku). He is supposed to provide one great ship with its crew for the transportation of 2,000 (kor?) of grain from Muki“ to Ura in one or two shipments. Two Hittite messengers, Ali-ziti re“i “arri (.)377 and Kunni,378 are sent to supervise the transaction. The letter concludes with the dramatic exclamation: ‘(It is a matter) of death (or) life!’379 375 The main port of Ugarit was at Minet el-Beida, ancient Ma"¢adu, for which see A 1970; Y 1994a; S 1995. Ras Ibn Hani, some 5 km further south on the coast, was probably a secondary residence of the royal family of Ugarit (see p. 435). 376 On the maritime trade of Ugarit, see the extensive bibliography cited in C 1989a, 351–2, n. 9, and V 1995, 160, n. 2; add Y 1994b (esp. pp. 431ff.) and S 1995, 222ff. 377 Ali-ziti may well be identical with the ‘chief palace-attendant’ ( ME” .) in the Ulmi-Te“ub treaty dated to the end of ›attu“ili ‘III’’s reign (KBo 4.10 rev. 31;   H 1995, 216; Singer 1983c, 33). 378 Kunni could perhaps be a short form of the name Kuniya-piya () borne by a person who appears in Hittite court protocols (W 1967, 21ff.), once in connection with ‘a year of famine’ (ib.: 32–3,  40. 86 rev. 11; cf. KUB 40.91 rev. 5’, ib. 30; K 1974, 167). 379 The same expression recurs in a letter of Ini-Te“ub to Ibiranu concerned with

    

717

The exact dating of the above text is not known, but it may perhaps be inferred from an Ugaritic translation of a similar letter sent by the ‘Sun’ to Ammurapi (KTU 2.39 = RS 18.038 = PRU 5, no. 60; see above p. 708).380 The king of Ugarit is quoted stating that there is no food in his land, which sounds more like an excuse than an actual shortage in Ugarit itself.381 The rest of the letter is quite fragmentary and has been subjected to various interpretations.382 A state of emergency is reflected in other documents which cannot be dated with any confidence. As pointed out by K (1974), similar conditions of food shortage must have occured quite frequently on the Anatolian plateau, but the accumulation of documents from the late 13th century leaves no doubt about the unprecedented proportions of this famine. Nor was Anatolia the only region struck by it. There is growing textual and archaeological evidence showing that climatological cataclysms affected the entire eastern Mediterranean region towards the end of the second millennium .383 A fragment of a Hittite letter from Bo[azköy deals with the urgent transportation of a grain shipment to Cilicia (B 2810; O 1967, 59; K 1974, 170ff.). An important Hittite official, perhaps the king himself, urges his ‘son’384 to hold on to the (rebellious?) lands and let none of them defect (ii 1’–5’). In the second, better-preserved paragraph the sender quotes the message of his correspondent in the inspection of military troops (RS 17.289 = PRU 4, 192; N 1968, 106, n. 2; see p. 686). 380 A small fragment of an Ugaritic letter found in Ras Ibn Hani is probably also sent from the ‘[Sun], the great [king]’ to A[mmurapi] (KTU 2.78 = RIH 77/21; B – C 1979: 307). Almost nothing is left from the contents of this translation of a letter sent either by the Hittite or the Egyptian ‘Sun’, probably the former. 381 The small fragment RS 20.141 (= Ug 5, no. 34) which mentions 30 ships and their crew may be part of an answer sent from Ugarit (N 1968, 107, n. 4), or a quotation thereof in another letter sent from ›atti. See also the fragmentary letter RS 26.158 (= Ug 5, no. 171) which also deals with the transportation of grain to Ura. 382 D 1976; P 1981b. It is not clear whether an ‘enemy’ is mentioned in the last paragraph of the letter, or rather a month name (see P 1981, 155). 383 See the extensive refs. cited in D 1993, chapter 6. To be sure, there may be other, related or unrelated, causes for the general food shortage in this period. Note e.g. the rare reference to locusts, 5.(“), in RS 34.145.27 (= RSO 7, no. 9; for the reading of the final  as “, see H 1989, 405; 1997 p. 216). 384 If the letter was addressed to Ugarit (but cf. n. 386), its king could be the son-in-law of the Hittite king, as we now know from RS 34.136 = RSO 7, no. 7 (p. 694f.).

718

 

which he announced the arrival of a grain-laden ship.385 The sender angrily protests that the ship was kept back for even so much as a day by the addressee and orders its immediate dispatch either to Ura or to La“ti[- (an otherwise unknown port-town): ‘My son, do you not know that there was a famine in the midst of my lands?’ (ii 11’f.; CHD 3, 106a). The addressee’s domicile was obviously located in a port-town along the sea-way from Egypt to ›atti, either in Ugarit386 or perhaps in Muki“ (O 1967, 59; K 1969, 324–5, n. 3; 1974, 173). A situation similar to the one described above recurs in the Ugaritic translation of a letter addressed by a certain Pgn to the king of Ugarit, his ‘son’ (KTU 2.46 = RS 18.147 = PRU 5, no. 61).387 After the salutations and the divine blessings the sender refers to provisions of food388 and to ships, but the context is not clear. Because of the ‘father—son’ address formula, which also occurs in the Ala“ia letters (p. 720), it has been suggested that Pgn was the name of a Cypriot king (A 1965, 255). K (1974, 169; 1992, 149), however, has compared this name to that of Pukana, probably a Hittite official who appears on a Hittite seal-impression from Tarsus. Another Ugaritic letter was sent to the king (of Ugarit) by a certain Ydn, probably a military commander,389 who urged him to equip 385 Bo 2810 ii 7’. I doubt that the sign preceding “ “uwanza really represents , ‘one hundred’ (so K 1974, 173; O 1967, 59, with a question mark). I cannot suggest a better alternative (perhaps ?), but note that the participle “uwanza is in the singular. On the other hand, large numbers of ships are also attested in other texts from Ugarit: a fleet of 150 ships in RS 18.148 (= PRU 5, 62; see p. 719); 30 ships in RS 20.141 (= Ug 5, 108, no. 34); and a list of damaged ships of Carchemish in RS 34.147 (RSO 7, no. 5; see p. 659). 386 In that case, this would be the only known letter (or draft) from Bo[azköy destined to Ugarit. Cf. also the very fragmentary Akkadian letter KBo 28.91, 9’:  Ú-g[a ?- (H 1989, 353); it mentions the killing of an enemy (l. 3’) and the accession to the throne of the addressee (l. 8’), and could perhaps belong to the Assyrian correspondence. 387 The same(?) Pgn is perhaps also mentioned in the letter of Ydn (KTU 2.47 = RS 18.148.21 = PRU 5, no. 62), but the context is too fragmentary. 388 For l˙t ’akl, ‘tablet of food’, see A 1965, 255, n. 21; H 1979, 383–4. 389 According to reverse l. 4, Ydn was placed over the king’s ¢rd, i.e. the mobilized soldiers or civilians (H 1982, 105ff.; V 1995a, 136ff.; M R 1995, 263–4;  S 1995b; cf. also n. 367). Regarding his identity, V (1965, 89) has noted that the opening address does not include the customary prostration formula. I wonder whether he was really a subject of the king of Ugarit, as generally assumed on account of b'lh, ‘his lord’, in l. 2. This word, however, is separated by a paragraph divider from ‘the king’ in the previous line. Could l. 2 perhaps be interpreted as a blessing formula in which B'lh is simply the name of

    

719

a remarkable fleet of 150 ships (KTU 2.47 = RS 18.148 = PRU 5, 88–9, no. 62). It is not clear whether the required ships were needed for commercial or military purposes or both, but if their number is correct, they would represent one of the largest navies of the ancient Near East.390 Finally, a letter from the Urtenu archive provides a vivid record of the desperate pleas for food that must have circulated within the confines of the kingdom in the last years of Ugarit (RS 34.152.9–14 = RSO 7, no. 40): ‘The gates of the house are sealed. Since there is famine in your house, we shall starve to death. If you do not hasten to come we shall starve to death. A living soul of your country you will no longer see.’ The sender seems to be located in a provincial centre with no access to the sealed house where the desperately needed food is stored. He implores his lord, who is probably in Ugarit, to rush back and rescue the remaining population.391 7.1.4

Seaborne attacks on Ugarit

The destructive operations of the ‘Sea Peoples’ are attested in the archaeological record and in a few documents from Ugarit and from ›atti, most of them revolving around the island of Ala“ia/Cyprus, the hub of seaborne activity in the northeastern Mediterranean. The text of the ‘Battle of Ala“ia’ dated to ”uppiluliuma II (O 1963; 1976, 27–8; G 1967) and the Ala“ia correspondence dated to Niqmaddu III and Ammurapi provide the chronological framework for the dramatic events, but the details remain to be worked out. Until recently the ‘Ala“ia dossier’ in Ugarit consisted of only four letters from the Rap’anu archive (Ug 5, nos. 21–24; B 1969; B 1996d). The Urtenu archive has added five more letters sent from the island, two from its king (Ku“me“u“a), one from each of two ‘senior governors’ (“.), and one from an Ugaritian

the deity: ‘Let B'lh be the guardian of your land!’? If so, Ydn could be a Hittite commander, which would put him in a better position to mobilize the fleet of Ugarit. 390 A 1965, 256; V 1995a, 157ff. Cf., however, the justifiable doubts raised by L-P 1993 about the historical significance of this document and about the so-called ‘Ugaritic thalassocracy’ in general, as characterized, for example, by S 1966 and L 1981. 391 For the rest of this intriguing letter, see p. 727. Another fragmentary letter from the Urtenu archive containing a request for grain is RS 88.2011 (ML 1995c, 39).

720

 

scribe residing in Ala“ia (B – M-L 1995, 445). It is not reported whether the new letters contain any references to the enemy, or whether they are restricted to ordinary commercial matters (for which see p. 676ff.). The first, very fragmentary Ala“ia letter in the Rap’anu archive deals with trade in oil (RS 20.168 = Ug 5, no. 21; see p. 677). It was sent by Niqmaddu (III) to the king of Ala“ia, his ‘father’. This address also occurs in a letter of Ammurapi to Ala“ia (RS 20.238) and should therefore reflect an acknowledged hierarchy between the two royal courts, based not only on the relative age of the correspondents.392 The new Ala“ia letters may perhaps contribute to the elucidation of this remarkable situation, a clear testimony for the importance of the island. Probably the most explicit document describing military difficulties is RS 20.238 (= Ug 5, no. 24) sent by an unnamed king of Ugarit to the king of Ala“ia, his ‘father’. The dramatic description of the ravages inflicted by the enemy must date the letter to the very end of Ugarit: ‘Now the ships of the enemy have come. They have been setting fire to my cities and have done harm to the land . . . Now the seven ships of the enemy which have come have done harm to us’ (B 1996d, 27). The relatively small number of enemy ships has often been noted, and it has even been suggested that it should be regarded as a typological number (K 1992, 150). But of course the point is that without a well-prepared defence even seven ships may cause havoc and destruction, and this incident was probably one of a series of repeated attacks along the coastline of Ugarit.393 The king of Ugarit continues his letter with the well-known statement that his army is in ›atti and his navy is in Lukka, whereas his own land remains undefended (ll. 19–25).394 The new evidence

392 D – M (1997a, 84–5) suggest that the courts of Ugarit and Ala“ia were linked by a royal marriage, which would also explain the invocation of the gods of Ala“ia, together with the gods of Ugarit and of Amurru, in a Hurrian ritual text (KTU 1.125 = RS 24.274.6). There is, however, no supporting evidence for the alleged marriage of Ammi∆tamru III with a princess of Ala“ia. 393 C 1994, 11. There is, however, no information in the Ala“ia letters that Ugarit itself was partly destroyed and looted, as stated by Cifola. 394 Most scholars have followed N’s assumption (1968, 86, n. 1) that this letter is the response to RSL 1 (= Ug 5, no. 23) sent by the King to Ammurapi (see refs. in Y 1992, 431, n. 6). However, Ala“ia is not mentioned in it and the ‘King’ par excellence throughout the documentation from Ugarit is always the Viceroy of Carchemish. Moreover, in all the (published) letters from Ala“ia the

    

721

from the Urtenu archive may indicate that this information should be taken with a grain of salt (see p. 725). Even if the king of Ugarit reluctantly fulfilled some of his military obligations, the constant reprimands from Carchemish and from ›atti leave little doubt that he kept the best part of his army within the borders of his kingdom, as indeed any sensible ruler would do in a similar situation. The letter of E“uwara, senior governor (“.) of Ala“ia, may indeed be a response to Ugarit’s quest for military intelligence (RS 20.018 = Ug 5, no. 22). The sender rejects any responsibility for the calamities caused by the enemy ships on Ugaritian territory. In other words, the king of Ugarit should himself take responsibility for the defence of his land, and should not rely excessively on the alarm sounded from Ala“ia. Thereafter E“uwara shares the little he knows about the number and the whereabouts of the enemy ships.395 Whereas Ugarit was struggling to get reliable information from Ala“ia, she herself was requested to pass on the news to Amurru. In an Akkadian letter found in the Rap’anu archive (RS 20.162 = Ug 5, no. 37) a certain Parßu solicits the king of Ugarit to forward information on the enemy to the king of Amurru, as previously agreed between the two lands. Finally, he adds that an undefined number of ships will be put at the disposal of Ugarit.396 The letters from Ala“ia obviously came to Ugarit at a point when the island (or most of it) was still ruled by the traditional leadership, a king and governors.397 Activities of the seaborne enemy are sporadically reported, but there is no sense of an impending catastrophe. How does this correspondence relate chronologically to the Hittite evidence about Ala“ia? In the description of the unique naval battle fought by the Hittites in the Mediterranean (KBo 12.38 iii 2’–14’) ”uppiluliuma II is confronted by an ‘enemy of Ala“ia’, which

sender clearly states his name or his title. It is therefore preferable to classify RSL 1 with the Carchemish dossier (S 1983a, 217; Y 1992, 438ff.; see p. 728). 395 The twenty ships were apparently expected to land ‘in the mountains’ but have suddenly taken off towards an unknown destination. L (1996, 27, n. 40) tentatively suggests that the reference could be to the rocky shores of Lycia or Cilicia. 396 That this document should belong to the age of ”uppiluliuma I, as tentatively suggested by C (1994, 12), is most unlikely. Another fragmentary Ugaritic letter, KTU 2.41 = RS 18.075 (= PRU 5, no. 65), has been identified by A (1965, 256) as a hasty proposal for mutual assistance between Ugarit and Amurru. 397 For the equation “. = piduri, see O 1963, 15; S 1988b, 247.

722

 

must already refer to the ‘Sea Peoples’ who took over Cyprus or parts of it. An absolute dating of this battle, which would provide a terminus ante quem for the Ala“ia correspondence, has not yet been achieved, despite the considerable progress made in recent years in the reconstruction of the last years of ›atti (H 1995, 57ff.; S 1996b). As a rule, the ‘enemy’ is not identified by name in the documents from Ugarit and ›atti, which only enhances the importance of the unique reference to the ”ikila-people in a letter from the Urtenu archive found in 1973 (RS 34.129 = RSO 7, no. 12; D – L 1978c; L 1979). The Hittite king, no doubt ”uppiluliuma II, addresses the governor of Ugarit because ‘the king, your lord, is young and does not know anything’ (ll. 5–7). This rather pejorative remark must refer to young Ammurapi, who failed to comply with a previous request of the Great King to extradite a certain ‘Ibnadu“u who was captured by the ”ikila people (ME”  URU ”ikalaiu) who live on ships (ll. 10–14)’.398 The Hittite king wishes to interrogate this person, who was probably ransomed by the authorities of Ugarit from his captivity, in order to find out more about the elusive enemy.399 For this purpose he sends a special envoy, Nirgaili, to escort Ibnadu“u to the Hittite court. This kartappu could be identical with the well-known Hittite prince Nerikkaili, son of ›attu“ili ‘III’, who was often entrusted with important diplomatic missions.400 The ”ikila ‘who live on ships’ are identified with one of the ‘Sea Peoples’ mentioned in the Egyptian documents, thus providing the first conclusive proof that the same seaborne enemy threatened both the Hittite and the Egyptian empires (L 1979). The cuneiform name could reflect Egyptian ”kl“ or, more probably, the Skl/Sikila who later settled in Dor and the Sharon Plain (R 1982, 134; E 1983, 8; S 1988b, 246). The settlement of 398 This description strongly recalls the comment on the tribe of Dan in the Song of Deborah ( Judges 5:17): ‘And Dan, why does he live on ships?’ (S 1988b, 246). 399 A somewhat similar request for the extradition of two persons (inhabitants of the towns Aru and U“kani, respectively) was sent by the King (of Carchemish) to Ammurapi (RS 88.2013; M-L 1995c, 39). 400 S 1983b, 10, n. 14;   H 1995, 100; L 1995, 87 (missing my ref.); H  C 1996, 46. Nerikkaili, who married a daughter of Bente“ina after the Silver Treaty of 1258, must have been in his seventies at the very beginning of the 12th century. For his prosopography, see   H 1995, 96ff.; L 1995, 87; H  C 1996, 45ff.

    

723

‘Sea Peoples’ along the coasts of Ugarit will be touched upon in the last entry of this study. 7.1.5

An enemy bridgehead in Muki“?

Two documents refer to military operations in Muki“ on the northern border of Ugarit: the Ugaritic letter RS 16.402 (= PRU 2, 12) found in the palace archives and the Akkadian letter RS 34.143 found in the Urtenu archive.401 In RS 34.143 (= RSO 7, no. 6) the King (of Carchemish) reprimands an unnamed king of Ugarit on several counts. Although most of the letter is well-preserved its interpretation is not always easy, especially in demarcating the words of the king of Carchemish and the quotations from his correspondent’s previous letter.402 First, the king of Ugarit is accused of misleading his master by claiming that his army is camped in Muki“; according to the King’s sources Ugarit’s army is in fact located in the town of Apsuna in the northern part of the kingdom of Ugarit.403 Second, the king of Ugarit is quoted as claiming that his chariotry is in poor shape and his horses are famished as a pretext for not sending his chariotry as demanded.404 Finally, the king of Ugarit is accused of keeping to himself the best mariyannu-troops while he sends to the viceroy only worthless soldiers.405 His way of thinking is mimicked by the Viceroy as follows: ‘You must say to yourself: “Is the Sun involved? The Sun is not (involved), and therefore it is all right for me to keep them back”.’406 What is the sense of this hypothetical statement? Does it mean that the king of Ugarit is purportedly willing to take orders only from 401 Movements of troops in the Alala¢ region are also reported in the new documents from the Urtenu archive (M-L 1995b, 107). 402 Compare the translation of M-L in RSO 7 to that of Z 1992. 403 A (1995, 58, 68) identifies Apsuna with Tell Afis east of the Orontes, but the town should rather be sought on the northern frontier of Ugarit bordering on Muki“. 404 Following Z (1992, 482), the statement about the poor quality of the chariotry seems to be a quotation from the letter of the king of Ugarit. If so, the only army that was really sent from Ugarit to Carchemish was an incapable unit of infantry-men. 405 All except a certain Milku-5(Na'im); Z (1992, 493) assumes that the king of Carchemish ironically singles out Mil-ku-5, who must have been a notorious flop. A certain Mlk-n'm is mentioned in an Ugaritic list of individuals (KTU 4.344 = RS 18.130.15). 406 For the interpretation of these lines (27ff.) as a rhetorical question and answer, see Z 1992, 482–3.

724

 

the Great King of ›atti? The conclusion of the letter, with a demand that both sides should appear and testify before the ‘Sun’ may support this interpretation. Alternatively, the king of Ugarit may think that since the ‘Sun’ himself is not in Muki“ he has no way of knowing whether or not Ugarit sent out her forces. Possibly both thoughts may be combined in the statement. Ugarit’s reluctance to fulfil her military duties is a recurring theme in her correspondence with Carchemish,407 but here her evasiveness reaches a new record. The king of Ugarit artfully refuses to risk the best part of his army in the confrontation, and all that the viceroy of Carchemish is able to threaten with is a trial before the Great King of ›atti. Although there may have been more than one instance of such a deterioration in the authority of the Hittite overlord, the best historical context for this and the following document seems to be in the final period of Ugarit.408 With the new information supplied by RS 34.143 it becomes easier to understand the situation in the fragmentary and difficult Ugaritic letter KTU 2.33 = RS 16.402 (= PRU 2, no. 12) sent by Irr-”arruma409 to his lady (probably Queen ”arelli).410 In the first part of his report (ll. 5–21) the general apparently describes his position on Mount Amanus,411 with the enemy approaching from Muki“.412 In the second, better-preserved, part of the letter (ll. 22–39) he beseeches the queen to intercede with the king to send 2,000 horses to his rescue.413 He 407 Thematically very similar is RS 34.150 = RSO 7, no. 10, which I attempted to relate to the great military manoeuvre orchestrated by the king of Carchemish during the reign of Ibiranu (see above, p. 687). 408 For an Ammurapi dating of RS 34.143, based on stylistic criteria and its comparison with RS 16.402, see also Y 1992, 444–5. 409 ’Irr-∆rm was emended by some into ’Iwr-∆rm = Ewri-”arruma (see refs. in C 1989a, 327, n. 3), but the emendation cannot be substantiated. 410 The standard interpretation associates the events described in RS 16.402 with the pressures exerted on Niqmaddu II by ”uppiluliuma I on the one side, and by the kings of Muki“, Nu¢¢a““e and Niya on the other (S 1957, ; L 1979a, 1304; D 1987, 46; C 1994, 10). An alleged anti-Hittite revolt in Muki“ in the early reign of Ammi∆tamru II was proposed by L… (1981, 87ff.) as the historical background of RS 16.402. 411 L. 16, Àr Amn. For the various interpretations of this line, see C 1989a, 331, n. 19. A rather similar military situation is described in the so-called ‘General’s Letter’, when, a century and a half earlier, he fortified his position between Mount Lebanon and the seashore (RS 20.033 = Ug 5, no. 20; see above, p. 628). 412 For the identification of Mg“¢ with Muki“ (with the Hurrian formative -¢¢e), see L 1962, 39, n. 50; C 1989a, 329, n. 13. 413 Lines 24, 32, 38: alpm ≤≤wm. The enormous number of horses may perhaps be simply a typological number. In any case, it is difficult to accept A’s inter-

    

725

adds bitterly that he cannot confront the enemy with only his wife and children (ll. 28–9). The situation strongly recalls the accusation of the king of Carchemish in RS 34.143 that the king of Ugarit refuses to send his army to the battlefront in Muki“. The horses required by Irr-”arruma may in fact be the same ‘famished horses’ kept back by the king of Ugarit under different pretexts. The combined evidence of the two documents relating to Muki“ may perhaps provide the following tentative reconstruction of the situation. An unnamed enemy had established a bridgehead in Muki“ whence he threatened the kingdom of Ugarit. This enemy column may have advanced southwards along the foothills of the Amanus, or it may have landed from ships at the mouth of the Orontes, or both. A combined seaborne and landborne encroachment on Ugarit’s territory strongly recalls the military tactics of the ‘Sea Peoples’ in the war they waged against Ramesses III a few years later. The Hittite authorities demanded auxiliary forces to confront the enemy in Muki“, but the king of Ugarit was obviously more concerned with the defence of his own land, which might already have suffered from seaborne razzias. The immediate danger of this elusive enemy seemed more critical than the hypothetical risk of a Hittite punitive action. Therefore he used every possible pretext to avoid sending his best forces to Muki“, and fortified his positions on the northern frontier of his own kingdom. In a much-quoted letter of Ammurapi to the King (of Carchemish) he claims that his troops and chariots are in ›atti (RS 20.238 = Ug 5, no. 24; see p. 720), but I wonder how much credence should still be given to this declaration in view of the new data from the Urtenu archive. It would seem that a scenario of ‘each for himself ’ better fits the scattered evidence on the last years of Ugarit and her futile attempt to withhold the impending invasion of the ‘Sea Peoples’. 7.1.6 Lost battles and the fall of Ugarit The final hours of a collapsing state are seldom recorded in writing by the protagonists of the drama. Desperate letters for help are only dispatched as long as there is some hope that they will reach their destination and be answered positively. From a certain point on the pretation (1965, 257) that the author of the letter simply wanted to get rid of the horses that were entrusted to him.

726

 

threatened victims realize the futility of their pleas and contemporary written information disappears almost entirely.414 Ugarit is the only site in the entire eastern Mediterranean which supplies written testimony almost to the very fall of the Bronze Age city, including direct references to the enemy who is about to cause its ruin.415 The elite of Ugarit seem to have continued conducting their routine business almost until the very end (A 1991b, 65; ML 1995b, 107), but they could not have been unaware of the rapidly deteriorating conditions in their kingdom. A recurring lesson of history is that victims of an impending catastrophe seldom recognize the gravity of their situation and prefer to consider it as a passing cloud. Reference has already been made to the Ala“ia letters reporting on seaborne attacks on Ugarit and to the documents referring to a frontline in Muki“. What remain to be surveyed are a few difficult ‘private’ letters with dramatic reports on the hopeless military and economical situation. It is not easy to pinpoint the reported events to definite places and occasions, but they all seem to share the same desperate tone of a last-ditch stand. The Ugaritic letter of ˛rdn416 to his lord is perhaps the most dramatic amongst the last letters from Ugarit (KTU 2.61 = RS 19.011 = PRU 5, no. 114): ‘When your messenger arrived, the army was humiliated and the city was sacked. Our food in the threshing floors was burnt and the vineyards were also destroyed. Our city is sacked. May you know it! May you know it!’417 Another Ugaritic letter that has fomented a voluminous bibliography for its theological connotations is the one sent by Iwr≈r (Ewri“arri?) to Plsy (KTU 2.10 = RS 4.475; C 1989a, 275ff.): ‘Let there be peace to you! I have heard from TrÀds (Tar¢undi““a?) and from Klby (Kalbiya?) that we were beaten. But if we were not 414 A notable exception are personal diaries which dramatically continue to report until the bitter end, but none of this genre is known to me from the ancient Near East. 415 The last documents from ›attu“a must be the victory reports carved on Nishantepe and Südburg (H 1995; S forthcoming a). In Emar writing continues until the very end of the city (A 1975), but it hardly reflects on the historical circumstances of its fall. 416 I wonder whether this could be a rare Ugaritic spelling for ∆rdn/“erdanni, which is also attested as a PN (L 1995, 131). 417 The translation of the first part of the letter is controversial. See C – V 1993b; V 1995a, 137.

    

727

completely beaten send me a messenger. The arm of the gods will be greater than the force of the warriors if we resist. Put your reply and whatever you hear there in a letter (addressed) to me’. Unfortunately, the location of the ill-fated battle is not reported, but it is noteworthy that the first informant bears a good Anatolian name (L 1966, 177, no. 1272). In contrast to these laconic Ugaritic letters the long Akkadian letter of Banniya (or Eniya) to his lord has more to say about the actual mishaps, but unfortunately it is very difficult to fathom (RS 34.152 = RSO 4, no. 40). The dramatic description of the famine (ll. 9–15) has already been quoted above (p. 719). In the first part of the letter (ll. 3–16) the sender quotes from his previous missive to his lord, in which he advised him not to let (his agent?) ›addilibba“u either trade in ‘cash money’ (silver and gold), or to barter his chariot (and sakruma“ ), but rather to offer his provisions and his donkeys. Although the exact meaning of this transaction remains to be elucidated, a regression of the economy to bartering is typical in times of distress. In the second part of the letter (ll. 19ff.) Banniya urges his lord to pick his choice men and to hasten to Addaya, who has written to the King (of Carchemish?). The sender himself intended to send his men (and some strangers) to ›atti, but these have apparently refused to go. The king of ›atti(?) will write to the king of Carchemish instructing him to send his messengers with provisions. Banniya apparently anticipates that the instruction will be passed on to his lord and therefore urges him to flee with his men to Addaya, in accordance with the orders of -d“ (Ri“-Adad?). The rest of the letter is fragmentary, except for the last line where the addressee is advised to bring a horse to Addaya. As is evident from the editio princeps, this intriguing letter is very hard to interpret, both on the level of simple translation as well as in understanding its overall meaning. I would tentatively venture an interpretation according to which the writer proposes to his lord a prompt escape from his residence to a previously agreed refuge. Several names in the letter have an ‘eastern’ appearance,418 and the same applies to some of the Akkadian forms. Perhaps L (1991b, 86, n. 9) is right in tentatively suggesting that the letter was

418 ›addi-libba“u, Sin-“umàti-u“ab“i (d30..“.), Ri“-Adad (-d), EribaMarduk (-ba-d.), Marduk (.).

728

 

sent from Mari.419 Another provenance could be Emar, which maintained close commercial contacts with Ugarit. A flight from the endangered coastal zone to inland Syria would have seemed a sensible option, even though reports were circulating about unstable conditions along the Euphrates valley as well.420 The Hittite sources have little to add on the fall of Ugarit. The last written documents from ›attu“a must be the boasting reports of ”uppiluliuma II’s Pyrrhic victories in Ala“ia and along the Mediterranean coast (H 1995; S forthcoming a).421 In his last letters to Ugarit the ‘Sun’ demands food shipments and information on the ”ikila enemy. If there were any later exchanges between the two courts, including reports on the desperate situation, they have not as yet been found. But I doubt that the Hittites (or any declining overlord for that matter) would have informed their Syrian allies about their own failures on the battle front. Carchemish was probably not directly affected by the operations of the ‘Sea Peoples’, and its dynasty continued to rule well into the early Iron Age (H 1988; 1995; Güterbock 1992). How distant the Viceroy of Carchemish was (or pretended to be) from the dramatic events transpiring along the coastal areas is well reflected in a letter to Ammurapi (RSL 1 = Ug 5, no. 23) which is usually attributed to the king of Ala“ia, but must belong to the ‘King’ par excellence (see n. 394). In his reply to Ammurapi’s worried message about the enemy ships that had been sighted at sea, the King advises his vassal how to overcome the approaching enemy: ‘Surround your cities with walls. Bring (your) infantry and chariotry into (them). Be on the lookout for the enemy and make yourself very strong!’ The covenant between suzerain and vassal had gone a long way since ”uppiluliuma I’s gallant offer of military support to Ugarit. While Ugarit was constantly required to commit her army to the Hittites, all that the overlord in Carchemish could offer in these agonizing times was hollow ‘moral support’.

419 Another letter probably sent from Mari is RS 34.142 (= RSO 7, no. 47), for which see p. 657. 420 M-L 1995b, 107. In a letter sent by Ini-Te“ub to ”agarakt[i-”uria“] of Babylon concern is expressed about the activities of nomadic shepherds in the Land of Su¢i (B – M-L 1995, 445, 448). 421 L’s suggestion (1995, 86) that the Hittite royal couple fled to Ura on the southern coast is based on unwarranted evidence.

    

729

A new letter from the Urtenu archive may perhaps indicate that Carchemish at least promised to send reinforcements to her beleaguered vassal (RS 88.2009; M-L 1995b, 39–40). A certain Ur¢iTe“ub (without any title) informs Urtenu, Yabinina, d..,422 Danana, the Great Ones (.“ ) and the City Elders (.“ “ibùti “a .) of Ugarit that the King of Carchemish had already left the Land of ›atti (i“tu  ›atti ittara)423 and that they should defend their city until the arrival of the rescue troops. The first two addressees provide a dating in the last decades of Ugarit,424 which renders most unlikely the identification of Ur¢i-Te“ub with the illustrious royal exile (K 1996, 561), whose throne was usurped by ›attu“ili ‘III’ around 1265 (see p. 644ff.). Rather, the author must have been an important official at the court of Carchemish reporting about the military moves of his king.425 Why this late Ur¢iTe“ub addresses his letter most unusually to the nobility and the elders of Ugarit remains a riddle.426 Whether the promised rescue troops ever arrived at Ugarit we shall probably never know, but in any case, the city was sacked shortly thereafter. The exact date of Ugarit’s fall remains to be established.427 The letter sent to Ammurapi by the Egyptian Beya/B3y provides a terminus post quem between 1194 and 1186 (see p. 715). In 1175  Several kings of Tyre bore the same name, d.. (see n. 218). In this period the ‘Land of ›atti’ was a loose geo-political term which included Carchemish. This is also indicated by other occurrences in the late correspondence from Ugarit (see nn. 150, 170). 424 For Urtenu’s dating, see p. 658; for Yab(i)ninu’s, see C 1990. 425 As suggested above (p. 645), he may be identical with the author of an Ugaritic courtesy letter addressed by UrÀ-T∆b ‘to the queen, my lady’ (KTU 2.68 = RS 20.199; P 1984a, 213–5; C 1989a, 359ff.). C (1989a, 361, n. 3) tentatively suggests that the letter to the queen of Ugarit was sent from Egypt by the exiled king Ur¢i-Te“ub. 426 In the ‘”ikila letter’, also from the Urtenu archive, the Great King addresses the governor of Ugarit because ‘the king, your lord, is young and does not know anything’ (RS 34.129.5–7 = RSO 7, no. 12; see p. 722). However, if Ur¢i-Te“ub addresses the dignitaries of Ugarit because of the young age of the king, this letter could hardly be dated to the last years of Ugarit. There may be some other reason for this very unusual type of address. 427 The fall of Ugarit is variously dated in current literature between 1200 and 1175  (for some of the refs., see N 1995b, 122, n. 25). None of the exact dates can presently be proven, and they merely reflect the general ‘feeling’ of the respective authors. My own guess is closer to the terminus post quem supplied by the letter of Beya/B3y than to the terminus ante quem of Ramesses III’s eighth year, i.e., around 1190/1185 (a few years later than I suggested in 1987, 418). The fall of Emar in ca. 1187 (A 1975) does not have to be synchronized with the fall of Ugarit, though obviously both are part of the same overall collapse of LBA centres. 422 423

730

 

Ramesses III already encountered the ‘Sea Peoples’ near Amurru, after they had run down the coastal areas of the Hittite Empire.428 Sometime in the decade or so separating these two chronological anchors Ugarit was sacked by the enemy, but there is no way as yet to establish the interval between the arrival of Beya’s letter and the fall of Ugarit.429 That the immediate cause for Ugarit’s destruction was an enemy attack is no longer seriously debated (L 1995b, 115; Y 1997b, 32). Schaeffer’s earthquake theory, which is still occasionally resurrected,430 was based on questionable evidence already when it was first put forward, and it has been entirely refuted by the results of the new excavations conducted at Ras Shamra and at Ras Ibn Hani. There are probably signs of an earthquake that caused considerable damage to the city sometime in the second half of the 13th century and necessitated extensive restoration operations (C 1994, 203ff.; C – Y 1995, 167; see p. 631). However, the final destruction of the city was due to a huge conflagration caused by an enemy attack, which left a massive destruction level reaching two metres in height in places (Y 1992, 117; 1997a, 258; Callot 1994, 212–3).431 The presence of numerous arrow-heads throughout the ruins may indicate that fierce fighting preceded the city’s surrender (Y 1992, 117). No corpses were reported lying around in 428 Ramesses III’s famous statement about the destruction of ›atti, Qd, Carchemish, Arzawa and Ala“ia by the ‘Sea Peoples’ (KRI V 39.14–40.1) does not refer to Ugarit directly, but, as pointed out by L (1995a, 49), this list reflects political entities and not just geographical regions. Carchemish represents the whole of Hittite Syria, even though its eastern parts, including Carchemish itself, were not directly afflicted by the ‘Sea Peoples’. The mysterious land of Qd (variously rendered as Qode, Qadi, etc.) may well refer here to the kingdom of Tar¢unta““a, as suggested by L (ib.). 429 A few Myc. III C sherds found in the latest habitation level show that the fall of Ugarit occurred after the first appearance of this type of pottery (C 1973; 1987, 210ff.; M 1996). 430 L (1991, 117; 1996, 19) weighs the possibility for an earthquake catastrophe which might have led to (‘auslösenden Faktor’) the military defeat of Ugarit, quoting as a parallel the archaeological evidence from the Argolid (Tiryns, Midea, Mycenae). Even more convinced about the plausibility of a final earthquake is D 1987, who attempts to play down the philological evidence for an enemy attack on Ugarit, without however adducing any arguments for Schaeffer’s theory. Cf. also K 1992, 151. 431 The presence of a yellowish powder that permeated the destruction level was explained by S (1968, 760ff.) as a period of extreme drought towards the end of Ugarit’s existence. It is now conventionally seen as a result of the burning of brick structures.

    

731

the city (C 1994, 212), which may indicate that most of the inhabitants managed to flee the city beforehand, some of them burying their valuables in hiding places in the vain hope of recovering them when the storm was over. One such hiding place stacked with gold and bronze figurines was discovered in the Southern City (S 1966). Similar circumstances led perhaps to the stashing of the small cache of bronze objects, including Merneptah’s sword, in a house located east of the palace (S 1956, 169–78), and also of the large hoard of 74 bronze objects found in 1929 in the building known as the House of the High Priest situated between the temples on the acropolis (S 1956, 251–75). The latter was carefully stacked underneath the threshold of the main entrance and included various weapons, tools and a fine tripod with hanging pomegranates (ib.: 274, fig. 238). Four axes carry the Ugaritic inscription rb khnm, ‘Chief of the Priests’, and a fifth one adds the PN ›rßn (ib.: 266, fig. 231).432 The name ›rßn/›uràßànu appears in 13th century texts from Ugarit and Ras Ibn Hani and prosopographical evidence indicates that the Great Priest ›rßn was active in the mid-13th century (B 1998). The latest objects in the hoard, such as the tripod which has good Cypriot parallels, are dated to the turn of the 12th century (C 1964, 202–3). This seems to contradict the standard interpretation of this rich hoard as a foundation deposit (S 1956, 253; C 1979, 1156–7), and indicates rather that, like other hoards in the town, it was hidden just before the final destruction of the city ( S 1991a, 220).433 Indeed, the plunderers of Ugarit missed the valuable objects, but neither did the original owners ever return to recover them. 7.2 Ugarit and its region in the Iron Age There are a few traces of an ephemeral reoccupation of Ugarit immediately after its fall at the beginning of the 12th century (Yon 1992, 432 The standard interpretation considered ¢rßn to be the name of the object carrying the inscription (cf. Hebrew ˙ariß in 2 Sam. 12:31; I Chr. 20:3), but both the Personenkeil preceeding the name and the existence of an Ugaritic PN ›rßn/›uraßanu (for refs. see B 1998) conclusively disprove this interpretation. 433 Note that besides the manufactured objects the hoard also included two pieces of cast metal (Ug 3, 260, fig. 224, 19; 262, fig. 226, bottom), which would hardly tally with the contents of a foundation deposit. It may indicate that the hoard was

732

 

118–9). These include some dome-shaped ovens, like the one which was found in Courtyard V of the royal palace and was thought to have been used for the baking of clay tablets. It is hard to say who these squatters were, the plunderers of the city or its refugees. At any rate, this meagre epilogue was short-lived and the site remained in ruins for nearly a thousand years.434 More substantial evidence for reoccupation was found at Ras Ibn Hani,435 a secondary residence of the royal family of Ugarit, and at Ras Bassit, a northern outpost of the kingdom.436 The LBA palaces at Ras Ibn Hani yielded Akkadian and Ugaritic tablets dating from the mid-13th century onwards (L 1995, 149ff.). The site was apparently evacuated in an orderly fashion before the final catastrophe, and the inhabitants probably sought refuge within the walls of Ugarit (Y 1992c, 118). Ras Bassit probably shared the same fate. The new settlers at Ras Ibn Hani and Ras Bassit produced Myc. III C:1 ware (B 1983; L 1988) of the same type that appears in Cyprus and along the Levant, from Cilicia to Philistia, and is traditionally associated with the new settlement of ‘Sea Peoples’ along these coastal areas.437 It is worth noting that at Ras Ibn Hani, as in Philistia, there is a gradual evolution from monochrome to bichrome pottery (L 1988, 153), and such similarities should be further explored in the areas of the ‘Sea Peoples’ diaspora. Besides the Myc. III C:1 ware, the Iron Age settlement at Ras Ibn Hani has also produced types of pottery which continue local ceramic traditions (L 1988, 154–5; Caubet 1992, 127). This shows that, as in Canaan, the reoccupation of the coastal sites was carried out by mixed populations of newcomers and remnant groups of the local inhabitants.

hidden by a smith or perhaps the supervisor of a treasury, rather than the High Priest who was the (original) owner of the inscribed axes. 434 The site was partially reoccupied only in the late Persian and the Hellenistic periods (C 1979, 1280ff.; S 1982; A 1995, 68–9, n. 97; Y 1997b: 112–3). A few 9th–8th century Cypriot sherds were probably left by tombrobbers in the fill of tomb 1069 (C 1992, 123–4). 435 B et al. 1987; L 1988; 1995; C 1992, 124ff. (with refs.). The site has been variously identified as Appu (B 1984), as Biruti (A 1992, 82, n. 9), or as Rê“u (A 1995, 68). 436 C 1992, 127 (with refs.). A 1995, 58 suggests an identification with ancient Sinaru. 437 See, however, C 1992, 130, who questions this interpretation of the new pottery and considers it to be a local ceramic development.

    

733

Little is known about the demographic situation in the countryside of Ugarit after the fall of the metropolis. As pointed out by L (1995a, 52), inland villages may have suffered much less from the ravages of the sea-borne enemy, and the remarkable survival of ancient names in the present toponymy of the region (A 1979; B 1989a) may indicate that some of the smaller settlements of the kingdom survived the cataclysm that put an end to the capital city. This seems to be all the more true in the territory of the former kingdom of Siyannu-U“natu, where some of the main sites (Tell Sukas, Tell Daruk) continue well into the Iron Age.438 These scattered maritime and inland Iron Age settlements cannot obscure the outstanding phenomenon of the total disappearence of the region’s major city from the geo-political scene of the Levant for nearly a thousand years. Only Hellenistic Laodicea (present-day Lattaquieh) brought back this once prosperous coastal region to a similar grandeur. The fact that Ugarit never rose from its ashes, as did other LBA cities of the Levant which suffered a similar fate, must have more substantial grounds than the destruction inflicted upon the city by the ‘Sea Peoples’. Those who still envisage a serious earthquake in the sequence of events that led to the fall of Ugarit suggest some drastic change in the tectonic structure of the region, especially in the area of the harbour, which would have deprived the city of its main source of livelihood (K 1992, 151). Probably some of the climatic cataclysms that have been proposed to explain the overall collapse of the palatial systems throughout the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean439 took their toll of Ugarit as well, especially the devastating famine which could have been caused by an intense drought. But in the final analysis, the main reason for Ugarit’s disappearance from the political scene may simply have been the sudden collapse of the traditional structures of international trade, which were the lifeblood of Ugarit’s booming economy in the Bronze Age. Gradually, Phoenician harbours such as Tyre, Sidon, Byblos and Arwad replaced Ugarit as the main ports of Levantine trade during the first millennium .

438 For references, see C 1992, 128; L 1995a: 51. One awaits eagerly the results of the new Syrian excavations at Tell Siano, which probably preserves the ancient name of Siyannu. 439 For a recent survey of the various theories, see D 1993 (with extensive refs.).

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

THE TABLETS AND THE COMPUTER

1

T C S  U S  T1 T J. L – S A. W

1.1

Introduction

Unique difficulties beset describing a field where a six-month period of obsolecence is not unusual. The rapidly developing field of computer imaging is opening new possibilities for the publication of archives known previously only through transcriptions and poor photographs. What is presented below is a description of the current state of electronic imaging as applied to the Ugaritic tablets; the future of this field will continue to improve the clarity of available images. At the time of this writing digital cameras are now removing one step from the photographic process (the film!) for better and worse.2 The application of electronic imaging to the study of ancient texts is an emerging field of research. In Ugaritic studies it began out of the necessity for clearer photographs of the Ugaritic tablets than those previously available and the need to make them widely accessible to scholars. These needs, combined with the growth of computerized graphic capabilities, have motivated scholars to produce electronic editions of the texts. 1.2 Background Ugaritologists are indebted in many ways to the Mission Archéologique Français de Ras Shamra-Ougarit. If one may speak from an epigraphist’s 1 We would like to thank W.T. Pitard for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper and contributing the excursus. 2 On the importance of film types even in a digital age, see Z ‒

   

735

perspective, the speed with which they have made the texts available is especially commendable. This publishing tradition—dating back to 1929 when C. Virolleaud made drawings of the first alphabetic tablets available within a year of their discovery and continuing up to the present with the contributions of P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee appearing in the RSO series—has allowed Ugaritologists worldwide to keep abreast of the latest discoveries. It is helpful to situate the publishing of the early photographs of the tablets in an historical context. When the first Ugaritic tablets were discovered, there already existed a long-established convention (inherited from Assyriology) for publishing cuneiform texts. This entailed publishing a facsimile drawing, a transcription, and sometimes a translation. Photographs, when published, were largely used for archival purposes, but were considered less essential to the philological interpretation of the text. Unless one had access to the originals in Damascus, Aleppo, and Paris, one relied on the eye of others; no independent evaluations could be made based on epigraphically useful photographs. When the Ugaritic texts were first unearthed in the late 1920s, the use of a photographic record to secure readings was not an issue. The tablets were photographed in black and white, mostly in what could be referred to as ‘reference shots’—one photo per side of a tablet, sometimes including photographs of the edges. The purpose of these photographs was not to establish difficult readings, but to give an overall impression of the size, shape, and state of preservation of the tablets. Their publication was accompanied by transcriptions in H’s CTA. Facsimiles drawn with rather stylized versions of the Ugaritic characters became the basic source for understanding the epigraphic evidence on the tablets. It must be stressed that the photographs, not very helpful for reading the tablets, were produced according to the conventions at the time for publishing ancient Semitic texts. They were produced for documentation, not for the scrutiny of an epigraphist. Some shades or marbling of the clay made photographs too dark and/or patchy to be read in black and white3 and their convexity made photographs

Z 1997, 336–7. On the benefits and drawbacks of direct-image capture, see pages 345–6. 3 Plate IX of CTA 4, Rev. demonstrates this. The rather marbled appearance of the upper right-hand corner of the tablet causes considerable difficulty.

736

 

lit only from the top difficult to read in places.4 Damaged sections of a tablet require close-up photography with different lighting angles to be accurately assessed.5 All of these factors, outside the scope of the original publishers, made renewed efforts at photographing the tablets desirable. Thus until recently, the photographs which have accompanied the publication of the Ugaritic texts have been limited in the information they provide to epigraphers. The lack of legible photographs meant that scholars had to rely almost exclusively on the editions for their readings. This was complicated, however, by the fact that the editions often disagreed significantly on the readings of the texts. Without legible photographs interpreters were left with no way to evaluate independently which readings might conform better to the traces on the tablets. 1.3

Text editions and the current state of Ugaritic epigraphic analysis

The field of Ugaritic studies has fortunately had for many years two comprehensive collections of texts: CTA and KTU, the latter published in a new, enlarged edition (CAT = KTU 2) in 1995. These editions are major scholarly achievements that have become essential to the study of Ugaritic literature. The epigraphic projects discussed below, the Ugaritic Tablets Digital Edition (UTDE), the Edinburgh Ras Shamra Project (ERSP), and the Spanish project Banco de Datos Filológicos Semitícos Noroccidentales y el Sistema Integrado de Análisis Morfológico de Textos Ugaríticos (BDFSN-SIAMTU), are complements to the worthy efforts of these fine editors and the superb contributions of the archaeologists and epigraphists of the Mission Archéologique Française de Ras Shamra-Ougarit (MRS). Despite the wealth of material available to Ugaritic scholars from the standard editions, questions concerning the text still remain. Over the past decade, scholars have realized that the state of Ugaritology,

4 For an example, see Plate VI of CTA 3, Rev. Note that the reverse is illegible in the lower right-hand corner where the fuzziness of the tablet outline makes it clear that it is out of focus due to the curvature of the tablet. 5 Once again CTA 3, Rev. (Plate VI) serves as an example. The damaged section of columns 4 and 5 radiate out from a break in the tablet. The break is not clean throughout, leaving a dimpled surface for parts of those two columns. Closeup photographs of the difficult sections reveal that some readings may be substantiated: see below.

   

737

if it is to remain healthy, needs to wrestle with fundamental epigraphic questions. Healey succinctly states the problem: ‘there are so many uncertainties in readings, despite KTU, that Ugaritic studies is in danger of getting bogged down in alternative readings and mistaken readings’.6 Parker concurs: ‘An adequate, publicly available edition based on the best current photographic technology (i.e. high resolution macro-photography using various light sources and angles) remains the great desideratum of Ugaritic studies’.7 Such sentiments are shared by most scholars who do not relish the thought of having their painstaking interpretations overturned in the future due to having relied on a faulty reading. Since no published edition makes a claim of certainty on all readings, most scholars of the Ugaritic texts have wished to see the original tablets to clarify particular readings, especially where KTU and CTA differ. Pitard, one of the two senior editors of the UTDE (see below), has summarized the dilemma this way: This situation has created a considerable amount of confusion in the way that the texts are handled in Ugaritic studies. Scholars by and large have been forced simply to choose one edition to follow, without being able to deal personally with the epigraphically disputed portions of the tablet.8

Clearer photographs have begun to appear recently,9 with the goal of stabilizing the text, particularly where difficulties of the tablet allow for multiple readings. The goal of such photographic records is ultimately to stabilize the entire text, as it currently exists.10 In response, UTDE and the ERSP are seeking ways to make a comprehensive digital photographic archive of the Ugaritic tablets widely available. Many factors make such archives desirable, the primary one being historical preservation. When the sole remaining autographs deteriorate, there is no way to replace the missing data. An historical archive documenting the current state of the texts is essential. Restoration based on earlier photographs and epigraphers’ records also plays a vital role in the preservation of the texts, but as a hedge 6

H 1986, 30. P 1989, 4. 8 Private communication, December 8, 1995. 9 P 1987, 75–86, 111–55 (drawings by B. Z) and P 1992, 33–77; M.S. S 1994, plates 1–47. 10 L ‒ W 1996, 423 graphically demonstrate that the tablets are no longer in pristine condition. 7

 

738

against further wear, a clear, detailed photographic archive is absolutely essential. In order for this goal to be pragmatic, access to the photographic archive must be made available as widely as possible. These tablets are the preserve of scholars around the world, and attempts to keep the information recondite are to be eschewed. One obstacle to these goals is more prosaic but equally pragmatic—the financial aspect. Photographs produced in book format are often prohibitively expensive. In the case of the Ugaritic Texts, the cost would be augmented by the large number of photographs required to display adequately the damaged and difficult sections of the tablets. With these goals and problems in sight, various projects have responded by producing photographic archives of the Ugaritic tablets. In the three major projects outlined below, the incentive to apply new computer technology to the process has been recognized and embraced. 1.4

The Ugaritic Tablets Digital Edition Project (UTDE)

Photographic methodology for ancient manuscripts has only recently received the attention it deserves. It is very encouraging to see a major treatment on the topic including digital imaging incorporated into a new archaeological reference work.11 The pioneer in the field has been B. Zuckerman who founded the West Semitic Research Project which aims at developing photographic and other imaging techniques that produce clear and detailed documentation of ancient inscriptions. The Project also trains Semitic philologists and epigraphists in the art of inscriptional photography. In 1983 several Ugaritic tablets in the Louvre collections were successfully documented showing epigraphists that considerable evidence concerning difficult readings could be gleaned through the use of macro-photography and employing ‘key and fill’ side lighting techniques in order to prevent the usual ‘wash out’ effect typical of traditional cuneiform photography. A sophisticated understanding of film characteristics and developing procedures is also crucial for best results. The UTDE project uses a ToyoView large-format camera with 4-by-5 inch sheet film

11

Z ‒ Z 1997, 336–47.

   

739

for optimal resolution together with four types of film: color transparencies (Ektachrome 100 Plus); high-resolution color negatives (Pro 100); black-and-white, good contrast, high-resolution negatives ( T-Max); and black-and-white, high contrast, very-high-resolution negatives (Technical Pan). Pitard became associated with the project after 1985, when he carried out the first of four photographic expeditions to Syria and Paris (the other trips taking place in 1989, 1994 (with A. Vaughn) and 1995 (with Lewis). The UTDE project now has a nearly complete series of high-resolution photographs of the major narrative texts from Ugarit (KTU 1.1–24), along with a sampling of other religious texts (including KTU 1.43 = RS 1.005, 1.83 = RS 16.266, 1.91 = RS 19.015, 1.96 = RS 22.225, 1.100 = RS 24.244, 1.108 = RS 24.252, 1.109 = RS 24.253, 1.112 = RS 24.256, 1.113 = RS 24.257, 1.114 = RS 24.258, 1.117 = RS 24.263, 1.124 = RS 24.272, 1.133 = RS 24.293, and 1.161 = RS 34.126). In the summer of 1997, Pitard and Schmidt were able to re-photograph the bulk of the early negatives housed in the Collège de France. This will allow further analysis of the degree to which the tablets may have deteriorated through the passing of time. A few years ago, the editors of UTDE began to think about attempting to produce a photographically-based edition of the Ugaritic tablets. In order to lay a proper foundation, Pitard published articles on KTU 1.161 = RS 34.126 and 1.20–22 = RS 3.348, 2.[019], 2.[024] that were intended to serve as prototypes for a larger project.12 Also appearing were several articles discussing the illumination of crucial and controversial readings using macro-photographic techniques including studies of KTU 1.23 = RS 2.002,13 1.19 = RS 3.322+,14 and 1.96 = RS 22.225,15 not to mention a detailed examination of the way the letter 'ayin was produced in the Ugaritic script.16 In addition, 47 macro-photographs were published in Smith’s new commentary on the Baal Epic.17 The recently published Ugaritic Narrative Poetry18 has made use of the entire collection. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

P 1987 and 1992b, respectively. R ‒ Z 1986, 15–60. P 1994b, 31–8. T.J. L 1996a, 115–21. P 1992a, 261–79. M.S. S 1994, plates 1–47. P (ed.) 1997.

740

 

Recently the impact of computer technology for the study of photographic images has begun to make itself felt. With the availability of high-resolution photographic scanners, increased CPU speeds (Pentium and Power PC chip technology), and such highperformance software applications as Adobe Photoshop, Live Picture, and Painter X2, it is now possible to digitize and analyze images of the Ugaritic tablets in a way that was undreamed of just a few years ago. With this in mind, the UTDE Ugaritic archive has been scanned with a Scanmate 3000 PMT Drum scanner (resolution up to 3000 dpi uninterpolated)19 with the help of Ellison and Lundberg. After considerable thought about how best to publish a photographically-based edition of the Ugaritic texts, considering high conventional production costs, the editors decided to produce a digital edition to be available on CD-ROM or other storage medium (e.g. DVD-ROM). Such a format would allow for the publication of large numbers of color photographs at a fairly low cost. Moreover, the texts could be presented in an ideal format for teaching and introductory study, as well as for serious research. The UTDE is intended to provide an interactive, multimedia presentation of the material, designed to be used by Ugaritologists, as well as students learning the Ugaritic language and script. At the 1996 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans, Pitard demonstrated a prototype edition of the UTDE (see excursus below) which he first developed in the summer of 1995 with the help of the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology at the University of Illinois. The initial plan of the UTDE is to produce a multi-CD edition of KTU 1.1–24, since these are the most widely-known and discussed texts. Pitard and Zuckerman will be serving as senior editors with collaborating editors consisting of Hackett, Lewis, Wiggins, and Dobbs-Allsopp. Although the UTDE does not yet have its own worldwide web site, information on the project may be obtained from the WSRP page: http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/.

19 On the types of scanners and the importance of drum scanners and uninterpolated scans, see Z ‒ Z 1997, 346.

   

741

1.5 Excursus: The format of the Ugaritic Tablets Digital Edition Prototype 20 Two basic concepts guide the format of the UTDE: (1) The editors will present their edition of the texts in an interactive form intended for both scholars and students, using the photographs as the foundation. (2) The edition will also provide high resolution images of the photographs that can be downloaded into the user’s own applications for additional research and analysis. Part 1: The edition of the texts. Our goal for the first stage of the UTDE project is to establish and publish the text of the major literary corpus from Ugarit. The format of the edition has been worked out in our prototype. Following a title screen, the edition allows the user to go to a list of the available tablets, to choose the text he or she wishes to study. From there the user may examine a general photograph of the tablet, then look more closely at an individual column or section thereof. For detailed work, the text is then subdivided into individual lines. At each level, various types of information are provided. Thus from the home screen for each tablet, the user can access an introduction to the tablet, which will provide information on its size, condition, current location, museum number, scribal hand, length of line, etc. There will also be a ground plan of the find-spot available that will show where the tablet was discovered and will indicate the other tablets found in the same context. At a later stage in the development of the edition, we hope the user will also be able to go from the home page to a translation of the tablet, as well as a concordance and a lexicon. From the home screen of the tablet, the user may call up a particular column for more detailed study. Here an image of the column appears, with buttons that allow one to see a transliteration of the text, epigraphic notes that discuss the problematic passages in the column, and a colour-coded facsimile drawing which can be superimposed over the photo or displayed side by side. The facsimile is provided to indicate to the user what the editors see on the tablet. The superimposed drawing can be clicked on and off to allow the user to compare the drawing to the traces on the image. 20

Supplied by W.T. Pitard, Private communication.

 

742

Menus on this screen allow one to move to further screens showing each individual line, designed for detailed epigraphic study. Each screen includes a closeup colour image of the line, its transliteration, a superimposable facsimile, a facsimile which appears in a window directly below the photograph, and epigraphic notes for the line. For each significantly damaged letter, buttons will allow the user to see additional macro photos that show the traces in different light patterns. Evidence from the original photos taken in the 1930s will appear here in cases where the tablet subsequently has been damaged. Part 2: The high-resolution images. This important feature will allow scholars to study the photos with their own computer imaging programs such as Adobe Photoshop or Live Picture. The photos have been digitized usually at 1000 dpi to allow for significant enlargement on the computer screen. The file size of such images is in the 50 MB range. For the UTDE, however, these images will be compressed so that some 150 can be placed on a single disc. When uncompressed these images retain their full definition. Since there are many scholars who have older computers that do not run well with 50 MB files, we will also provide lower resolution versions of the images on the CD. 1.6

The Edinburgh Ras Shamra Project (ERSP)

In 1990, unaware that the UTDE project was under way, Lloyd, while a postgraduate student at New College, Edinburgh University, began considering the possibilities of applying computer technology to photographs of the Ugaritic texts. With formal training in computer science, Lloyd was able to envision electronically stored reproductions of the tablets, especially if they were done in a laser-scanned format. He then began to discuss the idea with Wiggins and Wyatt. On his own initiative, Wyatt had for some years been photographing the Ugaritic tablets in 35 mm color transparency format. Using macro lenses he had photographed difficult sections of the tablets and made these photographs available to students at the university. Wyatt’s initial photographic expeditions, in 1991 and 1992, to Paris and Aleppo, involved photographing the tablets with a Pentax LX fitted with a 50 mm lens and close-up extentions. Another visit to Syria in 1994 included rephotographing the tablets with a 100 mm lens. The photographs were taken either in natural light (not direct sunlight) or with the aid of a small spotlight. Complete sets of these

   

743

slides exist at Edinburgh and Münster (where they were used in preparation of the new edition of CAT = KTU 2).21 To get the images into computerized format, some experimentation was necessary. Wyatt and Lloyd tried using digital cameras, but the drawbacks for detailed, close-up photography were too limiting, and the technology was not then sufficiently advanced. Although in photography every transfer to a new medium reduces clarity, they decided that the slide photographs, scanned into digital format, would produce the clearest images. The slides were scanned at a resolution of 1828 dpi, using 24 bit color. Their attention then turned to how to make large files (up to 12 megabytes) available to remote computer users.22 The concern of the ERSP was to make their digitized photographs available to scholars around the world. Initially it was conceived that scholars could obtain files through FTP. Soon after this set-up began, web-based technology emerged. With its ease of programming, and its accessibility, the www became the ideal location for posting such photographs. The technical difficulty was to get the files down to a manageable size.23 This concern, based on the time it takes to download images via the internet, was addressed by using compressed JPEG images. JPEG compression reduces redundant computer information which is not visible to the human eye, so that image quality does not suffer, but file sizes may be drastically reduced. These images were then placed on a www site to be viewed by scholars with access to the internet.24 The site amounts to a virtual flight to Damascus, a virtual museum with artifacts, and a library of texts.25 The encouraging work accomplished by this project is available on the web, and was made possible partially by funding from the University of Edinburgh.26 The world-wide web address for the ERSP is: http://www.ed.ac.uk/~ugarit/home.htm.

21 22 23 24 25 26

L ‒ W L ‒ W L ‒ W L ‒ W W ‒ L W ‒ L

1996, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1995, 1995,

425. 426–7. 426–7. 428. 597. 597.

 

744 1.7

Banco de Datos Filológicos Semitícos Noroccidentales y el Sistema Integrado de Análisis Morfológico de Textos Ugaríticos (BDFSN-SIAMTU)27

The ‘Laboratorio de Hermeneumatica’,28 a research group based in Madrid, Spain, is part of the Philology Institute of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. The photography work done by this group has a different goal than the two projects outlined above: reference shots of the tablets are included along with philological data. The purpose of this research is the development of computer aids for text analysis. The team director and head researcher of the Banco de Datos Filológicos Semitícos Noroccidentales II: Ugarítico, Fenicio y Púnico (BDFSN = Northwest Semitic Philological Data Bank II: Ugaritic, Phoenician and Punic) project is Cunchillos. The project works in association with the Intelligent Systems Research Group (ISYS) which is part of the Artificial Intelligence Department of the Universidad Politecnica de Madrid. The directors of this group are Cuena and Garcia Serrano. The first step of the project was to introduce the Ugaritic texts into a data base. This initial outcome was published as a hard copy.29 The second step involved integrating the functions required to obtain a concordance into the data base. This too appeared in a published paper version in three volumes.30 The first two volumes collate all existing 6,521 Ugaritic words as they appear in the texts, provide their literary context (the three surrounding lines) and a listing of occurrences. The third volume contains 1.428 incomplete Graphematic Chains with their possible restorations (CGR), followed by 380 Graphematic Restorable Uniliteral Chains (CGRU), 173 Graphematic Chains Without Restoration (CGSR) and indexes.31

27 We thank Jesus-Luís Cunchillos for providing an extensive outline of these projects (private communication 9 June 1997). The essence of these remarks may be found in the world wide web site on the subject: ‘Íapànu: Publicaciones en Internet,’ Madrid: CSIC, Laboratorio de Hermeneumática, 1997 (address: http://www.labherm.filol.csic.es). 28 ‘Hermeneumatic’ is a compound word coined from the words ‘hermeneutics’ and ‘automatic’. It refers to a computerized interpretation, in this case of matters Ugaritic. 29 C ‒ V 1993. 30 C ‒ V 1995a (CPU ). 31 Quotation from ‘Íapànu’ web site.

   

745

The Textos Ugaríticos and Concordancia de Palabras Ugariticas are now available on CD-ROM32 and include additions and corrections to the published paper versions. The third step of the research project is the developing of a function for the morphological analysis of words. Grammar rules for Ugaritic and a lexicon had previously been entered into the application, and these are the basis for this morphological analysis. A concordance of roots is scheduled for future publication.33 Further features of the project include bibliographical references to accompany the lexicon entries and each of the alphabetic tablets; scanned photographs for each tablet; and tools for syntactic and semantic analysis. The web site notes, ‘For these more complex enterprises, an expert system [has] been developed on a UNIX platform (SunOS) and using tools created by ISYS. The application is meant to be flexible enough to enable its use in other languages.’34 The second aspect of this project, SIAMTU, is an Integrated System for Morphological Analysis of Ugaritic Texts. The application is developed on 4th Dimension, a relational Data Base Management System. Cunchillos notes that this data bank is now accessible via the internet. It is available to both Macintosh and PC users. It is located at the project’s web site (http://www.labherm.filol.csic.es), under the section entitled ‘Banco de Datos, GSRC-Internet’.35 1.8

Conclusion

There are inherent problems with photographic editions, no matter what their final form. An unassailable principle of photography is that every time an image is transferred from one medium to another, a loss of clarity results. When multi-media changes take place, they are always at the expense of clarity. Future developments, some of which are already under exploration, may eventually lead to new ways of thinking about the photographic process itself. All of the projects described here have approached this ‘brave new world’ of technological development with the ancient Ugaritic texts.

32 33 34 35

C et al. 1996. Concordancia de Raíces Ugaríticas (CRU ). ‘Íapànu’ web site. J.-L. Cunchillos, private communication, 9 June 1997.

 

746

The call of scholars requesting a stabilized text has been heard. While these projects may not be able to eliminate all uncertainties concerning the texts, they will sharply reduce them. The ‘great desideratum of Ugaritic studies’36 is beginning to be realized.

36

P 1989, 4.

2

S  A   T J-L C

2.1 Introduction Computing and telecommunications provide unprecedented possibilities for the study of the languages and cultures of the ancient Near East.1 Already in 1969–1971 Whitaker computerized the texts from Ugarit (W 1972, VI). He developed programs, but not much more information is available about the method he followed. In 1974 the University of Münster set out the Ugaritic texts from a word processor (KTU ). Other computerization of the texts has resulted in the Ugaritischer Wortformenindex by Zema…ek of the Prague Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies (Z… 1995). The Edinburgh Ras Shamra Project of the University of Edinburgh is devoted more specifically to the analysis of images of the tablets (see L ‒ W 1996). These projects, in terms of computerization, have not gone beyond the first steps in computerized processing of the texts. The work that remains to be done is difficult but is worth while. 2.2

The modules

Work begins with the creation of a data bank. We are speaking of data as the object of study, not reference data such as bibliographies. In the case of philology, the data comprise words, sentences and texts. This means graphemic chains, words with their morphological display, roots, syntagms, sentences, etc. A data bank requires a management system, i.e. a relational database (C 1992a, 547–59). For the moment it seems to be the indispensable management tool, although progress in computer science may soon provide us with other more complex information management systems.2 The Manager of the data bank has to be carried out using applications 1

For details cf. G 1966, 48–9. We refer to systems based on knowledge such as the Knowledge System Management of Prof. J. Cuena in the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. See http://vendaval.dia.fi.upm.es. 2

748

 

peculiar to the discipline. The applications can be grouped according to the phases of computerization and the needs of the philologist. The Laboratory of Hermeneumatics of the Instituto de Filología in the CSIC (Madrid, Spain) envisages 8 modules in order to computerize everything, i.e. the whole procedure from text to critical interpretation (C 1996a, 52–5). So far, four modules have been or are in the course of being completed: The first module contains the applications which enable data to be identified and fed in and modified, and a search system. The identification of the storage unit assumes a single numbering system for the minimal unit of text storage, i.e. the siglum. For data to be fed in, a system has to be worked out for connotation, transliteration and transcription, the most accurate possible. For scientific work it is necessary to have a font with all the graphemes and signs which will enable the text to be transcribed with all its diacritics (C ‒ G 1996, 161–70). Problems due to the variety of computer platforms (Macintosh, Windows, Unix) are unavoidable if the data bank is to be made available to scholars over the Internet. The data are transmitted from platform to platform from the user to the server and from the server to the user, but no-one can specify the number and type of platform through which the information may pass. Each type of platform has its own requirements. The transmission of scripts using graphemes which differ from those of modern Western languages incurs problems. Fonts have to be created, such as IluInternet,3 the graphemes of which are located between 32 and 127 in the ASCII numbering system, so far the only numbers respected by all platforms. The text, input with the inclusion of all epigraphic indications, first has to be stored and then stripped of the epigraphic indications so that the computer is able to deal with it. Furthermore, a system has to be provided for the arrangement of the graphemes and words in the desired alphabetical sequence, which in the case of Semitic is not the same as in the modern western alphabet. The final result of the computer applications of this first module, besides identification, input, modification and searches, will be the 3 The reader can find them and load them into his computer in Íapanu, GSRCInternet which has the address: http://www.labherm.filol.csic.es.

     

749

storage of Non-segmented Graphematic Chains. The name refers to the stage of the Graphematic Chains before applying the segmentation procedures described in the next module. With this first module the data bank can be completed with all the data to be fed in. The second module allows us to move from the Non-segmented Graphematic Chains to the Words with their Morphological Display (Palabras en Morfología Desplegada or PMD). It requires the creation of a series of applications for the Segmentation of Graphematic Chains according to the rules for the writing and the scribes of that language and similarly applications for systematic search of Split Chains (interrupted words, written over two consecutive lines (Cs 1998a). One part of the existing data will be the Incomplete Graphematic Chains. These comprise the Reconstructible data. In order to deal with them, special applications have to be created taking as a basis, for example, the existing vocabulary, although other more theoretical or comparative criteria may be used. In this way the applications of the Reconstructible Chains and their possible Reconstructors arise. Finally, this second module enables Concordances of Words with their Morphological Display in context to be compiled (C ‒ V 1995a). The result of the aforementioned applications is the Generator of Segmentations, Restorations and Concordances (GSRC; C ‒ C ‒ V ‒ G ‒ Z 1996). The third module enables the shift from PMD to Stems and Roots. The shift takes place due to the Ugaritic Morphological Analyser (Analizador Morfológico Ugarítico or AMU ). To function the AMU requires: a) A List or file of attested Words with their Morphological Display which has been derived previously by a computer process, extracting from the text first the attested Graphematic Chains and then selecting from them the PMD. b) A lexicon of Roots and Stems known and accepted as such by specialists. To compile it, uniform rules have to be applied for the input and lexicographical treatment of Roots and Stems. Some headings or fields are strictly necessary (Stem/Root, Homograph, Comparative Linguistics, Grammatical Class, Meaning), others are useful (Bibliography, Semantic Field, Notes and Commentary). c) Table of morphological modifiers. d) Table of morphological analysis, where the results are written and stored.

750

 

The process applies the Rules which explain the formation and morphological development of the words. This means that they describe the behaviour of each one of the grammatical classes. AMU, faced with a PMD, applies the rules. When it is seen that the rules of a grammatical class are followed in the PMD, AMU assigns the appropriate grammatical class to it and, by analysis of the PMD, it will explain its morphology. AMU proposes several levels of analysis, running from a simple one, if the PMD matches one of the entries in the Lexicon, to the formation of possible nouns, gentilics or names of professions, through detailed analysis of nominal and verbal forms. The specialist has to make multiple tests before accepting the analyser. Moreover, the analyser should be tested by other specialists, who will be asked to try to find morphological rules which have not been taken into account. The analyses made by the analyser, after preliminary refinement, will enable the possible relationships between analysis and text to be established. In other words, the specialist has to be able to assign an analysis of each word in all the texts or at least select a limited number of them as possible. From then on, when the user asks for a text he will have access to the analysis of each word making up that text, and by means of that analysis, to each of their components: a file of prefixes, suffixes, etc., and the lexicon where the Roots and Stems are stored. The most important result of the third module will be the Concordance of Ugaritic Roots (Concordancia de Raíces Ugaríticas or CRU ). The fourth module, ‘from word to sentence’, will deal with syntax. It has begun with a file in which simple syntagms are compiled, i.e. groups of two or more words which have a special meaning, as accepted by colleagues. Each element of such a syntagm is connected with the corresponding roots and stems of the lexicon (C 1996b). Later on, the patterns of Semitic syntax proposed by B (1967) and other authors will be used. 2

Conclusions

In fact, it is a matter of following the process of recognition of a text by a specialist (C 1996a) and making as automatic as possible. Information already published is also being included. The

     

751

goal is the construction of a computer environment which will serve as a tool or set of tools for the specialist (C 1997). The Integrated System of Morphological Analysis of Ugaritic Texts (Sistema Integrado de Análisis Morfológico de Textos Ugaríticos or SIAMTU ) will contain: a) A complete Ugaritic lexicon, kept up to date and linked to each text where the root occurs; b) the Morphological Analyser; c) all the previous works (C 1998a, 1998b, 1998c; C ‒ C 1998; C ‒ G ; C ‒ S 1998; C ‒ V 1993a, 1999). The Data bank may be put at the disposal of colleagues both by means of CD-ROM and on the Internet, thus improving the methods and efficiency of the specialist. (Translation: W.G.E. W)

Flow of data

Insertion of data

Computing processes

Files

LEGEND

Attested graphematic chains

Extracting chains with information for concordance

Module 1

Tablets

Connecting lines to the tablet

Line of text

Images

752  

Discomposure of data

Flow of data

Computing Processes

Files

LEGEND

Restorations

Words with their Morphological Display

Restoring incomplete chains

Incomplete graphematic chains

Concordance of Words with their Morphological Display

Adding ‘Material’ Context

Attested graphematic chains

Module 2

Rejoining Split Chains

Segmentation of chains with information for concordance Lines of text

      753

Flow of data

Insertion of data

Computing processes

Files

LEGEND

Morphological modifiers

Lexicon (roots/radicals)

Morphological analysis

Words with their Morphological Display

Module 3

Morphological analyses

End-product

754  

REFERENCES

I ABD AEL AHw ANEP ANET AP ARET BDB BHS CAD CAH CARTU CAT CHD CIS CML CPU

CS CTA

CTH DBS

A: R W

D.N. F (ed.) The Anchor Bible dictionary 6 volumes (New York: Doubleday 1992). E.W. L An Arabic-English Lexicon (London, Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate 1863–93) (repr. Cambridge 1984). W.  S Akkadisches Handwörterbuch 3 volumes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1965–81). J.B. P The ancient Near East in pictures relating to the Old Testament (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 19692 ). J.B. P (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 19693 ). A. C Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon 1923). Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi. F. B – S.R. D – C.A. B (eds) A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon 1906). Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. I.J. G et al. (eds) The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago IL: Chicago Oriental Institute; Glückstadt: J. and J. Augustin Verlag, 1956–). I.E.S. E – C.J. G – N.G.L. H (eds) The Cambridge ancient history (3rd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1970–). J.C.  M – K. S A Cuneiform anthology of religious texts from Ugarit. Autographed texts and glossaries (SSS 6, Leiden: Brill 1987). see KTU 2. H.G. G – H.A. H (eds) The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago IL: Chicago Oriental Institute, 1980–). Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (Paris: Klincksieck 1881). Canaanite Myths and Legends (D 1956, G 1978). J.-L. C – J.-P. V Concordancia de palabras ugaríticas en morfología desplegada. Banco de datos filológicos semíticos noroccidentales (BDFSN). Datos ugaríticos (3 vols., Madrid, Zaragoza: CSIC, Institución Fernando el Católico 1995). W.W. H (with K.L. Y Jr) The context of scripture. Vol. 1 Canonical compositions from the biblical world (Leiden: Brill 1997). A. H Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 2 volumes (BAH 79, MRS 10, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Geuthner 1963). CTA (Roman) used for text references. E. L Catalogue des textes hittites (Etudes et commentaires 75, Paris: Klincksieck 1971). Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible. (Supplement 9, Paris: Letouzey and Ané 1979. Cols. 1124–1466 on Ras Shamra (Ugarit), E. J – H. C (eds); articles by J.-C. C et al.

756 DDD DLU DNWSI GAG HALOT KAI KRI KTU

LÄ MSL

NERT

PRU

RlA RPOA

 K.   T – B. B – P.W.   H (eds) Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill 1995). 2nd edition 1999. G.  O L – J. S (eds) Diccionario de la lengua ugarítica (AuOrS 7 vol. 1, Barcelona: AUSA 1996). J. H – K. J Dictionary of the Northwest Semitic Inscriptions 2 volumes (HdO I 21, Leiden: Brill 1995). W.  S Grundriß der akkadischen Grammatik (AnOr 3, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute 19953. L. K – W. B Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (rev. W. B – J.J. S.  M.E.J. R Leiden: Brill 1994—4 vols.). H. D – W. R Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften 3 volumes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1962–4). KAI (Roman) used for references. K.A. K Ramesside Inscriptions: historical and biographical 7 volumes (Oxford: Blackwell 1968–90). KTU 1 = M. D – O. L – J. S Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon and Bercker 1976). KTU 2 = M. D – O. L – J. S The Cuneiform alphabetic texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other places (ALASP 8, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 1995). (also cited as CAT.) KTU (Roman) used for text references. W. H – E. O (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie 6 volumes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Materials for the Sumerian lexicon: a reconstruction of Sumerian and Akkadian lexical lists: MSL 3. R. H et al. Das Syllabar A—Das Vokabular S a—Das Vokabular S b—Berichtigungen und Nachträge zu MSL II—Indices zu MSL II (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute 1955). MSL 10. B. L – E. R (with the collaboration of M. C) The series ‘HAR-ra = hubullu", tablets XVI, XVII, XIX and related texts (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute 1970). W. B et al. (eds) Near eastern religious texts relating to the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1978). ET of Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament, ATD Ergänzungsreihe 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht 1975). Palais royal d’Ugarit: PRU 2. C. V Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives est, ouest et du petit palais (MRS 7, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Klincksieck 1965). PRU 3. J. N Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, ouest et centrales (MRS 6, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Klincksieck 1955). PRU 4. J. N Textes accadiens des archives sud (MRS 9, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Klincksieck 1956). PRU 5. C. V Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives sud, sud-ouest et centrales (MRS 11, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Klincksieck 1965). PRU 6. J. N Textes en cunéiformes babyloniennes des archives du grand palais et du palais sud d’Ugarit (MRS 12, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Klincksieck 1970). E, D.O. et al. (eds) Reallexikon der Assyriologie (Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 1932–). R. L et al. Les religions du Proche-Orient asiatique: textes babyloniens, ougaritiques, hittites (Paris: Cerf, 1970).

 RSO

RSP TEO TO

TUAT Ug

757

Ras-Shamra—Ougarit: RSO 1. O. C Une maison à Ougarit, études d’architecture domestique (Paris: ERC 1983). RSO 2. D. P Les textes hippiatriques (Paris: ERC 1986). RSO 3. M. Y et al. Le centre de la ville, 38–44e campagnes (1978–1984) (Paris: ERC 1987). RSO 4. D. P Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24 e campagne (1961) (Paris: ERC 1988). RSO 5/1. P. B – D. P La trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit. 1 Concordance (Paris: ERC 1989). RSO 5/2. J.-L. C La trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit. 2 Bibliographie (Paris: ERC 1990). RSO 6. M. Y (ed.) Arts et industries de la pierre (Paris: ERC 1991). RSO 7. B, P. et al. Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville. Les textes de la 34 e campagne (1973) (Paris: ERC 1991). RSO 8. H.  C Préhistoire de Ras Shamra, les sondages stratigraphiques de 1955 à 1976 2 volumes (Paris: ERC 1992). RSO 9. P. A Corpus des cylindres de Ras Shamra—Ougarit II. Sceauxcylindres en hématite et pierres diverses (Paris: ERC 1992). RSO 10. O. C La tranchée ‘ville sud’. Etudes d’architecture domestique (Paris: ERC 1994). RSO 11. M. Y – M. S – P. B (eds) Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C. Actes du Colloque International de Paris, 28 juin –1er juillet 1993 (Paris: ERC 1995). RSO 12. D. P Les textes rituels (Paris: ERC in press). L.R. Fi et al. (eds) Ras Shamra Parallels (vol. 3 S. R ed.) (3 volumes: AnOr 49–51, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute 1972–81). = RSO 5/1. Textes ougaritiques TO 1. A. C – M. S – A. H Textes Ougaritiques i: Mythes et légendes (LAPO 7, Paris: Cerf 1974). TO 2. A. C – J.-M.  T – J.-L. C Textes Ougaritiques ii: Textes religieux et rituels; Correspondance (LAPO 14, Paris: Cerf 1989). R. B et al. (eds) Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testament (Gütersloh: Mohn 1982–). Ugaritica: Ugaritica. C.F.-A. S Etudes relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra (BAH 31, MRS 3, Paris: Geuthner 1939). Ugaritica 2. C.F.-A. S Nouvelles études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra (BAH 47, MRS 5, Paris: Geuthner 1949). Ugaritica 3. C.F.-A. S Sceaux et cylindres hittites, épée gravée du cartouche de Mineptah, tablettes chypro-minoennes et autres découvertes nouvelles de Ras Shamra (BAH 64, MRS 8, Paris: Geuthner 1956). Ugaritica 4. C.F.-A. S Découvertes des XVIII e et XIX e campagnes 1954–1955. Fondements préhistoriques d’Ugarit et nouveaux sondages. Etudes anthropologiques (BAH 74, MRS 15, Paris: Geuthner 1962). Ugaritica 5. J. N – E. L – C. V – C.F.-A. S Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit. Commentaire des textes (première partie) (BAH 80, MRS 16, Paris: Geuthner 1968). Ugaritica 6. C.F.-A. S (ed.) (BAH 81, MRS 17, Paris: Geuthner 1969).

758

UT WUS

 Ugaritica 7. C.F.-A. S (ed.) (BAH 99, MRS 18, Paris: Geuthner 1978). C.H. G Ugaritic Textbook (AnOr 38, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute 1969). UT (Roman) used for text references. J. A Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache edited by O. E (BVSAWL Phil.-Hist. Klasse 106 Heft 3, Berlin: Akademie Verlag 19631, 19652, 19673, 19744). II A: S  P

AAAS AASOR AB ABAW Abr-Nah ACF AEPHE AF AoF AfO AGI AION AIONS AJA ALASP ALBO ANLR AnOr AnSt AntSem AOAT AOS ARM(T) ArOr AS ATD ATSAT AuOr AuOrS BA BAH BASOR BASORSS BBVO BCSMS BieOr BiOr BLE BM

Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische klasse Abr-Nahrain Annuaire du Collège de France Annuaire de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Section des sciences religieuses) Anuari de Filologia Altorientalische Forschungen Archiv für Orientforschung Archivio glottologico italiano Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli AION Supplements American Journal of Archaeology Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt—Syrien—Palästinas und Mesopotamiens Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti. Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche Analecta Orientalia Anatolian Studies Antiquités sémitiques Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Society Series Archives Royales de Mari (Textes) Archiv Orientální Acta Sumerologica Das Alte Testament Deutsch Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Aula Orientalis AuOr Supplementa Biblical Archaeologist Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BASOR Supplementary Series Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bibbia e Oriente Biblica et Orientalia Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique Bibliotheca Mesopotamica

 BMECCJ BN BO BRA BSA BSOAS BVSAWL BZAW CIS CRAIBL CRB CSF DdA EI ELRA EPROER FARG FAT FCT FuF GLECS GM HANES HdO HEO HKA HOS HSM HSS HTR HUCA HZ IEJ IF IIJ ILR IOS JA JANES JAOS JBL JCS JEOL JESHO JHC JNES JNSL JPOS JQR JQRS JRAS JSOTS JSS JSSEA

759

Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center of Japan Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca Orientalis Beiträge zum Religionsgeschichte des Altertums Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Leipzig Beihefte zur ZAW Copenhagen International Seminar Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres Cahiers de la RB Collezione di Studi Fenici Dialoghi di Archeologia Eretz Israel European Languages Resources Association Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte Forschungen zum Alten Testament Fronteras de la Ciencia y la Tecnología Forschungen und Fortschritte Groupe linguistique d’études Chamito-Sémitiques Göttinger Miszellen History of the ancient Near East series Handbuch der Orientalistik Hautes études orientales Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft Handbook of Oriental Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Historische Zeitschrift Israel Exploration Journal Indogermanische Forschungen Indo-Iranian Journal Israel Law Review Israel Oriental Studies Journal Asiatique Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux Journal of the Social and Economic History of the Orient Journal of Higher Criticism Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Jewish Quarterly Review Supplement Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society JSOT Supplements Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities

760 JSSM JTS KBo LAPO MARI MCAAS MDOG MLE MRS MUSJ MVAeG NABU NUS OA OAC OAM OBO OE OLA OLP OLZ Or OrSuec OTS PEQ PIASH PIBA POS PRU QD RA RB RdE RGTC RHA RHR RRANL RSF RSO RSO SAK SBLDS SBLWAWS SBS SCCNH SCHANE SCO SE SEL SGKAO SIMA SM SMEA SMSR SP

 JSS Monographs Journal of Theological Studies Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient Mari: Annales des Recherches Interdisciplinaires Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Materiali Lessicali ed Epigrafici Mission de Ras Shamra Mémoires de l’Université St-Joseph (Beirut) Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gessellschaft Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies Oriens Antiquus Orientis Antiqui Collectio Orientis Antiqui Miscellanea Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Orient-Express Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Orientalia Orientalia Suecana Oudtestamentische Studien Palestine Exploration Quarterly Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association Pretoria Oriental Series Palais Royal d’Ugarit Quaderni di Semitistica Revue d’Assyriologie Revue Biblique Revue d’Egyptologie Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes Revue hittite et asianique Revue de l’Histoire des Religions Rendiconti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Rivista di studi fenici Ras Shamra—Ougarit Rivista degli Studi Orientali Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Society of Biblical Literature dissertation series Society of Biblical Literature writings from the ancient world series Stuttgarter Bibel-Studien Studies in the culture and civilization of Nuzi and the Hurrians Studies in the history and culture of the ancient Near East Studi Classici e Orientali Sussidi Eruditi Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen Orients Studies in Mediterranean archaeology Studia mediterranea Studi micenei ed egeo anatolici Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni Studia Pohl

 SPIB SS SSR SSS ST StBoT StPh SVT TA TCS TSO TWA UBL UCOP UF VDI VO VSKMB VT WA WO WZG WZKM ZA ZÄS ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZNW

Scripta Pontifici Instituti Biblici Studi Semitici Studi Storico-Religiosi Semitic Studies Series Studia Theologica Studien zu den Bo[azköy-Texten Studia Phoenicia Supplements to VT Tel Aviv Texts from cuneiform sources Texte und Studien der Orientalistik Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Ugarit-Forschungen Vestnik Drevney Istorii Vicino Oriente Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der königlichen Museen zu Berlin Vetus Testamentum World Archaeology Die Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Ernst Moritz Arndt-Universität Greifswald (Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe) Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der Deutsche Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästinvereins Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

III A: G AO AT  CK DAPT DN EA ET GN Hitt. IAA KL LBA LH MBA ME Msk NS PAM PN RIH

761

Louvre catalogue prefix: ‘Antiquités Orientales’ Alalakh Text before the common era unpublished text in a private collection Deir Alla Plaster Texts divine name El Amarna English translation geographical name Hittite Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Kamid el-Lòz/Kumidi, Musée Nationale de Beyrouth Late Bronze Age Late Helladic Middle Bronze Age Meskene-Emar Meskene new series Palestine Archaeological Museum, Jerusalem personal name Ras ibn Hani



762 RAI RN RS RSL TN TT TU Ur

Recontre Assyriologique Internationale royal name Ras Shamra Ras Shamra Louvre (museum number) toponym Tell Taanak, Concordia Seminary, St Louis Mo. Texto(s) ugarítico(s) Urartian

IV B  W C A, K. 1968 1974 1978 1984 1985 1991 A, J. 1994

Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon, WO 4:278–99. Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen 1. Teil (AOAT 21/1, Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag). Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen 2. Teil (AOAT 21/2, Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag). Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon I, UF 16:1–52. Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon II, UF 17:1–47. Studien zur ugaritischen Lexikographie. Teil I: Bäume, Tiere, Gerüche, Götterepitheta, Götternamen, Verbalbegriffe (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Die Rolle des Königs und seiner Familie nach den Texten von Ugarit (FARG 27, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).

A, Y. 1953 The Land of 'Amqi, IEJ 3:153–61. A, S.W. 1973 Epistolary texts from Ugarit: structural and lexical correspondences in epistles in Akkadian and Ugaritic (Brandeis University PhD Diss., Ann Arbor MI: UMI). A, J. 1939 Die Nikkal-Hymne aus Ras-Schamra, ZDMG 93:52–9. 1964 Die mythologischen und kultischen Texte aus Ras Schamra 2nd edition (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó). 1974 WUS. A, K.T. 1987 Formulaic patterns for the passing of time in Ugaritic narrative, UF 19:1–10. 1989a Oral formulaic composition and theme in the Aqhat narrative, UF 21:1–16. 1989b Word pairs and tradition in an Ugaritic tale, UF 21:17–38. 1990 The Aqhat narrative. A study in the narrative structure and composition of an Ugaritic tale ( JSSM 13, Manchester: Journal of Semitic Studies). A, W.F. 1931–2 The Syro-Mesopotamian god ”ulman-E“mun and related figures, AfO 7:164–9. 1934 Archaeological news from Syria, BASOR 54:24–7. 1935 Palestine in the earliest historical period, JPOS 15:193–234. 1936 New Caananite historical and mythological data, BASOR 63:3–33. 1941 Two letters from Ugarit (Ras Shamra), BASOR 82:46–9. 1944 The ‘natural force’ of Moses in the light of Ugaritic, BASOR 94:32–5. 1958 Specimens of late Ugaritic prose, BASOR 150:61–66. A, R. Forthcoming Now that summer’s gone: understanding qΩ in KTU 1.24, SEL.



763

A, S. 1991 Hethitische Briefe aus Mashat-Höyük (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi). A, H. – M, A.M. 1991 Die Inschrift Amenemhats II aus dem Ptah-Tempel von Memphis. Ein Vorbericht, SAK 18:1–48. A, R. 1985 The art of biblical poetry (New York: Basic Books). A, A. 1975 Was Ugarit ever subject to the eighteenth-dynasty pharaohs? Bar-Ilan University Yearbook 13:1–16. (Hebrew with English Summary). 1983 A letter sent by ”uppiluliuma I, king of Hatti, to Niqmadu II, king of Ugarit, and its historical and juridical significance, Annual of the Bar Ilan University, Studies in Judaica and the Humanities 20–21:322–48 (Hebrew with English Summary). 1984 ‘The deliverance motif ’ in the ‘historical prologues’ of ”uppiluliuma I’s vassal treaties, 41–76 in P. A (ed.) Confrontation and co-existence (Bar-Ilan Studies in History 2, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press). A, M.G. 1965 L’iconografia del carro da guerra in Siria e Palestina (Rome: Guzzo). A, E.A. 1989 The Status of Women at Ugarit (Ann Arbor MI: UMI). A, P. 1992 RSO 9. 1995 Les sceaux-cylindres de Ras Shamra au II e millénaire, 239–44 in RSO 11. A, A. 1986 Die ersten zehn Könige von Ebla, ZA 76:213–7. 1987 Ugarit dans les textes d’Ebla, RA 81:186–7. 1988 Cult of the ancestors and tutelary god at Ebla, 103–12 in Y.L. A (ed.) Fucus. A Semitic/Afrasian gathering in remembrance of Albert Ehrman (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 58, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins). 1996 Chronologie relative des archives d’Ebla, Amurru 1:11–28. A, A. (ed.) 1988 Eblaite personal names and Semitic name-giving. Papers of a symposium held in Rome July 15–17, 1985 (ARES I, Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria). A, D. 1974 Notes brèves, RA 68:190. 1975 Les textes d’Emar et la chronologie de la fin du Bronze Récent, Syria 52:87–92. 1979 La culture suméro-accadienne, en ‘Ras Shamra’, SDB 9:1348–59. 1981 Humbles et superbes à Emar (Syrie) à la fin de l’âge du Bronze récent, 1–14 in A. C – M. D (eds) Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT 212, Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag). 1982a Les textes cunéiformes suméro-accadiens des campagnes 1979–1980 à Ras Shamra-Ougarit, Syria 59:199–222. 1982b Une lettre du roi de Tyr au roi d’Ougarit: milieux d’affaires et de culture en Syrie à la fin de l’âge du Bronze Récent, Syria 59:101–7. 1984 La lettre Hani 81/4 et l’identification du site de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie), Syria 61:15–23. 1985–7 Recherches au pays d’A“tata (Emar VI, 1–4, Paris: ERC). 1986–7 Religion assyro-babylonienne, AEPHE 95:187–92. 1991a Textes syriens de l’Age du Bronze Récent (Sabadell: AUSA).



764 1991b 1992 1993a

1993b 1994 1995a 1995b 1996 1997 A, D. 1979 A, D. 1991–2

Une correspondance d’affaires entre ougaritains et emariotes, 65–78 in RSO 7. Les ports de la ‘Phénicie’ à la fin de l’âge du Bronze Récent (XIV–XIII siècles) d’après les textes cunéiformes de Syrie, SMEA 30:179–94. La Syrie au IIe millénaire: XIXe–XIIe siècles av. J.-C., 138–43; Lettre de Beia, chef des gardes du corps du pharaon, au roi 'Ammurapi d’Ugarit, 248–9 in Cluzan, S. et al. (eds) Syrie, Mémoire et Civilisation, Catalogue d’exposition, Institut du Monde Arabe (Paris: Flammarion). Jours et mois d’Ugarit, SMEA 32:123–9. Relecture de la liste sacrificielle RS 26.142, SMEA 32:107–9. L’incantation ougaritique contre le ‘Feu’, AuOr 13:137–9. Le vocabulaire de l’héritage dans les textes du moyen-Euphrate à la fin de l’âge du Bronze Récent, SEL 12:21–6. Études sur Alala¢ et Ougarit à l’âge du Bronze Récent, SMEA 37:47–65. Prolégomènes à la rédaction d’une histoire d’Ougarit I. Ougarit avant Suppiluliuma Ier, SMEA 39:151–61. – K, D. Les textes en cunéiformes syllabiques découverts en 1977 à Ibn Hani, Syria 56:317–24. – S, M. Le divorce du roi Ammistamru d’Ougarit: Un document redécouvert, Semitica 41–42:7–22.

A, J. 1971 Review of G 1967, ZA 61:172–4. A, M.C. 1965 New evidence on the last days of Ugarit, AJA 69:253–8. 1966 Some new divine names from Ugarit, JAOS 86:279–82. 1967 Hellenosemitica (Leiden: Brill, 2nd edition). 1968 Two Ugaritic serpent charms, JNES 27:13–36. 1969 The partition of the confederacy of Muki“-Nu¢a““e-Nii by ”uppiluliuma: a study in the political geography of the Amarna age, Or 38:381– 414. 1970a Ma’hadu, the harbor of Ugarit, JESHO 13:113–27. 1970b Toponyms in the Hurrian alphabetic tablet RS 24.285, UF 2:1–6. 1971 A letter and two economic texts, 23–9 in F (ed.) 1971. 1972a The Merchant Class of Ugarit, 11–26 in E D.O. (ed.) Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweiströmland (XVIII RAI) (Munich: ABAW NF Heft 75). 1972b Some recent works on ancient Syria and the Sea People, JAOS 92: 447–59. 1973a A North Mesopotamian locale of the Keret Epic?, UF 5:29–39. 1973b Ugarit and the Aegean, 17–27 in H (ed.) 1973. 1974 Place names, 249–369 in F RSP 2. 1977 Continuité et changement dans la toponymie de la Syrie du Nord, 117–41 in La Toponymie Antique: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 12–14 Juin 1975 (Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient de la Grèce Antique 4, Leiden: Brill). 1978 Les Hourrites en Syrie du nord: rapport sommaire, RHA 36:1–22. 1979 The kingdom of Siyannu-U“natu, UF 11:13–28. 1980a King Ammurapi and the Hittite Princess, UF 12:103–8. 1980b North Syrian toponyms derived from plant names, 3–8 in G.R. R et al. (eds) 1980. 1981a Les frontières et les districts du royaume d’Ugarit (éléments de topographie historique régionale), UF 13:1–12.



765

1981b Ugarit and the Great Powers, 3–29 in G.D. Y 1981. 1981c Toponymic parallels between the Nuzi area and northern Syria, SCCNH 1:11–26. 1987 Semites and Hurrians in northern Transtigris, SCCNH 2:3–68. 1988 Remarks on KTU 1.96, 13–24 in P. X (ed.) Cananea selecta (Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zum 60. Geburtstag) = SEL 5. 1989 Hittite history and absolute chronology of the Bronze Age (Partille, Sweden: Paul Astrom förlag). 1995 La topographie du royaume d’Ougarit, 55–71 in RSO 11. Å, P. (ed.) 1987 High, middle or low? Acts of an international colloquium on absolute chronology (Gothenburg: Paul Astrom förlag). A, E. 1991 Heirloom seals and political legitimacy in Late Bronze Age Syria, Akkadica 74–75:19–36. A, Y. 1972 Addenda to the expanded colon in Ugaritic and biblical Verse, UF 4:1–10. 1973 drky hzrh bmspry h“lmwt (10, 7, 3) bmqr’ wbsprwt h“myt hqdwmh [Hebr. The forms of repetition of numbers indicating wholeness (3, 7, 10)], Beer-Sheba 1:1–55. 1978 Tephilah le Ba'al me Ugarit . . . (Hebr.), Shnaton 3:254–62. 1981a The Ghost-Expelling Incantation from Ugarit (Ras Ibn Hani 78/20), UF 13:13–25. 1981b tqbwlwt hmsprym bmqr’ wbsprwt h“myt “l hmzr hqdmwn [Hebr.; Number parallelism in the Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature], 1–9 in Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem: Magnes). 1984 Stylistic Studies of Word Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures (AOAT 210, Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag). 1994 Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms ( Jerusalem: Magnes). A, Y. – B, J. (eds) 1978 Studies in the Bible and the ancient Near East Presented to S.E. Loewenstamm on his seventieth birthday ( Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein’s Publishing House). B, L. – B, P. – M, J. – A, L. – V, R. 1976 Notes ougaritiques I. Keret, Syria 53:95–125. B, M. 1996 La scoperta di Ugarit. La città-stato ai primordi della Bibbia (Casale Monferrato: Piemme). B, G. – J, F. – L, B. – S, D. – V, P. 1984 Archives administratifs de Mari I (ARM 23, Paris: ERC). B, J. 1894 Zur vergleichenden semitischen Grammatik, II: zu den Vokalen der Imperfect-Präfixe, ZDMG 48:4–6. B, G.A. 1940 Danel: a pre-Israelite hero of Galilee, 29–37 in M-J L, (ed.) Mémorial Lagrange (Paris: Gabalda) = JBL 60 (1941) 213–25. B, H. 1930a Die Entzifferung einer neuen Keilschrift, Die Vossische Zeitung, No. 4, (4 June) (Das Unterhaltungsblatt). 1930b Die Entzifferung des Keilschriftsalphabets von Ras Schamra, FuF 6:306–7. 1930c Entzifferung des Keilschrifttafeln von Ras Schamra (Halle: Niemeyer Verlag). 1930d Zum Alphabet von Ras Shamra, OLZ 33: cols. 1062–63. 1932 Das Alphabet von Ras Schamra: seine Entzifferung und seine Gestalt (Halle: Niemeyer Verlag).

766 1937a 1937b B, R.H. 1992

 Der Ursprung des Alphabets (Der Alte Orient 36, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Zur Entzifferung der Keilschrift von Ras Schamra, OLZ 40: cols. 81–3.

The organization of the Hittite military (Texte der Hethiter 20, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag). v B, J. 1994a Chronologie des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches (Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge 39, Hildesheim: Gerstenberg). 1994b Zur Datierung Ramses’ II, GM 142:55–6. B, G. 1995 Hittite provincial administration in Anatolia and Syria: The view from Ma{at and Emar, 19–37 in O. C et al. (eds) Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia (SM 9, Pavia: Gianni Iuculano). 1996a Family values on the middle Euphrates in the thirteenth century , 57–79 in M.W. C (ed.) Emar: the history, religion, and culture of a Syrian town in the Late Bronze Age (Bethesda MD: CDL Press). 1996b Texts from the vicinity of Emar in the collection of Jonathan Rosen (Padua: Sargon srl). 1996c Hittite diplomatic texts (SBLWAW 7, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press). 1996d Akkadian documents from Ugarit, 26–8 in A.B. K (ed.) Sources for the history of Cyprus, Vol. II: Near Eastern and Aegean texts from the third to the first millennia BC (Altamont NY: Greece and Cyprus Research Center). B, B.J. 1997 Did Zimri-Lim play a role in developing the use of tin-bronze in Palestine?, 121–44 in G.D. Y – M.W. C – R.E. A (eds) Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons (Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on His 80th Birthday) (Bethesda MD: CDL Press). B-B, Z. 1980 Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East, JSS 25:22–33. 1988 The legal status of the daughter as heir in Nuzi and Emar, 87–97 in H – L[n 1988. B-H, M. – W, B.D. – Z, S. 1962 Studies and essays in honor of A.A. Neumann (Leiden: Brill, for Dropsie College, Philadelphia). B, P.R. 1969 Die Ala“ia-Briefe Ugaritica V Noug. Nrn. 22–24, UF 1:217–21. 1969–70 Review of G 1967, WO 5:271–82. 1970a Zu den ‘akkadischen’ Briefen in Ugaritica V, UF 2:285–93. 1970b Zum ugaritischen Wörterbuch, I, UF 2:339. B, A. 1983 Parallel word pairs: a linguistic explanation, UF 15:7–16. B, K.H. 1956 Anmerkungen zur Interpretation des KRT-Textes von Ras SchamraUgarit, WZG (Ges. und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe Nr. 2/3) 5: 102–21. 1975 Ugaritische Texte, 205–43 in W. B (ed.) Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament, ATD Ergänzungsreihe 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht). (ET = NERT ) B, T. 1997 Asherah. Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament ( JSOTS 232, CIS 2, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).



767

B, J. – L, S.E. 1970 Zur Frage der scriptio plena im Ugaritischen und verwandtes, UF 2:19–33. B, M.J. 1993 Ideal sonship in Ugarit, UF 25:9–24. B, W.R. (ed.) 1992 Linguistics and biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns). B, J. – W, G. 1979 A““ur-dàn I., Ninurta-apil-Ekur und die mittelassyrische Chronologie, WZKM 71:19–38. B, F.M.T.  L 1936 Oud-Babylonische mythen, JEOL 4:194–204. B, A. (ed.) 1986 Archaeology and fertility cult in the ancient Mediterranean. Papers presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, the University of Malta 2–5 September 1985 (Amsterdam: Grüner). B, M. 1993 I nomi geographici dei testi di Ebla (Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 12/1, Wiesbaden: Reichert). B, C. – X, P. 1996 L’identité d’Astarté-˙r, 29–46 in E. A (ed.) Alle soglie della classicità. Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione (Fs S. Moscati) vol. 1 (Pisa, Rome). B, P. 1981 Les récentes découvertes épigraphiques à Ras Shamra et à Ras Ibn Hani, 43–8 in G.D. Y 1981. 1982 Quatre documents en cunéiformes alphabétiques mal connus ou inédits, Semitica 32:5–14. 1983 Les personnages de la lettre ougaritique, Ugaritic Handbook no. 138 (= KTU 2.14), Berytus 31:75–8. 1984a Les découvertes archéologiques et épigraphiques de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie) en 1983: Un lot d’archives administratives, CRAIBL 398–438. 1984b Arrou, Ourou et Íapanou: circonscriptions administratives et géographie mythique du royaume d’Ougarit, Syria 61:1–10. 1986 Le cylindre alphabétique d’Ougarit RS 17.25, CRAIBL 292–8. 1987 Découvertes épigraphiques récentes à Ras Ibn Hani et à Ras Shamra, CRAIBL 289–301. 1988 Nouvelles restitutions de toponymes de l‘Ougarit, UF 20:9–18. 1989a A propos de la topographie économique de l’Ougarit: Jardins du midi et pâturages du nord, Syria 66:263–74. 1989b La citadelle sainte du Mont Nanou, Syria 66:275–9. 1995a Les tablettes alphabétiques de Ras Shamra et de Ras Ibn Hani (1986– 1992), 1–5 in D – L 1995. 1995b Les archives de la Maison d’Ourtenu. Les textes alphabétiques, CRAIBL 446–9. 1996 Sources et forêts: à propos de la géographie physique et humaine de l’Ougarit, 59–66 in S, A. (ed.) Des Sumériens aux Romains d’Orient. La perception géographique du monde (Antiquités sémitiques 11, Paris: Maisonneuve). 1998 Le premier mot de l’herminette inscrite découverte à Ras Shamra en 1929: outil ou personnage?, 127–32 in D – K 1998. B, P. (ed.) 1991 RSO 7.

768



B, P. et al. 1984 Les découvertes archéologiques et épigraphistes de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie) en 1983, un lot d’archives administratives, CRAIBL 1984:398–438. B, P. – C, A. 1979 Les textes cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1978 à Ibn Hani, Syria 56:306–7. 1980 Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1978 à Ibn Hani, Syria 57:343–73. B, P. – M-L, F. 1995 Les archives de la maison d’Ourtenou, CRAIBL 1995:443–51. B, P. – P, D. 1982 Le rituel funéraire ougaritique RS 34.126, Syria 59:121–8. 1989 RSO 5/1. 1991 Les textes ougaritiques, 139–68 in RSO 7. 1993 Le combat de Ba'lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques, MARI 7:63–70. 1995a Un abécédaire du type sud-sémitique découverte en 1988 dans les fouilles archéologiques françaises de Ras Shamra-Ougarit, CRAIBL 855–60. 1995b L’épigraphie ougaritique: 1973–1993, 27–32 in RSO 11. B, R. 1975 Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur I–III (Berlin: de Gruyter). B, R.E. 1970 Verbal parallelism in Ugaritic and biblical poetry (PhD Dissertation: Dropsie College). B, J. 1972–5 ‘Abiru, RlA 4:14–27. 1974 Symptômes, signes, écritures en Mésopotamie ancienne, 70–196 in J.-P. V et al. (eds) Divination et rationalité (Paris: Seuil). 1977 Textes économiques et administratives (ARM 7, Paris: ERC). 1983 Les morts et l’au-delà dans les rituels en accadien contre l’action des ‘revenants’, ZA 73:153–203. 1993 L’exorcisme et le culte privé en Mésopotamie, 31–9 in M 1993. B, A. – S, N. – L, J. – L, E. 1987 Ras Ibn Hani, archéologie et histoire (Damascus). B, C.H. – C, R.B. 1980 A narrative incantation for snake-bite, UF 12:135–9. B, J.L. III 1975 A collection and examination of the Ugaritic vocabulary contained in the Akkadian texts from Ras Shamra (PhD Diss. University of Chicago). B, G. 1955 Etude juridique, 281–308 in PRU 3. B, J.M. 1971 Nuzi marriage tablets (Brandeis University PhD Diss.). B, J.A. 1977 Appendix: Mesopotamian chronology of the historical period, 335–48 in A.L. O Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago IL: Chicago University Press). B-C, F. (ed.) 1996 Mosaïque de langues mosaïque culturelle. Le bilingüisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien (AntSem 1, Paris: J. Maisonneuve). B, C. 1967 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprache. II Syntax (Berlin: Reuter und Reichard 1913. Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms).



769

B, G.W., et al. (eds) 1988 International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Volume Four: Q-Z (revised edition, Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans). B, G.J. 1979 The textual, formal and historical significance of Ugaritic Letter RS 34.124 (= KTU 2.72), UF 11:69–87. B, G.J – C, A.H.W – H, J.F. (eds) 1994 Ugarit and the Bible. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992 (UBL 11, Münster: UgaritVerlag). B, T.R. 1988 Tette and the Rebellions in Nuhassi, AnSt 38:21–8. 1989 Some observations on the chronology of ”uppiluliuma’s Reign, AnSt 39:19–30. B, G. 1967 Cities and nations of ancient Syria (SS 26, Roma: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma). B, G. 1987 A slave for debt from Alalakh looked for in Ugarit (RS 4.449), AbrNah 25:13–8. 1989 Emar on the Euphrates in the 13th Century , Abr-Nah 27:23–36. B, F.W. 1964 A grammar of the Hurrian language (Brandeis University PhD Diss., Ann Arbor MI: UMI). C, O. 1986 La région nord du Palais Royal d’Ougarit, CRAIBL 735–55. 1994 RSO 10. C, O. – Y, M. 1995 Urbanisme et architecture, 155–68 in RSO 11. C, Y. 1990 Les bassins du palais royal d’Ougarit, Syria 67:32–42. C, E.F. J 1964 The chronology of the Amarna letters (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press). C-K, E.C. 1996 Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall ”è¢ Hamad (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag). C, A. 1960 Les Rephaïm ougaritiques, Syria 37:79–90. 1969 Nouveaux documents ougaritiens, Syria 46:241–65. 1975 RS 34.126, ACF 75:427–9. 1977 Séminaires, ACF 77:461–2. 1978a Séminaires, ACF 78:570–80. 1978b La lettre de la reine Puduhepa, 121–34 in Ug 7. 1978–9 Ras Ibn Hani 78/20, ACF 79:188–90. 1979a Un épisode peu connu du mythe de Baal et de la génisse, UF 11:101–4. 1979b La littérature ugaritique, 1361–1417 in DBS 9. 1979–80 Horon: revue critique et données nouvelles, AAAS 29–30:173–80. 1982 Le dieu Horon: bilan critique et données nouvelles, RHR 199:243–4. 1984 Une nouvelle interprétation de la tablette ougaritique de Ras Ibn Hani 78/20, Orientalia 53:163–76. 1985 Une nouvelle interpretation de KTU 1.19 i 1–19, SEL 2:93–114.



770 1987 1988 1989 1990 1992 C, A. 1985

Notes philologiques sur la légende ougaritique de Danel et d’Aqhat. I, Semitica 37:6–16. Un recueil ougaritique de formules magiques, SEL 5:31–43. Textes religieux, 7–123 in C –  T – C 1989. Notes philologiques sur la légende ougaritique de Danel et d’Aqhat. II (Sur KTU.1 18 IV 9–11), Semitica 38:73–80. Une contribution ougaritique à la préhistoire du titre divin Shadday, Congress Volume SVT 61:1–12 (Leiden: Brill). – L, S. – T, M. (eds) Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215, Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag). – S, M. See C – S – H 1974. Ugaritic religion (Iconography of religions, XV, 8, Leiden: Brill). – S, M. – H, A. TO 1. –  T, J.-M. – C, J.-L. TO 2.

C, A. 1974 1980 C, A. 1974 C, A. 1989 C, U. 1938 La leggenda fenicia di Danel e Aqhat, RRANL (Scienze morali) VI 14:264–8. 1950 The Seven Wives of King Keret, BASOR 119:18–20. 1971 The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age. Texts, Hebrew Translation, Commentary and Introduction ( Jerusalem: Magnes; ET of Hebrew edition, 1951). C, P. 1992 Shipping and Trade in Ramesside Egypt, JESHO 35:263–77. C, K. 1996 Ilu, Yari¢u and the One with two horns and a tail, 1–7 in W – W – L 1996. C, K. – W, W.G.E. 1980 Weathering a wake: a cure for a carousal. A revised translation of Ugaritica V text 1, PIBA 4:35–58. C, H.W. 1964 Cypriot bronzework in the Mycenaean world (Oxford: Clarendon Press). C, A. 1990 Note sur les chars d’Ougarit, Semitica 38:81–5. 1991a Répertoire de la vaisselle de pierre, Ougarit 1929–1988, 205–64 in RSO 6. 1991b Objets et instruments d’albâtre, 265–72 in RSO 6. 1992 Reoccupation of the Syrian coast after the destruction of the ‘crisis years’, 123–31 in W – J 1992. 1995 Art and architecture in Canaan and ancient Israel, 261–9 in J. Sa (ed.) Civilizations of the ancient Near East (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons). 1996a La musique à Ougarit: nouveaux témoignages matériels, 9–31 in W – W – L 1996. 1996b Ugarit, 529–31 in J. T (ed.) The dictionary of art volume 31 (London: Grove). C, A. – M, V. 1995 Ougarit et l’Egée, 99–112 in RSO 11. C, A. – P, F. 1987 Les objets de matière dure animale: étude du matérial, 273–306 in RSO 3.



771

C, A. 1980–3 Lexicalische Listen, RlA:609–41. C, H. 1969 Review of Ug 5, VT 19:499–505. 1970 La ‘lettre du général’ (Ugaritica V); les enseignes et la bataille de Kadesh, MUSJ 46:33–50. 1979 Précis de grammaire ugaritique BieOr 121:253–680. C, S.M. 1984 Un rendiconto di lavori edilizî, SEL 1:43–51. C, M.W. – H, J.L. 1992 New horizons in the study of ancient Syria (BM 25, Malibu CA: Undena Publications). C, M.-J. 1987 Instruments de bronze, 357–74 in RSO 3. C, B. 1994 The role of the Sea Peoples at the end of the Late Bronze Age: a reassessment of textual and archaeological evidence, OAM 1:1–23. C, J. 1976 Ugaritic texts in translation (Seattle: published privately)2. C C.H. 1996 The Ugaritic hippiatric texts. Revised composite text, translation and commentary, UF 28:105–54. C, C.H. – S, D. 1983 The Ugaritic hippiatric texts: a critical edition (AOS 9, New Haven CT: American Oriental Society). C, M.E. 1993 The cultic calendars of the ancient Near East (Bethesda MD: CDL Press). D C, H. 1992 RSO 8. C, M.D. 1978 Stories from ancient Canaan (Philadelphia PA: Westminster). C, M.D. – E, J.C. – S, L.E. (eds) 1994 Scripture and other artifacts. Essays on Archaeology and the Bible in honor of Philip J. King (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox). C, A. 1987 MLK 'LM: ‘Eternal King’ or ‘King of Eternity’?, 1–7 in M, J.H. – G, R.M. (eds) Love and death in the ancient Near East Essays in honor of Marvin H. Pope (Guilford: Four Quarters). 1988 Two exegetical notes on Aqht, UF 20:19–26. C, J. 1946 Les parallèles du Psautier avec les textes de Ras Shamra, Le Muséon 59:113–42. C, I. 1993 Anat and Qudshu as ‘Mistress of Animals’. Aspects of the iconography of the Canaanite goddesses, SEL 10:21–45. 1994 The iconography of the Canaanite gods Reshef and Ba'al. Late Bronze and Iron Age periods (c. 1500–1000 BCE) (OBO 140, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht). Forthcoming The iconography of the Syro-Palestinian goddesses Asherah, Anat, Astarte and Qedeshet in the Late Bronze —Iron Age I periods (OBO, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht). C, A.D. 1966 Anatomy of a decipherment, TWA 55:11–20.

772



C, J.-C. 1969 La maison du prêtre aux modèles de poumon et de foies d’Ugarit, Ug 6:91–119. 1973 Sur divers groupes de vases mycéniens en Méditerranée orientale (1250– 1150 av. J.-C.), 137–65 in V. K (ed.) Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium: ‘ The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean’ (Nicosia: Cyprus Department of Antiquities). 1978 Corpus céramique de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Niveaux historiques d’Ugarit. Bronze Moyen et Bronze Récent. Deuxième partie, Ug 7:191–370. 1979 Various entries, DBS 9:1124–1295, 1439–42. 1987 Enkomi und Ras Shamra, zwei Aussenposten der Mykenischen Kultur, 182–217 in H.G. B (ed.) Ägäische Bronzezeit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-gesellschaft). 1990 Yabninu et le palais sud d’Ougarit, Syria 67:103–42. C, P.C. 1983 Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans). C, F.M. 1974 Prose and poetry in the mythic and epic texts from Ugarit, HTR 67:1–15. 1976 The ‘olden gods’ in ancient near eastern creation myths, 329–38 in F.M. C – W.E. L – P.D. M (eds) Magnalia Dei: the mighty acts of God. Essays on the Bible and archaeology in memory of G. Ernest Wright (Garden City NY: Doubleday). C, J.A. 1992 The Penguin dictionary of literary terms and literary theory (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books). C, W. 1966 The first merchant venturers: the ancient Levant in history and commerce (London: Thames and Hudson). C, J.-L. 1981a Etude philologique de màl"àk. Perspectives sur le màl"àk de la divinité dans la bible hébraïque, 30–51 in SVT 23 (Congress volume, Vienna 1980, Leiden: Brill). 1981b KTU 2.21. Lettre adressée à la Reine. Ibrk≈ a transmis le message de la Reine, UF 13:45–8. 1982 La "ika, màl"àk et m elà"kâ en sémitique nord-occidental, RSF 10:153–60. 1983a Une formule inédite de salutation en ougaritique, AuOr 1:61–6. 1983b Le pronom demonstratif hn en ougaritique. Son existence, son histoire, ses rapports avec les autres demonstratifs et avec l’article, AuOr 1:155–65. 1984 La religiosité quotidienne dans la correspondance d’Ugarit, RHR 201:229–34. 1986 ‘Que tout aille bien auprès de ma mère!’ Un qatala optatif en ougaritique?, 259–66 in M 1986. 1989a Correspondance, 239–421 in TO 2. 1989b Estudias de epistolografia ugarítica (Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo). 1990 RSO 5/2. 1991 ‘El encargado o comisionado’. Recorrido por los senderos de la exegésis. De la filología a las instituciones. De lo profano a lo religioso. De la historia de las religiones a la teología, 83–94 in III Simposio biblico español (I Luso-Espanhol) (Valencia, Lisbon: Fundación bíblica española). 1992a Realizaciones informáticas del Sistema integrado de análisis morfológico de textos ugaríticos (SIAMTU), Biblica 73:547–59. 1992b Manual de estudios ugaríticos (Textos Universitarios 12, Madrid: CSIC). 1996a La Hermeneumática: de la tablilla a la inteligencia artificial, FCT 12:52–5.

 1996b 1997 1998a 1998b 1998c Forthcoming

Forthcoming

Forthcoming

C, 1998

C, 1996 C, 1996 1997 C, Forthcoming

773

Le traitement informatique des syntagmes simples. XLIII Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Prague 1–5 juillet. 223–34 in Studia Mesopotamica, Anatolica et Iranica, SIMA 3. Des outils pour le développement de l’hermémeumatique sémitique nord-occidentale, 97–124 in J.A. E (ed.) Congress Volume (Cambridge 1995) (SVT 66, Leiden: Brill). Cadenas Quebradas, 151–74 in D – K 1998. Organización, resultados y expectativas del ‘Banco de datos filológicos semíticos noroccidentales’. Actas del Congreso Español de Antiguo Oriente Proximo. Íapànu. Publicaciones en Internet, II (1998). labherm. filo.csic.es Un banco de datos filológicos (BDFSN). JADT 1998. 4 èmes Journées internationales d’analyse statistique de données textuelles (Nice: Universit Nice Sophie Aniplois, CNRS, INaLF). a Tratamiento informático de las lenguas Siro-palestinas del II y I milenio a. C. Desarrollo actual y estrategia de futuro, en I International symposium. A decade in ancient near eastern studies (1986–1996). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 2–4 December 1996 (Madrid: CSIC) in press. b El generador de segmentaciones, restituciones y concordancias, GSRC. Un conjunto de herramientas para la investigación filológica en CDRom y Internet. 44e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Venise, 7–11 Juillet 1997 in press. c Organisation et spécifications de la Banque de Données ‘Banco de Datos Filológicos Semíticos Noroccidentales’, Fifth international conference on Bible and computers (AIBI 5). Bible and informatics: translation and transmission. Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, 1–4 September 1997 (Madrid: UAM) in press. J.-L. – C, R. Analizador morfológico de palabras ugaríticas (AMU), ii 839–46 in A. R – N. G – R. C – A. T (eds) First international conference on language resources and evaluation. Granada, Spain, 28–30 May 1998 (Granada: ELRA). J.-L. – C, R. – V, J.-P. – G, J.M. – Z, J.-A. Generador de Segmentaciones, Restituciones y Concordancias (Banco de datos filológicos semíticos noroccidentales (BDFSN). Datos ugaríticos, III ). CD-ROM, 53Mb, ISBN: 84–922189–0–8. Madrid. J.-L. – G, J.-M. Filología e informática. Epigrafía ugarítica, Sefarad 56:161–170. The Northwest Semitic philological databank: setting out and realizations, (SIMA 3, Göteborg: Enigma Corporation). J.-L. – S, J.

Herramientas para el tratamiento crítico de textos semítico-noroccidentales: módulos primero y segundo para el fenicio, ii 1009–13 in A. R – N. G – R. C – A. T (eds) First international conference on language resources and evaluation. Granada, Spain, 28–30 May 1998 (Granada: ELRA). C, J.-L. – V, J.-P. 1993a Banco de Datos Filológicos Semíticos Noroccidentales (BDFSN ): I. Textos Ugaríticos (TU ) (Madrid: CSIC, Institución Fernando el Católico). 1993b Crónica de la destrucción de una ciudad del reino de Ugarit (TU 00– 2.61), Sefarad 53:243–47.



774

Concordancia de palabras ugaríticas en morfología desplegada. (CPU) Banco de datos filológicos semíticos noroccidentales (BDFSN). Datos ugaríticos, II (3 vols., Madrid: CSIC, Institución Fernando el Católico). 1995b El sello de Il“rp. Nota filológica sobre TU 00–6.69 (RS 17.25), Sefarad 55:389–92. 1999 Die Informatisierung der ugaritischen Sprache, Nordostafrikanisch/Westasiatische Studien (Frankfurt am Main: Universität Frankfurt) in press. C, J.-L. – Z, J.-A. 1995 Gramática ugarítica elemental (Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas). C, A.H.N. 1985 Ugarit (Ras Shamra) (Cities of the Biblical World, Cambridge: Lutterworth). C, B. ‒ M, J. 1982 On the origin of the Ugaritic text KTU 1.23, UF 14:33–50. D, M.J. 1970 Psalms III 101–150 (AB 17a, Garden City NY: Doubleday). 1972 Ugaritic-Hebrew parallel pairs, RSP I, 71–382. 1975 Ugaritic-Hebrew parallel pairs, RSP II, 1–39. 1981 Ugaritic-Hebrew parallel pairs, RSP III, 1–206. D, A.-S. 1996 Exemples de bilinguisme à Ougarit. Iloumilkou: la double identité d’un scribe, 81–90 in B-C 1996. D, E.W. 1993 The inheritance of the first-born in Israel and the ancient Near East, JSS 38:175–91. D, J. 1985 God’s Battle with the Dragon and the Sea. Echoes of a Canaanite myth in the Old Testament (UCOP 35, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). D, P.L. 1991 Why is Anat a warrior and a hunter? 141–6 in W. J et al. (eds) The Bible and the politics of exegesis: essays in honor of Norman K. Gottwald on his sixty-fifth birthday (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press). 1992 Anat: Ugarit’s ‘mistress of animals’, JNES 51:181–90. 1995 Anat, cols. 62–77 in DDD. D, A. 1978 The Goddess Anath and some biblical Hebrew sources, JSS 23:25–30. D, M. 1992 Review of I" – S 1990, BLE 12. D-N, C. 1956 Interpretation et datation d’une scène gravée sur deux fragments de récipient en albâtre provenant des fouilles du palais d’Ugarit, Ug 3:179–220. D, E. 1930a Un nouvel alphabet sémitique, RB 39:571–77. 1930b Le déchiffrement des tablettes de Ras Shamra, JPOS 11:1–6. 1931 Première traduction des textes phéniciens de Ras Shamra, RB 40:32–56. 1939 Lettre du roi de Kargamish au roi d’Ugarit, i 203–7 in Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud (BAH 30, Paris: Geuthner). D, I.M. 1981 Evidence on the ethnic division of the Hurrians, SCCNH 1:77–89. D, M. 1990 Die akkadischen Texte der Archive und Bibliotheken von Emar, UF 22:25–48. 1996 Aspects of the Babylonian impact on Ugaritic literature and religion, 33–47 in W – W – L 1996. 1995a

 1997

775

Die Texte aus Ugarit im Spannungsfeld zwischen Königshaus und Bevölkerung, 75–93 in R. A (ed.) Religion und Gesellschaft. Studien zu ihrer Wechselbeziehung in den Kulturen des antiken Vorderen Orients. Veröffentlichungen des Arbeitskreises zur Erforschung der Religions- und Kulturgeschichte des antiken Vorderen Orients (AOAT 248, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). D, M. – K, I. (eds) 1998 ‘Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf . . .’. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für O. Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 250, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). D, M. – L, O. 1964–6 Die soziale Struktur von Alala¢ und Ugarit. I. Die Berufsbezeichnungen mit der hurritischen Endung -¢uli, WO 3:188–205. 1966a Der Vertrag zwischen ”uppiluliuma und Niqmaddu. Eine philologische und kulturhistorische Studie, WO 3:206–45. 1966b Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie ( I ), BiOr 23:127–33. 1967 Untersuchungen zur Schrift- und Lautlehre des Ugaritischen (I), WO 4:300–15. 1969 Hurritisch *fa/ent- in ugaritischen Personennamen, UF 1:211–3. 1970 Die soziale Struktur von Alala¢ und Ugarit (IV). Die É = bitu-Listen aus Alala¢ IV als Quelle für die Erforschung der geselleschaftlichen Schichtung von Alala¢ im 15. Jh. v. Chr., ZA 60:88–123. 1973a Der Prolog des Krt-Epos (CTA 14 I 3–5), 31–6 in H. G – H.P. R eds, Wort und Geschichte. Festschrift für Karl Elliger zum 70. Geburtstag (AOAT 18, Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag). 1973b Der Prolog des Krt-Epos. Eine Ergänzung, UF 5:283. 1973c Untersuchungen zur Schrift- und Lautlehre des Ugaritischen (I): Lesehilfen in der ugaritischen Orthographie, UF 5:71–7. 1976 Die Elfenbeininschriften und S-Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 13, Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag). 1978a Die sieben Kunstwerke des Schmiedegottes in KTU 1.4 I 23–43, UF 10:57–63. 1978b Ug. kld ‘Bogen’ und arkd ‘Wurfholz, Lanze (?)’ in KTU 4.277, UF 10:429. 1978c Der ‘Seefahrende Volk’ von “ikila (RS 34.129), UF 10:53–6. 1980a Die Bannung von Schlangengift (KTU 1.100 und KTU 1.107:7b– 13a.19b–20), UF 12:153–70. 1980b Schriftliche und mündliche überlieferung eines ‘Sonnenhymnus’ nach KTU 1.6 VI 42–53, UF 12:399–400. 1981 Neue Studien zu den Ritualtexten aus Ugarit (i). Ein Forschungsbericht, UF 13:63–100. 1982 Das Porträt einer Königin in KTU 1.14 I 12–15. Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (XVIII), UF 14:199–204. 1983a Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden historisch-chronologische Texte, in TUAT 1/2. 1983b Neue Studien zu den Ritualtexten aus Ugarit (II) Nr. 6 – Epigraphische und inhaltliche Probleme in KTU 1.161, UF 15:17–24. 1983c Kennt das Ugaritische einen Titel A¢at-Milki = ”ar-elli = ∆ryl ‘Schwester des Königs’?, UF 15:303. 1985 Briefe aus Ugarit, 505–10 in TUAT I/5. 1988a Die Keilalphabete. Die phönizisch-kanaanäischen und altarabischen Alphabete in Ugarit (ALASP 1, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). 1988b Ugaritische Rituale und Beschwörungen, 299–357 in TUAT II/3.



776

The Cuneiform alphabets of Ugarit, UF 21:101–12. Mantik in Ugarit Keilalphabetische Texte der Opferschau—Omensammlungen— Nekromantie (ALASP 3, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). 1990b Hurritisch-ugaritisch-hebräisch tbl ‘Schmied’, UF 22:87–8. 1990c The syntax of omens in Ugaritic, Maarav 5–6:89–109. 1990d Schiffshandel und Schiffsmiete zwischen Byblos und Ugarit (KTU 4.338:10–8), UF 22:89–96. 1991a Zur Debatte über ‘Funerary rituals and beatific afterlife in Ugaritic texts and in the Bible’, UF 23:85–90. 1991b Grabbeigaben für den verstorbenen König. Bermerkungen zur Neuausgabe von RS 34.126 = KTU 1.161, UF 23:103–6. 1991c Ugaritisch dr ', dry und hebräisch zrh II, UF 23:79–82. 1991d Ugaritisch '“r, à“irùma und äthiopisch 'a““ara, 309–27 in K (ed.) 1991. 1992 ‘Jahwe und seine Aschera.’ Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel (UBL 9, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). 1993 KTU 1.114, ein ‘Palimpsest’, UF 25:133–6. 1994a Ugaritisch i∆ , ∆yndr und hebräisch ’“h, “y, UF 26:63–72. 1994b Neue Tafelfunde des Grabungskampagne 1994 in Ugarit, UF 26:21–2. 1995 (eds) Ugarit: ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. I. Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt (ALASP 7, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). 1996a Analytic Ugaritic Bibliography (1972–1988) (AOAT 20/6, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker). 1996b Word list of the cuneiform alphabetic tablets from Ugarit (ALASP 12; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). 1997 Der Vertrag zwischen Ir-Addu von Tunip und Niqmepa von Muki“, 211–42 in M.W. C – R.E. A (eds) Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons. Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour (Bethesda MD: CDL Press). 1998 Amurru, Yaman und die Ägäischen Inseln nach den ugaritischen Texten, IOS 18:335–63. D, M. – L, O. et al. 1967–86 Ugarit-Bibliographie 1928–1950 (AOAT 20/1), 1950–1959 (AOAT 20/2), 1959–1966 (AOAT 20/3), Indizes (AOAT 20/4), 1967–1971 (AOAT 20/5) Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag); cf. D – L 1996a. D, M. – L, O. – S, J. 1974a Der Satzbau in PRU 2.12, UF 6:456–457. 1974b Sonnenfinsternis in Ugarit. PRU 2, 162 (= RS 12.61), das älteste Dokument über eine Totaleklipse, UF 6:464–5. 1975a Der stichometrische Aufbau von RS 24.258 = Ug 5, S. 545–51 Nr. 1, UF 7:109–14. 1975b Bemerkungen zur Schlangenbeschwörung RS 24.244, UF 7:121–5. 1975c Einzelbemerkungen zu RS 24.251, UF 7:127–31. 1975d Die keilalphabetische ”UMMA IZBU-Text RS 24.247 + 265 + 268 + 328: UF 7:133–40. 1975e Die Texteinheiten in RS 1.2 (sic !) = CTA 32 (sic!) und RS 17.100 = Appendice 1, UF 7:140–6. 1975f Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie XIII, UF 7:157–69. 1975g Das Ritual RS 1.5 = CTA 33, UF 7:525–8. 1975h Die Götterliste RS 24.246 = Ug 5, S. 594 Nr. 14, UF 7:545–6. 1975i Notizen zum Opfertext RS 24.260 = Ug 5, S. 586 Nr. 11, UF 7: 543–4. 1975j Zu “lm kll im Opfertext von Marseille (CIS I 165), UF 7:561–2. 1989 1990a



777

KTU 1. Ug. kgmn oder k gmn (CTA 6 I 19–29), UF 8:432. Die ugaritischen Totengeister RPU(M) und die biblischen Rephaim, UF 8:45–52. 1995 KTU 2 (also cited as CAT ). D, M. – M, W. 1991 Beiträge zum Hurritischen (I), UF 23:107–26. 1992 Die Konjunktive im Mitanni-Hurritischen, UF 24:39–58. 1993 Die Deklination des Hurritischen im Mittani-Brief, UF 25:143–56. 1994 Hurritische Weihrauchbeschwörungen in ugaritischer Alphabetschrift, UF 26:73–112. 1995 Sprache und Kultur der Hurriter in Ugarit, 7–42 in D – L 1995. 1996a Festritual für die Palastgöttin Pidray. Der hurro-ugaritische Opfertext KTU 1.132, UF 28:165–76. 1996b Hurritica Alalahiana (I), UF 28:177–88. 1997a Ein hurritisches Totenritual für 'Ammi“tamru II (KTU 1.125), 79–89 in B. P-L – H. K – P. X (eds) Ana “adî Labnàni lù allik (Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig) (AOAT 247, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). 1997b Das hurritische Pantheon von Ugarit, UF 29:161–81. 1998 The pantheon of the Hurritic sacrificial lists from Ugarit, Subartu 4 (in press). v D, J.J.A. 1982 Fremdsprachige Beschwörungstexte in der südmesopotamischen literarischen Überlieferung, 91–113 in H.J. N – J. R (eds) Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Poltische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im alten Vorderaisen vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v Chr. (BBVO 1/1, Berlin: Reimer Verlag). (97–110 in 2nd edition, 1987.) D, M. 1976 Two notes on PRU 5, no. 60, UF 8:437–9. 1979 Some reflections on the legend of Aqhat, UF 11:199–210. 1984 The ritual KTU 1.46 (= RS 1.9) and its duplicates, UF 16:69–76. 1985 Once again the closing lines of the Ba'al Cycle (KTU 1.6.VI.42ff.), UF 17:147–52. 1986 An Ugaritic fable (KTU 1.93), UF 18:125–8. 1987a Marginalia to the Ugaritic letters I, UF 19:37–48. 1987b Epigraphical evidence for the determination of the column-order in the tablets KTU 1.1 and KTU 1.20–22, UF 19:49–60. 1988 The legend of Danel and the Rephaim, UF 20:35–52. 1989 Marginalia to the Ugaritic letters II, UF 21:141–52. 1990 On the identity of the Hittite princess mentioned in label KTU 6.24 (RS 17.72), UF 22:97–101. 1991 The weather-god on two mountains, UF 23:127–40. 1993 The Ugaritic-Hurrian sacrificial hymn to El, UF 25:143–56. 1994 The myth of Astarte, the huntress (KTU 1.92). New fragments, UF 26:113–26. 1995 He pours the sweet wine off, only the dregs are for the wicked. An epigraphic note on mizzah in Psalm 75, 9, ZAW 107:296–300. 1998 Astral myth of the birth of Shahar and Shalim (KTU 1.23), 265–87 in D – K 1998. D, M. –  M, J.C. 1975 Problematic passages in the legend of Aqhatu, UF 7:171–215. DÇ, A. 1992 A Hieroglyphic seal impression from Samsat, Belleten 56:3–5. 1976a 1976b 1976c

778



D, D.L. 1981 The third masculine plural of the prefixed form of the verb in Ugaritic, JANES 13:5–14. D, C. 1983 Ein Kanaanäischer Schmiedeterminis (nsk), UF 15:39–46. D, M. 1991 Origins of the modern mind (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press). D, H. 1968–9 Review of G 1967, AfO 22:89–90. D, G. – D, K. 1981 Die Familie Kizzuk. Sieben Kassitengenerationen in Temtena und ”uriniwe, SCCNH 1:91–113. D K, A. (see K, A.D.) D, H.H.P. 1975 Is the bow of Aqhat a symbol of virility? UF 7:217–20. 1979 The metamorphosis of a lacuna. Is at.a¢.wan . . . a proposal of marriage? UF 11:211–7. 1983 Problems with the collation of the Aqht-text, column one, UF 15:43–6. D, R. 1993 The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press). D, G.R. 1956 Canaanite myths and legends (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark). D, M.S. 1975 Ugarit, 130–60 in CAH 2/2. D-G, M. 1981 Music in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, WA 12:287–97. D, R.F. 1987 The Late History of Ugarit (circa 1260 –1182 BC) (PhD Diss., Hebrew Union College, Ann Arbor MI: UMI). D, J.-M. 1990 Review of R – X 1985, MARI 6:659–64. 1993 Le mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopotamie, MARI 7:41–61. 1995 La religión en Siria durante la época de los reinos amorreos según la documentación de Mari, 127–528 in P. M – J.M. D Mitología y religion del Oriente Antiguo II/1. Semitas Occidentales (Ebla, Mari) (Sabadell: AUSA). D, R. 1929 Note additionelle [to S 1929], Syria 10:297–303. 1930a Au sujet du déchiffrement des textes de Ras Shamra par H. Bauer, CRAIBL (29 May 130) 130–1. 1930b Nouvelles archéologiques: déchiffrement par M. Hans Bauer des textes de Ras Shamra, Syria 11:200–2. 1931 Brèves remarques sur les tablettes de Ras Shamra, Syria 12:67–77. 1935 Les éléments déchainés. Une application des règles rhythmiques phéniciennes, Syria 16:196–204. 1937 Les découvertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et l’Ancien Testament (Paris: Geuthner, 19412 ). E, E. 1964 Gesandter, RlA 3:212–3. E, E. 1976 Ägyptische Ärzte und ägyptische Medizin am hethitischen Königshof (RheinischWestfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vorträge G 205, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag).

 1983 1994 E, J. 1991 E, 1939 1950

779

Bemerkungen zu Helck’s Philisterartikel, BN 22:7–8. Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache (Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Abhandlung 77, Band I–II, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag).

The Tell Leilan Archives 1987, RA 85:109–35. O. Ras Schamra und Sanchunjaton (BRA 4, Halle: Niemeyer Verlag). Zu den Urkunden über den Tribut Niqmads, Königs von Ugarit, an den hethitischen Grosskönig Schuppiluliuma, 147–57 in W. B et al. (eds) Festschrift Alfred Bertholet (Tübingen: Mohr). 1952 Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilimilku von Ugarit (BRA 5, Halle: Niemeyer Verlag). 1966 Sohnespflichten im Alten Orient, Syria 43:39–47. E, J. 1965 Ugaritic notes, JTS 16:438–43. E, I. 1967 Studies in divine kingship in the ancient Near East (Oxford: Blackwell [Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells, 1943]). E, L. – T, G. (eds) 1988 Ascribe to the Lord. Biblical & other studies in memory of Peter C. Craigie ( JSOTS 67, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). F, F.M. 1984 An Akkadian Letter from Ugarit between “àknus, OA 23:163–6. F, M. 1977 Le dieu de la mer chez les Phéniciens et les Puniques (Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche). F, W. 1981 Zur älteren akkadischen Beschwörungsliteratur, ZA 71:51–72. 1984 Early Akkadian incantations: addenda et substrahenda, JNES 43:69–71. 1986 Associative magic: some rituals, word plays, and philology, JAOS 106: 447–9. 1987 Rituale und Beschwörungen in akkadischer Sprache, 212–81 in TUAT II/2. F, F.C. 1971 Some remarks on the first three mythological texts of Ugaritica V, UF 3:21–4. 1972 The first Ugaritic texts in Ugaritica V and the Old Testament, VT 22:296–303. F, T. 1969 Command and fulfillment in Ugarit—‘QTL:YQTL’ and ‘QTL:QTL’, JSS 14:34–8. 1970 The absence of a verbal formation *yaqattal from Ugaritic and Northwest Semitic, JSS 15:31–41. 1973 The Hebrew ‘tenses’ in the light of Ugaritic, 31–9 in Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies IV ( Jerusalem: Union of Jewish Studies). 1996 Baal au foudre: of snakes and mountains, myth and message, 49–64 in W – W – L 1996. F, J.J. 1966 The genealogy of the Hammurapi dynasty, JCS 20:95–118. F, L.R. 1965 Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament, VT 15:313–24. 1969 An Ugaritic ritual and Genesis I, Ug 6:1–5. 1970 A new ritual calendar from Ugarit, HTR 63:493–4. 1975 Literary genres in the Ugaritic texts, 131–214 in RSP 2.

780



F, L.R. (ed.) 1971 The Claremont Ras Shamra tablets (AnOr 48, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). F, L.R. et al. (eds) 1972–5 RSP 1, 2. F, D.E. 1991 The voice of the incantation priest (RIH 78/20), UF 23:141–54. 1992a A limited kingship: Late Bronze Emar in ancient Syria, UF 24:59–71. 1992b The installation of Baal’s high priestess at Emar (HSS 42, Atlanta GA: Scholars). 1997 Ugaritic incantation against sorcery, 301–2 in H 1997. F, C.M. 1987 Are the ‘Gracious Gods’ bn “rm? UF 19:61–74. F, J.A. 1959 Python. A study of Delphic myth and its origins (Berkeley CA: University of California Press). 1966 The ritual theory of myth (Berkeley CA: University of California Press). 1981 Orion. The myth of the hunter and the huntress (Berkeley CA: California University Press). F, J.N. 1992 The ‘Living Rephaim’ of Ugarit: quick or defunct?, UF 24:73–101. F, N.S. 1995 Clapping hands as a gesture of anguish and anger in Mesopotamia and in Israel, JANES 23:49–60. F, H. 1979 The art and architecture of the ancient Orient (Pelican History of Art, Harmondsworth: Penguin4. First published 1954). F, D. 1992 Ili-Malku the ∆'y, SEL 9:21–6. F, J. 1985 La correspondence d’Abimilki, prince de Tyr, el la fin de l’ère Amarnienne, Annales de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Nice 50:23–60. 1988 La tablette RS 86.2230 et la phase finale du royame d’Ugarit, Syria 65:395–8. 1992 Les guerres syriennes de Suppiluliuma et la fin de l’ère Amarnienne, Hethitica 11:39–101. Forthcoming Le fin d’Ugarit et de l’Empire Hittite: Données nouvelles et chronologie. F, H. 1991a Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte (Berlin: AkademieVerlag). 1991b Zum mittelassyrischen Königsbrief KBo XXVIII 61–64, AoF 18:23–31. F, A.F. 1987 Towards a relative chronology at Nuzi, 109–29 in D.I. O – M.A. M (eds) Studies on the civilization and culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians volume 2 (General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 9/1, Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns). F, J. 1932 Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler (Berlin: de Gruyter). 1933a Ras Schamra: ein Überblick über Funde und Forschungen (Der Alte Orient 33, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). 1933b Zu den drei Aleph-Zeichen des Ras-Schamra-Alphabets, ZA 41:305–13. 1943 Kleinigkeiten zur ugaritischen Grammatik, Or 12:1–22. 1960 Hethitisches Elementarbuch I (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag). F, P. 1955a Leggenda di Aqhat. Testo ugaritico (Florence: Sansoni).



781

1955b La fonetica ugaritica (SE 7, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura). 1965 La lingua dei testi ippiatrici di Ugarit, AGI 60:34–46. 1973 (ed.) Studies on Semitic Lexicography (QS 2, Florence: Istituto di linguistica e di lingue orientali). 1993 Testi rituali della regalità (archivio L 2769) (ARET 9, Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria). F, H. 1991 Anchors sacred and profane, 355–410 in Y 1991. F, W.J. 1976 The Canaanite god Re“ep (AOS 8, New Haven CT: American Oriental Society). G, E. 1988 The Social Structure of Alala¢, 99–110 in H – L[n 1988. G, A. 1960 The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II (Oxford: Ashmolean Museum). G, J. 1987 Objets en os et en ivoire, 249–72 in RSO 3. 1992 Ugarit ivories: typology and distribution, 67–89 in Fi, J.L. (ed.) Ivory in Greece and the eastern Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic period (British Museum Occasional Papers 85, London: British Museum). G, W.R. 1986 On voicing and devoicing in Ugaritic, JNES 45:45–52. 1987 A population estimate of ancient Ugarit, BASOR 266:31–43. G, T.H. 1933 The ritual pattern of a Ras ”amra Epic, ArOr 5:118–23. 1936 The story of Aqhat I, SMSR 12:126–49. 1937 The story of Aqhat II, SMSR 13:25–56. 1938 The story of Aqhat III, SMSR 14:212–5. 1946 A Canaanite ritual drama. The spring festival at Ugarit, JAOS 66:49–76. 1947 The Canaanite epic of Keret, JQR 37:285–93. 1950 Thespis (New York: Schuman; 2nd edition 1961, New York: Doubleday, reprinted 1966 Harper). 1975 Sharper than a serpent’s tooth: a Canaanite charm against snakebite, JANES 7:33–51. G, I.J. 1963 A study of writing (2nd edition, Chicago: Chicago University Press). G, I.J. – P, P.M. – M, A.A. 1943 Nuzi personal names (Oriental Institute Publications 57, Chicago IL: Oriental Institute). G, S.A. 1979 Parallelism in Early Hebrew Poetry (HSM 20, Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). G, S. 1963 Patterns in the early poetry of Israel (Chicago IL: Chicago University Press). G, J.C.L. 1975 Myth, legend and folklore in the Ugaritic Keret and Aqhat texts, SVT 28:60–8. 1978 Canaanite myths and legends (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark). 1984 The theology of the Ugaritic Baal cycle, Or 53:202–19. G, H.L. 1935 Birth of the gracious and beautiful gods, JRAS pp. 45–72. 1936 The Rebellion and death of Ba'lu, Or 5:161–98. 1939 Two religious borrowings in Ugaritic literature. I A Hurrian myth in Semitic dress, Orientalia 8:317–27. 1945a The North-Canaanite myth of Anath and Aqhat I, BASOR 97:3–10. 1945b The North-Canaanite myth of Anath and Aqhat II, BASOR 98:15–23.

782 1946 1950 1969 G, J. 1966

 The Legend of King Keret (BASOR Supp. 2–3, New Haven CT). Interpreting Ugaritic texts, JAOS 70:156–60. Ugaritic myths, epics and legends, 129–55 in ANET 3. The use of computers in ancient near eastern studies. State of the art and future prospects, Akkadica 99–100:48–9.

G, R. 1981 Some egyptological considerations concerning Ugarit, 55–8 in Y 1981. 1986 Ugarit, 838–42 in LÄ 6. G, R.K. 1997 No other gods ( JSOTS 241, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). G, A. 1933 Die Annalen des Mur“ili“ (Leipzig: MVAeG 38). 1938 The tenses of Ugaritic, JAOS 58:266–309. 1941 The Nikkal poem from Ras Shamra, JBL 60:353–74. 1957 The Syrian town of Emar, BASOR 147:22–7. G, R.M. 1991 On RS 24.252, UF 23:155–60. 1994 The sportsman Baal, UF 26:147–63. G, C.H. 1937 A marriage of the gods in Canaanite mythology, BASOR 65:29–33. 1940 Ugaritic grammar (AnOr 20, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). 1943 The Poetic Literature of Ugarit, Or 12:49–51. 1947 Ugaritic handbook (AnOr 25, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). 1949 Ugaritic literature (SPIB 98, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). 1955 Ugaritic manual (AnOr 35, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). 1956 Observations on the Akkadian tablets from Ugarit, RA 50:127–33. 1965 Ugaritic textbook (AnOr 38, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1966 Ugarit and Minoan Crete (New York: Norton). 1977 Poetic legends and myths from Ugarit, Berytus 25:5–133. 1982 Forgotten scripts. Their ongoing discovery and decipherment (New York: Basic Books. 2nd edition). G, R.P. 1991 K/ki/ky in incantational incipits, UF 23:161–3. G, L.L. 1976 The seasonal pattern and the ‘Baal cycle’, UF 8:57–63. 1994 ‘Canaanite’: some methodological observations in relation to biblical study, 113–22 in B – C – H 1994. G, R. 1960 The Greek myths 2 volumes (Harmondsworth: Penguin3 ). G, J. 1949 The Rephaim, PEQ 81:127–39. 1952 DTN and Rpum in Ancient Ugarit, PEQ 84:39–41. 1957 The legacy of Canaan (SVT 5, Leiden: Brill; 2nd edition 1965, SVT 9). 1964a The KRT text in the literature of Ras Shamra (Leiden: Brill 2nd edition [1st edition 1955]). 1964b The Canaanites (London: Thames and Hudson). 1965 Social Aspects of Canaanite Religion, 170–92 in P.A.H. B (ed.) Congress Volume Geneva (SVT 15, Leiden: Brill). 1969 Sacral kingship in Ugarit, Ug 6:289–302. G, S.W. 1994 Wordplay and associative magic in the Ugaritic snake-bite incantation RS 24.244, UF 26:165–7.



783

G, J.C. 1967 Ugaritic Lexicographical Notes, JCS 21:89–93. 1969 Some Glosses on the Keret Epic, EI 9:60–5. G, E.L. 1974 Two variations of grammatical parallelism in Canaanite poetry and their psycholinguistic background, JANES 6:87–105. 1977 One more step on the staircase, UF 9:77–86. 1983 How does parallelism mean?, 41–70 in S.A. G et al. (eds) A sense of text: the art of language in the study of biblical literature ( JQRS, Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns). 1997 Kirta, 9–48 in P 1997a. G, F. 1967 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (SP 1, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). G, O. 1906 Griechische Mythologie 2 volumes (HkA 5,2, Munich: Beck).  G, A. 1955 Sacrifice in the Ugaritic texts, CBQ 17:76–96. G, O.R. 1990 The Hittites (Harmondsworth: Penguin. First published 1952). G, H.G. 1956 The deeds of ”uppiluliuma as told by his son Mur“ili II, JCS 10:41–68, 75–98, 107–30. 1967 The Hittite conquest of Cyprus reconsidered, JNES 26:73–81. 1970 Musical notation in Ugarit, RA 64:45–52. 1992 Survival of the Hittite dynasty, 53–5 in W – J 1992. H, V. 1970 Der Kult von Nerik (SP 4, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). 1978 Substratgottheiten des westhurritischen Pantheons, RHA 36:59–69. H, V. – T, H.J. 1979 Ein Beitrag zum hurritischen Wörterbuch, UF 11:337–52. H, R. 1967 Anmerkungen zum ugaritischen Immobilienkauf, ZA 58:196–210. 1971 Eine hethitische Prozessurkunde aus Ugarit, UF 3:71–4. H, A. 1989 Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter 2 volumes (Texte der Hethiter 16, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag). H, M.A.K. 1978 Language as social semiotic (London: Edward Arnold). H, W.W. (with Y, J.L. J, ed.) 1997 The context of scripture vol. 1 Canonical compositions of the biblical world (Leiden: Brill). H, M. 1906 Incubation, or the cure of disease in pagan temples and Christian churches (St Andrews: Henderson; London: Simpkin, Marshall, Kent and Co.). H, L.K. 1994 Among the host of heaven. The Syro-Palestinian pantheon as bureaucracy (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns). H, A. 1987 Assyria and Hanigalbat: a historical reconstruction of bilateral relations from the middle of the fourteenth to the end of the twelfth centuries BC (TSO 4, Hildesheim, New York: Olms). H, W. 1969 From fertility cult to worship (Garden City NY: Doubleday).

784



H, B. – H, J. 1971 Ugaritic hnk-hnkt and a Punic formula, Le Muséon 84:529–35. H, H.W. (ed.) 1965 Götter und Mythen im vorderen Orient. Wörterbuch der Mythologie, I Die alten Kulturvölker 1 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta). H, J.D. 1988 Kuzi-Te“ub and the ‘great kings’ of Karkami“, AnSt 38:99–108. 1993 A bowl epigraph of the official Taprammi, 715–7 in M.J. M et al. (eds) Aspects of art and iconography: Anatolia and its neighbors. Studies in honor of Nimet Özgüç (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi). 1995 The hieroglyphic inscription of the sacred pool complex at Hattusa (Südburg ) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). H, J.F. 1976 Syriac nßr, Ugaritic nßr, Hebrew nßr II, Akkadian nßr II, VT 26:429–37. 1977 The underworld character of the god Dagan, JNSL 5:43–51. 1978a mlkm/rp’um and the Kispum, UF 10:89–91. 1978b Ritual text KTU 1.161—translation and notes, UF 10:83–8. 1979 The pietas of an ideal son in Ugarit, UF 11:353–6. 1984 Immortality and the king: Ugarit and the Psalms, Or 53:245–54. 1985 The Akkadian ‘pantheon’ list from Ugarit, SEL 2:115–23. 1986 The Ugaritic dead: some live issues, UF 18:27–32. 1988a The ‘pantheon’ of Ugarit: further notes, SEL 5:103–12. 1988b Ugaritic lexicography and other Semitic languages, UF 20:61–8. 1995a Dagon, cols. 407–13 in DDD. 1995b Mot, cols. 1122–31 in DDD. H-K, S. 1977 Arzawa: Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen (Texte der Hethiter 8, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag). H, W. 1963 Urhi-Te“up in Ägypten, JCS 17:87–97. 1971 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). 1976 Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland. Ein chronologisches Problem, UF 8:101–14. 1983 Asija, ZÄS 110:29–36. 1987 ‘Was kann die Ägyptologie wirklich zum Problem der absoluten Chronologie in der Bronzezeit beitragen?’ Chronologische Annäherungswerte in der 18. Dynastie, 18–26 in Å 1987. 1989 Ein Ausgreifen des Mittleren Reiches in den zypriotischen Raum?, GM 109:27–30. 1995 Die Beziehungen Ägypten-Ugarit, 87–94 in D – L 1995. H, M. 1959 m˙ß/*m¢“ in Ugaritic and other Semitic languages (a study in comparative lexicography), JAOS 79:169–76. 1962 The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) sequence of identical verbs in biblical Hebrew and in Ugaritic, 281–90 in B-H – W – Z 1962. 1965 The action-result (factitive-passive) sequence of identical verbs in biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic, JBL 84:272–82. 1969 Rhetorical questions in Ugaritic and biblical Hebrew, EI 9:71–9. H, M. 1969a The army of Ugarit and its organisation, VDI 3:21–38. 1969b Problems of the social history of Syria in the Late Bronze Age, 31–46 in L 1969.



785

Soziale Aspekte des Heerwesens in Ugarit, SGKAO 1:125–31. The rural community in Ancient Ugarit (Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag). 1978a Goods, prices and the organization of trade in Ugarit (Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag). 1978b The Rabba’um in Mari and the RPI(M ) in Ugarit, OLP 9:5–20. 1979a The royal economy in ancient Ugarit, OLA 6:459–96. 1979b Dimtu-gt-pyrgos —An essay about the non-etymological sense of these terms, JNSL 7:31–5. 1979c Some problems of the military organization of Ugarit (Ugaritic ¢rd and Middle-Assyrian ¢uràdu), OA 19:245–53. 1979d Some questions concerning the Sherdana in Ugarit, IOS 9:9–16. 1981 On the meaning of the term updit/updt in Ugarit, JNSL 9:71–4. 1982 The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit (Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag). 1984 Private property in Ugarit, 161–93 in A. A (ed.) Circulation of goods in non-palatial context in the ancient Near East (Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo). 1987 Labour in Ugarit, 237–50 in P 1987. 1988a Sinaranu, son of Siginu, and the trade relations between Ugarit and Crete, Minos N.S. 23:7–13. 1988b The Late Bronze Age service system and its decline, 7–18 in H – L[n eds 1988. 1989a The trade of Crete and Cyprus with Syria and Mesopotamia and their eastern tin sources in the XVIII–XVII century , Minos N.S. 24:7–27. 1989b Some questions of Ugaritic metrology and its parallels in Judah, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia and Greece, UF 21:195–208. 1990 Vineyards and wine in Ugarit (property and distribution), UF 22:119–36. 1994 Trade between Egypt and Western Asia: new metrological evidence (on C.W. Castle in JESHO 35), JESHO 37:318–21. 1997 The ˙r“ q†n in Ugarit. The meaning of the term and the functions of these people, UF 29:211–40. H, M. – L[n (eds) 1988 Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 BC). Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the University of Haifa from the 28th of April to the 2nd of May 1985 (Leuven: Peeters). H-P, G. 1992 Repetition and rhetoric in Canaanite epic: a close reading of KTU 1.14 III 20–49, UF 24:103–12. H, A. 1949a ›iri¢ibi et les noces de Yarih et de Nikkal, Semitica 2:17–20. 1949b La légende cananéenne d’Aqhat d’après les travaux récents, Syria 26:1–16. 1956 Un nouvel exemplaire du rituel RS 1929, no 3, Syria 33:104–12. 1963 Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras ShamraUgarit de 1929 à 1939 2 volumes (MRS 10, BAH 79, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Geuthner). 1973 ‘Une prière à Baal des Ugaritains en danger’, CRAIBL 1:693–703. 1974 La Légende de Keret, 481–574 in C – S – H 1974. 1978 Nouveaux textes alphabétiques de Ras Shamra—XXIVe campagne, 1961, Ug 7:1–74. H, W. 1968 Yari¢ und Nikal und der Preis der Ku∆aràt-Göttinnen (BZAW 106, Berlin: de Gruyter). 1971 1976



786 1995a 1995b H, R.S. 1989 1991

1993 1994a 1994b 1996a 1996b 1997

Baal, cols. 249–63 in DDD. El, cols. 522–33 in DDD. Cultural aspects of onomastic distribution in the Amarna Texts, UF 21:209–16. The operation of case vowels in the personal names of the Amarna Texts, 201–10 in M.-J. S et al. (ed.) Mésopotamie et Elam: Actes de la XXXVI e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Gand 10–14 Juillet 1989 (Mesopotamian history and environment occasional publications 1, Ghent: University of Ghent). Amarna Personal Names (ASOR Dissertation Series 9, Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns). Alalakh and the Bible: obstacle or contribution?, 199–215 in C et al. (eds) 1994. Late Bronze Age and biblical boundary descriptions of the west Semitic world, 123–38 in B et al. 1994. Non-Israelite personal names in the Book of Joshua, CBQ 58:205–14. Review of H 1994, JSS 41:126–9. Hurrians and other inhabitants of Late Bronze Age Palestine, Levant 29:153–6.

H, T.L. 1989–90 ‘That it be repeated’. A narrative analysis of KTU 1.23, JEOL 31:77–94. L’H, C. 1979 Rank among the Canaanite gods: El, Ba 'al and the Repha’îm (HSM 21, Missoula MT: Scholars Press). H, D.R. 1970 Review of Grøndahl, JNES 29:298–300. 1973 The bow of Aqht: the meaning of a mythological symbol, 71–80 in H 1973. 1985 A difficult curse in Aqht (19 [1 Aqht] 3.152–4), 455–7 in K – M 1985. H, J.E. 1994 Semitic words in Egyptian texts (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press). H, H.A. J 1966 Symbols for masculinity and femininity, JBL 85:326–34. 1991 Texts from Ugarit Concerning Security and Related Akkadian and West Semitic Material, UF 23:189–216. 1992 The Last Days of Khattusha, 46–52 in W – J 1992. H, H.A. J (ed.) 1973 Orient and occident FS C.H. Gordon (AOAT 22, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon and Bercker). H, J. 1979 Une lettre du roi de Tyr, UF 11:383–8. 1983 Ugaritische brieven uit de tijd van de ondergang van de stad, 94–9 in K.R. V (ed.) Schrijvend Verleden. Documenten uit het Oude Nabije Oosten vertaald en toegelicht (Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux). 1995–6 Some notes on the Ugaritic text KTU 2.42 lines 1–9, JEOL 34:73–80. H, J. – v S, W. 1991 Texts from Ugarit concerning security and related Akkadian and West Semitic material, UF 23:189–216. H H, Y.L. 1975 The messengers of the Amarna letters, JAOS 95:376–81.



787

H, E. 1987 ‘Lang oder Kurz?’—das Mittlere und Neue Reich Ägyptens als Prüfstein, 27–36 in Å 1987. H, W. 1996 The cuneiform tablets at Tel Hazor, IEJ 46:268–9. H, W.J. 1973 A study of Ugaritic scribal practices and prosody in CTA 2:4, UF 5:165–75. 1974 Some possible results of rudimentary scribal training, UF 6:75–80. 1977 Our Ugaritic mythological texts: copied or dictated? UF 9:123–30. 1979 The Ugaritic scribe, UF 11:389–94. v  H, T.P.J. 1989 KBo IV 10+ (CTH 106). Studien zum Spätjunghethitischen Texte der Zeit Tudhaliyas IV (Dissertation, University of Amsterdam). 1995 Der Ulmite“ub-Vertrag (StBoT 38) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). 1997 The Apology of ›attu“ili III, 199–204 in H 1997. H T C, P.H.J. 1974 The early and late phases of Urhi-Teshub’s career, 123–50 in K. B et al. Anatolian studies presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the occasion of his 65th birthday (Publications of the Dutch historical and archaeological Institute of Istanbul 39, Leiden: Instituut van het Nabije Oosten). 1983–4 Sidelights on the A¢¢iyawa question from Hittite vassal and royal correspondence, JEOL 28:33–79. 1996 The Hittite dynastic marriages of the period between ca. 1258 and 1244 , AoF 23:40–75. H, J. 1979 The Akkadian dialects of Carchemish and Ugarit (PhD Diss., Harvard University). 1981 Akkadian evidence for case-vowels on Ugaritic bound forms, JCS 33:199–200. 1987a Northwest Semitic vocabulary in Akkadian Texts, JAOS 107:713–85. 1987b Ugaritic vocabulary in syllabic transcription (HSS 32, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press). 1989 The Akkadian of Ugarit (HSS 34, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press). 1997 Notes on Ras Shamra—Ougarit VII, Syria 74:213–20. H, H.B. 1965 Amorite personal names in the Mari Texts: a structural and lexical study (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press). H, J.-M. 1994 Le songe et la parole. Etude sur le rêve et sa fonction dans l’ancien Israël (BZAW 210, Berlin: de Gruyter). 1995 Culte des ancêtres ou rites funéraires? A propos du ‘catalogue’ des devoirs du fils (KTU 1.17:I–II), UF 27:115–27. 1996 The birth of a hero: form and meaning of KTU 1.17 I–II 85–98 in W – W – L 1996. 1997 Shapash psychopompe et le pseudo-hymne au soleil (KTU 1.6 vi 42–53), UF 29:227–44. H, F.F. 1962 Weeping and laughter in the Old Testament (Copenhagen: Arnold Busck; ET of Graad og Latter i det Gamle Testament, Copenhagen: Lunos Boktrykeri 1938). H-H, F.O. 1979 La déesse Tanit 2 volumes (Copenhagen: Gad). 1990 Kana 'aniske myter og legender 2 volumes (Aarhus: Aarhus Universiteitsforlag).



788 I, F. 1975 1987 1988 I, D. 1978

Una concessione di terre da parte di Tudhaliya IV, RHA 33:1–211. La politique extérieure des Hittites: tendances et problèmes, Hethitica 8:187–207. Armaziti: attività di un personaggio nel tardo impero ittita, 79–94 in F. I (ed.) Studi di storia e di filologia anatolica dedicati a Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli (Florence: Elite). Mytharion. The comparison of tales from the Old Testament and the ancient near east (AOAT 32, Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).

I, W.H. 1983 The extended simile in RS 24.245 Obv., UF 15:53–8. I, B. 1989 The position of Ugaritic among the Semitic languages, OrSuec 38:54–70. I ", S. 1988 When was the ‘general’s letter’ from Ugarit written? 160–75 in M. H – E. Ln (eds) Society and economy in the eastern Mediter[ ranean (Leuven: Peeters). 1991 Amurru Akkadian: a linguistic study 2 volumes (HSS 40–1, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press). I ", S. – S, I. 1990 The General’s Letter from Ugarit: a linguistic and historical reevaluation of RS 20.33 (Ugaritica V, No. 20) (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies). J, J.J. 1974 Style in Isaiah 28 and a drinking bout of the gods (RS 24.258), 85–98 in J.J. J – M. K (eds) Rhetorical criticism. Essays in honor of James Muilenburg (Pittsburgh PA: Pickwick). J, J.J. – D, H.H.P. 1975 El and the cup of blessing, JAOS 95:99–101. J, F. 1972 The prison-house of language. A critical account of structuralism and Russian formalism (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press). J, B. 1980 Erwängungen zur Vorgeschichte des israelitischen “ elamîm. Opfers, UF 12:231–60. J, A. 1996 Magic and divination in ancient Palestine and Syria (SHCANE 7, Leiden: Brill). J, A. 1962 Kanaanäische Mythen und Epen aus Ras Schamra-Ugarit (Gütersloh: Mohn). 1969 Ugaritische Eigennamen als Quelle des ugaritischen Lexikons, ArOr 37:8–11.  J, T. –  S, W.H. 1987–8 Redating an early solar eclipse of the sun record (KTU 1.78). Implications for the Ugaritic calendar and for the secular accelerations of the earth and moon, JEOL 30:65–7. K, O. 1959 Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 18, Berlin: de Gruyter). 1970 Zum Formular der in Ugarit gefundenen Briefe, ZDPV 86:10–23. K, T. 1994 Zur sozialen Stellung der Frau in Emàr und Ekalte als Witwe und Waise, UF 26:169–208.



789

K, A.S. 1952 Baal in the Ras Shamra texts (Copenhagen: Gad). 1969 The violent goddess. Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts (Oslo: Universitets Forlaget). K, H.J. 1997 History of Tyre (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Second edition. 19731). K, A.S. (ed.) 1991 Semitic studies in honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his eighty-fifth birthday November 14th, 1991 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). K, B.J. 1989 Ancient Egypt anatomy of a civilization (London: Routledge). K, G. 1974a Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidentale (1600–1200 av. J.C.) (Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain 9, Louvain-la-Neuve: Université de Louvain). 1974b Le traité entre Mursil II de Hatti et Niqmepa d’Ugarit, UF 6:85–127. K, B. 1979 Rechtsurkunden in ugaritischer Sprache, UF 11:431–52. 1980 Kauf.E. In Alala¢ und Ugarit, RlA 5:530–41. K, A.D. (Anne D K) 1959 Hurrians and Hurrian at Alala¢: An ethno-linguistic analysis (PhD Diss. University of Pennsylvania). 1974 The cult song with music from ancient Ugarit: another interpretation, RA 68:69–82. K, A.D. – C, R.L. – B, R.R. 1976 Sounds from silence. Recent discoveries in ancient near eastern music (Berkeley: Bit Enki Publications). Includes LP record BTNK 101; side b: A Hurrian cult song from ancient Ugarit. K, D. 1981 Ugarit-Geschichte und Kultur einer Stadt in der Umwelt des Alten Testaments (SBS 104, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholoisches Bibelwerk). K, D. 1967 A Study of personal names in the Akkadian texts from Ugarit (PhD Diss. Brandeis University, Ann Arbor MI: UMI). K, G.S. 1970 Myth: its meaning and functions in ancient and other cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). K, K.A. 1962 Suppiluliuma and the Amarna pharaohs: a study in relative chronology (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press). 1977 The king list of Ugarit, UF 9:131–42. 1979 Ramesside Inscriptions II (Oxford: Blackwell). 1987 The Basics of Egyptian Chronology, 37–55, 152–9 in Å 1987. 1995 Review of D 1993, JSS 40:86–91. K, H. 1962 Zur Geschichte von Ugarit, OLZ 57:453–62. 1965 Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. I (Berlin: Akademie Verlag). 1969 Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. II (Berlin: Akademie Verlag). 1970 Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. III (Berlin: Akademie Verlag). 1974 ‘Hungerjahre’ in Hatti, AoF 1:165–74. 1975 Neue Quellen zur Geschichte Nordsyriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z., AoF 2:47–64. 1980 Mord und Bussleistung im spätbronzezeitlichen Syrien, 189–197 in B. A (ed.) Death in Mesopotamia (Mesopotamia 8, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, Copenhagen: Akademie forlag).



790 1991 1992 1996 1997

Tut¢aliya IV. von ›atti: Prolegomena zu einer Biographie, AoF 18: 224–38. Syria 3000 to 300 BC A handbook of political history (Berlin: Akademie Verlag). Review of Bordreuil, ed., 1991 and Yon et al., eds 1995, OLZ 91:558–62. Die historische Rolle der Stadt Aleppo im vorantiken Syrien, 359–74 in G. W (ed.) Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität (Bruch: Wandel). 1. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 9.–10. Mai 1996 (Halle/Saale: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag).

K, T. 1988 Kingship in Ugarit (KTU 1.16 I 1–23), 29–54 in E – T 1988. K, J. 1957a Sulla diseredazione secondo le fonti accadiche di Ugarit, RSO 32:655–60. 1957b Zur Stellung der ugaritischen Frau, ArOr 25:313–33. K, J. 1996 Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen Kultschicht (Studien zu den Bo