Exchange Relationships at Ugarit (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series)

A~~ ~6g.3 ~ 1~tg l1 (p ~>

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT

26

EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS ATUGARIT

Kevin M. MCGEOUGH

PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS - DUDLEY; MA. 2007

:113:1

l1"'''-P n1"'Oi::r'j i1',£)Oi1

A CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

D~ ~3

. ~":)51vf O~ ~

DEDICATED TO

~\J01-

my Grandparents: Francis Patrick & Helen McGeough and Andrew & Hilda Parley

Series Editors: Antonio Sagona and Claudia Sagona

ISBN 978-90-429-1935-8 D. 200710602/78

)

Copyright by KevinMcGeough All rights reserved. No part ofthis book may be reproduced or translated in anyfOrm, byprint, pbotoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any othermeans without writtenpermission from thepublisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM

Peeters N.Y., Warotstraat 50, B-3020 Herem

CONTENTS

Dedication . . . . Acknowledgements Introduction . . .

v XV11

1 CHAPTER ONE

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE AND A NETWORK-BASED APPROACH TO ANCIENT ECONOMY The Formalist-Substantivist Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Nineteenth Century Primitivist/Modernist Debate 11. Neo-classical Economics as the Basis for a Formal Model of the Economy 111. Application of Neo-classical Economics to the Ancient Economy IV. Early Alternatives to Neo-classical Economics v. Karl Polanyi and the Substantivist School of Thought vt. The Critique of Polanyi and the Defense of His Principles in the Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V11. Moving Beyond the Formalist-substantivist Debate Behavioralist Models Network Theory Complexity Theory . Towards a Network-Based Model for the Study of the Economy

8 10 11 12 13 20 22 27 28 31 33 34

CHAPTER 1WO

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY History of Excavations and the Mission Archaeologique Francaise The Examination of Ras Shamra's Immediate Environs Minet el-Beida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ras Ibn Hani .. . . . . . . . Previous Approaches to Understanding the Ugaritic Economy 1. Feudal Models John Gray and Indo-Aryan Feudalists . . . . . . . . . George Boyer and the French Team's Conception of Ugarit's Social Structure

39 40 41 41 42 42 42

44

CONTENTS

Vlll

Anson Rainey and Social Stratification Gerald Miller and Juridical Texts . . . 2. Marxist Models . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Heltzer and the Royal Service System Mario Liverani and the Italian School Jose-Angel Zamora and the Expanding Palace Sector Clayton Libolt and the Royal Land Grants . Ignazio Marquez Rowe and Ugaritic Tribute 3. Entrepreneurial Models . . . . . . . . . . . Hellenosemitica and the Brandeis Entrepreneurial Approach 1. Michael Astour ii. Robert Stieglitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii. Brian Widbin . Christopher Monroe and the Merchants of the Late Bronze Age Marion Feldman and Late Bronze Age International Koine 4. Managerial and Administrative Approaches to the Economy William Whitt and Archival Studies Jose-Angel Zamora and Ugaritic Vineyards . 5. Patrimonial Models . The French Team's Recognition of Large Non-Royal Houses Juan Pablo Vita and Alternative Administrative Centers Stager, Schloen and the University of Chicago Neo-Weberians Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS

45 48 49 52 56 58 58 59 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 65 68 70 71 75 77 78 85

IX

108 109 111 113 114 115 116 117 117 118 119 119 120 121 122 123 127 128 130 130 132 132

mdkisu

md , mr ev sr albn Yfb ngr . s/fgr brd. bsnm bbtnm

trmn mbf Cultic Officials Land-holding and Obligations

ilkulpilku unt . . . . . . .

ubdy, updt, ubdit gt

argmn ntbtt) Conclusions CHAPTER FOUR

CHAPTER THREE

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY Terminology of Social Designations

bns . . . bns mlk 'bd b? . n'r

.

adrt bbt, bPI

gzr ... Terminology of Occupational Designations

skn . mryn bdl mkr

89 89 90 94 95 97 98 99 100 100 101 102 105 107

Records from Private Archives Records of People . Personal Names . With Personal Names Alone With Reference to Other Individuals With Reference to Geographic Locations With Numbers . With Chattel, Commodities, and Precious Metals Occupational Categories . . . With Personal Names . . With Geographic Names Lists With Numbers Occupational Groups as Collectives Census Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

137 137 138 138 140 142 144 145 149 150 153 154 157 159

x

CONTENTS

Records of Places . . . . . . . . . Simple Lists . Lists With Unexplained Numbers Information About Fields . . . . Information About the Circulation of Goods Information About Agricultural Equipment Records of Commodities Cereals Wine Olives Oil .. Precious Metals Salt Textiles Wood Records of Equipment Agricultural Equipment Transportation Equipment Military Equipment Records of Land . Field Transfers ubdy Fields . unt Records Conclusions

CONTENTS

160 160 160 161 161 162 163 164 165 166 166 166 168 168 169 169 170 172

173 174 174 176 177 177

\

Economic Activities Involving Trade or Sales . Economic Actions Involving Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What kinds of goods and labor were controlled or disposed of, and by whom? . Silver . Other Precious Metals Comestibles Textiles Vehicles Military Equipment Agricultural Equipment Private Property . Merchant Activity General Labor . . Types of Labor . . Where does the power for control of goods and labor reside? On what grounds is this power based? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Palace . Individuals Within the Palace Administration Other Archives . What institutions, structures, and organizations existed to facilitate the circulation of goods? . Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizations for Which There is No Evidence . . . . Is there evidence at both a production and consumption level? Conclusions .

Xl

203 207 207 208 208 209 210 211 212

212 213

214 214 214 215 215 216 216 217 218 218 219 220

CHAPTER FIVE

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS Who engaged in economic action (i. e., was capable or compelled to)? The Individual . . . . . The Geographic Region . . Foreigners at Ugarit . . . . The Occupational Category CuItic Officials and the Temples What kinds of economic actions were engaged in? Economic Actions Involving Real Estate Economic Actions Involving Obligations Owed to Royal Authority Economic Actions Involving Cultic Obligations Economic Activities Involving Debt and Credit Economic Activities Involving Redistribution .

CHAPTER SIX

182 183 184 185 186 190 191 191 194 198 199 201

THE ARCHIVAL CONTEXT OF THE TABLETS: THE ELITE ARCHITECTURAL COMPLEXES AT UGARIT 1. Royal Palace Archives: Archaeological Context Royal Palace Archives: Western Archives The Nature of the Western Archive Royal Palace Archives: Central Archives . The Nature of the Central Archive . Royal Palace Archives: Southwestern Archive The Nature of the Southwestern Archive Royal Palace Archives: Southern Archive The so-called 'Oven' . The Composition of the Southern Archive

223 226 227 229 231 233 234 235 236 238

CONTENTS

XlI

Royal PalaceArchives: Eastern Archives . . The Nature of the Eastern Archive .. Royal Palace Archives: Room 73 (Bureau annexe) The Nature of the Archive Royal PalaceArchives: Room 90 Conclusions About the Palace . . 2. Non-Palatial Archives: Archaeological Contexts The Residential Quarter . . The House of Rap'anu The House of the Armourer House of the Scholar (Maison du lettrej House of Rashapabu . . . Maison au portique Blitiment au vase de pierre Maison aux albdtres

House of Yabninu (Southern Palace) Northern Palace and Palace-Associated Structures to the North . Northern Palace House of the Military Governor Other Structures House of Urtenu House of Agapsarri Tablet House (MT) Conclusions . . . . 3. Temples and the Houses of Cultic Personnel Urban Temples at Ugarit Library of the High Priest . . . . . House of the Hurrian Priest (PH) . Conclusions Regarding Cultic Areas 4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS

239 241 243 243 244 244 246 246 247 249 249 250 251 252 253 254 256 256 256 257 257 259 259 260 261 261 262 263 263 264

Ports . Zoning . The Domestic Sections of Ugarit Centre de la ville Trancbee sud . . . . . . . . . Ville basse . . . . . . . . . .

\ 3.

4.

5.

6.

Conclusions About Zoning at Ugarit Domestic Structures and Household Assemblages The Layout of Domestic Structures . . . The Household Tomb . . . . . . . . . . Household Material Culture Assemblages Water and Waste Management Stone Tools in the House . Other Household Artifacts Function of Domestic Space Issues of Private Ownership The Relationship to "Elite Households" Industrial Evidence The Urban Farmer Urban Olive Oil Production Household Construction Stone Industry . . . . . . . Seasonal Limitations on Production and the Organization of Production Conclusions About Industrial Production Prestige Goods . . . Cylinder Seals . . . Military Equipment Stone Vessels . . . . Mycenaean Pottery Tablets . . . Conclusions . . . .

X111

272 273 273 274 275 277 277

277 278 281 283 284 285 286 287 289 290 290 291 291 292 293 294

296 297 299 299 301 302 305 305

CHAPTER SEVEN CHAPTER EIGHT

THE MATERIAL REMAINS OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY 1. Environment . The Geography of the Syrian Coast Water . Natural Resources . . . Conclusions . . . . . . 2. Economic Infrastructure Roads .

266 266 267 269 270 271 271

ECONOMICS BEYOND THE CITY 1. Within the Kingdom of Ugarit . . . The Administration of the Periphery Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . Transactions Involving the Palace Transactions Between Private Citizens Conclusions . .

311 311

319 319 320 322

XIV

2.

3.

CONTENTS

Beyond the Kingdom of Ugarit a) Modes of Transport Nautical . Overland . b) Major International Relationships Hatti Egypt . Cyprus Ura .. Other Major City-States c) Elite Economic Actors Within Ugarit The Queen Yabninu Urtenu Conclusions

CONTENTS

322 322 323 324 324 325 327 329 331 332 333 333 333 335 336

7.

8. 9.

CHAPTER NINE

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES 1. Integrating Texts and Material Culture . 2. A Re-evaluation of Models of Near Eastern Economy Temple Economy . . Crypto-Feudal Models of Society Two-sector Models . The Patrimonial Household Model (PHM) Semi-Institutional House Models . . . . . 3. A Network-Based Model of Economic Modalities 4. A Network-Based Model of Economic Modalities Applied to Ugarit A. Interactions Involving the Royal Palace Administration . . . . . a) Non-Royal Elite Residents of Ugarit and Royal Administration. b) Non-Elite Residents of Ugarit and Royal Palace Administration. c) The Peripheral Kingdom of Ugarit and the Royal Palace Adrninistration B. The King of Ugarit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Non-Royal Elites and the King . b) Non-Elite Residents of Ugarit and the King C. Non-Royal Elites at Ugarit . 1. Non-Royal Elites and Other Non-Royal Elites 2. Non-Royal Elites and Non-Elites at Ugarit ..

5. 6.

339 339 340 341 343 345 349 350 352 352 352 355 356 357 357 358 358 358 360

D. Non-Elite Residents of Ugarit . . . E. Ugarit's International Relationships F. Conclusions and Summary . . . . The Formalist-Substantivist Debate .. Substantive Economic Authority at Ugarit Power Through Debt Power Through Practice . . . . . . . Power Through Hegemony . . . . . Power Through a Monopoly of Force Loci of Palatial Economic Authority at Ugarit Production at Ugarit . . . The Institution of the gt . Class and Status at Ugarit The Question of Guilds . Conclusions and Implications for the Study of Non-Industrial Economic Activity . Avenues for Further Research

Bibliography . . . . . . . Subject Index . Index of Modern Authors Index of Ancient Terms Index of Ancient Texts . .

xv

361 362 363 364 369 370 372 372

373 374 374 376 378 378 380 381 382 420 427 430 432

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This is a revised version of my 2005 doctoral dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania. I have been very fortunate to have had the support of many individuals and organizations while working on this project, in its origins as a dissertation and its completion as a monograph. First and foremost, I wish to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Bruce Routledge, my thesis supervisor; Richard Zettler; and Mark Smith of New York University. Dr. Routledge has provided me with unwavering support throughout my studies at Penn, and any success of mine is largely due to his mentorship. Dr. Smith has gone far beyond the call of duty, both as my instructor in Ugaritic language and as the outside reader for my dissertation, working through three drafts (each larger than the former) and providing invaluable comments, feedback, and support. His help has been tremendous. Dr. Zettler has also been extremely supportive, especially in last minute matters of various types. Many thanks are also due to the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania who have assisted me. Jeffrey Tigay, both in and out of the classroom, has given endlessly of his time and expertise. I have taken more classes with Barry Eichler than with any other individual; his excellent teaching has been an inspiration. I would also like to thank Erle Leichty for all of his support, from establishing my program at Penn to giving advice for life after Penn. Numerous other faculty members have been patient and giving of their time. Holly Pittman, David Silverman, Steve Tinney, and Josef Wegner are all deserving of my thanks. Numerous fellow graduate students have also assisted me in any number of ways. Spencer Allen, Shawn Aster, Paul Delnero, Jennifer Jacobs, Jeremiah Peterson, Nick Picardo, Benjamin Porter, Matthew Rutz, Vanessa Smith, and William Zimmerle have all been of assistance in a variety of ways. And of course, none of this would have been possible without the help of Linda Greene, Peggy Guinan, and Diane Moderski. Thanks are also due to Anthony and Claudia Sagona, the editors of the Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series, for their support of my manuscript. I especially owe thanks to Anthony Sagona for his hard work in preparing this manuscript for publication. Likewise, the people at Peeters have helped tremendously. Thanks are due to Patrick Peeters and many others who worked to produce this publication. Thanks are also due to various people at the University of Lethbridge, where I currently teach in the Liberal Education Program. The Departments of Geography, History, and Religious Studies have also provided me with support in a variety of ways. I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their assistance at this stage of my academic career, especially: Walter Aufrecht, Shawn Bubel, Malcolm Greenshields, and D. Bruce MacKay. Bev Garnett, Margaret Cook, Charlene Sawatsky,

XVlll

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

and Erika jahn have also been helpful in various matters, and are all due thanks. The interlibrary loans staff members at the University of Lethbridge have made my continued research possible. Courtney Atkinson has advised me on technical matters big and small and Wim Chalmet came to my rescue in a computer crisis involving this work. Elizabeth Galway has been of help in ways too numerous to list. Without generous financial support, this project could not have been finished. I would like to thank the department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies (as it was known then) for the generous assistance in the form of a University of Pennsylvania Dissertation Fellowship, which went beyond the already generous funding that saw me through my coursework. I would also like to acknowledge the support in the form of a dissertation grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their long-term financial and emotional support. There could not be more supportive people than my parents Murray and Linda McGeough, my sister Kristina, and her husband Sean Durnin. To everyone listed here, thanks.

INTRODUCTION

EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS AT UGARIT

Assuming that there are entities, economic zones with relatively definite boundaries, would not a method of observation based on geographic location be useful? Rather than describing the social stages of capitalism, for instance, to paraphrase the fine title of a luminous piece by Henri Pirenne, would it not be more interesting to describe the geographical stages of capitalism, or on an even larger scale to set in motion, within our historical studies, systematic research into economic geography - to see, in a word, how the waves and wanderings of history are recorded in a given economic area? Fernand Braudel

Ugarit has been identified as a key source of information on economic life in the pre-Classical Levantine coast and is often used as a model of such. 1 The wealth of textual data and material culture that has been recovered from the site has allowed the Ugaritic economy to be investigated from a variety of perspectives using a variety of types of evidence. Given the substantial economic data available about Ugarit, it Is somewhat surprising that the evidence from Ugarit has been underutilized in the more general academic sphere of the study of pre-modern economics. The following examination seeks to redress this. The study of economy at Ugarit can add substantially to the analysis of non-industrial economic relationships, since this is a situation where an unusually large amount of data on the subject of economy is available. Like~wise, by situating the study of the Ugaritic economy more fully in the context of the \rider discussion of non-industrial economy, a more informed analysis of Ugarit and Late Bronze Age Levantine economy is possible. Although it is possible to study any number of specific aspects of the Ugaritic economy, this examination shall focus on a broader subsection of economic life exchange relationships. These are situations where two or more parties interact, and are situations that are particularly well documented in the textual and archaeological evidence. These situations are the primary focus of this work. More generally, this study seeks to examine economic modalities at U garit, A modality is a way of doing something, a method of activity. Implied in the use of this term is the idea that these methods or ways of doing can be meaningfully understood as patterns and that these

1

See, for example, Saggs 1989, pp. 148-152.

2

3

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

INTRODUCTION

activities can be understood as a meaningful group or category. In this particular case, that meaningful category is based in economics and economic activity. By calling these economic activities (or methods of doing) modalities, the inherent ideological bias that is connected to most economic terminology is avoided, yet at the same time, an argument is made that there is a category of human activity that can be understood as economic. It is this category' of human activity that is the subject of this study of Late Bronze Age Ugarit. Economic life at Ugarit shall be viewed as part of a socially embedded process. What is often said about religion in the ancient world is also true for economics: ancient people did not view the economy as a discrete and separate component of everyday life. Social interaction and integration both affected and was affected by economic activities and situations. An understanding of economic patterns cannot be understood separate from social systems. Indeed, ancient economy cannot be viewed as a monolithic, singular entity with discrete boundaries and spheres of operation. Economic modalities, then, are understood here as the emergent structures of the social economy at Ugarit. Economics is often understood as the subsection of human life relating to the resources required for the satisfaction of human wants or needs. The action-oriented conceptual framework of philosophical hermeneutics suggests, then, the utility of defining economic action, before explicating a more holistic conceptualization of economics. Economic action, according to Weber: "is any peaceful exercise of an actor's control over resources which is in its main impulse oriented towards economic ends."2 There are two major points to be taken from Weber's suggestion. First, economic action is action with primary interest in activities involving the resources or the satisfaction of wants or needs. Second, this action must be considered peaceful, in other words, warfare and crime should not be considered economic action per se. These kinds of activities (war and crime) can be considered economically oriented action, in Weber's social scientific paradigm.' Actions that use force as their primary means but are geared towards economic ends, or actions that are only secondarily interested in economic ends are better considered as economic oriented action." Economic ends are those ends, "concerned with the satisfaction of a desire for "utilities"." If this kind of activity is organized and continuous, Weber considers it, an economic establishment."

To Weber, a very important underpinning of economic activity is the ability to control and dispose of goods and labor." Based on these boundaries of economy, it is possible to formulate specific questions that will be posed of the Ugaritic data. Who engaged in economic action (i.e., was capable or compelled to)? What kinds of economic actions were engaged in? And related to this, what kinds of goods and labor were controlled or disposed of, and by whom? Where does the power for control of goods and labor reside? With whom and on what grounds does this control reside? What institutions, structures, and organizations existed to facilitate the circulation of goods? Is there evidence of both production and consumption? All of these questions are geared towards elaborating the parameters (what are called modalities here) of economic activity at Ugarit. Beyond a description of Ugaritic economy, and the creation of a comparative model for the study of other Near Eastern economic situations, this study shall also contribute to the larger socio-historical discussion of the nature of non-industrial economy. Most explicitly manifest in the formalist-substantivist debate, this study shall produce a detailed case study of a non-industrial economy and by extension a testing ground for the basic premises of substantivist scholars. Indeed, while investigating Ugarit in the specific, this research shall test the validity of the hypotheses of Polanyi and his later followers and come to some conclusions about the general utility of this approach. The questions formulated above are not what make this study unique, however. What distinguishes this study from the studies of Ugarit that have come before is the approach. ~ious attempts to study the Ugaritic economy have had only limited success since most have involved the application of rigid top-down models that smooth over the complex systems inherent in economic activity. Other approaches have not adequately accounted for the variability of data or have sacrificed the variability of that data for the sake of the model. These models are discussed at length in Chapter Two but can be categorized as: crypto-Feudal models; Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP) models; entrepreneurial models; administrative models, and patrimonial models. The utility of each of these models is limited by an inability to adequately account for or incorporate the variability of data at Ugarit. What makes this project distinct from other attempts is that it embraces the variability of data. Through a Network-based model, the Ugaritic economy shall be viewed as an adaptive nonlinear system, with numerous and ever-changing possibilities. This perspective should allow economic life to be explored, at the same time avoiding monolithic conclusions or static structuralist or functionalist characterizations. A Networkbased model allows for the complexity of ancient economic life, yet at the same time allows the economy to be broken down into understandable units. This is possible because the focus of the analysis is shifted from the overarching picture of the economy,

Weber 1978, p. 63. Weber 1978, p. 64. 4 Weber 1978, p. 64. 5 Weber 1978, p. 63. Utilities (Nutzleistungen) in Weber's conception, Weber 1978, p. 68; are: "the specific and concrete, real or imagined, advantages (Chaneen) of opportunities for present or future use as they are estimated and made an object of provision by one or more economically acting individuals. " 6 Weber 1978, p. 63. 2

3

7

Weber 1978, p. 67.

4

5

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

INTRODUCTION

to the nodes of connection between individual economic actors. In this model, it is not the absence of a sovereign authority that is seen as central to a network. 8 Rather, it is based more on Wolfram's notion of a network; what will be studied are the connections within the network, and the transformations that occur at these connective nodes." It is assumed that a network involves certain norms (if not actual rules) that govern the interactions at each node of contact. It is also assumed that there is some degree of power relationship manifest at each node of contact, but that power is not necessarily manifest in the same way at each node.!'' Following Wolfram, quite simple rules may facilitate a large number of complex situations. II Simplifying economic modalities into series of individual interactions allows a large number of economic actions to be mapped out. Inherently, this approach is anti-structuralist, anti-Hegelian, and anti-functionalist, in that it allows any number of possibilities. Indeed, a Network-based model assumes that the evidence for particular economic interactions reflect only a small number of economic interactions that occurred or could possibly have occurred. It allows for an heterarchical organization of power. While power at each node is best understood in terms of hierarchy, power from a network perspective is heterarchical in nature, and manifests differently dependent on the relationship that is reflected at each separate node. From a practical standpoint, there are two levels of analysis that should be engaged in through this Network-based model of economic modalities: the nodes of contact between discrete economic agents and the overarching connections between various nodes of contact. Throughout this study, the Network-based model will be the approach taken. Each economic situation and type of evidence shall be viewed separately and analyzed with the conceptual tools appropriate for the form of the evidence. A consistent problem in the other models is that the findspot of the various texts are not taken into account. Yet it is very difficult to make general conclusions about the meaning of these economic texts without considering the context in which they were written. Perhaps the clearest manifestation of the embrace of variability in the study that follows is the use of both archaeological and textual data. Both types of data at Ugarit can be used to address questions about economic modalities. While the archaeological evidence at Ugarit is not ideal because of the methodologically primitive excavation techniques and the poor publication record of the project until the 1970s, analysis of

this evidence can still be productive. A particular problem that is apparent in the scholarly integration of both kinds of data is that scholars tend to prioritize one set of data over another. This prioritization tends to manifest as a number of types of problems. There is the more obvious type of prioritization where a scholar familiar with one type of data completely ignores another type of data. For example, while Heltzer has studied the economy of Ugarit for many years, and is arguably the most prolific scholar on this subject, he has rarely made mention of archaeological evidence. A less obvious error that is manifest as a prioritization occurs when scholars take evidence derived from a type of analysis that they are not familiar with as a "fact." Archaeologists often view the evidence derived from textual sources uncritically, since interpretation of textual data, from an archaeologist's perspective, seems straightforward. Likewise, textual scholars are often confused by the materiality of archaeological evidence, mistaking the materiality of objects for objective fact. In fact, archaeological evidence, even the most \basic levels of archaeological evidence (like typology and stratigraphy), constitutes a\ argument. 12 What shall differentiate this study is that both types of evidence will be u,derstood as scholarly arguments. One data set will not be used to naively check or prove the other data set, nor will simple "convergences" be identified.P Both categories of evidence will be compared as arguments and interpretations, from the perspective of their particular methods of analysis. Chapter One of this study will better outline economic modalities. This chapter shall provide an overview of the formalist-substantivist debate and situate the Networkbased model utilized in this examination within the context of that debate. Chapter Two shall continue the methodological discussion, but from a more specific perspective. The variant approaches that have already been used in the study of the Ugaritic economy shall be described and evaluated, both on their own terms and in the context of the theoretical backgrounds from which they were derived. Chapters Three and Four provide the background analysis and reasoning that has been incorporated into the analysis of the textual data at Ugarit. Chapter Three focuses primarily on the language used by Ugaritians while engaging in economic activity. Chapter Four moves the discussion of the textual evidence from the level of the word to the level of the tablet. The analysis is oriented around the gentes of tablets. Here genre is not taken as a primarily formal category, but rather as exemplified in the approach used in "New Rhetoric."14 Genre here is not equivalent to form, although form is a subject of investigation of this chapter. Genre is approached as a combination of both form and situation. Certain forms of writing are used in certain social situations and social contexts. It is the combination of the social context of the act of

See Fukuyama 1999, p. 199; for an explication of this view of a nerwork. Wolfram 2002, p. 193. 10 Stager's port-power model is a good example of how nerwork theory can be successfullyemployed for the study of the Near East. In Stager's model, Stager 2001, p. 629; the nerwork is structured as a hierarchy, where at each node of contact, one group is more powerful than the other. His model is created explicitly to understand trade at the regional level and to understand the relative power of various settlements in relation to one another. As such, it is limited to this scale of economic activity and is not entirely suited for the purposes of this study. II Wolfram 2002, p. 351. 8

9

12

13 14

I

See Brandfon 1987. See Dever 2001, p. 107, for an explication of this type of methodology. See Giltrow 2002, p. 24.

6

7

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

INTRODUCTION

writing and the form that that writing takes that constitutes genre here. While the textual evidence that survives is the tablet (i.e., the form), it is possible to reconstruct the social situation and to make observations on the different genres of economic texts. Both chapters place extra emphasis on the alphabetic texts, as these words and texts have been relatively neglected in comparison with the syllabic texts. Chapter Five provides a broader discussion of what can be learned about economic modalities at Ugarit from the textual data. It specifically answers the questions about Ugaritic economic activity asked above and summarizes the basic textual evidence about Ugarit. Discussion in Chapter Five is limited to discussion of economic action within the city of Ugarit and acts as a basic summary of those kinds of activities before moving on to the non-textual evidence. Chapter Six shall be the first attempt at integrating textual and archaeological data. Here the elite economic institutions shall be discussed. Most important in this discussion is the analysis of the findspots of the various tablets. Much criticism of the top-down models that have been used in the investigation of the Ugaritic economy is derived from the way these models smooth over differences between economic actors. This chapter is particularly important in identifying the variety of economic activities participated in at Ugarit. While the archaeological context of the tablets is not secure, general clusters of tablets can be identified, and their association with particular buildings is demonstrable. The non-textual archaeological evidence from each of these loci of economic record keeping will be presented and analyzed, comparing and contrasting the archaeological evidence and the nature of the textual discoveries. In this particular chapter, texts shall be treated as artifacts within an archaeological context, as has been proposed by Zettler.l" Chapter Seven analyzes the explicitly non-textual evidence at the site of Ugarit. While the archaeology of areas of tablet deposition is discussed in Chapter Six, Chapter Seven revolves around the analysis of those areas of the site that lacked substantial tablet finds. The site as a whole is regarded from an archaeological perspective. The specific questions outlined above are answered again, but this time through the evidence of archaeology. The argument from archaeology is explicitly construed as an argument separate from the textual evidence. This provides a basis for integrating the complimentary sets of data in a later chapter. Economic activity within the kingdom of Ugarit and economic action between Ugarit and other Near Eastern polities is dealt with in Chapter Eight. Here a core and periphery model derived from the Network-based approach is used to explore the relations between various economic entities. The application of this model helps to highlight certain aspects of economic relationships, especially the nature of power within those relationships. It also highlights some areas where a core-periphery model

is insufficient and where a Network-based approach with more nuance can better facilitate our understanding of ancient economic relationships. Chapter Nine provides an explicit description of exchange relationships at Ugarit. Conclusions are provided in this chapter. A methodology for incorporating archaeological and textual data shall be discussed, in tandem with observations about the Ugaritic economy derived from such comparison. An evaluation of each of the topdown models is presented, demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of each model. An evaluation of the Polan ian approach to ancient economy is offered, and Ugarit's general contribution to the rmalist-substantivist debate is presented. Fourth, the conclusions derived from the Ne ork-based model shall be provided, before offering some general suggestions for further research. This is the first of two volumes. The second volume, titled Ugaritic Economic Texts, will present translations and commentaries of the alphabetic Ugaritic economic texts. To avoid repetition, long quotations from the alphabetic texts will be avoided here. The second volume will also discuss in more detail some of the syntactical! grammatical, lexicographical, and interpretative problems with reading alphabetic economic texts.

15

See Zettler 1996.

A NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS

Throughout this study, ancient textual sources will be referred to according to the designations that are typical of Ugaritic and cuneiform studies. Most of the texts written in the alphabetic Ugaritic script shall be referred to by the abbreviation KTU, which refers to Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin's 1995 edition of The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts From Ugarit, Ras Ibn Rani and Other Places, along with the number given the text in this work. There are a few alphabetic Ugaritic texts that are not included in this volume. Some of these are referred to with the abbreviation MO (referring to Pardee's 2004 publication Manueld'Ougaritique) and the number given the text in that edition. Others have only been published in volume 3 of Hallo and Younger's The Context ofScripture those are referred to with the abbreviation COS and the number given in that volume. There are less standardized conventions for referring to texts from Ugarit written in syllabicscript. Here, the convention shall be to list them according to their editio princeps as well as their excavation number. The excavation number consists of the designation RS (Ras Shamra) followed by a number indicating the season of excavation (before the decimal) and the registration number of the artifact (after the decimal place). References to the editio princeps will use one of the following abbreviations: PRU 3 (Ie Palais Royal d'Ugarit 3, Nougayrol 1955); PRU 4 (Ie Palais Royal d'Ugarit 4, Nougayrol 1956); PRU 6 (Ie Palais Royal d'Ugarit 6, Nougayrol 1970); Ug. V (Ugaritica 5, Nougayrol 1968); RSO 7 (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 7, Bordreuil 1991); and RSO 14 (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 14, Bordreuil and Pardee 2001).

THE FORMAL1ST-SUBSTANT1VIST DEBATE

CHAPTER ONE

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE AND A NETWORK-BASED APPROACH TO ANCIENT ECONOMY

If economics is not to remain the victim of history, constantly attempting to apply its tool-kit, generally with a time-lag, to yesterday's developments which have become sufficiently visible to dominate the scene today, it must develop or rediscover the historical perspective. Eric Hobsbawm Cuneiform scholars have astonishing achievements to their credit, but nevertheless the sources - including the Code of Hammurabi - have not yet been made available for interpretation by non-specialists. The scholar who has not mastered the field and must depend on translated texts cannot therefore reach definite conclusions regarding the Mesopotamian economy. Furthermore it is precisely the texts most important for legal and social history which often elude interpretation. Max Weber (trans. R. Frank)

The primary goal of this study is to outline economic modalities at Late Bronze Age Ugarit. This involves analyzing and identifying what kinds of economic activities took place, who engaged in those activities, and what motivated those activities. Prior attempts to outline economic modalities at Ugarit have done so through the interaction with the works of political economists, Classicists, and scholars of the Mesopotamian floodplain. Surprisingly, there has been little interaction between Ugaritic scholars and economic anthropologists, especially with regards to the forrnalist-substanrivist debate. This study seeks to remedy that situation. While previous works on Ugarit shall be discussed in Chapter Two, the following chapter shall outline the formalist-subsrantivist debate and provide a basis for situating the study of Ugarit within this intellectual tradition. After the history of the debate is outlined, a particular approach to the economy stemming from the forrnalist-substantivist debate, here called a Network-based model, shall be suggested.

THE FORMAL1ST-SUBSTANT1VIST DEBATE

Although modern economic theory can provide useful data for the study of the ancient economy, the analysis of ancient economic modalities should not be situated

9

within this discipline. Rather, it should be situated within the historical or anthropological study of economy. While social theorists (such as Weber and Durkheim) have postulated questions about the nature of the ancient economy since the late Nineteenth century, the study of this question has been taken up by Classicists and anthropologists, as opposed to economists or SOCI ogists. Near Eastern studies has somewhat interacted with this argument, but for the mos part, those studying Ugarit have not. This is unfortunate since the data from Ugarit has great potential for scholars attempting to understand the pre-modern economy. It is one of the goals of this work to help situate the study of the Ugaritic economy within this larger, cross-cultural debate. Since the 1950s,1 the formalist-substantivist debate has been one of the primary arenas for discussion of the pre-industrial economy. The debates stemmed from the appointment, in 1947, of Karl Polanyi as Visiting Professor of Economics at Columbia University. Polanyi and his students at Columbia challenged the notion that pre-industrial economies could be considered through the same conceptual apparatus as industrial economies. Polanyi and his students were considered substantivists. This title is derived from an understanding of economy as substantive; a perspective that sees the economy as embedded within society and is therefore culturally specific. This means that economies must be understood and defined by the "substance" of individual economies rather than through culturally universal criteria. This is a definition of economy which stands in contrast to the formal definition of economy, embodied by Neo-classical economics, where economy is understood to be: "derived from the logic of economically rational action."? A formal definition of the economy sees economic activity as the result of universal human nature and thus can be deduced from formal principles. In essence, the controversy boils down to the degree in which pre-industrial economy mirrors post-industrial economy, and how useful the methodology for the study of the latter is for the former. In recent years the controversy has died down. Certainly there is still considerable venom between the extreme proponents in the carnps.f Yet no consensus was ever reached and it is frequently obvious, when reading about ancient economics, which conceptual framework has been employed. Since Polanyi wrote explicitly about the economies of cuneiform civilizations, there was not the usual lag time in the incorporation of this methodological discussion into cuneiform studies. Polanyi's actual analysis of Mesopotamian economies has not proven to be very useful, primarily because of his relatively poor analysis of Mesopotamian institutions." Renger and van de Mieroop I More properly, the origins of this debate can be seen in the writings of Karl Rodberrus in the 1860s. 2 Polanyi 1977, p. xviii 3 Note for example Silver's extremely hostile comments towards the substantivists, Silver 1983, p. 141. 4 The problems with his interpretations of specific Mesopotamian economic institutions are discussed by many scholars. For a detailed criticism of Polanyi's interpretations, based on misreadings of Mesopotamian languages and misunderstandings of Mesopotamian society, see Veenhof 1972.

r 10

have suggested that this is not the appropriate lesson to be learned from Polanyi since the errors he made are understandable given his lack of formal training in Assyriology. Considered anew, these scholars suggest that Polanyi's methodology can still provide a useful framework for the study of ancient economy." Polanyi's methodology will be outlined in more detail below. At this stage it is important to note that Polanyi's most important contribution is not his description of Mesopotamian economy, but his method for approaching the data. The formalist perspective, in contrast, sees much continuity between past and present. It assumes a fundamental similarity in decisionmaking and value creation between past and present. The following discussion seeks to describe the development of both of these economic perspectives.

1.

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTMST DEBATE

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

11

ii. Neo-classical Economics as the Basis for a Formal Model of the Economy The economic theoretical framework designated as "Neo-classical economics" has its origins in the 1870s.12 From the 1870s to the First World War, models of equilibrium dominated economic theory. Backhouse defines the major difference between the Neo-classical schools of thought and the Classical schools of thought in these terms: The new systems proposed by jevons, Menger, Walras, and Marshall were all systems of static equilibrium, in which prices were determined by the interaction, in competitive markets, of the maximizing behaviour of economic agents. The emphasis was thus very different from that of the classical economists for whom a static system of price determination, though present, was in the background vis a vis the theory of growth and capital accumulation. 13

The Nineteenth Century Primitivist/Modernist Debate

Study of the economy started on a new path with the proposition by Rodbertus (in the 1860s), that the ancient economy was dominated by the oikos. 6 The oikos (household) was the primary unit of production in antiquity, according to Rodbertus - with commerce playing only a minor role in the general economy'! Rodbertus was primarily concerned with Roman estates and Roman taxation, but his suggestion has made an impact on the study of civilizations other than Rome. In 1893 Karl Bucher adapted the oikos model of Rodbertus to his own social evolutionary theory of the development of economy. Bucher argued that before the era of the nation-state, economy did not exist on scale larger than that of the city." The scale of economy in the classical world operated at the level of the household, and ideally households were self-sufficient. The self-sufficiency of the oikos meant that trade and currency were not important components of classical economy." According to Pearson, the notion that trade and currency did not figure in classical economy was easily contested by Eduard Meyer in 1895. 10 Meyer's arguments against BUcher were essentially the same as the criticisms that the formalists directed against Polanyi sixty years later. It was easy enough for Meyer to demonstrate that trade and currency had been components of economy long before classical antiquity, for example in the civilizations of Mesopotamia. For Meyer, there was no substantial difference between modern and ancient economy. II

Renger 1994, pp. 184-185; van de Mieroop 1999, p. 116. Pearson 1957, p. 5; Weber 1976, p. 42. 7 Weber 1976, p. 42. 8 Pearson 1957, p. 6. 9 Pearson 1957, p. 7. 10 Meyer 1957, p. 7. 11 Pearson 1957, p. 7.

5

6

The difference should be seen as the relative importance of price-setting mechanisms within the study of economics. For the Classical school, these price-setting mechanisms were relatively unimportant, and in Adam Smith's case, were considered a hindrance to comparative study. The Neo-classicists, while holding basically similar views about the nature of price-setting mechanisms, depart from Classical schools of thought in the importance they place on these mechanisms relative to other economic concepts. The driving force behind price-setting and valuation in Neo-classical thought is the concept of marginal utility. Utility, in its simplest form, is the ability or possibility of a good or service to satisfy human wants. Marginal utility is the added utility that the consumption of one more good or service has within the context of the supply of other goods or services. The law of diminishing marginal utility holds that as consumption of a good or service increases, the marginal utility of that same good or service decreases. Related are the concepts of supply and demand: supply is availability of a scarce good or service, and demand is the desire for that scarce good and resource. These concepts are all considered part of an equilibrium model because behind these concepts is a notion of an equilibrium price, when supply and demand are equivalent. In Neoclassical thought, supply and demand are such powerful principles, that they constitute the sole regulating force in an economy. Friedland and Robertson state: "The mainstream of neoclassical economics proceeds from the assumption that the market is an autonomous, self regulating arena."14 With marginal utility, or equilibrium as the basis of the Neo-classical school, some fundamental characteristics of this school of thought developed beyond and in contrast to Jevons, Menger, and Walras. Of importance to this discussion is the notion of rationality in decision-making. These economists developed the concept of the homo

12

13

14

Polanyi 1977, p. 21. Backhouse 1985, p. 131. Friedland and Robertson 1990, P: 6.

12

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

economicus who made economic decisions based solely on definable criteria of profit and loss. This would become a fundamental point of contention in the formalist-substantivist debate. Neo-classicists saw economic decision-making as entirely divorced from cultural baggage, and centered completely upon models of rational gain-loss decision-making. Even institutions that organize economic activity are seen, by Neoclassicists, as oriented around rational choice.I? iii. Application of Neo-classical Economics to the Ancient Economy Within the confines of the formalist-substantivist debate, the most important reaction was that of Michael Rostovtzeff. Responding to the rise of Soviet power and moving to the United States, Rostovtzeff argued against the validity of Marxist-Hegelian models for understanding ancient economy. Instead, Rostovtzeff argued in 1932 that the only difference between ancient and modern economy was a question of scale.16 Rostovtzeff's argument that scale is the only difference between modern and ancient economy is laid out in his monumental The Social and Economic History ofthe Roman Empire (1%3 [1957]). There, Rostovtzeff outlines a history of Roman economic development.'? He argued for a series of evolutionary stages within the Roman economy. The first major stage was the collapse of what he calls 'feudal capitalism,' in which wealthy landlords dominated the economic life of Rome.l'' This feudal capitalism was replaced by "city capitalism," where, since wealth was concentrated in the hands of the Emperor and his support structure, urban businessmen who were physically close to the Imperial residence and Temple of Saturn gained power.l'' These powerful individuals (called 'urban bourgeoisie,' by Rostovtzeff) began to accumulate capital within the urban environment.i'' Since the primary goal of the urban bourgeoisie was to gain a safe income, the economy of Rome stagnated and eventually this kind of capitalism collapsed." Also preventing the growth of Roman industry in this pseudo-capitalist environment was the limited purchasing power of the rnasses.F The poor could not afford to purchase goods, hence limiting both demand for goods and the reward for providing goods through the free market. While many differences are apparent between the Roman economy and the modern economy, the differences, according to Rostovtzeff, were better explained by scale as opposed to differences in orientation or motivation.

15 16

17 18 19

20 21

22

Friedland and Robertson 1990, p. 18. Pearson 1957, pp. 9-10. Rostovtzeff 1963, p. xiii. Rostovrzeff 1963, p. xiv. Rostovtzeff 1963, p. xiv. Rostovtzeff 1963, p. xiv. Rostovrzeff 1963, p. xiv. Rostovtzeff 1963, p. xv,

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTMST DEBATE

13

iv. Early Alternatives to Neo-classical Economics The writings of Max Weber seemed to straddle this controversy. Weber accepts the

oikos model, but with the same caveat that he credits to Bucher, that the oikos was only an ideal type 23 and not, in practice, the only form of economic unit in the ancient world.j" Weber's unique spin on the oikos model is his suggestion that the household, as a domestic production unit, was influenced by the intervention of big men with a monopoly on commerce ii.e., princes, chiefs) directly into local economy.P Yet he makes certain to be clear that the origins of large latifundia-style organizations did not lie in specific, goal-oriented economic policy, but rather the personal accumulation of labor at the household level.26 Weber also suggests that Eduard Meyer's arguments against Bucher were based on misunderstandings of Bucher's arguments." Whether this was true or not, Meyer (and his students) argued against the use of specialized economic terminology for the study of the ancient world, and instead chose terms like factory to describe institutions in the ancient world. Weber, however, explicitly states his dislike for such methodology: "Nothing could be more misleading, therefore, than to describe the economic institutions of antiquity in modern terms."28 Weber did not always follow this advice, and often used anachronistic historical terminology (such as 'feudalism' and (oikos') in his investigations. Indeed, Weber breaks from his own advice when discussing 'capitalism'. Weber suggests that capitalism is a useful term in the description of the ancient economy. He defines capital as: "wealth used to gain profit in commerce."29 This did exist in antiquity, according to Weber, but was limited by a number of variables.P Monarchies, as political institutions, had a limiting effect on capitalism in general'! Inherent to

23 Ideal types can be considered set constellations of sociological laws. Weber comments on ideal types, Weber 1978, p. 20: ".. .it is necessary for the sociologist to formulate pure ideal types of the corresponding forms of action which in each case involve the highest possible degree of logical integration by virtue of their complete adequacy on the level of meaning. But precisely because this is true, it is probably seldom if ever that a real phenomenon can be found which corresponds exactly to one of these ideally constructed pure types." Within this framework, Weber suggested that no distinction needs to be made between conscious and unconscious actions. Ideal types are better analyzed as though they involve conscious decision making processes, Weber 1978, p. 22. Ideal types are heuristic devices for scholars useful for understanding certain, set phenomenon. It must be remembered that ideal types are just that - models; they fulfill pragmatic functions, and in the practice of everyday life rarely appear exactly as formulated. 24 Weber 1976, p. 43. 25 Weber 1976, p. 46. 26 Weber 1976, p. 66. 27 Weber 1976, p. 43. 28 Weber 1976, p. 45. 29 Weber 1976, p. 48. 30 Weber 1976, pp. 52-60. 31 Weber 1976, p. 64.

15

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTMST DEBATE

this antique capitalism, in Weber's model, were public finance organizations.F Private capital was directly affected by these organizations and in essence was almost always originally a form of state wealth. 33 The most blatant example of these ancient financing strategies was tax farming. 34 Tax farming was the process in which states would sell the rights to collect taxes to private individuals. So in essence private citizens were accumulating capital but it was capital integrally dependent on state funds, in Weber's perspective. Furthermore, Weber suggested that the state or other authorities drastically limited the amount of profits.P Weber argues that institutions that look like guilds to modern historians are actually the remnants of the organization of state imposition and in reality were not related to the accumulation of private capical/" Related to capitalism but not dependent on it is Weber's notion of profit-making. Profit-making according to Weber: "is activity which is oriented to opportunities for seeking new powers of control over goods on a single occasion, repeatedly or continuously."37 This is different from capitalism, which Weber associates with capital accounting, in that it is not restricted to cornmerce.t" Similarly, capital accounting from the Weberian perspective can be oriented towards market relationships or power based relationships (such as taxation). This is the process in which opportunities for profitmaking are calculated based on the comparison of amounts of capital before and after the enrerprise/" Capital accounting is, according to Weber, a type of profit-making

These bases for domination are integral to Weber's understanding of the ancient world. In Weber's oikos model the dominant basis of authority was traditional. The tradition that allows domination is patriarchalism, an organizational structure founded on both economic and kinship terms, with its leadership stemming from rights of inheritance.i" To Weber, this kind of traditional power is the most important form of pre-rational dominarion.F It is based on piety towards tradition and towards the master, and is best referred to as patrimonialism.t" This kind of domination is geared towards fulfilling the master's wants, though this is limited by the fact that the master lives in the same location as other members of the group, and hence his happiness is directly related to other members of the household.t? Patrimonialism extends beyond the household level to the state level, in Weber's model.P" The difference is only in scale, not in structure.P! Typical of a patrimonial state is a lack of differentiation between public and private spheres of life.52 Office holders, in a patrimonial state, are granted offices based on their personal relationship with the ruler. The same can be said of organizations, in which the members as a collective have a relationship with the ruler, as constituted by the group identity.53 These officials (or organizations) can be maintained in three basic ways: through direct allowance from the master's storehouses, through the assignment of fees granted for particular acts, and through the grant of Iand.l" While this may in theory create quite a decentralized state, in practice there are numerous methods for keeping the powers of the officeholders in check. Special offices can be created, which travel through the master's sphere of influence ensuring the continued support of the master. 55 Requirements to appear at court and the creation of jurisdictional powers can help reduce the disintegration of the master's patrimonial authority. 56 These sociological concepts are not mere abstractions in Weber's work. Nor are they based on abstract notions divorced from empirical evidence. His work is rooted in close examination of a variety of civilizations. Weber's analyses of the details of ancient society are often neglected, since he was writing before much of the material sources of the ancient world were known or available to non-specialist audiences.57 Even given

14

that is unique to rational economic situarions.t" Domination, especially its legitimization, is an important concept in Weberian thought. For him, there is no legitimate domination without some element of voluntary compliance on the part of the dominated." This voluntary compliance is founded on one of three bases: rational, traditional, and charismatic.Y Rational grounds consist of a basic belief in the legality of the domination and the rights of the dominant to dominare.P This is the foundation of bureaucratic domination. Tradition based domination is based on the belief in the legitimacy of ancient or traditional power structures.t" Charismatic domination is based on the personal characteristics of a particular individual, which imbues others with the belief in the dominant's right to dominate.P Weber 1976, p. 61. Weber 1976, p. 61. 34 Weber 1976, p. 61. 35 Weber 1976, p. 64. 36 Weber 1976, p. 47. 37 Weber 1978, p. 90. 38 Weber 1978, p. 164. 39 Weber 1978, p. 91. 40 Weber 1978, p. 91. 4! Weber 1978, p. 212. 42 Weber 1978, p. 215. 43 Weber 1978, p. 215. 44 Weber 1978, p. 215. 45 Weber 1978, p. 215.

32 33

Weber 1978, p. 231. Weber 1978, p. 1006. 48 Weber 1978, p. 1008. 49 Weber 1978, pp. 1010-1011. 50 Weber 1978, p. 1013. 5! Weber 1978, p. 1013. 52 Weber 1978, p. 1028. 53 Weber 1978, p. 1023. 54 Weber 1978, p. 1032. 55 Weber 1978, p. 1042. 56 Weber 1978, pp. 1042-1043. 57 See his comments on the Code of Hammurabi in TheAgrarian Sociology ofAncient Civilizations, Weber 1976, p. 83. 46 47

16

17

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMAL1ST-SUBSTANT1VIST DEBATE

this, his work has been of tremendous importance for other scholars in the study of the Classical and ancient Near Eastern world. These Neo-Weberians shall be discussed more fully in Chapter Two. While scholars such as Weber were looking at the larger social structures that lay beneath economic practices, others were looking to the objects of economic activity. At the end of the Nineteenth century there was a growing understanding that social relationships could be mediated through objects. The works of two scholars stand out as particularly important for the study of the ancient economy: Thorstein Veblen and Marcel Mauss. Thorstein Veblen's The Theory ofthe Leisure Class (1899) provides one early model that has figured prominently in ancient historians' understandings of the ancient economy. Particularly in the economic study of the Late Bronze Age where it is so tempting to classify certain artifacts as luxury goods and others as utilitarian, Veblen's model of conspicuous consumption has been productive. Veblen's model has been seen as useful for archaeologists because his model explicitly develops a means of understanding the social role of objects that otherwise appear to lack utilitarian value. The actual argument made by Veblen is worth discussing in detail, since the term 'conspicuous consumption' has come to be used in a way different from its original sense. First of all, it is important to note that 'conspicuous consumption' is not the main issue of Veblen's book. As the title The Theory of the Leisure Class suggests, it is the leisure class and the role played by the leisure class that is the focus of Veblen's work. The leisure class, according to Veblen, is the class of society that is divorced from material production. He states: "the rule holds with but slight exceptions that, whether warriors or priests, the upper classes are exempt from industrial employments, and this exemption is the economic expression of their superior rank."58 This is the central theme of Veblen's argument. He goes on to show the many ways in which the leisure class signifies their rank by engaging in various activities that indicate a non-participation in productive labor. Demonstrative expression of idleness is a primary means of signifying rank. Leisure is the non-productive consumption of time, which signifies a sense of the unworthiness of labor and the ability to afford to not have to work. 59 The demonstration of access to idleness is even greater when one is powerful enough to make other individuals idle. Servants exemplify this removal of other people from the realm of productive manufacture and trained servants are a marker of even greater

This marshalling of leisure power is inherently related to consumption. Knowledge of the proper methods of consumption and materials to be consumed are necessary components of the process.v' Intrinsically, the proper consumer must be separate enough from labor in order to be able to devote enough time to learn the proper habits of consumption. Wine tasting is an excellent example of this, and it easily extends to other aspects oflife (i.e., golf, theatre attendance). The consumption of particular goods becomes another means of demonstrating rank. By the conversion of productive energy into unproductive goods ti.«, ones that do not satisfy basic needs and are frequently called luxury goods), such possessions become: "evidence of the prepotence of the possessor of these goods over other individuals within the communiry.v- The possession of this property becomes a signifier of ranking within society.63 This is less explicit, but akin to the Roman practice of wearing rank-specific clothing as a means of signification. Veblen sees this kind of possession as unproductive: "Unproductive consumption of goods is honourable, primarily as a mark of prowess and a prerequisite of human dignity; secondarily it becomes substantially honourable in itself, especially the consumption of the more desirable things."64 Conspicuous consumption, then, is that consumption of non-productive goods. This becomes "a means of reputability to the gentleman of leisure."? The development of conspicuous consumption within the leisure class leads to a further stratification of non-productive ranks within society. Towards the upper ranks consumption is surrounded by more and more rules and obligations and it illustrates the increasing distance of the consumer from productive labor. Each level of consumption, however, has at its roots the desire to emulate the rank above.66 Elite emulation as understood by Veblen is the purposeful emulation of the upper classes, or other ruling classes. Veblen sees all acts of conspicuous consumption as attempts to illustrate an individual's divorce from productive labor. It is important to keep the concepts of conspicuous consumption and elite emulation separate. It is tempting to see them as virtually the same concept since in their end result both involve the acquisition of symbols of status. However, the base meaning of the acquisition of symbols is very different. Conspicuous consumption is a process of transforming productive energy into non-productive energy in order to demonstrate one's ability to do so. Emulation is the mechanism for determining what kinds of nonproductive energy are used. Not to say that the two concepts are unrelated but it must be remembered why and how they are separate concepts.

status.P'' 61 62

63 58 59

60

Veblen 1994 [1899], p. 1. Veblen 1994 [1899], p. 43. Veblen 1994 [1899], pp. 56,61.

64 65 66

Veblen Veblen Veblen Veblen Veblen Veblen

1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994

[1899], [1899], [1899], [1899], [1899], [I899],

p. 74. p. 28. p. 29. p. 69. p. 75. p. 25.

18

19

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

Veblen understood that part of the process of conspicuous consumption was the giving of lavish gifts, parties, and entertainments, as symbols of the transformation of productive energy into non-productive energy.67 Marcel Mauss, in his Essai sur Ie Don (The Gift), provides a methodology for analyzing this phenomena in more depth. He attempted to uncover the principles that compel the receiver of a gift to reciprocate the gift giving. 68 The giving of a gift is seen as part of a mutually obligatory social encounter. Gifts are not given freely (with some exceptions) and without obligation to the receiver. Giving is part of a process that creates and reinforces social relationships and positions. Gifts may appear to be voluntary but are in fact compulsory. Gift giving is a system of obligation. Mauss notes that unreciprocated gifts make the receiver uncomfortable and so the gift giver is obligated to return another gift, preferably a more valuable one. 69

This was fundamental to the academic components of the Soviet Union's New Economic Policy (NEP) in the 1920s, of which Chayanov was an active participant. One of the primary goals of the NEP was the Westernization and concurrent socialization of Soviet family farms. Chayanov's contribution was his development of a theory of peasant economy that could be considered a distinct phase in the Hegelian-Marxist conception of history dominant at the time,?3 This theoretical framework was intended for specific use in policy formation, based on accurate descriptions of rural farm life and the ability to predict the economic actions and outputs of individual households,?4

There are four features of gifts that compel them to be returned. The spirit of the gift, an intangible aspect of the gift that cannot be alienated from the giver, compels the receiver to return the same. Self-interest also compels return of the gift; social forces compel appropriate and predictable behavior. Related, reciprocity acts as a leveling device preventing the creation of social hierarchy. Gifting is part of what Mauss calls a system oftotal seruice/? There are three major components of this system of total service - the obligation to reciprocate gifts given as well as the obligation to give in the first place and the obligation to receive in the first place."! The reciprocity of gift giving is not just a reaction to an isolated event. It is the acceptable response to a socially integrated institution. One is culturally obligated to give gifts. Of particular interest in Mauss's work to the economic historian is what this concept of total service system suggests about pre-industrial economy. For Mauss this system was the primary mechanism for the circulation of goods in pre-monetary economies.V The moral compulsion to give, receive, and reciprocate is the driving cultural force for the circulation of goods and services rather than the desire to accumulate wealth or status (which would be consistent with Veblen's model). This has been a particularly productive viewpoint for scholars of ancient economy as will be discussed later. Also manifest as an early alternative to Neo-classical economic models were the works of Alexander Chayanov. Chayanov's primary contribution to economic anthropology was his explanation for the underproduction of domestic producers. Viewing the household as a primary unit of production in the tradition of Rodbertus and Weber, Chayanov was interested in studying economy from the smallest sections upwards.

Of primary importance, Chayanov discovered that the domestic mode of production tends to under-produce. Chayanov sees peasant farmers as having different production goals from capitalists. The aim of capitalist production is the creation of surplus, whereas the aim of the domestic producer is to satisfy the needs of the family, and/or household dependents." The domestic producers are not inclined to create surplus, because of the inherent distaste for the work itself.76 This distaste for labor, called 'drudgery' limits the production possibilities of the domestic unit,77 Drudgery affects production after minimal production goals are met (i.e., enough is produced to sustain the household). Producers may attempt to create a surplus if it may reasonably lead to some better quality of life but the drudgery of life acts as a check against possible extra work." While the results of Chayanov's theory may seem consistent with the frameworks of Neo-classical economics, Chayanov himself did not find Neo-classical economics useful in the setting of the pre-industrial Soviet Union. The pre-industrial nature of the Soviet Union in Chayanov's view did not have all of the features of a Neo-classical economy and to him if any components were missing then the models were not useful.79 This is an early argument that pre-industrial economies cannot be accurately understood through the lens of an economic model created for a post-industrial society. On the other hand, the argument has been made that Chayanov's theoretical underpinnings are rooted in Neo-classical economics.t" The political circumstances in which Chayanov operated certainly made it impossible for him to support such conceptual frameworks, at least publicly, but arguments have been made that acceptance of this framework are implicit in his writings. The connection between Chayanov's model and Neo-classical models is that both are essentially marginalist arguments. For Chayanov, 73 74

67 68 69 70 71

71

Veblen 1994 [1889], p. 76. Mauss 1990 [1950], p. 3. Mauss 1990 [1950], p. 65. Mauss 1990 [1950], pp. 5-6. Mauss 1990 [1950], p. 13. Mauss 1990 [1950], p. 46.

75 76 77

78 79 80

Kerblay 1987, p. 176. Durrenberger 1984, p. 7. Durrenberger 1984, p. 8; Kerblay 1987, p. 177. Durrenberger 1984, p. 9; Kerblay 1987, p. 178; Tannenbaum 1984, p. 28. Tannenbaum 1984, p. 28. Kerblay 1987, p. 178. Durrenberger 1984, p. 7. Donham 1980, p. 517.

20

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

the economy can be mapped out using the x and y axes of security and drudgery, whereas Neo-classical models' x and y axes are wants and resources. So while the conceptual frameworks used to understand the economy are similarly structured, the social and cultural embeddedness of the conceptual frameworks becomes quite clear in the comparison of the two. Whatever Chayonov's actual political views, studies such as his hinted that Neo-classical models were not always appropriate analytical tools, especially equilibrium and rational decision-making models. A new approach that allowed for greater variation was needed.

part, the Polanyian school is interested in the second aspect of substantive economy. Treating the economy as an instituted process is the fundamental means of analysis. Economies in the Polanyian viewpoint are integrated into the economy as patterns, referred to as 'forms of integration'r" In order to compare one economy with another it is important to compare like with like. By identifying which pattern of integration is dominant, this goal is made possible.I" This involves simplification of the actual details of the economy.87 To Polanyi, "by differentiating between sectors and levels of the economy those forms offer a means of describing the economic process in comparatively simple terms, thereby introducing a measure of order into its endless variations. "88 There are three primary forms of integration to Polanyians: reciprocity, redistribution, and market-exchange.s? Polanyi describes the use of these three terms:

v. Karl Polanyi and the Substantivist School of Thought Karl Polanyi reacted very strongly to scholars like Rostovtzeff The methodology Polanyi outlined in response to these kinds of works has been both influential and controversial within the field of economic anthropology. Most problematic has been the cursory application of the Polanyian models to historical situations, which has tended to discredit this school (see the discussion of the Old Assyrian trade caravans below). This is unfortunate, since the conceptualization of the relationship between economy and society has much utility.81 It is this conception, rather than previous attempts at application, which shall be concentrated on. At the foundation of Polanyi's conceptual framework is his notion of the relationship between economy and society. Pearson describes Polanyi's conception: Polanyi's basic solution [to the problem that markets are not always visible in the study of antique economy] was to return to the notion of the economy as the material meansproviding sphere and to examine the different institutional frameworks in which that sphere operated in different societies. Here, certainly there is no enigma. Every society must somehow find the material means for its survival, and that activity is everywhere clear and evident, providing "substantive" evidence. The whole process will be organized differentlyin different societies, run on different motives, and use varying materials and technologies, but it will always be there, observable and capable of analysis as a set of identifiable activities with some shape, some unity, some stability, if not necessarily as a differentiated economic system [Pearson's italics]. 82 The economy, from Polanyi's perspective, is embedded within society.83 Economy is the means through which humans gain materials necessary for survival. There are two major aspects of Polanyi's substantive economy: "one is the interaction between man and his surroundings; the other is the institutionalization of that process. In actuality, the two are inseparable; we will however, treat of them separately."84 For the most

One might think of the forms of integration as diagrams representingthe patterns made by the movements of goods and persons in the economy, whether these movements consist of changes in their locations, in their appropriation, or in both. As a form of integration, reciprocity describes the movement of goods and services (or the disposal over them) between corresponding points of a symmetrical arrangement: redistribution stands for a movement towards a center and out of it again, whether the objects are physically moved or only the disposition over them is shifted; and exchange represents a movement in a similar sense, but this time between any two dispersed or random points in the syscem." These three patterns shall be discussed in more detail below. It is important to remember the scale of the various interactions. All are manifest on an institutional level, that is to say a level that is reflected by the dominant economic organizations within a particular society. For example, barter between individuals does not indicate the existence of a market system." Nor do gifts between individuals indicate the presence of a predominantly reciprocal system. It should also be noted that trade does not indicate one or another of these patterns of integration for trade appears in various guises in all three of these forms. Indeed a pattern of integration should be understood as the dominant type of economic interaction at the largest levels of society. Reciprocity is a pattern of integration dominant between groups of equal status. There must be a differentiation of groups within the society in order for reciprocity to be present (on a societal scale). Of particular utility in the study of reciprocity is the work of Marcel Mauss (discussed above). In essence, however, economic self-interest is discouraged according to Polanyi in this pattern of inregrarion.F 85 86 87

Johannes Renger is a defender of Polanyi, suggesting that scholars have been mistaken to dwell on Polanyi's factual errors and to ignore his methodological concerns, Renger 1994, pp. 184-185. 82 Polanyi 1977, p. xxix. 83 Polanyi 1957, p. 250. 84 Polanyi 1977, p. 31. 81

21

88 89 90 91 92

Polanyi 1957, Polanyi 1977, Polanyi 1957, Polanyi 1957, Polanyi 1957, Polanyi 1977, Polanyi 1977, Polanyi 1977,

p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p.

250; 1977, p. 35. 35. 250. 250. 250, 1977; pp. 35-36. 36. 42. 39.

22

23

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

Redistribution, on the other hand, requires some kind of central organizing principle. In Polanyi's words: "Redistribution obtains within a group to the extent that in the allocation of goods (including land and natural resources) they are collected in one hand and distributed by virtue of custom, law, or ad hoc central decision. In this way, the reuniting of divided labor is achieved."93 There does not need to be an actual physical collection of goods, 'in redistribution. It can be manifest in apportional rights (the rights over the status of the goods or labor).94 Market trade is the third major form of integration. Polanyi explains market trade as: "a two-way movement of goods between persons oriented toward the gain ensuing for each from the resulting terms."95 At the heart of the market trade pattern of integration is the presence of price-setting mechanisms.I"

of each may vary."101 This is an important point. However, the argument should be made that the scale of transformation that accompanied the industrial revolution was so extreme and touched so many other elements of life, that while from a philosophical standpoint it is not discontinuous, for the practical purposes of historical inquiry it may be considered as such. Despite these criticisms the Polanyian model remains valuable since it allows for the easy comparison of different economies. Economies are basically too complex to understand as a whole and to understand many different economies at once is a near impossible cognitive feat. Polanyi's method creates a common frame of reference in which economies can be compared and understood. It strips economies of the terminology specific to that situation in order to clarify the general principles of the circulation of goods and labor as well as the institutions that facilitate these actions. 102 Polanyis method can be employed to answer specific questions about the circulation of goods, but it must be understood that these patterns of integration do not explain or describe all aspects of economic modalities. A number of cuneiform scholars have demonstrated difficulties in applying Polanyian models to Mesopotamian civilization. In a very influential 1976 paper, Rollig identifies specific Akkadian terminology that reflects markets and market trade. Rollig makes a very simple argument against the substantivists; since words for market, market-value, merchant, etc., are attested in Akkadian, then these institutions must have existed. It is worth mentioning a few of the examples given by Rollig. He notes that the word mabiru can refer to market-places and markec-rates.l'" The word kdru has a similar semantic range. 104 Likewise, markets existed in identifiable locations in the Mesopotamian city, the bdbi (gate) and the siiqu (srreetl.l'" Rollig also uses the attestation of the term sdbiru as evidence that merchants existed given that this is an accurate translation for this term. 106

vi. The Critique of Polanyi and the Defense of His Principles in the Near East A number of criticisms have been leveled at the Polanyian model of forms of integration. Gledhill and Larsen suggest that the forms of integration and movement of goods cannot be explained: "without specifying definite structures in society that may be seen as 'symmetrical' with such flows."97 If this is the case, then Polanyi's model requires a static view of ancient economy that does not allow for the dynamism critical to any study of economics since the forms of integration are therefore fixed by such structures." Furthermore, these models do not engage production at all; they concentrate on circulation of goods after production.i" Another important criticism of Polanyi is that there is an inherently social evolutionary conception underlying his model. In one of his other works, The Great Transformation, Polanyi describes how the industrial revolution inaugurated a complete transformation of human society. Amounting to a paradigm shift of Newtonian (or ]asperian) proportion, the industrial revolution marks a radical turning point in human life. Because of this conception Holton argues that Polanyi: "underestimates the extent of social differentiation of economy and society before the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.t"?" Holton does not see the industrial revolution as discontinuous in human history. He states: "The alternative proposed here is that embeddedness and differentiation are omni-present features of most if not all societies - even though the scale Polanyi 1977, p. 40. Polanyi 1957, p. 254. 95 Polanyi 1977, p. 42. 96 Polanyi 1957, p. 254. 97 Gledhill and Larsen 1982, p. 199. 98 However, ir should be nored that the "dynamic" models employed by Gledhill and Larsen for the study of Mesoamerican and Mesopotamian economics are not so dynamic. Their model is based on cyclic episodes, which is just a more complex static model, Gledhill and Larsen 1982, p. 226. 99 Gledhill and Larsen 1982, pp. 199-200. 100 Holton 1992, p. 39. 93

94

Rollig's discussion is the most obvious argument against Polanyi and the substantivists. If the words for some concept or modality exist then it should go without saying that the concept or modality itself also existed. Unfortunately, what looks like a

Holton 1992, p. 45. A slightly different understanding of the use of Polanyian models is argued for by Oppenheim, a usage that more typifies cuneiform studies in general. In "A Birds-EyeView of Mesopotamian Economic History," Oppenheim argues, following Polanyian lines, that scholars obscure ancient data when they try to understand that data through Nineteenth century normative models, Oppenheim 1957, p. 28. Oppenheim instead suggests, Oppenheim 1957, p. 28, that at least with literate civilizations the best way to gain an understanding of them is to identify and analyze their emic conceptions and that the best way to approach this task "is to study the semantics of selected key terms rather than to use modern categories of organization as the avenues of approach." 103 Rollig 1976, p. 288. 104 Rollig 1976, p. 293. 105 Rollig 1976, pp. 289, 291. 106 Rollig 1976, p. 295. 101

102

22

23

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTlVIST DEBATE

Redistribution, on the other hand, requires some kind of central organizing principle. In Polanyi's words: "Redistribution obtains within a group to the extent that in the allocation of goods (including land and natural resources) they are collected in one hand and distributed by virtue of custom, law, or ad hoc central decision. In this way, the reuniting of divided labor is achieved."93 There does not need to be an actual physical collection of goods, 'in redistribution. It can be manifest in apportional rights (the rights over the status of the goods or labor).94 Market trade is the third major form of integration. Polanyi explains market trade as: "a two-way movement of goods between persons oriented toward the gain ensuing for each from the resulting terms."95 At the heart of the market trade pattern of integration is the presence of price-setting mechanisms."

of each may vary."IOI This is an important point. However, the argument should be made that the scale of transformation that accompanied the industrial revolution was so extreme and touched so many other elements of life, that while from a philosophical standpoint it is not discontinuous, for the practical purposes of historical inquiry it may be considered as such.

vi. The Critique of Polanyi and the Defense of His Principles in the Near East A number of criticisms have been leveled at the Polanyian model of forms of integration. Gledhill and Larsen suggest that the forms of integration and movement of goods cannot be explained: "without specifying definite structures in society that may be seen as 'symmetrical' with such flows."97 If this is the case, then Polanyi's model requires a static view of ancient economy that does not allow for the dynamism critical to any study of economics since the forms of integration are therefore fixed by such structures." Furthermore, these models do not engage production at all; they concentrate on circulation of goods after production.?' Another important criticism of Polanyi is that there is an inherently social evolutionary conception underlying his model. In one of his other works, The Great Transformation, Polanyi describes how the industrial revolution inaugurated a complete transformation of human society. Amounting to a paradigm shift of Newtonian (or jasperian) proportion, the industrial revolution marks a radical turning point in human life. Because of this conception Holton argues that Polanyi: "underestimates the extent of social differentiation of economy and society before the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.Y'P" Holton does not see the industrial revolution as discontinuous in human history. He states: "The alternative proposed here is that embeddedness and differentiation are omni-present features of most if not all societies - even though the scale

Despite these criticisms the Polanyian model remains valuable since it allows for the easy comparison of different economies. Economies are basically too complex to understand as a whole and to understand many different economies at once is a near impossible cognitive feat. Polanyi's method creates a common frame of reference in which economies can be compared and understood. It strips economies of the terminology specific to that situation in order to clarify the general principles of the circulation of goods and labor as well as the institutions that facilitate these actions. 102 Polanyi's method can be employed to answer specific questions about the circulation of goods, but it must be understood that these patterns of integration do not explain or describe all aspects of economic modalities. A number of cuneiform scholars have demonstrated difficulties in applying Polanyian models to Mesopotamian civilization. In a very influential 1976 paper, Rol1ig identifies specific Akkadian terminology that reflects markets and market trade. Rollig makes a very simple argument against the substantivists; since words for market, market-value, merchant, etc., are attested in Akkadian, then these institutions must have existed. It is worth mentioning a few of the examples given by Rollig. He notes that the word mahiru can refer to market-places and market-rates.P" The word karu has a similar semantic range. I04 Likewise, markets existed in identifiable locations in the Mesopotamian city, the babi (gate) and the suqu (streetl.l'" Rollig also uses the attestation of the term sabiru as evidence that merchants existed given that this is an accurate translation for this term. lOG Rollig's discussion is the most obvious argument against Polanyi and the substantivists. If the words for some concept or modality exist then it should go without saying that the concept or modality itself also existed. Unfortunately, what looks like a

Holton 1992, p. 45. A slightly different understanding of the use of Polanyian models is argued for by Oppenheim, a usage that more typifies cuneiform studies in general. In ''A Birds-Eye View of Mesopotamian Economic History," Oppenheim argues, following Polanyian lines, that scholars obscure ancient data when they try to understand that data through Nineteenth century normative models, Oppenheim 1957, p. 28. Oppenheim instead suggests, Oppenheim 1957, p. 28, that at least with literate civilizations the best way to gain an understanding of them is to identify and analyze their emic conceptions and that the best way to approach this task "is to study the semantics of selected key terms rather than to use modern categories of organization as the avenues of approach." 103 Rollig 1976, p. 288. 104 Rollig 1976, p. 293. 105 Rollig 1976, pp. 289, 291. 106 Rollig 1976, p. 295. 101 102

Polanyi 1977, p. 40. Polanyi 1957, p. 254. 95 Polanyi 1977, p. 42. 96 Polanyi 1957, p. 254. 97 Gledhill and Larsen 1982, p. 199. 98 However, ir should be noted that the "dynamic" models employed by Gledhill and Larsen for the study of Mesoamerican and Mesopotamian economics are not so dynamic. Their model is based on cyclic episodes, which is just a more complex static model, Gledhill and Larsen 1982, p. 226. 99 Gledhill and Larsen 1982, pp. 199-200. 100 Holton 1992, p. 39. 93 94

24

25

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

simple solution to this general problem is not so simple. Whether or not one agrees with Rollig's translations of the particular words he cites one cannot disagree that there were market-places in Mesopotamia where people traded items and that some people had a more formal role in the process (i.e., merchants). This does not prove, however, that it was the dominant means of economic organization nor does it demonstrate the presence of free-market price-setting mechanisms. It simply proves that trade existed as a recognized mode of circulating goods in Mesopotamia. This is an important observation but it does not have as far-reaching ramifications as it may at first seem. Perhaps the strongest evidence against the substantivist school of thought applied to Mesopotamia is the case study of the Old Assyrian trade caravans.l'" Larsen summarizes the economic situation as: "a commercial system which consisted of a series of interlocking circuits, feeding each other and overlapping at certain nodal points."108 What is interesting here is the nature of economic advantage available for these traders. Veenhof attributes the profitability of this venture to the difference in "economic landscape". 109 He cites as an example the relative value of tin, which was twice as expensive in Anatolia than in Ashur.l!'' While this does represent market trade it does not represent supply and demand price mechanisms. According to Polanyi it demonstrates exactly the opposite for the basis of profit is the stability of prices and not the fluctuation of prices within a supply and demand model. This is akin to the kind of market economy Polanyi argues existed in pre-Industrial Europe and which was not changed until foreign trade became a very prominent feature of local markets. 111 Veenhof specifically addresses Polanyi's conclusions with a mixed evaluation. 112 Veenhof cites Polanyi's numerous factual errors as his first response.P" Polanyi's arguments

that silver did not act as money in Old Assyrian trade are thoroughly disproved. Instead, Veenhof describes a situation in which the merchants act as middlemen between two regions in this exchange system, where silver and gold are used to facilitate this.l!" Separate words were used for silver as money (Jimum), and as merchandise (luqutum).115 Veenhof argues then, that silver acted as money through its use as a standard of value, as a means of payment, as an indirect means of exchange between two groups through middlemen, and through its ease of transport.J'? Veenhof's evaluation of Polanyi's arguments about the lack of a free-market system underlying the trade network is less conclusive. He certainly proves, contra Polanyi, that there were physical locations of exchange that can be understood as markets and hence it should not be assumed a priori that market forces were not used to set prices. 117 Veenhof is, however, forced to concede that in Old Assyrian trade, markets were a less important trade mechanism than the relationships between the large trading houses.U" While prices fluctuated up to 20%, there were set reasons for the fluctuation of these goods.P? Veenhof argues that these fluctuations do not seem to be established through treaty arrangement, contra Polanyi.F'' However, it must also be pointed out that the existence of established criteria justifying the fluctuations of price is not necessarily indicative of a free-market and the prominence of the personal relationships created by the Old Assyrian traders is better construed as evidence against supply-demand mechanisms driving pricing strategies. Even given these instances where the Polanyian paradigm has not been successfully employed the model should not be rejected outright. Mario Liverani has offered a potentially useful adaptation of Polanyi's model for the study of the Near East. Rather than seeing Polanyi's forms of integration as the actual organizing principles of economic activity he suggests that they reflect the semiotic tools that ancients used to understand and categorize economic activity. Liverani summarizes his conception of LB society that leads to his adaptation of Polanyi's model:

107 The base of the Old Assyrian trade network is typically understood to be the city of Ashur. Donkey caravans from Ashur, equipped with tin and textiles would travel to Anatolia and sell these goods for gold and silver then return to Ashur and begin the cycle again, Larsen 1967, p. 4; Veenhof 2000, p. 862. These products carried by the caravans to Anatolia were not produced in Ashur, but rather were brought to Ashur from other production locations, Veenhof 2000, p. 863. These Assyrian merchants had a noticeable presence in Anatolia. At Kultepc, for example, the Assyrian merchants settled outside of the city in what was called a kdrum, which could refer to the area where they lived or the administrative body of the traders, Larsen 1977, p. 120. The society of these traders was usually organized along family lines, Larsen 1987, p. 50, with the heads of the families settled in Ashur and the younger men stationed in Anatolia, Larsen 1977, p. 121. Yet with this presence in Anatolia, there is no evidence that Ashur exercised any authority over the regions. 108 Larsen 1987, p. 53. 109 Veenhof 2000, p. 864. 110 Veenhof 2000, p. 864. III Polanyi 1977, p. 7. 112 Larsen on the other hand argues that the distinction between Neo-classical and substantivist models is not useful for Mesopotamia and what is more important is the varying degree of centralized control in different situations, Larsen 1987, p. 49. 113 Veenhof 1972, p. 350.

The political system of the Late Bronze Age in the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean was characterized by large regional units (the result of a development of many centuries, impossible to sketch here), each endowed with a higher authority of regional extent, and a system of lower-level, local authorities with cantonal or city-specific jurisdiction. 121

Veenhof 1972, pp. 350-351. Veenhof 1972, p. 351. 116 Veenhof 1972, p. 350. m Veenhof 1972, pp. 352-356. 118 Veenhof 1972, p. 400. 119 Veenhof 1972, p. 400. 120 Veenhof 1972, p. 400. 121 Liverani 1987, p. 66.

114

115

26

27

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

Within this interregional system, Liverani argues that two "ideological features" are distinctive: a fictive conception of parity of rank and the understanding that within each king's own territory, that king had specific legal responsibilities and jurisdiction.122 Eventually the system collapsed when the individual palaces collapsed and were unable to provide the security necessary for international trade. 123 While accepting Polanyi's threefold conception of patterns of integration Liverani argues that reciprocity and redistribution should be viewed through a different conceptuallens. He does not see these patterns as existing in reality. To Liverani these two patterns of integration are, "here considered not as descriptive models of really different networks of exchange, but as interpretations, mental models, of a reality that in itself does not belong to any pattern."124 These patterns of integration are interpretive models that are adopted by the partners engaging in the transaction although the partners do not have to agree on which pattern exemplifies the relationship.V'' These patterns represent choices on behalf of the agents of how they will understand the relationship. Liverani states about these patterns: "They do not point out two separate sets of facts, but can be used alternatively with reference to the same facts - of course with different, even opposed, communicative aims and results."126 An example of how different communicative aims can understand the same event quite differently is in the sphere of tribute. Tribute may be seen formally as a gift and certainly on the giver's part this is the preferable spin on the event. On the other hand, the receiver of tribute may see the tribute as granted not out of a desire on the giver's part for a mutual relationship but as a result of social pressure exerted on the giver.127 Liverani modifies Polanyi's vision of these two patterns of integration in three ways. First, he suggests that while ideally reciprocity should occur between peer-ranking partners, rarely will the partners actually have an equivalent ranking. 128 Second, and related, reciprocal relationships create an equivalence in goods exchanged, although this equivalence does not actually exist.129 And third, in relation to redistribution, this pattern is always viewed from the perspective of the dominant partner - peripheral agents may engage in other centralized activities of their own. 130 Liverani emphasizes that these patterns of integration serve as important tools for understanding how the actors understood the nature of the transactions in which they participated. A prime example of this involves international trade in terms of reciprocity and redistribution.

Since local populations were familiar with both of these kinds of exchange, they understood international trade in these terms.P! Reciprocity and redistribution were the conceptual frameworks that Late Bronze Age people used to understand their interactions with one another. Within the interpretive framework created by notions of reciprocity and redistribution, the two patterns exemplify different behavior and different values. In redistribution, only imports are celebrated; exports are not of interest within the framework of the pattern. Conversely, in reciprocity it is the export of goods that are emphasized and a concerted effort is made to downplay the importance of the reception of goods.132 According to Zaccagnini, the value of an object is determined by both its use-vale and its ceremonial value. 133 The value of the object is downplayed by the party requesting it. 134 Whether or not these viewpoints towards exchange are actually practiced or valued, these are the values that are communicated between the involved parties. However, as Liverani points out, at a most basic level there is great continuity between these two modes of integration. Both respond to the problem of scarcity of resources.135 Redistribution implies an accumulation of goods by the center that will allow the goods to be shared in situations of crisis. On a smaller scale, reciprocity values the generosity of people because in this type of transaction they are sharing scarce resources.136 While this model is generally quite convincing, one caveat needs to be noted. The evidence for this model of ceremonial exchange is derived almost entirely from epistolary texts. These letters provide excellent self-conscious discussions of exchange but they may reflect only one type of trade relationship. Letters inherently reflect the personal relationship between sender and receiver and would be an inappropriate form of communication (if not an impossible one) between parties that lack some sort of connection. These letters should be seen as the by-product of one particular type of economic relationship and Liverani's ceremonial model of exchange should be viewed as one distinct type of trade. This does not indicate that all trade relationships were constituted along these lines.

122 123 124 125 126

127 128

129 130

Liverani 1987, Liverani 1987, Liverani 2001, Liverani 2001, Liverani 2001, Liverani 2001, Liverani 2001, Liverani 2001, Liverani 2001,

p. 66. p. 70. p. 7. p. 8; Zaccagnini 1987, p. 61. p. 141. pp. 185-186. p. 7. p. 8. p. 8.

vii. Moving Beyond the Formalist-substantivist Debate When one studies the formalist-substantivist debate, one is struck by the relative rarity of economic theory post-dating the 1970s that is used by the Neo-classicists. 131 Liverani 2001, p. 141. For example, the term Iulmdnu describes a reciprocal relationship, but the terms mandattu, ndmartu, and tdmartu represent tributary or redistributive relationships, Liverani 2001, pp. 183-188. 132 Liverani 2001, pp. 151-152. 133 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 58. 134 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 58. 135 Liverani 2001, p. 153. 136 Liverani 2001, p. 153.

28

29

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

This is significant since economic theory has changed drastically since the 1970s. The rampant inflation, energy crises, and disillusionment of the 1970s (especially in the economic sphere) led to a general abandonment of equilibrium models as dominant tools for economic analysis. In essence, Neo-classical economics stopped being the dominant framework for understanding the economy. Homo economicus became extinct. Economists and corporations stopped assuming that people engaged in rational decision-making. While many of these concepts had been suggested before the 1970s, it was not until the 1970s that non-marginal utility models became the norm and not the exception. Furthermore, economists stopped arguing for economics to be viewed as separate from culture. In essence, a substantivist approach came to dominate modern economic theory! What follows is a discussion of some trends in modern economic theory that have potential value in the investigation of ancient economy: behavioralist, network, and complexity based models.

is exactly the same.lt" These decision-making processes are composed of two steps: editing the information (which involves simplifying alternatives) followed by evaluation. Called 'Prospect Theory,' this is the heart of Kahneman's new understanding of decision-making. 141 Choice is often made according to the manner in which the options are framed. 142

Behavioralist Models

Originating in the 1960s but achieving widespread acceptance in the 1970s behavioralist models of economy were a natural outgrowth of Neo-classical economics. Since marginal utility theory presupposes that individuals engaging in economic activity make decisions based on rational premises, it was seen as important to test this aspect of the hypothesis. Moreover, it has become clear to a wide number of economists (both theoretical and practical) that early models of rational decision-making are not sufficient. While some suggest that the framework needs to be disregarded completely, others suggest that the notion of what constitutes rationality requires modification. Kahneman and Tversky have been trailblazers in this field. They have shown that the processes behind economic decision-making are much more complex than utility theory allows.P" This is most evident in the manner in which decisions are in made in reference to 'risky' situations (i.e., any situation with an unknown outcome). Situations with an unknown outcome in which an agent must make decisions, that is to say, make decisions without "advance knowledge of their consequences" can be studied as "gambles".138 What makes this conceptual framework distinct from utility theory is the possibility for variable outcomes. Utility theory demands a linear response to the possibilities.P" In practice, however, linear responses are unlikely even given virtually identical possibilities. The example Kahneman cites relates to odds making. The agent's decision-making is less likely to be effected by a change of odds from 39% to 40% than a change in odds from 99% to 100% even though the rate of difference in both 137 138 139

Kahneman and Tversky 2000b, p. 18. Kahneman and Tversky 2000a, p. 2. Kahneman 2000a, p. xi.

Framing is the way the options are described both internally by the decision-maker and by outside influences on the decision-maker. The framing of options are affected by what Kahneman and Tversky call formulation effects. 143 The example they give of formulation theory is instructive as a definition: "The public health problem illustrates a formulation effect in which a change of wording from "lives saved" to "lives lost" induced a marked preference from risk aversion to risk seeking."144 In other words, people are less likely to take a risk if they are told a set amount of lives are lost on account of taking the risk than if told a set of amount of lives will be saved if the risk is not taken. Kahneman and Tversky state: "The evaluation of outcomes is susceptible to formulation effects because of the nonlinearity of the value function and the tendency of people to evaluate options in relation to the reference point that is suggested or implied by the statement of the problem."145 Formulation effects are just one kind of framing effect that can influence decision-making.l'" It is not important to enumerate them all here: what is important is how the concept of 'framing effects' relates to Neo-classical theory. Framing as a concept still implies rational decisionmaking on the part of the agent but it does suggest that "rational choice" is greatly contingent on the circumstances. Another important variable in the decision-making process is the conception of value. In models of marginal utility, rational decision-making involves an explicit calculation of what will result in the greatest increase of value. From a behavioralist perspective, value in the decision making process is not based on the final state of value but rather the magnitude of the change of value from one reference point to another. 147 This theoretical framework helps to understand many seeming irrational choices made in practical economics. For example, stocks have traditionally outperformed bonds by a

Kahneman 2000a, p. xi. Kahneman and Tversky 2000b, p. 28. 142 Kahneman and Tversky 2000a, p. 4. 143 Kahneman and Tversky 2000a, p. 10. 144 Kahneman and Tversky 2000a, p. 9. 145 Kahneman and Tversky 2000a, p. 10. 146 Some other types of framing effects are as follows. Reflection effect is the transformation of the framing of options from positive to negative terms (or vice versa) and the concomitant shift in attitude, Kahneman and Tversky 2000b, p. 22. Isolation effect is when perceived similarities in alternatives are ignored and only the perceived differences between alternatives are accounted for, Kahneman and Tversky 2000b, p. 25. Since the differences and similarities are inherently subjective, this leads to inconsistencies in the decision-making process. 147 Kahneman and Tversky 2000b, p. 32. 140 141

30

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

tremendous margin, yet investors continue to invest in bonds. Benartzi and Thaler suggest that two issues affect the situation, which are not normally accounted for by marginal utility. First, investors have a much greater sensitivity to loss, than to gain. 148 A loss is seen as much more troubling for an investor than a relatively similar gain is seen as fulfilling. Second, investors tend to make very frequent evaluations of their portfolios.U? Long-term gains are missed by short-term evaluations. This kind of behavior explains much about the recent irrational behavior of amateur investors (i.e., buying stocks at high prices and selling them at low prices). Kahneman's arguments are attempts to see economic decision-making as embedded within a larger cultural setting. He does not see economic action as divorced from social action. In fact, he argues that logical decision-making models need to be supplemented by 'substantive criterion.'150 By this he means external systems of preferences. One such substantive criterion is the application of Jeremy Bentham's notions of hedonic utility (i.e., the pleasurableness of certain decisions) into decision-making models.P! To Kahneman, adding substantive criteria to the analysis of economic behavior actually restricts the study of rationality by creating stricter conceptualizations.P'' Besides Kahneman, the other recipient of the 2002 Noble Memorial Prize in economics is Vernon Smith. Smith, one of the major forces in the field of experimental economics (a sub-discipline of game theory), also seeks to integrate psychology and economics in order to understand decision-making. In Smith's view, economic decisionmaking is rational.P'' The problem, demonstrated in experimental economics, is the consistent discrepancy between economic behavior when modeled in the laboratory and observed behavior from real-life situations.P" Smith phrases the observations in terms of 'right' or 'wrong' decision making as determined by equilibrium standards. Smith suggests that rational market behavior is facilitated by institutional rnediators.l'? That is to say that rational decision-making is observable in human economic behavior when that behavior is mediated through organizations and systems geared towards the reproduction of that behavior. In essence, this seems to be an argument (though it

is doubtful that Smith would describe it in this manner) that economic behavior is embedded within a societal context.

Benartzi and Thaler 2000, p. 301; Smith 2000, p. 4. Benartzi and Thaler 2000, p. 301. 150 Kahneman 2000b, p. 760. 151 Kahneman 2000b: 760. Another substantive criterion would be the constraint of "fairness." Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler, 2000, p. 331, argue: "The findings of this study suggest that many actions that are both profitable in the short run and not obviously dishonest are likely to be perceived as unfair exploitations of market power... Further, even in the absence of government intervention, the actions of firms that wish to avoid a reputation for unfairness will depart in significant ways from the standard model of economic behavior." For a different evaluation of the same phenomenon see Smith 2000, p. 6. 152 Kahneman 2000b, p. 774. 153 Smith 2000, p. 5. 154 Smith 2000, p. 23. 155 Smith 2000, p. 23. 148 149

31

While it is impossible to distill the arguments of behavioralist economists into one or two key concepts two key issues stand out as important for the study of the ancient economy. First, framing has been identified as an important component of human economic action. How one understands the possibilities of economic action is just as important as the possible types of economic action. An important factor in the development of how individuals understand economic possibilities is how institutional mediators affect the framing process. Second, it has been demonstrated that the constitution of 'value' is not entirely based on Neo-classical conceptions of rational decision-making. Value is not an absolute and simple mathematical models of price versus availability do not adequately account for economic actions.

Network Theory The study of networks has also moved modern economic theory away from Neo-classical models and explicitly involves the study of the social value of economic interaction. Networks are formal systems of organization that lack a formal source of sovereign authority. Rather, the organization stems from informal relationships that are related through vertical relationships. 156 The defining aspects of a network are the rules that govern the connections between different nodes and the transformations that these connections go through in the various movements of the nerwork.P? Fukuyama elaborates, defining a network as: "a group of individual agents who share informed norms or values beyond those necessary for ordinary market transactions."158 Market relationships in their ideal form are relationships that do not extend beyond the exchange transaction. Network theory in contrast provides a socially embedded framework for economic transactions and information sharing. Yet it does not necessitate a formal, bureaucratic organization, in the Weberian sense. Modern economic analysis using network theory assumes that social norms inform the relationship between different nodes in the network. As such, it illustrates yet another kind of modern economic analysis that departs from Neoclassical presuppositions. Network theory is one aspect of a sub-discipline in economics that Fukuyama calls "the new institutionalism." 159 The presuppositions of this sub-discipline are that norms and rules are integral to business transactions. 160 These rules and norms are

156 157 158 159 160

Fukuyama 1999, p. 199. Wolfram 2002, p. 193. Fukuyama 1999, p. 199. Fukuyama 1999, p. 149. Fukuyama 1999, p. 149.

32

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

ways of simplifying human behavior, according to Ronald Heiner.l''! Heiner argues that in the absence of norms and social rules, people would be unable to go about their day-to-day lives. It is impossible, in Heiner's view, for an individual to make rational decisions at every point in their lives. 162 People need to have many of these decisions already made for them, and this comes in the form of these social rules. 163 Systems develop in a manner that promotes the creation of restrictive rules rather than optimizing behavior.P" Whether or not one follows Heiner's argument, it is certainly evidence of the difficulties of optimizing theories in the field of practical economics. 165 These informal hierarchies and non-centralized systems of authority are particularly well suited for information management. They are typically applied in modern business theory to organize the flow of information in managerial systems. Centralized authorities are not particularly well geared towards information processing, since, as Fukuyama states the "overwhelming proportion of information generated in an economy is local in nature."166 As will be discussed later, network theory provides a model for information gathering and collecting in societies lacking a formal, rational (Weberian) bureaucratic organization. Network theory provides a useful model for the study of ancient economy. It suggests that contacts between individuals in an economic relationship are worthwh~le focal points of study. Moments of contact between agents are governed by many SOCIal norms and rules. While the norms may be informal, it does not mean that they are not powerful organizing forces. Economists now work under the assumption that market interaction does more than provide a mechanism of exchange, it creates value and those values become embedded in culture. 167 T h ese patterns 0 f associ aSSOCIatIOnS (.t.e., networks) provide consistent social frameworks for economic interaction. Friedland and Robertson describe these social frameworks in these terms: "The reality of economic life is that most actors interact repeatedly over time and thus form expectations about each other's behaviour, constructing patterns of behaviour that are not only valued in themselves but become mechanisms for the dissemination of information and for the control of each others' behaviour."168 It is important to look at how the relationships between individuals crystallize, and to build a model of economic modalities based on the norms identifiable from these relationships.

161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

Heiner 1983, p. 561. Heiner 1983, pp. 566-567; 1985, p. 391. Heiner 1983, p. 561; see also Fukuyama 1999, p. 149. Heiner 1983, p. 569. Heiner 1983, pp. 560, 562-569. Fukuyama 1999, p. 195. Friedland and Robertson 1990, p. 27. Friedland and Robertson 1990, p. 28.

33

Complexity Theory

i _8

I

Another new approach that has entered modern economics in recent years is derived from the hard sciences. Complexity theory, especially as it has been developed by the Santa Fe Institute, has produced important research for the field of economics. 169 Complexity theory is a branch of mathematical systems theory that uses a pluralistic conceptual framework, which allows for different levels of pluralism to exist side by side, and interact with other complex systerns.l?? Complex systems are systems that self-organize.l?" In terms of economics, Waldrop describes self-organization as "people trying to satisfy their material needs unconsciously organize themselves into an economy through myriad individual acts of buying and selling; it happens without anyone being in charge or consciously planning it."172 Along with self-organization, these complex systems are adaptive. The system actively responds to stimuli, which in turn allows for new activities to be created within the system.l" All in all, the system is inherently dynamic.F" Complexity theory can also describe systems operating on the edge of chaos. 175 In Waldrop's words: "the components of a system never quite lock into place, and yet never quite dissolve into turbulence."176 Based on these premises, new understandings of economy have been created: ... the economy is viewed as an emergent, self-organizing evolutionary process. Agents classify knowledge and arrange it hierarchically and make decisions based on a cognitive hierarchical representation of what they "know" and expect about their highly localized world. The economy is most likely in sustained "disequilibrium."177

This understanding allows for the interaction of individual agents to be understood holistically. As such, it provides a means to understand a number of localized relationships in terms of a larger system without resorting to monolithizing the system as a whole. Here, economy and society are viewed not only as an integrated whole but are 169 The utility of complexity theory for the study of economics was suggested by John Reed, who was appointed CEO of Citicorp in 1984. Throughout the 1970s, rampant inflation had led to substantial loans from North American financing institutions to developing nations. But with the Carter administration's appointment of Paul Volker as head of the Federal Reserve Board, reducing inflation became a primary goal of the US government, Waldrop 1994, p. 94. This led to incredible profit losses for organizations like Citicorp, which had loaned tremendous amounts of money. John Reed felt that utility theory (and Keynesian economics) were not capable of predicting economic behavior in the face of seemingly random acts such as the appointment of Volker and sought a new theoretical perspective that could, Waldrop 1994, p. 95. Through an unparalleled grant, Reed orchestrated Citicorp's funding of the Santa Fe Institute's complexity studies, with the condition that Santa Fe look for economic applications of complexity theory, Waldrop 1994, pp. 95-96. 170 Wible 2000, pp. 15-17. 171 Waldrop 1994, p. 11; Wible 2000, p. 17. 172 Waldrop 1994, p. 11. 173 Waldrop 1994, p. 11. 174 Wible 2000, pp. 17-18. 175 Waldrop 1994, p. 12. 176 Waldrop 1994, p. 12. 177 Wible 2000, p. 23.

34

35

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

almost analogous to a living organism. Viewing economy in this matter is useful as it accommodates the significant complexity of a multitude of economic interactions manifest in varying relations to one another. Inherent in complexity is the idea that complex patterns and situations can be created out of very simple patterns and situations. Wolfram attacks a fundamentally held, although not usually explicitly stated, viewpoint that there is "a direct correspondence between the complexity of observed behavior and the complexity of underlying rules."178 This is a very useful observation. Simple underlying rules can create quite complex behavior, and this complex behavior is frequently not predictable. Unlike proponents of complexity-related models like chaos theory, Wolfram argues that the initial conditions, or rules, are not complex.V" Wolfram's argument is relevant for the study of the ancient econorny.l'" It suggests that economic behavior, on analogy with computational theory, can produce quite complex results based on very simple rules. Simple rules of behavior can create quite complex results. This helps explain why a model such as Mauss's gifting model, which is in essence quite simple, has been such a productive model for social enquiry. Indeed the underlying rationale for behavior does not have to be very complex in order to allow for great variation. Against the postmodern critique of over-simplistic modeling, complexity-based modeling suggests that what are at heart simple models are valid and useful. Positing simple modalities of behavior does not imply simple behavior or monolithic patterns. It is useful, in studying the ancient economy, to attempt to discern what these underlying modalities were. Identifying general practices and constraints of behavior does not totalize human action. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. It allows for an almost infinite combination of possibilities for an individual's life but at the same time provides a way of making meaningful comparison of human activity.

Modern economic theory is not intended to be dispassionate, objective analysis. Economics has a different agenda than history, since it attempts to create models for maximizing scarce resources.l'" This makes un-adapted use of economic models in the study of the past dangerous and to Polanyi, made the use of these models futile. 182 The problem with using modern economic models without altering them is a problem of asking the wrong questions of inappropriate data. The fundamental orientation of modern economists is radically different from that of historians. This study seeks to adapt models from modern economics into a form that can answer historical questions.

TOWARDS A NETWORK-BASED MODEL FOR THE STUDY OF THE ECONOMY

Three recent developments in the study of economics that have potential value for the study of the ancient economy have been described here: behavioralist, network, and complexity models. A fundamental problem, however, afflicts direct application of modern economic theory to the ancient world. Both history and economic theory are intended as tools to be used in order to reach specific goals. History attempts to gain an understanding of the past and understand aspects of life in past times.

Wolfram 2002, p. 351. Chaos theory predicates that system behavior is not predictable if any initial condition is unknown or uncertain. After the book and movie Jurassic Park, this became a quite popular, though misunderstood, model of behavior. 180 Wolfram 2002, p. 351. 178 179

The approach taken can be called a Network-based approach. Economic actions shall be seen as occurring in a network organization. The network itself shall be seen as a complex, multi-variant system. While simple rules may lie at the heart of its organization, the end result is a complicated and ever-changing system. The study of individual nodes of economic contact shall be the basis of investigation. Each node should be understood as a situation of economic interaction between discrete groups or individuals. After identifying discrete groups or individuals engaging in an economic interaction, the next step should be to determine the nature of this economic interaction. Two separate 'natures' should be looked for: the nature of the actual interaction and the nature of how that interaction is represented by the separate parties. Any number of interpretations are possible, using many of the perspectives that have been suggested throughout this study. Is there competition involved, or reciprocity, or both? Hence there is a need for both a descriptive level of analysis (describing the transfer of goods or labor) and an interpretive level of analysis (focusing on how each party understood/ represented the interaction). The other level of interest is the determination of how each party understood the interaction. At the outset, framing becomes an issue, since, as has been discussed, the way that an interaction is initially framed determines how the agents proceed.l'" Framing is identifiable in antiquity in a number of ways. Language is of course a limitation, as are the material possibilities available for each agent. As Liverani has suggested, Polanyi's modes of integration well reflect ancient 181 Take for example, the definition of economics found in a popular freshman economics textbook, McConnell and Brue 1993, p. 1: "Economics is concerned with the efficient use or management of limited productive resources to achieve maximum satisfaction of human material wants." Or take the definition of economics found in a Dictionary ofEconomics first published in 1949, Sloan and Zurcher 1957, p. 102: ''A term applicable to any action or process which has to do with the creation of goods or services designed to satisfy human wants. More specifically the term is used to characterize the production of goods and services by the most effective means and in accordance with existing technical knowledge." This is a specific goal predicated on Neo-classical understandings of 'economic man' (homo economicus). The goal of this kind of study is the bettering of the abiliry to achieve the aims of maximum satisfaction within the constraints of scarciry. 182 Polanyi 1957, p. 244. 183 Kahneman and Tversky 2000a, p. 9.

36

37

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

views of economic situations and while imperfect, this is a useful heuristic device for the modern interpreter.P'' It is also important to attempt to understand the motivations for the interaction. Intrinsically related to this are the power relationships that are manifest at each node of contact. The understanding of power in this Network-based model is greatly influenced by Foucault's analysisof power. He emphasized the role of power as a means of constituting social orientations. Foucault discusses the nature of power that is enacted upon the body. He considers the exercise of this power to be a "strategy," not an inherent quality possessed by the body that has been taken away by those in power.185 This power is not given over at a finite moment, but is part of a continual process of domination. He says "this power is exercised rather than possessed," and is, "the overall effect of its strategic positions."186 Indeed, the power held by some bodies over others is not an articulated, discrete power but rather a power that underlies many aspects of life. While Foucault's main theme is punishment, he also makes note that the same kinds of power are exercised upon the body in order to harness it as a productive labor force. 18? Control of another individual is a constant process. When one party marshals another party as a labor force, one cannot assume that the dominant power owns the subordinate. Instead the ability to marshal others as a productive force is part of a process, a strategy, a continual maneuvering between the dominant and the subordinate. Despite building decision making models that are culturally or socially dependent, economists continue to work almost exclusively on the agent/individual end of the spectrum in their modeling without considering fundamental questions, such as how 'framing', institutions, or cultural preferences are constituted. This study seeks to redress this issue by utilizing the observations of these economists who describe economies as socially embedded in tandem with the observations of social theorists like Bourdieu, Giddens, and Gramsci (whose works shall be discussed when germane in the following study). Perhaps most central to the understanding of the constitution of society that is assumed in this study are the principles of orientation outlined by Foucault. Foucault views these kind of principles of orientation as order. To Foucault:

For Foucault, there is a system of orientation that underlies daily life, but at the same time it has no real, coherent form unless it is examined. Like Schroedinger's Cat, the act of observation creates the results of the enquiry. Yet at the same time the creation of the result does not negate its existence. For people do live and act according to an order that, although ephemeral, plays an active part in life. It is this kind of order to which economic modalities belong. And it is the nature of this kind of order that makes economic modalities elusive to study. Foucault's understanding of order fits well with the idea of a network that is used here. A network is not a tangible 'thing' that can identified and described. It is a method of mapping out the constantly shifting complex relations of diverse individuals, groups, and institutions. The Network-based model for the analysis of ancient economy allows the incorporation of wide varieties of evidence and wide varieties of social theory. It prevents the monolithizing of human experience that can develop out of the application of Neo-classical or Polanyian models. This study of Ugaritic economy shall not adapt theoretical frameworks wholesale and systematically apply it to the data set. Theory in this work shall be oriented towards creating questions and observations by using a variety of theoretical frameworks and many different kinds of data. The Networkbased model allows a series of different models and approaches to intersect with one another. Before applying the Network-based model, it is necessary to discuss the substantial volume of work that has already been done on the Ugaritic economy. It is not sufficient to simply situate the Network-based study in the formalist-substantivist debate; the Network-based study must also be seen as part of the longer-term study of Ugarit as a whole. A discussion of the history of excavations at Ugarit as well as a discussion of the major conceptual frameworks used to study Ugarit shall be the subject of the next chapter.

Order is, at one and the same time, that which is given in things as their inner law, the hidden network that determines the way they confront one another, and also that which has no existence except in the grid created by a glance, an examination, a language; and it is only in the blank spaces of this grid that order manifests itself in depth as though already there, waiting in silence for the moment of its expression.l'"

184 185 186 187 188

Liverani 2001, p. 7. Foucault 1977, p. 26. Foucault 1977, p. 26. Foucault 1977, pp. 25-26. Foucault 1970, p. xx.

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

39

HISTORY OF EXCAVATIONS AND THE MISSION ARCHAEOLOGIQUE FRANc;AISE

CHAPTER TWO

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

Norms did not die; they were simply transformed into a new linguistic garb and in their new form continued their functions as of old. Yochanan Muffs One of the hardest things for a seasoned specialist to do is to make the adjustment required by the first discovery of texts in his field. Cyrus Gordon

While Chapter One has outlined the basic model that shall be used to investigate the Ugaritic economy, this chapter shall discuss the history of excavations at Ugarit as well as the major approaches that have already been used by scholars to understand this problem. It is possible to identify five major approaches that scholars have used to understand the Ugaritic economy: feudal models; Marxist models (particularly those based on the theory of the Asiatic Mode of Production); entrepreneurial models; administrative models; and patrimonial models. Each of these five approaches shall be discussed in connection with the particular intellectual trends that influenced their articulation, especially in the scholarship of the cuneiform world. 1 All of these models have helped illuminate the Ugaritic economy; at the same time, each of these models has particular weaknesses that limit its utility in outlining economic modalities. Some of those limitations will be discussed here; others shall be discussed in the conclusions in Chapter Nine.

I In the introduction to his study of the Aramaic legal papyri from Elephantine, Muffs elegantly argues for the conservatism of cuneiform legal traditions, Muffs 1969, pp. 12-16. Muffs further argues that legal traditions in areas of peripheral Akkadian (Susa, Nuzi, Cappadocia, and U?arit) all seem very different from Old Babylonian traditions, but when viewed from a wider perspective show remarkable cultural continuity, Muffs 1969, pp. 15-16. While it can be unwise to assume "sameness" across such large temporal and geographic expanses, it is even more unwise to ignore the possible benefits of the comparative approach. Certainly differences between the economic practices of these regions and times will be apparent at the surface level. On the other hand, Muffs is right in asserting the long lasting nature of many institutional practices. Even if not exactly analogous, the study of other similar institutions and situations can only be helpful.

The oft-told story of Ugarit's initial discovery need not take up too much space here.e Suffice it to say that an accidental discovery in 1929 of a vaulted tomb roof near Ras Shamra brought the site to the attention of Charles Virolleaud, at the time the director of the Service des Antiquites en Syria et au Liban/' Claude Schaeffer was assigned the task of excavating the necropolis and the nearby tell, and in 1929 he arrived at the site with his first team." Excavations began at the necropolis but eventually, in that first campaign moved to the area of the tell where a wealth of artifacts, buildings, and tablets in a never before seen cuneiform language were discovered.? The site was identified in 1931 when Schaeffer announced the discovery of a tablet with the inscription, "Niqmaddu King of Ugarit.:" Albright had already suggested the identification ofRas Shamra with Ugarit.? Until World War II excavations continued on the tell, and also in the harbor," Five major phases of occupation" were identified during this period. 10 Also discovered at this time were the Temples of Baal and Dagan, and the House of the High Priest. 11 The language itself was deciphered quite early. By 1930, Bauer, Dhorme, and Virolleaud had deciphered this language, now known as Ugaritic, using the textual finds from the House of the High Priest. 12 Work began again after World War II, with a campaign in 1948 and subsequent campaigns from 1950 on. 13 During these initial campaigns after World War II, from 1948 to 1955, the majority of the Royal Palace was excavated.l" During these excavations of the palace, the French team identified particular archives within the palace.l?

For accounts of this, see Courtois 1979b; Curtis 1999; Schaeffer 1966; and Smith 200la. Courtois 1979b, p. 1130; Curtis 1999, p. 6. 4 Curtis 1999, pp. 6--7; Schaeffer 1929, pp. 285-286; Yon 1997, p. 256. 5 Schaeffer 1929, pp. 285-286; Virolleaud 1929, pp. 304-310; Curtis 1999, pp. 8-9. 6 Schaeffer 1932, pp. 24-29; Schaeffer 1934, pp. 120-122; Curtis 1999, p. 9. 7 Albright 1931, p. 165. 8 Yon 1992a, p. 695; Curtis 1999, p. 9. The relevant site reports are: Schaeffer 1929; 1931; 1932; 1933; 1934; 1935; 1936; 1937; 1938; 1939. 9 The 5 phases first suggested by Schaeffer's team were as follows Level I (c. 1200-1600), Level II (c. 1600-2100), Level III (c. 2100-3500), Level IV (c. 3500-4000), and Level V (Neolithic). (Curtis 1999, P: 10). For more on phasing and for a discussion on the site grid(s), see North 1973 and Courtois 1974. 10 Schaeffer 1936, pp. 132-137; Curtis 1999, p. 9. II Schaeffer 1933, pp. 119-124; 1935, pp. 155-159; Curtis 1999, p. 9. 12 Yon 1997, p. 257. 13 Curtis 1999, p. 10. See Schaeffer 1951, pp. 1-2 for the excavator's comments on the effects of World War II. 14 Yon 1992a, p. 695; Curtis 1999, p. 10. The relevant site reports are: Schaeffer 1951a; 1951b; 1952; 1953; 1954; 1954/1955; 1957a; and 1962. 15 It is likely that Schaeffer's designation of various sections of the archives with names implying function can be traced to his having read an influential article by Godefry Goosens, which appeared in Revued'Assyriologie et d'archeologie orientale 46 (1952): 98-107, entitled "Introduction a l'archioeconomie de l'Asie anterieure", This article, which Whitt suggests laid the groundwork for the modern archival 2

3

40

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

During and after the excavation of the Royal Palace, the team led by Schaeffer unearthed numerous other structures. The buildings within the immediate vicinity of the palace were excavated (i.e., the Southern Palace and the Northern Palace).16 Before Schaeffer stepped down as director in 1970 numerous other soundings and examinations of residential areas of the tell were also conducted. The campaigns continued under Henri de Contenson from 1971-1974,17 Perhaps the most important contribution of the excavations under de Conteson was the continued excavation of Sondage H. This sounding was located on the western side of the acropolis. Begun in 1962, this sounding has provided the basis for the current stratigraphic understanding of Ras Shamra.l" Jean Margueron led the excavations at Ugarit from 1975-1977. 19 From 1978 until 1998 excavations were led by Marguerite Yon.20 Under Yon excavations initially concentrated on the residential quarter of the city in the center of the telF1 City planning was one of the dominant interests of Yon's team, and architectural analysis of previously excavated material provided important additional inforrnation.P Under Yon a new series of publications were begun, Ras Shamra-Ougarit (RSO), a publication project that makes some attempt to rectify Schaeffer's poor publication record. It should be noted that many of these attempts are hampered by the poor methods and recording techniques of the earlier teams.P Yves Calvet leads the current team.r" THE EXAMINATION OF

RAs SHAMRAS IMMEDIATE ENVIRONS

Archaeologists have neglected Ugarit's periphery even though the potential information that could be gleaned from minimal survey work is obvious. This lack of knowledge about the periphery seriously hampers any examination of the Ugaritic economy. From the textual records it is clear that the Ugaritic economy was thoroughly integrated with other parts of the kingdom but unfortunately the specific evidence about each of these regions is sparse. There are two important exceptions to this. The harbor of Minet el-Beida has been somewhat excavated as has the nearby site of Ras ibn-Hani.

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

Minet el-Beida The initial excavations of the French mission de Ras Shamra occurred at the site of Minet el-Beida." Important data was gathered during those early excavations but when the archaeological wealth of nearby Ras Shamra became apparent to the team excavation resources were concentrated on Ugarit proper." The most important finds at Minet el-Beida, initially, were the tombs filled with grave goods.F Schaeffer initially thought that this was a necropolis but further excavations showed that this was in fact an urban area and that like at Ugarit proper graves were built directly beneath domestic architecture." For the purposes of this study, the most important information derived from these excavations relates to Minet el-Beidas role as the main harbor for Ugarit. Astour has persuasively argued that this site should be identified with the port known from Ugaritic texts as Ma'hadu.i? Ras ibn Hani Though there have been over twenty years of excavations at this site, led by a joint French-Syrian team (under the direction of Adnan Bounni and Jacques Lagarce), only preliminary and popular reports have been produced.l" The site itself is about 4.5 km southwest of Ugarit and is located directly on the Mediterranean.I! The importance of this site in antiquity was likely related to the two bays that acted as harbors.V Of the excavated Late Bronze Age remains the most important for this study are the two palaces. The Southern Palace is over 5000 square meters in area and was supposedly constructed by a king of Ugarit.P The Northern Palace is smaller (2000 square meters) but its unusual layout and finds have meant it has undergone more serious investigation. 34 Discreet production areas have been identified including metallurgical production centers, a stone polishing area, and a bread-making area." In one of the metallurgical areas a most remarkable find was made - a copper mold in the shape of an ox-hide.l"

The relevant site reports are: Schaeffer 1929; 1931; 1932; 1933; 1935. Schaeffer 1932, p. 108. 27 See for example Schaeffer 1931, pp. 1--4. 28 Saade 1995, p. 213. 29 His full argument can be found in Astour 1970. The relevant r~ports are: Bos~uet 1978; Bounni, Lagarce, and Saliby 1976; Bounni, Lagarce, and Saliby 1978; Bounni, Lagarce, Saliby, and Badre 1979; Bounni, Lagarce, Saliby, Badre, Leriche, and Touma 1981. 31 Bounni et al. 1976, p. 233. 32 Bounni et al 1976, p. 233; Bounni and Lagarce 1997, p. 411. 33 B 34 ounn~. et a.L 1979, p. 222-236; Bounni and Lagarce 1997, p. 411. Bounni et al. 1979, p. 237-244; Bounni and Lagarce 1997, p. 411--412. 35 Bounni and Lagarce 1997, p. 412. 36 Bounni and Lagarce 1997, p. 412. 25

26

approach to cuneiform sources, describes general functional organizational elements of archival systems, Whitt 1993, p. 5. 16 Yon 1992a, p. 695. For the relevant site report, see Schaeffer 1970. 17 Yon 1997, p. 256-257. 18 Courtois 1979, p. 695; Yon 1992. 19 Yon 1992a, p. 695; 1997, p. 257. 20 Smith 2001a, p. 204. 21 Yon 1997, p. 257; Curtis 1999, p. 11. 22 Yon 1992a, p. 695. 23 See for example Callot and Calvet 2001. 24 Smith 2001a, p. 204.

41

:0

42

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

This find certainly complicates the current understanding of the LB international copper trade. It indicates that Cyprus was not the only location where copper was put into this form even though the copper at Ras ibn Hani is usually assumed to have come from Cyprus. Two clusters of tablets were also discovered (in Akkadian and Ugaritic) attesting all of the same genres as found at Ugarit except for contracts.V From the correspondence it is apparent that at one point this palace was the property of a queen of Ugarit. 38 Another important find is a structure located to the west of the Northern Palace that contained two large kilns. 39

Economy was not the primary focus of Gray's work; Gray was actually more interested in literature and religion;" He was unusual compared to other Ugaritic scholars working in the 1940s and 1950s since he took some interest in economic issues. Not unusual for scholars of his era are two major presuppositions that are central to Gray's understanding of the Ugaritic economic system. The first is that Ugaritic society reflected an Aryan population influx. The second is that with these Aryan population elements came a form of feudalism and a system of guilds. That North Syria, in the Late Bronze Age, received a large influx of Aryan (or Indo-Aryan) population elements was not novel to Gray's work. This notion was well entrenched in the scholarly mind-set based on evidence from Alalakh, Nuzi, Kassite Babylonia, as well as Ugarit. Most of the evidence for this movement of people came from the onomastica of these Syrian and Mesopotamian sites. Many of the personal names seemed to reflect non-Semitic elements. Gray describes the evidence from Ugarit based on the personal names:

PREVIOUS APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

Since the excavations at Ugarit began numerous scholars both affiliated and unaffiliated with the French team have participated in reconstructing the Ugaritic economy. For the most part, these works fit into five identifiable categories of intellectual thought, already mentioned above. Before applying the Network-based model of the Ugaritic economy, it is necessary to describe the work that has come before establishing the foundations for this study. Each of these approaches shall be discussed as actually applied to Ugarit and from within the intellectual milieu from which they originated. 1. Feudal Models Feudalism is best understood as a type of socio-political organization that functioned as the central organizing principle in medieval Europe and Japan. This is a decentralized system of organization where people are connected through vertical ties but rarely ever through horizontal ties. In other words, it is always apparent who ranks above an individual and who ranks below an individual but beyond this it is difficult to map out social relationships. In medieval Europe, feudalism revolved around land ownership. Landowners would swear obeisance to a lord who in turn for nominal control over the land provided security. In other situations, a lord could offer land grants as rewards or in return for service, especially military service, to individuals of lower status. The earliest characterizations of the Ugaritic economy describe the economy in terms analogous to feudalism.

John Gray and Indo-Aryan Feudalists John Gray was arguably the first scholar (independent of the Mission de Ras Shamra) to attempt a broad synthesis of Ugaritic social structures in the English language.t?

They illustrate the fact that, though the substratum of the population of this North Canaanite realm was Semitic, the administration found its mainstay among the nonSemitic elements, Aryans and Hurrians, who had come ultimately from the North-East and perhaps others from beyond the Taurus.F Non-Semitic names provided evidence for scholars working in the 1950s that Late Bronze Age societies in Syria, Mesopotamia and Anatolia, had large non-Semitic populations. It is worth discussing the evidence of Indo-Aryan populations beyond Ugarit in order to understand the effect of this theory on Ugaritic studies as a whole. In its most general form the theory held that an Indo-Aryan population moved from the Caucasus into Syria and Mesopotamia. This population bought with it new social institutions (maryannu) and new technology (horse and chariot technology). The presence of Indo-Aryan deities (Indras) and Indo-Aryan personal names provided the most important evidence for the origins of this migrant group.P To Gray, the evidence at Ugarit indicated that the arrival of Indo-Aryan people created disruptions in the Semitic social structures at Ugarit. Remnants of a tribal organization of society were detectable in the epic poetry and religious literature, especially the myth of Kirta that predated this Indo-Aryan incursion.t" However, the administrative records portrayed another situation at Ugarit. These records saw fiscal and military assessment based on guild or class and by city rather than tribe. 45 Gray believed that the earlier tribal orientation of Ugaritic society had been replaced by 41

37 38 39

40

Bordreuil and Caquor 1980; Bounni et al. 1979, p. 242; Bounni and Lagarce 1997, p. 412. Bounni and Lagarce 1997, p. 412. Bounni and Lagarce 1997, p. 412. Gray 1952.

43

42 43

44 45

Smith 2001a, p. 88. Gray 1952, pp. 49-50. Houwink Ten Care 1995, p. 267. Gray 1955. Gray 1952, p. 50.

44

45

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

feudalism and an hereditary orientation.w Gray does not spell out exactly what constitutes feudalism but he certainly views it as a type of social organization that is inconsistent with tribal organization. Within this feudal context Gray saw military authority centered in the maryannu. The maryannu, Gray noticed, appear in the first position in administrative occupation lists and received the largest amounts of payments.V Another form of authority was centered on the guild, which he claimed, "was probably a development of feudalism introduced to the Near East by the Aryans ... "48 Gray's investigation of the administrative lists at Ugarit led him to believe that occupational groups were organized into guilds. This is not a surprising assumption given that there are many texts where individuals are listed according to occupation and occupational groups seem to give and receive goods and labor (see Chapter Four). Gray's arguments have received criticism. Libolt comments on the difficulties of understanding exactly what Gray means by this feudal terminology but attempts to reconstruct his conceptual framework.t? Schloen assesses Gray's views as well: "his [Gray's] description of Ugaritian social structure borrows uncritically from medieval European feudalism."50 Indeed, Gray seems to use medieval feudalism as a generic model for pre-industrial economic systems. This is part of a larger trend in scholarship at the time that saw Indo-Aryan populations as transmitters of a new system of social organization. Gray's perspective stems from this theoretical framework. As such, it is important to understand Gray's work from that context, rather than just a simple reading of administrative texts in feudal terms.

The first type of feudal grant involves the giving of property in return for services rendered although the recipient of the property does not have to be the individual who performs the service - an alternate laborer or payment type may be sent in his place.t" The second type of feudal grant posited by Boyer involves land given in return for the performance of specific, specialized labor. 55 In this case only the recipient of the land may perform the service since the royal grant is intended to ensure the performance of that specialized activity. As such, the land then cannot be heritable since there is no guarantee that that service could be performed by the recipient's heirs. Boyer saw these two distinct types of feudalism existing in mutual tension. In general, royal authorities preferred the second kind of feudal grant, which gave power over specialized industry to the monarch. 56 According to Boyer this kind of feudal grant was prominent under Hammurabi of Babylon.V Recipients sought the first kind of feudal grant since it allowed the formation of hereditary property rights. 58 Boyer argues that the ftodalite fonciere grants represent a kind of break down in the feudal structure at Ugarit where personal fealty and personal ties between king and subject are replaced by, what is in essence, a taxation system. 59 The shift between the two types of documents, represented to Boyer, a weakening of the feudal system at Ugarit and was indicative of the loss of authority of the Ugaritic kings. 60 Libolt has criticized Boyer's understanding of these texts, although Libolt praised him for his attempt at a dynamic interpretation of the texts.P! Libolt argues that the description of ftodalite de[onction oupersonelle is more akin to an AMP model than a feudal model.62 Rather than demonstrating a collapse in the feudal system, the shift from ftodalite de[onction oupersonelle to ftodalitefonciere indicates the growth of a feudal society, based in a strong, non-royal class of landholders who are effectively able to challenge or check the power of the king of the Ugarit. 63 So while Boyer's readings of the texts are adequate his dynamic model may not hold up under closer scrutiny.

George Boyer and the French Team's Conception of Ugarit's Social Structure The first major attempt (made by the French team) at a discussion of Ugaritic social structure based on the textual evidence came with George Boyer's extensive introduction to the publication of Akkadian texts from Ugarit'! In his introduction Boyer adapts a feudal model as an implicit organizing principle of Ugaritic society. Boyer postulates two basic types of feudal grants between the royal palace and individuals within Ugarit based on the land grant texts found at the palace and comparative evidence from Old and Middle Babylonian sources. 52 Boyer's two distinguishable types of feudal grants are what he calls ftodalitefonciere and ftodalite de[onction oupersonelle. 53

Anson Rainey and Social Stratification Another pioneer in the study of Ugaritic society is Anson Rainey who was a student of Cyrus Cordon.P' His work on Ugaritic administrative documents was essentially

54 55 56 46 47 48

49 50 51 52 53

Gray 1952, pp. 50-52. Gray 1952, p. 51. Gray 1952, p. 50. Libolt 1985, p. 2. Schloen 2001, p. 215. Boyer 1955. Boyer 1955, pp. 298-300. Boyer 1955, p. 294.

57

58 59 60 61 62

63 64

Boyer Boyer Boyer Boyer Boyer Boyer Boyer Libolt Libolt Libolt Smith

1955, p. 294. 1955, p. 294. 1955, p. 298. 1955, p. 298. 1955, p. 299. 1955, p. 294. 1955, pp. 5-6. 1985, p. 6. 1985, p. 6. 1985, p. 6. 2001a, p. 77.

46

47

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

lexical involving comparison between Ugaritic and Akkadian words. 65 This work stems from his Brandeis doctoral dissertation, which is primarily a lexical discussion.v" Further elaboration was made through numerous articles. Rainey does not provide an overarching synthesis of the nature of Ugaritic social structure and economic institutions, but his conceptual framework is clear from his studies.i" About social stratification at Ugarit Rainey comments:'

Unfortunately, the relationship between Inuya and her new "brother" before the adoption is unclear and this evidence must be considered preliminary. Rainey comments on the organization of the Ugaritic economy and administration based on his reading of the Akkadian and Ugaritic texts. According to his understanding of service exemptions found in royal land grant texts Rainey argues that the palace gained its subsistence needs directly from what he calls: "exactions laid upon the citizenry,'?" The palace itself was hierarchically organized, the most important non-royal official being the dkil ekalli, the chief of the palace.77 The king's labor force was organized into teams, each team led by a supervisor.Z" In general, the picture Rainey paints of the palace is not of a self-sufficient organization but rather as a larger administrative center that gained income from exactions on citizens and through international commercial ventures.i? Craft specialization is prominent in Rainey's description of the Ugaritic economy. Of craft specialization, Rainey states: "The populace was made up of people from all of the essential vocations and crafts. These artisans were organized, at least to some degree, according to their respective skills."80 According to Rainey the palace administration considered these craft specialists by grouping them according to their skills and that the individual craft specialists were organized in a manner akin to guilds." Group payments and the assignment of apprentices to individual trades further attest to the presence of guilds. 82

Life at Ugarit was organized under the leadership and control of an hereditary monarchy supported by a class of landed nobles. The powers exercised by her kingswere those of any typical oriental despot. Loyal members of the yeoman and noble classes were rewarded by grants of real estate from the crown to whom all the land and townships in the territory belonged.s'' For the most part Rainey understood the social organization of Ugarit as a combination of feudal elements and oriental despotism.v' Rainey describes ownership of land at Ugarit in explicitly feudal terms. He states, for example: "the kingdom of Ugarit was held by its ruler as a grant, or fief, from the Hittite kings ... the king ofUgarit was 'lord' or 'owner.'" 70 According to Rainey, landholders beneath the king held land only by virtue of their relationship to the king." Inheritance is one of the mechanisms through which the feudal nature of Ugaritic society was evident to Rainey, who cites instances in which the king makes land grants to individuals (and their heirs) in perpetuity, and calls these endowments "feudal grants."72 An important component of these grants was the restriction on the grantee's ability to alienate the real estate, a notion suggestive of feudalism." As at Nuzi, fictional adoption may have been one means of circumventing the inalienability of property given by feudal grant. 74 It is unclear whether or not fictive adoption is attested at Ugarit. Miller has argued against the presence of this practice at Ugarit; however, Monroe has more recently argued that Ug. 5 N 81 (RS 21.230) records that a woman named Inuya adopted a man as a brother, as a means of gaining access to his wealth;" 65 In fact, much of Rainey's arguments will be outlined in further chapters, in reference to specific lexical discussions. 66 Rainey 1962b. Libolt accurately criticizes the title of Rainey's dissertation, as Rainey does not for the most part discuss social stratification so much as occupational categories at Ugarit, Libolt 1985, p.7. 67 Schloens comments on Rainey are accurate, Schloen 2001, p. 218: "... his overall assessment of the social structure of Ugarit is confined to a few brief passages. This brevity is not a defect in itself, because Rainey expresses his views concisely and his basic picture of the organization of the kingdom is quite clear." 68 Rainey 1962b, p. 245. 69 Schloen 2001, p. 218; Smith 2001a, p. 88. 70 Rainey 1962b, p. 26. 71 Rainey 1962b, p. 26. 72 Rainey 1965a, p. 13. 73 Rainey 1965a, p. 14. 74 Rainey 1965a, p. 15. 75 Miller 1981, p. 350; Monroe 2000,p. 133.

Rainey makes some important comments on the nature of mercantile enterprise at Ugarit. He recognizes the existence of merchants (mkrm and bdlm in Ugaritic - see comments in Chapter Three), who had an official position within the Ugaritic palace, since they received rations directly from that institurion and land benefices from specific kings.83 These merchants had military connections as well. Rainey notes: "Mercantile enterprise (tamkdru) was a dangerous adventure."84 Foreign merchants residing in Ugarit "represented private or semi-private enterprises."85 This mercantile system at Ugarit was part of the greater Hittite mercantile system. As a Hittite vassal, Ugarit had a particular, formal place within this network.r'' Rainey notes that under Hattusilis III certain restrictions were placed on foreign merchants at Ugarit: the merchants had to leave Ugarit before winter, they could not own real estate 76 77

78 79

80 81 82

83

84 85 86

Rainey Rainey Rainey Rainey Rainey Rainey Rainey Rainey Rainey Rainey Rainey

1962b, p. 78. 1962b, p. 79. 1962b, p. 81. 1962b, p. 110. 1962b, p. 166. 1962b, p. 166. 1962b, p. 166-167. 1963, p. 314, 316-317. 1963, p. 314. 1963, p. 319. 1963, p. 320.

48

49

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

and settle in Ugarit, and debts owed to merchants by Ugaritians could not be satisfied through real estate.V The overall picture of Ugaritic social structure presented in Rainey's studies is a rigidly hierarchical society. The king of Ugarit was subordinate to the Hittite king. Within Ugarit, non-royal rank manifest in three tiers: servants of the king of Ugarit (arad lar ugarit), citizens of'Ugarit (mar ugarit), and slaves of servants of the king of Ugarit (arad arad Iar ugarit).88 Mobility between these levels of society was possible through the decrees of the king of Ugarit. 89

fictive adoption sale tablets (like those attested at Nuzi) demonstrated to him that there was no need to circumvent royal authority over real estate.f" Miller's examination of the Akkadian legal evidence indicates that the role of the palace in economic life was not all encompassing.

Gerald Miller and juridical Texts The 1980 Johns Hopkins dissertation by Gerald Miller, Studies in the juridical Documents from Ugarit, represents an attempt at the kind of textual study used more often in studies of Mesopotamian" economic literature than of comparable Ugaritic materials. Most of the juridical texts studied by Miller reflect transactions involving real estate, although some other transactions and legal relationships are examined. More of Miller's work will be discussed in later chapters but some comments should be made here about his perspective in relation to development of Ugaritic studies in general. Miller consciously uses feudal terminology, as in his translation of ilku as "feudal obligation"?" but argues that he does not mean to reference medieval Europe." Instead, he describes feudalism as: a valid designation for a general method of political organization in which certain landed properties of a territory were held as heredity "grants" from the ruler in exchange for certain specified obligations for which the title-holders were responsible to the crown. 92

Within this roughly feudal framework Miller attempts to correct previous notions that the King of Ugarit owned all real estate within Ugarit. 93 Instead, Miller argues that there are three types of real estate within Ugarit: land owned by the royal family; land under indirect control of the palace through the hands of various administrators and families; and patrimonial estates which were owned privately and independent of the royal family.94 Miller also shows how property exchanges validated by the king or by witnesses do not represent ownership by the king. 95 Miller's belief that there were no

87 88 89 90 91

92 93

94 95

Rainey 1963, p. 320. Rainey 1962b, 6. Rainey 1962b, 28. Miller 1980, p. 15. Miller 1980, p. 126, note 2. Miller 1980, p. 126 note 2. Miller 1981, p. 348. Miller 1981, p. 349. Miller 1981, p. 350.

2. Marxist Models Marxist models have been used in varying degrees of success to understand the Mesopotamian economy. Perhaps the most famous was Karl Wittfogel's resurrection of Marx and Engel's Asiatic Mode of Production Model, which elaborated the basic thesis that a monopoly on hydraulic technology in arid areas (particularly in Asia) led to strong centralized governments thus allowing Mesopotamian civilization to be categorized as "hydraulic".97 While initially popular, the work of various scholars from the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute demonstrated that this model of early Mesopotamian economy is not borne out by the evidence.l" More important for the study of Ugarit have been the Marxist Two-sector models that have been elaborated by Near Eastern scholars. Arguably the most influential Two-sector model is that proposed by Igor Diakonof£ Diakonoff's model understands Mesopotamian society in terms of the relationships between people and the land and the two distinct sectors of society that developed in relation to land ownership. One sector of society was patriarchal, holding alienable plots of land and self-governing on the community level,99 In addition, there developed a sector of society, encompassing Miller 1981, p. 350. By describing a society as hydraulic, Wittfogel, 1957, p. 3, attempted to emphasize what he called, "the agromanagerial and agrobureaucratic character of these civilizations." This kind of agrobureaucratic society developed absolutist leadership in which a small core area determined conditions in the larger peripheral areas, Wittfogel 1957, p. 3. The agromanagerial elites according to Wittfogel, should be considered despots who marshal resources for their own benefit rather than the benefit of the society as a whole, Wittfogel 1957, p. 136. Wittfogel uses the term despot purposefully in order to emphasize the harsh form of absolutism that typified hydraulic societies, Wittfogel 1957, p. 101. 98 Settlement surveys conducted by the University of Chicago in Mesopotamia have shown that the development of advanced irrigation techniques was not necessarily concomitant with the development of state level government, McC. Adams 198 I. Similarly for Egypt, another Chicago scholar, Karl Butzer, argued that irrigation was primarily organized on a local level and did not lead to a stratified society with an oriental despot at its apex, Butzer 1976. Furthering Chicago's attack on the Oriental Despotism model, Robert and Elizabeth Fernea (also at the University of Chicago) have marshaled ethnographic data from Iraq that illustrates how irrigation develops on a local scale. Robert Fernea, 1970, p. vii, set out to answer the question, "Had tribal leadership become centralized because of its association with the localized administration of irrigation systems?" Fernea demonstrated that at least in Daghara irrigation systems were developed gradually, and began on a small scale and gradually grew larger, Fernea 1970, p. 120. The pre-existing tribal structures determined the nature of the development of the irrigation schemes and the subsequent authority over them yet this tribal authority was in no way based upon the domination of this resource, Fernea 1970, p. 120-130. Indeed what was initially viewed as a productive model of social and economic organization has been proven to have been based on faulty premises. 99 Diakonoff 1974, p. 8. 96 97

51

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

royal authority (or temple authority as the case may have been). In this sector land was controlled by elite administrative bodies and allotted ro personnel through arbitrary administrative criteria. 100 The personnel under the royal sphere of interest were dependent on the palace (or temple) for access to productive resources and for subsistence and were not able to engage in governance.l'" This Two-sector model of society argues for two distinct spheres of economic life. In one, the "Free" population owns land and controls means of production regardless of palace authority. The other sector involves the royal authority including those elites who control access to land and means of production and those individuals dependent on royal authority and gain access to land and resources through their relationship to the palace authorities.l'" This is a very different model from Asiatic Mode of Production models, although the two are frequently confused because of their common roots in Marxist thought. The Asiatic Mode of Production model presupposes the existence of only one sector of society in which land and the means of production (especially irrigation schemes) are completely controlled by an elite body. In an Asiatic Mode of Production model, all non-elites are dependent on the absolutist authority. Self sufficient villages may be self sufficient, but in fact participate in a larger scheme typically through a tributary relationship. Structurally speaking, the Two-sector model is completely opposed to the AMP model. In a Two-sector society there are two distinct relationships between people and the means of production (including real estate) that exist side-by-side but frequently in tension with one another. These two Marxist models should not be confused with one another for in essence their only real similarity is their use of the control of means of production as a diagnostic feature of ancient society. The end results, though, are completely different. Carlo Zaccagnini has attempted to revive the Marxian notion of the Asiatic Mode of Production in the context of post-Stalinist Marxism. Stalin-era Marxism did not allow for any stages in historical development beyond those described in the dominant unilinear evolutionary models.P" As a response to numerous scholarly comments on the general uselessness of AMP as a model for understanding pre-capitalist economies (and the lack of clarity by these same scholars on the meaning of AMP), Zaccagnini offers a revised version of the model. For Zaccagnini, some phases of Near Eastern history may be understood through this model, although a dogmatic application of the model to all of the Near East is not helpful.P" Zaccagnini proposes that the utility

of an AMP approach to the ancient Near East is heuristic. The application of the AMP and Marxist scholarly strategies in general highlight certain issues that may not be apparent through other conceptual frameworks.l'" According to Zaccagnini, areas that can be highlighted include but are not limited to, "the structural characteristics inherent in the ownership of the means of production, in the tributary mechanisms between the palace and the rural population, in the production, transformation, and circulation of goods ... ". 106 The application of an AMP model can illuminate these aspects of the ancient economy, in Zaccagnini's view. In the Asiatic Mode of Production as modified by Zaccagnini the palatial mode of production dominates the subaltern domestic or village mode of production. 107 In other words, Zaccagnini sees the substantial aspects of the Two-sector model as constituent elements of a larger system. Indeed it is the "functional nexus" linking the two sectors that is the Asiatic Mode of Production. 108 Zaccagnini defines five aspects of economic organization that are essential to an AMP model. 109 This mode of production is based on communal ownership of land where individual possession is legitimated through the individual's membership in the community.110 The second element of AMP is the despot, or the superior owner, the "comprehensive unit which is superimposed to all these small communities."lll It is important to recognize, however, that Zaccagnini notes that there is no evidence to suggest that any Near Eastern sovereign was considered the titular owner of allland. 112 Superior ownership status does not imply complete ownership. The third element of AMP involves the rights of the despot over the production surplus of the community units creating a tributary relationship.I'" For this tributary relationship to create a significant source of income for the despot the village communities must remain strong and prosperous in order to produce a base level of surplus. I 14 The fourth component is the "integration between agroculture [sic] and manufacture."1l5 These small communities are essentially self-sufficient and engage in both primary and secondary production activities.U'' The

50

Diakonoff 1974, p. 8. Diakonoff 1974, pp. 8-9. 102 Diakonoff 1974, p. 9. 103 Zaccagnini 1987, pp. 11-12. 104 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 13. Zaccagnini explicitly argues against the utility of AMP models for the study of Egypt, Southern Mesopotamia, and certain areas of the Tigris - anywhere where extensive irrigation technology was employed, Zaccagnini 1987, p. 55. The AMP approach is not as useful in these areas because the role of the small village (as opposed to the large city) is not as apparent in irrigation 100 101

agriculture based economies, Zaccagnini 1987, pp. 31, 53, 55. Identifying the tensions between selfsufficient villages and central administration is one of the primary uses of the AMP model, and therefore its application to areas that lack self-sufficient villages (as in areas heavily dependent on irrigation) is not productive, Zaccagnini 1987, pp. 53-55. 105 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 14. 106 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 16. 107 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 22. 108 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 22. 109 Zaccagnini 1987, pp. 26-27. 110 Zaccagnini 1987, pp. 23-24. III Zaccagnini 1987, p. 25. 112 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 54. 113 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 25. 114 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 54. 115 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 26. 116 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 26.

52

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

fifth element is the lack of urban-rural differentiation within the village sector. I I? The appearance of these five characteristics is indicative of an Asiatic Mode of Production. For Zaccagnini a number of factors influence the development of an Asiatic Mode of Production. Most important of these are topography and environment. The village community must be able to be self-sufficient and strongly constituted. AMP does not appear in locations that require intense irrigation. However, regions such as North Syria provide a perfect natural environment for the development of AMp'118 It is noteworthy that while Zaccagnini and Wittfogel both use adapted AMP models the geographic settings of their respective Asiatic Modes of Production are almost exactly the opposite.

in the restructuring of society by invaders, though Heltzer sees these invaders as Semitic (Amorites) rather than Indo-Aryans.P> Unlike Gray, Heltzer theorizes that the social system created by the interaction between the invading population and the indigenous population was a spontaneous reaction to the new relationships rather than a formalized one. 126 This contrasting relationship found its most direct manifestation in regards to real estate. Heltzer describes the situation in these terms: The existing land-fund can be divided into two categories: 1) communal land, where the dominant role was played by the village community, which was itself a dependency of the royal administration in fiscal matters, i.e., natural and silver taxes, corvee, conscription, etc.; this land was alienated (sold and purchased) within the community on the condition of observing collective obligations (ilku in Ugarit) and the individual obligations of the family ('unt/ unuliu in Ugarit). 2) royal land, with its two main subdivisions: (a) dispersed royal economy, well known not only from Ugarit, but also from other countries of the area, especially from Mycenaean Greece; and (b) lands distributed as conditional holdings to royal servicemen of various professional groups, in return for their professional services (Pilku/'ubdy in Ugarit), It is interesting to note that the word pilku in the Akkadian of Ugarit originally also meant divided land-plot, as did temenos in Greek, which also appears in Linear B texts. 127

MichaelHeltzerand the Royal Service System Arguably the most prolific writer on Ugaritic economy, Michael Heltzer has been influential in terms of the model he postulates and the manner in which he has organized the data. Through numerous articles and monographs, Heltzer has concentrated on a number of aspects of the Ugaritic economy including its organization and administration. All of his work is predicated on one model of economic relationships. Heltzer's model has been described as a Two-sector model and as an Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP) Model. 119 The term used by Heltzer to describe his model is the Royal Service System and it will be referred to as such here. 120 While Schloen is right to point to the fact that Heltzer was a student of Diakonoff's, and that their models are very similar, it is difficult to describe Heltzer's model as either a Two-sector model or an AMP model.V' In fact it is a blend of both types of model. Heltzer's model is similar to a Two-sector model with the assertion that at Ugarit there were two distinct sets of land: a communal sector and royal sector. 122 However, since Heltzer a~es that both types of landowners were dependents of the king, the single center of authority, his model incorporates elements of an AMP model. 123 This combination of the two types of Marxist models is unique and hence the use of the separate term 'Royal Service System' is appropriate. The Royal Service System was not unique to Ugarit according to Heltzer. He sees all of the eastern Mediterranean in the latter half of the second millennium as characterized by this royal service system. 124 Like Gray, he sees this new social system originating

Both spheres of society - the village and the royal sphere had rights over some land. The king did not possess all of the land. Some real estate was held by the communal sector. However, this communal sector in effect was subservient to the royal sphere. The king of Ugarit while not sovereign over all land was in fact dominant over the entire population.F" Both economies existed side by side, however.V? Under the communal sphere were those elements of life that had existed prior to the invasion of the population that installed the royal sector of authority. Like Gray, Heltzer points to the Kirta epic for evidence of an earlier political system.P? Heltzer implies from this text and others that there was a degree of communal 'self-government' within the village secror.l'" However, property divisions within the village sector were not predicated on equal allocation. 132 Under the royal sphere were two subdivisions of land. The first subdivision, the dispersed royal economy, consisted of local production and distribution units, called gt.133 These estates according to Heltzer were the primary unit of palatial economic activity Heltzer Heltzer 127 Heltzer 128 Heltzer 129 Heltzer 130 Heltzer 131 Heltzer 132 Heltzer 133 Heltzer 125

Zaccagnini 1987, p. 26. 118 Zaccagnini 1987, p. 53. 119 Schloen 2001, p. 221; Smith 2001a, p. 134. 120 Heltzer 1988, p. 7. 121 Schloen 2001, p. 221. 122 Heltzer 1988, pp. 10-11. 123 Heltzer 1978, p. 5. 124 Heltzer 1988, p. 7. 117

53

126

1988, p. 8. 1988, p. 8. 1988, pp. 10-11. 1978, p. 5. 1982, p. 186. 1976b, p. 75. 1976b, p. 77. 1976b, p. 84. 1982, p. 186.

54

55

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

although not necessarily agricultural estates. 134 The function of these estates according to Heltzer was as a means of storing agricultural tools and palace owned livestock and animals.P? The second subdivision of Heltzer's royal economy, conditional holdings, includes feudal style grants to individuals with specialized skills. The land was granted them in exchange for specialized services rendered. These royal dependents were often organized into groups according to Heltzer and were supervised by royal managers. 136 These royal dependents were the bnJ mlk, to whom Heltzer compares the Akkadian arde Iarri, which translates as 'servants of the king.' 137 The problem with this connection is that it is not supported by the evidence in the polyglots found at Ugarit. As shall be discussed in Chapter Three, the evidence from the polyglots indicates that the term bnJwas equivalent to the Akkadian word aioilum, best translated as "man." There are many other problems with Heltzer's work. 138 Schloen sees a fundamental problem in Heltzer's understanding of real estate ownership at Ugarit, specifically in his simplified notions of real estate ownership. Especially problematic to Schloen is Heltzer's assertion that the king did not have rights over land in the communal sector.P? Schloen argues that in fact there is a hierarchy of rights over real estate.l'" Schloen states: "the fact that, in practice, the king would not usually violate traditional mores by evicting landholders and expropriating their land at will did not nullify the belief that he was the supreme landlord within his domain."141 Other problems with Heltzer's model are even more fundamental. His basic reading of the words must be criticized. Heltzer's main evidence for postulating two different sectors of land-ownership is based on his interpretation of pilku and ilku as words with separate semantic ranges. 142 As we shall see in Chapter Three this distinction cannot be upheld undermining Heltzer's entire argument postulating two separate sectors of land equally dependent on royal authority. This taken with Heltzer's incorrect understanding of the expression bnJmlk and a questionable interpretation of the institution of the gt that will be outlined in Chapter Three demonstrates that the Royal Service System model is purely hypothetical. There is in fact no evidence for its existence and this fundamental flaw undermines most of Heltzer's work on Ugarit. Heltzer's totalizing of social concepts is a general problem in his approach to the economic texts at Ugarit. From a philological standpoint, Heltzer seems to argue that

words have only one meaning and likewise social categories are stable and consistent. This kind of view overly simplifies the ancient situation in which identity was constituted in any number of ways and was frequently constituted in conflicting or separate manners depending on the circumstances. This leads Heltzer to consistently oversimplify situations even at the level of translation. The mistakes are compounded when his philological work, especially his comparative approach, is flawed. More of his specific philological comments are discussed in Chapter Three. Heltzer's attempts at understanding the Ugaritic economy are not entirely based in his conception of a Royal Service System. Heltzer also attempts to understand Ugarit's role in international trade and commerce. That Ugarit's strategic location led to its development as a mercantile power in the Late Bronze age, as argued by Heltzer, is not atypical of other analyses of the site. 143 Heltzer attempts to add to this discussion through his analysis and comparison of prices throughout the Near East. He demonstrates that Ugarit, in a manner similar to the Old Assyrian trade colonies, benefited through the exploitation of the disparity of prices in precious metals throughout the ancient Near East. 144 For example, gold was relatively inexpensive in Egypt compared with the value of gold in Mesopotamia proper and Ugarit gained an advantage by buying low from Egypt and selling high to Mesopotamia.l'v While this assertion sounds plausible, it has very minimal textual support. The argument is made through the comparison of two sets of texts. The first set of texts are those found at Ugarit that sometimes (although surprisingly rarely in the texts he cites) give amounts of metal paid in exchange for other items. 146 The second group of texts includes tablets from Alalakh; Kassite Babylonia; Nuzi-Arrapha; the Hittite Empire; Mari; Old Assyrian times; and Egypt. 147 Most of these texts are roughly contemporary sites but not always.148 More problematic is that these texts reflect a variety of genres and types. For example, the Hittite texts Heltzer uses are all legal documents, yet the majority of other texts used are private sales contracts or lists of items with associated values. 149 The actual similarity of these texts is that all include mention of amounts of silver alongside amounts of various goods. Comparison of these two sets of texts yields, to Heltzer, sufficient evidence that the people of Ugarit participated in speculation in precious metals.P'' In fact, there is no evidence for this. Heltzer assumes that the varying amounts of silver given for objects in all of these texts reflect an abstract conception

134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142

Heltzer 1982, p. 56; 1999b, p. 192. Heltzer 1982, p. 78; 1999b, p. 193. Heltzer 1996, p. 177. Heltzer 1982, p. 15; 1996 p. 177. For a particularly critical reading of Heltzer, see the relevant sections in Schloen 2001. Schloen 2001, p. 231. Schloen 2001, p. 231. Schloen 2001, p. 231. See Heltzer 1982, pp. 34-36 for his extended argument.

')

143 Heltzer 1977, pp. 210-211. For other, similar understandings, see the section of this chapter titled Hellenosemitica and the Brandeis Entrepreneurial Approach. 144 Heltzer 1977, p. 206. 145 Heltzer 1977, p. 206; 1978, p. 101. 146 Heltzer 1978, pp. 3-16. 147 Heltzer 1978, pp. 85-104. 148 Heltzer 1978, pp. 85-104. 149 Heltzer 1978, p. 95 n. 34. 150 Heltzer 1977, pp. 210-211.

56

57

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

of price that was meaningful beyond that mere encounter. This may be true and likely the relative value of the objects were within a similar range at the same time and place. That these abstract 'prices' can be quantified and compared with other 'prices' is slightly more problematic but one could still argue that if not taken too far, this kind of analysis provides a rough, relative guide to issues of value. Even given this, there is still the problem that there is no evidence that merchants at Ugarit intentionally profited through the differential values of metals throughout the Mediterranean. It is possible, very possible, but the evidence that Heltzer uses to make this argument does not suggest this. Other suspect interpretations of the data are identifiable in Heltzer's work. For example, after listing the known cities within the kingdom of Ugarit, Heltzer makes the following controversial point, " ... about 130 villages had to perform collective obligations and pay collective taxes. It is most interesting that all obligations were performed and paid collectively by the entire village."151 In this statement, Heltzer is conflating different kinds of data. Reading texts that list the tax obligations of certain villages, Heltzer jumps to the conclusion that the city as a whole was responsible for all taxes as a communal entity. There is nothing in the evidence to support this conclusion. While some entity within the village was likely responsible for some kind of collective obligation, it is difficult to argue for the existence of self-sufficient, communal villages taxed as a whole based on this one class of text. Likewise, the use of totalizing adjectives such as "all" obscures the possibility that the people and villages within the Ugaritic sphere of influence were not monolithic entities.

here. For Liverani, the Late Bronze Syrian region as a whole divides basically into two sectors: palatine and free. 154 Laid upon a uniform distribution system of villages (what he calls the heritage neolithique) was a superimposed palatial system.l'? The palatine lands were either worked directly by the palace or were assigned as rewards to palace dependents.l " Members of the free sector, on the other hand, worked their own land, but were obligated to pay taxes to the palace receiving nothing for their efforts. 15? The palace lands were organized as farmsteads called gt according to Liverani. This institution had a distinct economic advantage over the free sector because of two factors. First, the gt workers were deprived of families.P" Second, many of the gt workers were devoted to specialized production.P? These two palatine advantages are evident based on where production surplus was directed. For the free sectors working primarily through a domestic mode of production the surplus had to be expended on supporting the family or esrare.l'" On the other hand, since the gt workers had no family (according to Liverani), the surplus could be directed towards specialized prcduction.l?' The economic advantages held by the royal production sector eventually led to the collapse of the system, in Liverani's model. The gt personnel did not replace themselves (since t r a d no families) and therefore had to be supplied by the villages. 162 Concomitant with this was the precarious condition of the domestic mode of production within the free sector. Since surplus was minimal, and risk aversion was difficult, the village (or free) sector consistently supplied new gt workers. 163 Eventually this negative feedback cycle led to a Late Bronze Age demographic collapse throughout Syria.164

Mario Liverani and the Italian School Italy has produced a number of important scholars in the field of Ugaritic studies. Many of these scholars have worked extensively on administration and economy at Ugarit. Perhaps the most important scholar in this field is Mario Liverani. In a number of studies, Liverani estimated production and consumption amounts of the gt institutions in Ugarit. While his raw data will be discussed later (see Chapter Four), his general conceptions of economic organization are worth discussion here. For the most part, Liverani approaches Ugarit with a Two-sector model similar to Helrzer's.P'' Liverani's approach differs in that it adds a diachronic element that explains the eventual collapse of the Two-sector sysrem.P" The use of the models shows enough differences to make a separate discussion of Liverani's work worthwhile

Schloen provides ample criticism for this model. Suggesting that the gt workers whom Liverani discusses actually did not work at the royal estates year round, Schloen is also able to point to evidence that at least some of these gt workers in fact had families. 165 Similarly Schloen makes arguments that some of the means of production were not owned by the palace sector but rather were brought with the temporary gt workers.l'f While ownership of the means of production and control over the means of production are not the same, Schloen is right to criticize the lack of evidence

154 155 156 157 158

Heltzer 1976b, p. 18. 152 Smith 200la, p. 134. 153 Schloen 2001, pp. 231-232. It should be noted, however, that in an article entitled "The Late Bronze Age Service System and Its Decline," Heltzer argues that the growth of non-productive elements in society, and the inability to support them, concomitant with successive droughts, overtaxed the royal service system leading to its eventual collapse, Heltzer 1988, p. 15. Even in Holtzer's earliest works there are dynamic elements to his model. For example, Heltzer argues for a gradual disintegration of large families throughout Ugaritic history, Heltzer 1976b, p. 102. 151

159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Liverani 1989, p. 127. Liverani 1982, p. 251. Liverani 2001, p. 127. Liverani 1989, pp. 127-128. Liverani 1982, p. 253. Liverani 1982, p. 253. Liverani 1982, p. 253. Liverani 1982, p. 253. Liverani 1982, p. 257. Liverani 1989, p. 152. Liverani 1982, p. 252. Schloen 2001, pp. 237, 239. Schloen 2001, p. 238.

58

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

Liverani uses to assert the interconnectedness of the two sectors. Indeed it would seem unwieldy for the palace to support gt workers year round. This does not mean that the gt workers may not have participated in other specialized activities in the off-season.

greater possible understanding of the complex situation. So the king, for example, seemed to have some rights over all land, but these rights were dependent on a number of variables. 172

jose-Angel Zamora and the Expanding Palace Sector Jose-Angel Zamora also approaches the Ugaritic economy from a Two-sector perspective. Like Heltzer, Zamora takes the expression bni mlk as an administrative designation of palace dependents and by extension individuals within the palace's sphere of authority. 167 Ugaritic society was in Zamora's view divided into two large social groups: one (the palatial sphere), which was centralized with specialized skills and dependent on the other; and a rural, communal, and primitive sector. 168 Zamora suggests that the palace sector expanded at the expense of the village sector and that this expansion could be explained by the historical evolution of the whole system. 169 Zamora's Two-sector approach does not differ much from Heltzer's or Liverani's and much of the conclusions presented by Zamora can more strongly be argued for Alalakh.

Clayton Libolt and the Royal Land Grants Clayton Libolt's 1985 dissertation at the University of Michigan, entitled Royal Land Grants from Ugarit, like Gerald Miller's dissertation, incorporates textual methodologies first developed for the study of the Mesopotamian world. 170 This work represents an attempt to understand land tenure at Ugarit, and it marks a significant departure from previous works because of its more sophisticated understanding of the nature of land "ownership." Libolt describes ownership in this way: The word "own," when used in relationship to property, is culturally defined and analytically of marginal usefulness. It is much more useful to describe property in terms of certain rights and obligations. Any number of people may have, in a given culture, rights to a piece of property. The constellation of rights can be quite complex... and, it is the constellation as a whole that describes the land tenure system for a society.l" Libolt shifts the question of land tenure from who owned the land to who has what rights and obligations in regards to the land. This more nuanced understanding allows

Libolt assumes a Two-sector model of society in his analysis. Heritability of granted land is dependent on which sector of society is granted the land. For those outside the palace service system, land grants are heritable, and for those within the Royal Service System, granted land is not~ritable.173 This Two-sector system changed through the last years of Ugarit's existence. Generally, Libolt describes a loss of power on the part of the village and a concomitant rise in the use of administrative districts.V" These changes (among others) were based on the influence of Hittite law and represented the attempts of the Ugaritic king to gain control over the patrimonial elements of society,17s

Ignazio Mdrquez Rowe and Ugaritic Tribute Working under Gregorio del Olmo Lete and joaquin Sanmartin at the University of Barcelona, Ignazio Marquez Rowe engaged in the kind of study that Libolt had undertaken ten years earlier. Rowe's analysis, however, calls into question certain aspects of the Marxist perspective as applied to Ugarit. In a dissertation entitled El ilku en Ugarit. Estudio textualy contextual acerca del sistema tributario territorial, Marquez Rowe examined the system ofland grants used at Ugarit. In a 1999 article, the results of this enquiry were published in English. A dynamic model of land grant legal mechanisms is described, in which the various wordings of the contracts are inconsequential from a legal perspective (contra Libolt) but represent different scribal practices.l" Before the time of Arnmistamru II's reign, royal land grants implied exemption from ilku service.V? After this reign, a royal land grant implied performance of an ilku service, unless specifically exernpted.l?" This evolution corresponded with the changing nature of Hittite laws and thus illustrated the dependent nature of Ugaritic law upon Hittite.l/? Grants and obligations are the basis of Rowe's reconstruction of the social structure of LB Ugarit. Rowe disagrees with the Marxist scholars that LB society could be seen in a bipartite manner: those that had access to the means of production and those that did not. 180 Terms such as bn'f mlk refer not to distinct social classes per se but rather to 172

Zamora 1997, p. 93. 168 Zamora 1997, p. 94. 169 Zamora 1997, p. 112. 170 These methodologies include Libolt's systematic study of one particular type of document. At this point it should be noted that Libolt follows Kienast's methodology that every element in a legal document has meaning, and cannot be relegated as "stylistic," Libolt 1985, p. 21. Both Schloen 2001, p. 242, and Rowe 1999, p. 172, take exception to this approach. 171 Libolt 1985, p. 9. 16?

59

173 174 175 176

177 178 179 180

Libolt 1985, p. 9. Libolt 1985, p. 133. Libolt 1985, p. 435. Libolt 1985, pp. 438, 440. Rowe 1999b, p. 172. Rowe 1999b, p. 175. Rowe 1999b, p. 175. Rowe 1999b, pp. 177-178. Rowe 2002, p. 17.

60

61

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARIT1C ECONOMY

juridical relationships.l'" Rowe states that Ugaritians did not have an emic understanding of an economic hierarchy but rather: "thought and surely acted in the concrete terms of rights and obligations, their real scale of hierarchy."182 More will be said of Rowe's arguments in Chapter Three but suffice it to say Rowe's conception of hierarchy (flexible and based on social relationships rather than upon a fixed class system) well fits the evidence from Ugarit. .

marine trade, which Linder divides into four categories, royal, private, joint royalprivate, and foreign. 186 All of these kinds of commercial trade operated under the sphere of influence of, and were regulated by royal authority.l'" Linder notes that of the over 350 different commodities that are ~entioned in the economic records: "Only a small proportion of the commodities meritioned could have been absorbed by the local market in Ugarit - the bulk being used in extensive commercial enterprises which characterized the Ugaritic economy."188 With the importance of trade as a central component of Ugaritic economy, the protection of the seas was a necessary component. Linder suggests that there is strong evidence for a native shipbuilding industry as well as evidence for a specific division of labor amongst ship crews.189 Linder suggests the probability that there was a naval analogue to the maryannu, a suggestion made by Astour as well.l'"

3. Entrepreneurial Models The conceptual frameworks employed for the study of the Ugaritic economy that bear closest resemblance to formalist models are the entrepreneurial models. These models understand the Ugaritic economy to have been driven by the same principles as modern capitalist societies, through the risk and ventures of private entrepreneurs. Most of the entrepreneurial models interpret the evidence from Ugarit to indicate the substantial presence of private individuals who engaged in trade and commerce for profit. Profit was the fundamental motivation of these people and they operated in an economic environment essentially similar to that of the modern west.

Hellenosemitica and the Brandeis Entrepreneurial Approach While Cyrus Gordon was at Brandeis University, numerous students were involved in the study of the Ugaritic economy. Brandeis students emphasized those elements of the Ugaritic economy that were integrated within a wider framework of GreekLevantine relations. One of those students engaged in this project, Michael Astour, dubbed this conceptual framework "Hellenosemitica."183 Viewing Ugarit within a wider framework of Aegean and West Semitic relations became an important avenue of study for Ugaritic and Late Bronze Age economy as a whole. For the students of Gordon engaged in the Hellenosemitica project, naval trade as manifest at Ugarit was of the utmost importance. It is this aspect of Late Bronze Age life, which is most often considered the primary mechanism for the transmission of Greek culture to the Levant and vice versa. Elisha Linder, one of Gordon's students, has gone as far as saying that Ugarit was a Canaanite thalassocracy, a term derived from the study of the classical world.V" By thalassocracy, Linder meant to emphasize two important components of Ugaritic economy - its orientation towards sea trade and its naval power from a military perspective.l'" One of these components of this orientation to the sea, manifest in the economic documents at Ugarit, was commercial

I.

Michael Astour

Ugarit as one component of a larger Eastern Mediterranean trade network is emphasized in the work of another Gordon student - Michael Astour. As with Linder, Astour sees Ugarit as part of a Mediterranean trade system in which commercial activity is the dominant activiry.l'" Particularly, Ugarit was, in Astour's words, "the principle transshipment point of Cypriote copper to the inner parts of Western Asia."I92 In his important works on historical geography, Astour identifies two port towns within the Ugaritic kingdom, namely Ma'hadu and Reshu.l'" Ugarit was a medium-sized state surrounded by the larger states of Hatti and Egypt. 194 Astour characterizes Ugarir's situation: "the political history of Ugarit is that of a wealthy but second-rank state which had to adapt itself to the interplay of firstrank powers in the Syrian arena."195 For Astour, Ugarit's geographic location, along numerous important axes of trade, as well as its natural marine resources, defined its position as a trade center for the other major Late Bronze Age players. 196 As such, the merchants at Ugarit enjoyed a position of great influence and power. The relationship between merchants and the palace at Ugarit is unclear in Astour's model. He poses the question of whether merchant activity represented free enterprise or whether the merchants were agents in the employ of the state but is unable to answer

186 187 188 189 190 191

181 182 183 184 185

Rowe 2002, p. 17. Rowe 2002, p. 17. Smith 2001a, p. 77. Linder 1981. Linder 1981, p. 31.

192 193 194 195 196

Linder Linder Linder Linder Linder Astour Astour Astour Astour Astour Astour

1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1981, 1973, 1973, 1970, 1981, 1981, 1981,

p. 33. pp. 33,41. p. 36.

p. 38. p. 40. p. 19. p. 19. p. 116. p. 3. p. 4. p. 3.

62

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

this question.l?? He does postulate the existence of voluntary bands of commercial agents (sr) who formed to engage in trade activities. 198 The wealthiest merchants were the maryannu who required other status symbols as markers of their rank. 199 Foreigners at Ugarit were mostly individuals involved in merchant activity.20o ii. Robert Stieglitz Also a Gordon student, Robert Stieglitz devoted energy to the study of the Ugaritic economy.i''! His approach, exemplified in his article "Ugaritic Commodity Prices," involves formalist assumptions of ancient economic behavior. This formalist assumption comes through in his description of the nature of prices in Ugarit: Both barter and currency exchange were utilized in the kingdom ofUgarit, but the overwhelming majority of the documents that list the prices of trades quote them in terms of currency exchange. The currency exchange at Ugarit, not unlike other ancient Near Eastern kingdoms, consisted of exchanging fixed weights of metal, according to the agreed upon standards, for almost all commodities.Pi Stieglitz compares the relative weight standards of Ugarit and other locations and determines the prices (in shekels) of various comrnodities.P'' It is an interesting attempt at applying modern economic techniques to ancient documents but the utility of the project is not quite clear. Since he is unable to sufficiently prove the comparability of his data, or its degree of standardization, it is not clear how this data can be used. iii. Brian Widbin Brandeis produced students engaged in important work at Ugarit even after Gordon's departure from Brandeis in 1973 for a position at NYU.204 R.B. Widbin's 1985 dissertation followed Brandeis's tradition of working with Ugaritic administrative material, in his investigation of the palace's Eastern Archives. Widbin also followed Brandeis's tradition of implicit functionalism. For him though, the functionalism was not in specifying Ugarit's role in a world system but rather investigating the specific function of one archive in the palace, in distinction from the other archives. Widbin considers his approach to be the "archival method" and describes it as follows:

197 198

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

~

Its operating assumption is that records are stored together for specific reasons, and the determination of these reasons provides context and control for the interpretation of documents in a given facility.205 Indeed Widbin studies the individual rooms that make up the Eastern archive (according to Schaeffer's designations) and attempts to determine the administrative function of the room from the nature of the documents archived there. More will be said of his specific results in later chapters but for now it is important to emphasize his methods and models. A number of general features of the Brandeis approach to Ugaritic economics can be identified. First, Ugarit is seen as part of a larger system, including the Aegean and the Egyptian and Hittite empires and that part is a large commercial and naval center. Second, social relations are described in primarily functionalist terminology. Third, the Brandeis students take an essentially formalist stance in economics or at least do not consider theoretical aspects of economics to any great extent - preferring to assume a relative "sameness" with the modern world.

Christopher Monroe and the Merchants ofthe Late Bronze Age In his 2000 dissertation from the University of Michigan, Scales of Fate: Trade, Tradition, and Transformation in theEastern Mediterranean ca. 1350-1175 BCE, Christopher Monroe attempts to reconstruct the culture of international commerce during the Late Bronze Age. Monroe uses a wide variety of textual sources, and attempts to describe the nature of mercantile activity at an international scale. Much of his argument derives from evidence at Ugarit, and his interpretations are important in the context of this study of economic modalities. Monroe generally takes a formalist approach to the ancient economy. The goal of ancient trade was profit,206 and this was gained through private enterprise.P? as well as what he calls 'entrepreneurial inheritance.F'" Monroe's analysis of the quest for profit uses the language of marginal utility and equilibrium models. For example, Monroe describes 'the calculus of profit': The three most significant variables in a rational pursuit of profit are value, distance, and transport cost. Differences in value in various locations provide a potential, or calculable, opportunity for exploiting a price difference. The distance between the locations of these values contributes to transport cost, which can increase value. Greater distances imply greater transport costs but also generally greater differences in value. How the trader controls these variables determines in large measure the success he or she has in predicting and making profits.209

Astour 1972, p. 26. Astour 1972, p. 24.

199 These otherstatus markers, according to Astour, were sufficient census, a horse, and state confirmation, Astour 1972, p. 15. 200 Astour 1970, p. 126. 201 Smith 200la, p. 77. 202 Stieglitz 1979, p. 15. 203 Stieglitz 1979, p. 23. 204 Smith 200la, p. 76.

63

Widbin 1985, p. 2. Monroe 2000, p. 332. 207 Monroe 2000, pp. 240-241. 208 Monroe 2000, pp. 252-255. 209 Monroe 2000, p. 78. 205 206

64

65

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

This is a valuable, but not particularly novel approach as it very much reflects the conceptual frameworks of economic analysis initially developed by Adam Smith (see Chapter One). Monroe is able to demonstrate the constraints and possibilities for profit available in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late

with a value derived from human identity.-t? Through a stylistic analysis, Feldman is able to demonstrate that the same kinds of processes of international exchange discernible in the textual evidence of Late Bronze Age correspondence are manifest in the international material culture at Ugarit. As such, Feldman's work is an important supplement to the modeling of Late Bronze Age international relations as suggested by other, textually oriented scholars. Of particular note in Feldman's discussion is her observation of a particular artistic style she describes as an international koine. 220 Feldman acknowledges, but moves beyond previous scholarship in this direction, by more carefully defining this style. While the specifics of her analysis cannot be dealt with here, it is useful to mention that in general, this international style "encompasses a common, but restricted, repertoire of themes combined in a consistent fashion that defies attribution to anyone region."221 Feldman convincingly demonstrates that the artistic themes in this international style portray ideas and images of rulership.F? That rulership is the most important theme of this work is important in addressing the context of luxury goods as a means of negotiating identity and status within the setting of international relations.F'' Particularly valuable for this discussion of the Ugaritic economy are the implications regarding the goals and purposes of international trade as evidenced in the eastern Mediterranean. The acquisition of these objects goes beyond the mere desire to consume; rather it is focused upon identity and self-perception. There is a justification for trade that goes well beyond notions of marginal utility. The expenses of transportation and production, which were likely very high at an international scale, did not prevent the circulation of these goods. Cost-benefit analysis is somewhat irrelevant since material gain was not the primary purpose for acquiring these items. Great expense and effort could be devoted to the acquisition of these elite items because the reason for acquiring them was not, from a utility perspective, financial gain. When understood from this perspective, it is very clear why prestige items and scarce resources were the dominant goods in LB international trade, instead of foodstuffs or other subsistence items. This observation is consistent with the Finley-Jones model of the Classical econorny.P'

Bronze Age. Monroe treats the ancient economy much the way modern economies are treated. He does not question whether profit was an important motive and he seeks to explore where capital and financing originated.I!'' Occasionally his presuppositions lead to very strange readings of Ugaritic texts. For example, he understands royal land grants as royal investment in private entrepreneurial ventures.P! Similarly problematic, Monroe understands the office of md (see Chapter Three) as a relationship that provided tax breaks for elites. 212 While never reaching the levels of absurdity of formalist scholars like Morris Silver, Monroe's work is beset with uncritical application of modern equilibrium theories upon ancient data. Monroe concludes that traders constituted a distinct, professional group in the LB eastern Mediterranean.U" but the actual nature of individual merchant activity varied considerably.i'" He demonstrates the reliance of this group on royal authorities but also demonstrates how they operate at a supra-state level,215 While "concentrated in the cities," entrepreneurs "thrived in the margins, both within and between societies."216 Monroe sees merchants as contradictory cultural figures. While their status originated in their elite status in certain communities, their ability to profit derived from their liminal presence in other areas. Monroe's work describes and defines the cultural norms of this wealthy marginal group.

Marion Feldman and Late Bronze Age International Koine In her 1998 Harvard Dissertation, Marion Feldman situates ten luxury goods found at Ugarit within the social context of international relations at the same time challenging entrepreneurial models constituted through formalist perspectives. The luxury goods found at Ras Shamra are remnants of a reciprocal exchange system and are evidence of the attempts of Ugaritic kings to demonstrate their status within an international communicy.-'? Understanding the role of these goods through a variety of social scientific lenses.i" Feldman demonstrates that these luxury items were imbued

See, for example, Monroe 2000, p. 123. zn Monroe 2000, p. 124. 212 Monroe 2000, p. 125. 213 Monroe 2000, p. 1. 214 Monroe 2000, p. 346. 215 Monroe 2000, pp. 241, 348. 216 Monroe 2000, pp. 347-348. 217 Feldman 1998, p. 332. 218 EspeciallyAppadurai 1986. 210

4. Managerial and Administrative Approaches to the Economy Perhaps the least clearly identifiable conceptual frameworks used to study the Ugaritic economy are the managerial and administrative models. These models do not necessarily 219 220 221

222 223 224

Feldman Feldman Feldman Feldman Feldman Hopkins

1998, p. 15. 1998, p. 111. 1998, p. 176. 1998, p. 176. 1998, p. 335. 1983, pp. xi-xii.

)

66

67

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARIT1C ECONOMY

share similar presuppositions about the organization of power or the motivations of economic activity. What they do share is an orientation towards studying the management and administration of Ugaritic economy. This tends to create descriptions of the economy that emphasize centralized control and redistributive networks. In fact, even though a comprehensive managerial model has not been applied to the data at Ugarit, numerous smaller scale analyses have presupposed this kind of economic organization. Administrative models of economy are frequently employed in the study of cuneiform civilizations. One of the earliest models of economic organization used to understand the cuneiform record is the notion of the temple econorny.P" This model was especially important in German scholarship of Mesopotamia, and many prominent early Sumerologists and Assyriologists are closely linked with it. 226 While the nuances of the temple economy model differed quite a bit, the basic assumptions of the model were broadly consistent. This model has been typically used as a means of explaining the preponderance of economic documents found in temple archives and the expenditure of resources on public-religious architecture and sustenance, especially alongside the earliest periods of state formation in alluvial Mesopotamia. The temple economy model has met with increasing criticism in recent years. Foster has criticized this model, stating that the evidence, especially that used by Deimel, was inadequate at best but more likely incorrectly understood.P? More problematically, this model was based only on texts discovered in temples. 228 Of course the texts found in a temple are going to relate primarily to the affairs of that temple. This does not

mean that there were not aspects of economic life that were not affiliated with the temple. Rather, it suggests that the temple did not keep records of affairs unrelated to the economic activities of the temple. One should expect to find tablets mostly reflecting temple interests if one is only reading tablets found in a temple. Susan Pollock has described an updated form of this model of economy, calling the early Mesopotamian economy a "tributary economy. "229 In this kind of economic system, primary producers have access to most of the resources and most of the means of production.P" Local elites skim off of the top of these producers, extracting some amount of surplus.P! The evidence that Pollock sees for this kind of economic production is based on the. archaeological evidence. There is a marked similarity in economic activities between Ubaid Period sites, and the similar material culture inventories in various domestic structures.P'' The major difference between sites is the inventory of raw materials used. 233 The fact that each settlement did the same kinds of activities but used resources that were available locally indicates a general orientation towards local production.P" Alongside of this household-based economic system is evidence of elite activity, most notably in the forms of temples and temple material culture inventories. 235 The easiest explanation for these two distinct classes of material culture at Ubaid sites is to postulate a system in which temple elites skim off the surplus of household based producers and use it to fulfill, not their own subsistence needs, but rather their cultic or elite activity needs.P" Craft specialization models have also been important managerial models for the study of the ancient Near East. Of great importance in terms of the history of archaeological thought on ancient economy are the writings of V Gordon Childe. A highly prolific writer and a scholar who controlled a vast range of data, Childe made many contributions to this topic. The general recognition of Ugarit's role in the Late Bronze international economy, especially as a principle meeting area between Cyprus and the Levantine coast and a principle region for the transmission of raw materials like copper to Syro-Palestine, suggests a high degree of craft specialization within the eastern Mediterranean.P? Childe's arguments on this topic seem to underlie many conceptions of this particular aspect of economic history, although they are not often acknowledged explicitly as such.

225 A detailed examination of the different forms of the temple economy model that have been argued for is not necessary for the purposes of this examination. Frankfort's suggestions about the nature of temple economy in the Early Dynastic Period (which he dates to circa 3000-2340 BeE) are useful because of his clarity. Frankfort, 1970, p. 44, describes: The effective political unit was the city-state, and each of the gods owned one or more of the cities ...The god who owned the city was its advocate in the assembly of the gods. The doctrine of the divine overlordships had far-reaching consequences in the political and economic spheres. It resulted in a planned society best described as theocratic socialism. All the citizens, high and low, laboured in the service of the god and fulfilled allotted tasks. All tilled his fields and maintained the dykes and canals required for irrigation. Resources and labour were effectively pooled - seed, corn, draught animals, ploughs, and other implements were supplied by the temple. Craftsmen kept this equipment in order and regularly presented a quota of their produce to the temple. So did fishermen and gardeners, and indeed all other artisans. They were organized in guilds under foremen. The harvest of the gods' fields and orchards, gardens and cane-brakes, was likewise stored in the temple and regularly distributed to the community in the form of periodical and special (festival) rations. In Polanyian terms, Frankfort's model of economic organization involves redistribution as the primary pattern of integration. The power that underlies the redistributive system was based on the belief that the city god owns all within certain spheres of influence. The temple acts as the locus of communal effort and the economic authority of the Early Dynastic community. 226 Diakonoff 1974, p. 6. For examples of scholarship on the supposed temple economies, see Deimel 1931 (for a summary of his seventeen articles on the topic), Falkenstein 1954, Frankfort 1970, and Schneider 1920. 227 Foster 1981, p. 241. 228 Gelb 1971 and Zettler 1996.

229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237

1

,1

I

Pollock 1999, p. 79. Pollock 1999, p. 80. Pollock 1999, p. 80. Pollock 1999, p. 83-84. Pollock 1999, p. 84. Pollock 1999, p. 81. Pollock 1999, pp. 86-87. Pollock 1999, p. 92. Astour 1973 and Rainey 1962, for example.

68

69

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

For Childe, technology lay at the heart of social evolution.P" At the heart of the 'urban revolution' 239 was the ability of a society to produce enough surplus that individuals could engage in non-subsistence labor, and use the surplus of that labor to gain their subsistence needs. 240 These craft specialists could be engaged in this work either full or part time, and could be independent or attached to elite organizations.r'! At Ugarit, scholars have concentrated on the roles of attached specialists more than independent specialists. As such, discussion of craft specialization at Ugarit has usually been from the palace's administration of craft specialist activities, and hence discussion of craft specialization here should be included in the discussion of managerial models. Functionalist models of society, where economic roles make up the constituent parts of the whole, have been used by scholars of the Ugaritic economy. Sometimes the society is seen as managed from a central, redistributive agent. While the temple has not been described as this agent at Ugarit, the palace has and models of palatial control similar to temple economy models have been put forward. What follows is an examination of some of the more important managerial models.

it was "haphazard and disorganized, meaning that strict central control would have been impossible."242 The reader is not told what constituted control, nor how Whitt's inability to discern an organizational system indicates that record keeping was haphazard. Was it truly haphazard, or did depositional processes and archaeological retrieval techniques skew the findspots of the tablets? Or was perhaps the organization of the palace administration not based upon modern notions of efficiency in information retrieval? These kinds of questions, which radically alter the conclusions of such a study, are not really addressed. Methodological considerations instead revolve around defining the uses of record keeping in non-cuneiform societies (i.e., medieval Europe and classical Athens) and evaluating how well Whitt's reconstruction of the Ugaritic archive fulfills the goals of record-keeping as defined by those other societies.243 While much could be gained from comparing the palace archive of Ugarit with archives in other situations, "sameness" must not be assumed between these civilizations a priori. This kind of naive approach to the study of cuneiform civilization is found throughout Whitt's work. Whitt's understanding of the nature of palace administration is telling. In his words: "Palace administration is best understood in terms of scribal offices and the activities each oversaw."244 For Whitt, the palace administration at Ugarit is a manifestation of what Weber would call (although Whitt does not discuss Weberian approaches) a rationalized bureaucracy. Whitt's study presupposes that the administrative sector of the palace was organized into discreet entities (offices), with discreet functions within the greater bureaucracy. Each section of the administration was defined by its administrative role, rather than the personal relationship of the worker to the king or higher official. As will be discussed below, other scholars take pains to show that Ugaritic society is better characterized as patrimonial (see for example Schloen 2001). Whitt acknowledges that it can be difficult to differentiate between public and private institutions, and uses the Murasu family archive (from Neo-Babylonian Nippur) as an example. 245 This presupposition carries further into Whitt's definition of an archive. Based on Posner's discussion at the 30 th Rencontre, Whitt defines an archive as all of the records accumulated while a particular function was performed by a particular institution or individual.f'? This stands in distinction to what Posner calls the "German tradition," in which an archive is an accumulation of records that have long-term value.247 Whitt's

William Whitt and ArchivalStudies William Whitt's 1993 dissertation at Duke University, Archives and Administration in the Royal Palace of Ugarit, is an attempt at an archival approach on a larger scale than Widbin's. Widbin's dissertation focused on the Eastern archive of the Royal Palace and used a heavy philological component. Widbin provided text editions of each of the tablets found in the Eastern archive. Whitt's approach is different because he attempts to compare the various, discreet archives of the Royal Palace, without attempting substantial philological discussion. He does not provide texts or translations, but he does catalogue the texts in each room, with notations about what type of text each is. He also attempts to reconstruct the findspots of the various texts. Unfortunately, Whitt's work does not provide much original research to the field of Ugaritic studies. His dissertation usefully gathers information previously published by the Mission Archaeologique Francais in a wide number of journals. It is worth discussing Whitt's dissertation in detail since it demonstrates many of the theoretical problems in utilizing an archival approach at Ugarit, theoretical problems that are in fact not solved by Whitt's work. Whitt's desire to integrate archaeological and textual material is commendable, but unfortunately his lack of critical engagement with either source of evidence cripples his study. His general lack of theoretical perspective makes his discussions of the role of archives and the palace in society confused and misleading. For example, his evaluation of the role of record-keeping and administration at Ugarit concludes that 238 239 240 241

Wailes 1996, p. 4. See Wailes 1996, pp. 3-4, for discussion of Childe's revolution based social evolutionary theories. Childe 1953, pp. 124, 129. Wailes 1996, p. 5.

Whitt 1993, p. 278. Whitt 1993, p. 284. 244 Whitt 1993, p. 1. 245 Whitt 1993, p. 3.Later it will be shown that instances like the Murasu family actually provide a better analogue for many of the other houses at Ugarit (i.e., Urtenu, Rap'anu, etc.) than other models. For more on rhis archive, see Bregstein 1993. 246 Whitt 1993, p. 2. 247 Whitt 1993, p. 2. 242 243

71

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

preference for the non-German definition of archive keeping reflects his general conclusion that Ugaritic record keeping was inefficient, with minimal organization or retrieval ability.248 For Whitt, the goals of the record keeping were twofold: to assist the scribe's memory, and to provide a feeling of "assurance" for the parties involved in the document.v'? The overall impression ofUgaritic society, which Whitt derives from his study of the palace archives, is one of decentralized palace control.P? He draws a direct parallel with medieval European Feudalism, calling it a provincial sysrem.f" He recognizes that the king gave power to individuals with whom the king had a personal relationship.P? It is hard to reconcile this notion with Whitt's general understanding of the archives as rational bureaucratic offices. Each archive in the palace represented a particular office in Whitt's reconstruction. In general, Whitt's conclusions about the specific functions of the different archives do not differ much from Claude Schaeffer's initial suggestions. In his abstract, Whitt summarizes his findings: "the west office was mainly concerned with the military, the east office with in-coming and out-going goods and commodities, and the central office with legal and diplomatic affairs; the southwest office was responsible for baking tablets produced by other offices."253 Whitt's suggestion about the Southwest office can be discounted out of hand, as it has been proven that Schaeffer was mistaken in his identification of an oven in this area (see Chapter Six). The practice of baking tablets is more common to modern museums than to archives in the Ancient Near East.

Zamora analyzes the Ugaritic economic material from a number of perspectives. The role of vineyards and vine products in the administrative records are a subject of analysis. Zamora's observations in these areas shall be discussed in appropriate later sections. Arguments are made about the specific meaning of Ugaritic terminology; especially helpful are the identifications of specific words with parts of the vine and its fruits. These lexical arguments are especially convincing on account of Zamora's thorough understanding of botanical information, and the thorough use of all types of available textual evidence. Following a commodity chain style methodology, Zamora describes the life cycle of vines and their products, using textual and ethno-archaeological data as well as economic geography. The study of the lifecycle of these products continues through a discussion of their circulation, through administrative apparatus and commerce. Finally, the ideological and social role of these products within Ugaritic and Late Bronze Age society are discussed. Zamora's contributions to the study of Ugaritic economics fall in two categories. The first category is Zamora's specific contributions to understanding the specifics of the viticulture at Ugarit. The specific contributions to lexical issues and the new readings of texts will be discussed later. It is important to mention here Zamora's categorization of the overall organization of the industry. Production and consumption of vine products occurred primarily at a local level.255 There is some indirect evidence suggestive of larger palatial complexes dedicated to viticulture, but most production operated on a small scale.256 The circulation of these vine products was diverted to the central administration through a variety of taxation mechanisms.P? In Zamora's analysis, these taxation systems are the palace's primary means of accessing the viticulture components. The second contribution made by Zamora is more germane to this specific discussion - methodology. Zamora demonstrates the value of approaching a specific question from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Rather than just studying the textual evidence attempting to identify the semantic range of isolated terminology, Zamora comes at the subject of viticulture from a number of different angles including biological and social issues. Likewise, Zamora describes the economic aspects of viticulture as inseparable from the social role of viticulture, incorporating the embedded nature of economy into the discussion.

70

jose-Angel Zamora and Ugaritic Vineyards One of the more in depth studies of one particular aspect of the Ugaritic economy was produced by Jose-Angel Zamora (2000), working in Madrid, under JesusLuis Cunchillos.P? Zamora has undertaken a thorough analysis of vineyards and the products of vineyard exploitation (especially wine) within the kingdom ofUgarit in La Vid y el Vino en Ugarit. The analysis is primarily based on textual evidence. However, Zamora goes far beyond most text-centered studies of economic topics by exploring the material manifestations of this activity. Discussion of the material culture behind the textual evidence is an important component of Zamora's overall interpretations. While the archaeological evidence of vineyard activity and grape processing at Ugarit is meager, Zamora uses evidence from other parts of the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean to understand the textual evidence. 248 249 250 251 252 253 254

Whitt Whitt Whitt Whitt Whitt Whitt Smith

1993, p. 289. 1993, p. 290. 1993, p. 292. 1993, p. 292. 1993, p. 292. 1993, p. iv. 2001a, p. 207.

5. Patrimonial Models Recent studies of the ancient Near Eastern economy have emphasized the primacy of the household as an organizing principle for economic activity. This had long been 255 256 257

Zamora 2000, p. 144. Zamora 2000, p. 144. Zamora 2000, p. 144.

( 72

73

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

recognized in the Classical world. 258 For example, Finley's conception of the Greek institution of leitourgia (liturgy) sees the household as an important economic force. Finley discusses this concept at length:

order for them to engage in a specific economic activity and return the surplus from that activity to the larger household.F'" These "entrepreneurs" were completely embedded within the larger institution.F? Gelb similarly sees the household as an analogy used by Mesopotamians to understand and describe their economic situations. Recognizing the use of e (Sumerian) or bitum (Akkadian), both meaning "household," Gelb argues that it is important to investigate the usage of this terminology.266 He suggests, following D.R. Bender, that family, defined by kinship, needs to be distinguished from household, defined by co-residence.F" According to Gelb, whereas familial terminology reflects biological relationships, terminology for households (like e or Mtum): "extends in meaning to cover social groupings ranging from a small family household living under one roof to a large socio-economic unit, which may consist of owners and/or managers, labor force, domestic animals, residential buildings, shelters for the labor force, storage bins, animal pens, as well as fields, orchards, pastures, and forests."268 The Mesopotamian household is not just the physical structure of the house, but like the Greek use of oikos, includes all the social and economic means for the support of the complex.P? Yet even though the terminology for household in early Mesopotamia is used in state, temple, and private contexts, it is still necessary to differentiate between private households and public households.F'' The difference lies in the basis of ownership. Kin groups own or hold land in private households. Officials hold, own, or manage land in an official capacity in public households.F! From a practical standpoint, these two types of land ownership may overlap, but conceptually the justification for the ownership and usage of the land lies in different types of authority.272 It is important, for those reasons, to distinguish the two types of households in studying Mesopotamia. Gelb suggests that this difference is reflected in language. Private households are referred to with the construction e+ Personal Name. 273 Public households are referred to with the construction e+ Occupation Name. 274 While not stated by Gelb, if applied

The Greek liturgy was rooted in the age when the community was still inchoate, when the aristocratic households performed essential public services, such as the construction of a temple, by expending labour and materials at their private disposal. In the classical city-state the liturgy had become both compulsory and honorific at the same time, a device whereby the non-bureaucratic state got certain things done, not by paying them from the treasury but by assigning to richer individuals direct responsibility for both the cost and the operation itself.259

Greek Liturgy involved the hegemonizing of local elite values and directing their resources to public production. The utility of this model for the study of the ancient Near East will become clearer as this discussion develops. Certainly, the Greek Liturgy seems to be at least partially analogous to the large business families of the Neo-Babylonian period (i.e., Murasu and Egibi). The analysis of economics as driven by large households works well with Near Eastern evidence. Johannes Renger has outlined how the household economy operated on different scales. On this he states: "key elements in such an ideal-type of household economy are the unity of labor, living together within a household, and consumption of where there are no prices, no wages, no rent, no profit or capital."260 This notion of household economy as an ideal type does not depart much from Weber's perspective. However, for Renger, scale is a distinguishing variable among household production centers. Renger comments: "Only the institutional economy of the large households has a tendency to maximize production in order to support administrative and political superstructures and to be used for conspicuous consumption and prestige."261 These large institutional households often attempt to free themselves from certain kinds of activities. 262 Especially problematic for the larger households was the provision of subsistence needs for large labor forces year round. 263 This was accomplished by providing economic materials (i.e., tools, land) to certain members of the household, in

Renger 1994, p. 173. Renger 1984, p. 38. 266 Gelb 1979, pp. 2-3. 267 Gelb 1979, p. 1. 268 Gelb 1979, p. 3. 269 Gelb 1979, p. 3-4. 270 Gelb 1979, pp. 4-5. 271 Gelb 1979, pp. 4-5. 272 Gelb 1979, p. 5. Like Gelb, van Driel sees the temple and palace as the primary institutions in ancient Mesopotamia, and follows Gelb's suggestions that they can be viewed as households, van Driel 1999, p. 25. Van Driel raises a compelling point regarding the supposed patrimonialism of these institutions in another work. Van Driel argues that even though much of the structures of these institutes are analogous to households, in fact the redistributive mechanisms do not act as a household, van Driel 2002, p. 326. The palace, according to van Driel pays wages at the lowest rates possible, rather than along equitable lines as might be expected from a household, van Driel 2002, p. 326. 273 Gelb 1979, p. 11. 274 Gelb 1979, p. 11. 264

265

258 Indeed, the Greek word from which the English term economy derives, oikonomia, is best understood as referring to the management of the oikos, Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1977, p. 8. This notion of managing the oikos is integral to understanding one of the major motivations behind the Greek and Roman paterfamilias. The proper management of the patrimonial estate was the major goal of economic activity, Veyne 1987, p. 139. This is distinguishable from the modern goal of investment - the production or acquisition of more capital. The Roman goal was not to make money, but to successfully provide for and manage the estate, Crook 1967, p. 207. This does not necessarily imply that capital accumulation was not a means of proper management of the estate, but it is to say that this was not the goal of such activities. 259 Finley 1985 [1973], p. 151. 260 Renger 1994, p. 170. 261 Renger 1994, p. 172. 262 Renger 1994, p. 172. 263 Renger 1984, p. 64.

74 to the Ugaritic material, the

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

bt mlk (house of the king) should be considered a public

household, distinct from a private household. The organization of economic activity in Mesopotamia as oriented along household models has been well demonstrated. A good case study of this is the Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur, investigated in detail by Richard Zettler. The management of the economy of the temple was centralized under one official who acted in many capacities. 275 He represented the temple publicly (including legal settings); he received goods and could distribute them as well.276 In return for these services, this administrator held a substantial temple land allotment.F? The basis of his authority is unclear, but since the office was held by the same family for at least four generations, it was likely hereditary-?" Zettler suggests that perhaps this kind of landholding is analogous to the Islamic institution of the waqf, in which property is set aside as an endowment forever, as a means of pleasing God. 279 The hereditary nature of this office is remarkable. Zettler argues that this constitutes proof that the typical tripartite understanding of Mesopotamian society (royal, religious, and private)280 does not sufficiently represent the complexity of the situation.P" While there is only meager evidence for the temple's ties to the rest of Nippur, Zettler makes a number of important observations on this topic. 282 The temple was connected to the state economy in that it received goods as well as gave them to the central, government administration.P" Zettler describes links to other temples in Nippur as informal.2 84 Particularly noteworthy in this regard are examples of the sharing oflabor resources between temples. 285 Zettler also identifies evidence for a significant private sector in Nippur and its environs, contra Steinkeller.P" There are a number of manifestations of the temple's activities in relation to the private sector. Land was leased to private citizens who would produce surplus to sell on the market, in exchange for a share of the yield. 287 Commodities and goods that could not be Zettler 1992, p. 177. Zettler 1991, p. 108; 1992, p. 208. 277 Zettler 1992, p. 208. 278 Zettler 1991, p. 109; 1992, p. 177. 279 Zettler 1992, pp. 211-213. 280 See Steinkeller 1991, p. 22 for a typical use of this kind of tripartite model. 281 Zettler 1992, p. 235. 282 Zettler 1992, p. 215. Van Driel also expresses reservations regarding the oft-assumed self-sufficiency of patrimonial institutions, van Driel1999, p. 27. Indeed, these institutions do not work with the primary goal of self-perpetuation or support, but rather as organizations serving external purposes and integrated into a wider economy, van Driel1999, p. 27. In his own words, van Driel1999, p. 28, states that these institutions, "were in general not free agents, but increasingly became the executive organs of a centralizing monarchy which operated on a regional or country-wide basis." 283 Zettler 1992, p. 217. 284 Zettler 1992, p. 218. 285 Zettler 1992, p. 176. 286 Zettler 1992, p. 236. 287 Zettler 1992, pp. 219-220. 275

276

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

75

produced through agriculture were gained through middlemen.P" The merchants who worked for the temple that Zettler has identified were not explicitly members of the temple; rather they were private citizens who bought and sold on behalf of the temple.P? Similarly, smiths seemed to be affiliated with the temple, but outside of its direct authority. In general, Zettler has demonstrated that this temple at Nippur was not self-sufficient, nor was it an independent political entity. Rather, it was completely integrated into the regional economy of Nippur and the Ur III state. 290 For this study of the economy at Ugarit, Zettler's analysis of the economic power of a single, non-royal family at Nippur is valuable. He paints a picture of wealthy, local elites dominating an official institution over time. Even though dynasties change and the political organization of the state is not stable, the power of this family is.291 Other members of the family demonstrated more authority within the temple than their official status may have led one to expect. 292 Indeed, Zettler chooses to label this kind of administration as "patrimonial."293 Similar situations have been identified at Ugarit, and at this stage it is important to return to Ugarit.

The French Team's Recognition ofLarge Non-Royal Houses

An important conceptual shift in the study of Ugarit by the French team has involved the gradual recognition of the importance of understanding the prominence of non-royal houses and families at the site. An excellent example of this changing understanding is apparent in the team's treatment of the erroneously labeled "Palais Sud." The close proximity of the Southern Palace to the Royal Palace, and the high volume of textual discoveries had obscured the non-royal aspects of this structure. It was recognized, however, that these texts reflected the importance of an individual named Yabninu in the commercial affairs of the site. In 1990, Courtois published the results of his re-examination of the texts and archaeology of this particular structure. Courtois argues that the chief resident of this building was Yabninu, mentioned in both the archives of the "Southern Palace" and the Royal Palace.F" The distinction between royal and non-royal, or private and public structure is problematic, given the archaeological and textual evidence regarding Yabninu's activities and role within Ugaritic society. Not only was Yabninu a wealthy merchant, but he also functioned as an administrator and diplomat of the kingdom of Ugarit. 295 Through comparison with other texts found in the palace archive, Courtois 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295

Zettler 1992, p. 220. Zettler 1992, pp. 225-226. Zettler 1992, p. 231. Zettler 1991, p. 114. Zettler 1991, p. 113. Zettler 1991, p. 114. Courtois 1990, pp. 105-106. Courtois 1990, p. 107.

76

77

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

successfully demonstrates that Yabninu was an active member of Ugaritic society in the time just before the destruction of the city.296 Study of the texts found within the Southern Palace, and comparison with texts found in the other archives, led Courtois to conclude that the Southern Palace had a monopoly on the importation of grain crops from the villages near the Orontes, on the importation of tin and 'iron, and on some aspects of forest resource exploitation, such as lumber, resin, oils, and medicinal products.F" Other textual and archaeological evidence demonstrates the close mercantile connections of the Southern Palace to Egypt and the Aegean. 298 Courtois' arguments that the Southern Palace was involved in shipbuilding are not as definitive, but at very least indicate that there was a naval orientation within the archive.P" Related to the control of grain imports from Transorontian villages, Courtois postulates, based on the preponderance of syllabic correspondence in the Southern Palace, as well as the frequent repetition of the same toponyms in the texts of the Southern Palace, that the residents of this structure were involved in the administration of the eastern part of the kingdom of Ugarit. 30o Other evidence further indicates that Yabninu had a greater role at Ugarit than mere mercantile. Epistolary texts indicate that Yabninu was charged with a diplomatic mission to Amurru.l'" This is, however, not as unexpected as Courtois leads one to believe. From the Amarna letters, it is evident that diplomacy and international trade went hand in hand. It is not surprising then, to have evidence that a merchant at Ugarit would also be charged with royal diplomatic responsibilities. More surprising though is the presence of census texts in the Southern Palace. There are clear records (kept in the Southern Palace Archive) of the movement of people, both foreigners at Ugarit and Ugaritians in foreign locales. 302 Courtois argues that the personnel of the Southern Palace played a dual administrative role, taking censuses and acting as a police force. 303 The picture of Yabninu that emerges from this reconsideration of the evidence is clear. Yabninu had close connections to the Ugaritic royalty, but at the same time operated independently, and for his own gain. While he represented the king of Ugarit in various instances, this was not a 'job' per se, but rather represented specific situations where he was asked to act in that capacity. Yabninu, and the Southern Palace, had a specific role in the administration of the kingdom that included keeping track of merchants, and a less specified role relating to the eastern part of the kingdom. Yabninu's

house had particular trade, and/or industrial interests; especially noteworthy is the exploitation of forest resources and importation of precious metals. This suggests some degree of division of mercantile interests within the kingdom. However, the level of formality of the specification of these interests is not apparent from the present evidence. The 1973 discovery of what would later be identified as the House of Urtenu altered the general conception of the social structure of Ugarit. Initial publications refer to this structure as the bibliotbeque au sud de fa ville (see Bordreuil 1991 for example). At a colloquium in 1993, published in Ras Shamra-Ougarit (RSO) 11, Bordreuil and Pardee argued that this bibliotheque was the home of an important individual, Urtenu.F" The texts so far published (in Ras Shamra-Ougarit (RSO) 7, Ras Shamra-Ougarit (RSO) 14, and The Context ofScripture Volume 3) have demonstrated the importance of maritime trade and the numerous connections between Urtenu and the royal family.305 The discovery of substantial archives outside of the palace, containing tablets relating to international affairs, internal administration and economic affairs in general, has altered the prior models of Ugaritic society where the palace was seen as the dominant economic force at the site. The existence of a wealthy merchant class, both dependent on the palace and, at the same time independent of it has been postulated.F" The palace provided the merchants with certain economic materials that they had full control over.307 The members of this "merchant class" could also have been the heads of "international commercial firms," or at least involved in the activities of these firms. 308

Juan Pablo Vita and Alternative Administrative Centers Another scholar from Madrid is Juan Pablo Vita. 309 In an article in The Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Vita describes many of the elements of Ugaritic society in broad terms. It is worth mentioning those aspects of Ugaritic society where Vita's views differ considerably from previous scholarship. Departing from the long held notion of Dietrich and Loretz, Vita sees Ugaritic social structure as distinct from the social structure postulated for Alalakh. 310 Social rankings were economic based, but also permeable.P!' In other words, it was possible for an individual's social ranking to change, and it was possible for an individual to hold more than one rank at a time. 312 For example, in PRU 3, 79, md of the king

Bordeuil and Pardee 1995. Yon 1995a, pp. 443, 449. 306 Malbran-Labat 2000, p. 195. 307 Malbran-Labat 2000, p. 195. 308 Bordreuil and Malbran-Labat 1995, p. 444; Malbran-Labat 2000, p. 195. 309 Smith 2001a, p. 137. 310 Vita 1999, p. 464. For Dietrich and Loretz's arguments, see Dietrich and Loretz 1966b; 1969a; 1969b; and 1970. 3ll Vita 1999, p. 464. 312 Vita 1999, pp. 465-467. 304 305

296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303

Courtois Courtois Courtois Courtois Courtois Courtois Courtois Courtois

1990, pp. 132-133. 1990, p. 141. 1990, pp. 131, 134-137, 140. 1990, p. 141. 1990, p. 132. 1990, p. 134. 1990, p. 114. 1990, p. 114.

78

79

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

and maryannic do not seem to be mutually exclusive categories.P" Vita argues that social mobility was possible in Ugarit for a number of reasons. In, PRU 3, 162, by decree of the king, individuals were transferred from mru of a governmental official to mru of the queen.I'" Marriage also suggests to Vita the possibilities of social mobility, especially when the woman loses the status of servant before marriage, for example in

through which other social relationships could be viewed. On the other hand, the use of the symbol of the house of the father reinforced this social unit as the primary constituent of ancient society.322 These two social forces reinforced each other's validity. This patrimonial household model (PHM) that Schloen posits as the basis of his model is an adaptation of Max Weber's concept of the patrimonial house ideal type. 323 There has already been a discussion of Weber's patrimonial ideal type in Chapter One. It is important to note here that Schloen emphasizes that the PHM model, following Weber: "is the antithesis of rationalized bureaucracy."324 For Schloen then, the lack of rational bureaucracy (in the Weberian sense) is a feature of societies based on PHM. Indeed, Schloen argues that while it is possible to talk about officials, the offices held by these individuals were intrinsically related to their social status. 325 He states unequivocally about Ugarit: "There is no evidence of a complex system of ranked bureaucratic offices."326

PRU 3, 85.315 It is also important to note Vita's view of the major households with administrative records found outside of the palace proper (i.e. Rap'anu, Yabninu, Urtenu, and Rasapabu), These houses, in Vita's view, were administrative centers in the later years of the kingdom's existence.l'" However, Vita does not describe the role of these houses in the royal administration or in their relationship to one another. Possibly related to these houses is the practice of the palace giving certain amounts of goods to traders to exchange in trading missions, from which the palace would obtain profits. 3!7

Stager, Schloen and the University ofChicago Neo-Weberians In a groundbreaking paper, "The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel", Lawrence Stager argues for the utility and accuracy of Weber's ideal type oikos model in ancient Israel, especially as it relates to the Levant in the Iron Age.318 This has been a very influential paper, both in its application of Weberian theory and in its integration of archaeological and textual data. Stager is able to add the specific data to Weber's model that were unavailable to scholars working when Weber was. The household, for Stager (and King in a later work), was the dominant arena of economic activity.3!9 King and Stager incorporate Polanyian theory into the Weberian model established .by Stager. In King and Stager's opinion, all three Polanyian patterns of integration, reciprocity, redistribution, and market, were present in ancient Israel. The question remains as to which was the predominant pattern of inregration.V" For King and Stager, market exchange was not very prominent at the level of the individual household, which was basically self-sufficient.F! David Schloen, in his book The House ofthe Father asFact and Symbol, based on his 1995 Harvard Dissertation, argues that the "fact" of the patronymic house and the symbol of the household were inextricably intertwined in Ugaritic society. The demographic "fact" of the house of father as the primary economic unit provided a symbol

313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321

Vita 1999, p. 465. Vita 1999, p. 466. Vita 1999, p. 467. Vita 1999, p. 471. Vita 1999, p. 472. Stager 1985. King and Stager 2001, p. 192. King and Stager 2001, p. 192. King and Stager 2001, p. 192.

Schloen applies his argument to Ugarit specifically, as well as to Near Eastern society as a whole. This discussion shall concentrate on those aspects of Schloen's arguments that are helpful in reconstructing Ugaritic social structure in relation to the economy. On the general nature of Ugaritic social structure, Schloen states: "The kingdom of Ugarit, like its neighbors, was essentially a hierarchy of households-nested-withinhouseholds, with the royal household at its apex."327 Each level in this hierarchy was conceived of as a betu 'abi, with relative authority understood through familial terminology. Weber's patrimonial ideal type is attractive to Near Eastern scholars because it is consistent with emic categories of expression.P'' Household language was, in Schloen's view, the dominant means of expression in the pre-Axial Near East. 329 Schloen describes the nature of this household terminology: These terms were used metaphorically, to be sure, but this does not mean that they were merely casual figures of speech or euphemisms for "real" economic and political relationships. They were widely used because alternative conceptions of social hierarchy were not readily available.P"

Schloen 20001, p. 1. Schloen 2001, p. 51. Note that Monroe argues that Schloen's interpretation and use of Weber in his 1995 dissertation is extremely simplistic and possibly should not be described as Weberian, Monroe 2000, pp. 327-331. This is not a particularly legitimate criticism as Schloen certainly uses aspects of Weber's thought as foundations for his own. Due to the volume of writing produced by Weber and the dynamic nature of his thinking, it is very easy to find internal inconsistencies within Weber's corpus. 324 Schloen 2001, p. 51. 325 Schloen 2001, p. 252. 326 Schloen 2001, p. 253. 327 Schloen 2001, p. 209. 328 Schloen 2001, p. 255. 329 Schloen 2001, P: 255. 330 Schloen 2001, p. 255. 322 323

80

KEVlN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVlOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

For Schloen, the people of Ugarit did not use other means to describe hierarchical relationships. A nested series of patrimonial relationships extended throughout the entire kingdom. Schloen states:

conceptual circuit as opposed to the two conceptual circuits explicitly posited by Liverani. Both scholars model power as a nested hierarchy culminating in an apical power source. Both argue that there was minimal distinction between urban and rural in antiquity, and both see the bottom of the hierarchy (village or household) as strong and self-sufficient. The main difference is the justification of the hierarchy; in Schloens model this justification is based on a reifying metaphor of family, and for Liverani this justification is based on land ownership. The criticism most consistently leveled at Schloen's argument is not that the model itself is wrong, but that Schloen uses his model for too much. 340 The PHM model cannot explain all aspects of social life in the ancient Near East. In fact, Monroe argues that this model is based on uncritical readings of "propagandizing texts"341 and that the model serves little to understand anything beyond political ideology.342 More balanced criticism comes from Daniel Fleming. In a review article, Fleming explores some of the problems with the overuse of Schloen's explanatory framework, which problematically for Fleming does not incorporate evidence for pastoralism.Y" As a demonstration of how the PHM model does not accurately reflect all Near Eastern social situations, Fleming uses evidence from Mari and Emar. 344 At Mari, Fleming emphasizes the importance of the 'tribal' social organization that King Zimri-Lim participated in. This 'tribal' organization superseded the urban and state levels of organization, and constituted a separate system of social orientation, suggesting a much more complex situation than a simple series of nested patrimonial relationships.Pv Turning to the Emar material, Fleming argues for a number of situations where the social organization does not seem to have originated in patrimonial, royal authority. Derived from his previous studies on ritual at Emar,346 Fleming outlines a situation where the king does not play an active or prominent role in citywide ritual activity.347 Related to this, Fleming sees evidence that, "the tradition of town-owned land, still collective in its terminology by the 13th century, emerged under an ideology different from that of the king-as-father-who-owns-all."348 Fleming argues that his reading of the Emar material is distinct from Marxist Two-sector models and draws out important evidence that Schloen's model does not reflect Near Eastern reality as neatly as Schloen argues for.349

It is sufficient to note here that individual ownership of entire villages, including their land and inhabitants, is' a clear indication of a hierarchy of households. Individual households within the village rendered taxes and service to the owner of the village, who in turn was a servant of the king. 33l

This model was replicated for all relationships within the kingdom. It was the manner, in Schloen's view, of all forms of organization. As such, due to the PHM as fact and symbol, Schloen suggests, "familiar household relationships provided the pattern not only for governmental authority and obedience but also for the organization of production and consumption and for the integration of the gods within human society."332 So, in Schloen's understanding, this PHM directly affected economic life at Ugarit. In practice, this patrimonial social structure meant a greater decentralization than what might initially be thought, given that all of society was part of the king's household. He states: "political authority and economic exchange were realized through dyadic personal relationships between social superiors and their dependents at each level rather than being focused in the single node of the palace."333 Schloen suggests that while the royal household was the apex of authority, it was more likely to engage in administration through upper level householders.V" So economic relationships and experiences would be manifest as particular household interactions rather than as a grandly unified scheme. Schloen's point is missed by Monroe, who argues that the society posited by Schloen is too repressive and rigid to have actually existed in the ancient world. 335 Schloen actually argues for an extremely decentralized society. There are two greater implications of PHM that Schloen posits. The first is what he calls, "a structural homology between center and periphery."336 The most important manifestation of this is in the lack of distinction between urban and rural spheres of life."337 The second is that center 338 and periphery are integrated through unequal, household relationships.P? In many ways, the PHM model is very similar to the Asiatic Mode of Production described by Liverani, although Schloen sees only one nested

Schloen 2001, p. 254. Schloen 2001, p. 254. 333 Schloen 2001, p. 317. 334 Schloen 2001, p. 317. 335 Monroe 2000, p. 326. 336 Schloen 2001, p. 317. 337 Schloen 200 I, p. 317. 338 Note that by center, Schloen is using Shils' definition, which is not spatial as such but rather relates to a society's governing values and symbols, Schloen 200 I, p. 3 I 7. 339 Schloen 200 I, p. 317. 331

340

332

341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349

Fleming 2002; Monroe 2000; Routledge 2004, pp. 127-132; and Stone 2003. Monroe 2000, p. 185. Monroe 2000, p. 331. Fleming 2002, p. 76. Fleming 2002, p. 76. Fleming 2002, p. 77. Fleming 1992; 2000. Fleming 2002, p. 77. Fleming 2002, p. 79. Fleming 2002, p. 79.

81

82

83

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

Stone's criticisms are similar, but less specific in scope.F" She is more critical of theoretical problems with Schloen's work, rather than demonstrating the inappropriateness of PHM in certain situations. Stone suggests that although Schloen acknowledges that Weber's ideal types are only intended as an heuristic device, in actual practice, Schloen applies his PHM too literally.351 Stone argues that Schloen is too rigorous in forcing descriptions of all Bronze Age Near Eastern societies to correspond with his PHM352, and suggests that a better use of PHM would be to examine the inherent flexibility of this system. 353 Stone also describes what she calls "two suspect theoretical leaps" made by Schloen. 354 Using the analogy of titles such as father and son in the Catholic Church, Stone argues that there is no demonstrable connection between the use of domestic metaphors as referents and patrimonial social organization.P? Her second "suspect leap", is that Schloen does not demonstrate that there is a connection "between the presence of extended family residence, agricultural activities by urban residents, and the patrimonial mode of production."356 This criticism is important for the study of Ugaritic economy, for if Stone is correct, than one cannot infer economic organization based on certain observed PHM characteristics. Routledge discusses the use of Weber by Schloen (as well as Master and Stager).357 Routledge is critical of Weber's understanding of patrimonial authority, suggesting that it is rooted in nineteenth century European understandings of the world. 358 Weber's conception of patrimonialism as a belief that was held by all members of a given society is too essentializing.P" Routledge suggests that the Weberian conception of patrimonial authority can be successfully adapted through Foucauldian interpretation.t'''' Rather than taking the household as an essential building block, Routledge argues "that the domestic domain is a place where subjects are formed," and that the house is itself not an "irreducible unit" but an area of activity for "historically constituted subjects."361 In other words, patrimonial authority should be understood as constructed rather than foundational or natural and therefore was subject to resistance and alternative types of authority.

Similar comments can be made about the essentializing use of Schloen's model at Ugarit. A difficult situation that is not fully explained by Schloen's model is the problem of landholding. In his criticism of Heltzer's model, Schloen argues that the king did have supreme rights over all the land in his kingdom, theoretically, but would not typically put himself in a position of breaking customary laws ofland-ownership.362 Yet Schloen himself is forced to posit the existence of "traditional mores" that fall outside of patrimonial authority.363 This is a hint that every aspect of Ugaritic social structure cannot be neatly explained through reference to the PHM model, and patrimonial authority. Similar hints that there existed legal customs beyond the authority of the king (or at least not based upon the authority of the king) come from legal documents found in the homes of non-royal individuals. Rowe describes these legal documents as taking the form of royal legal documents, but instead of the king's seal or name, the documents are concluded by a list of witnesses.364 This suggests that the legal weight of these documents rested in the observance that the agreement was made between the individuals, rather than by its facilitation or observation by royal authority. Other problems of the exaggerated utility of the PHM model are apparent. Schloen claims that the metaphor of the household was used to express power relationships, because other means of expressing hierarchy were lacking in ancient Ugarit. 365 This is a difficult observation to justify lexically. A multiplicity of words and their use in particular contexts demonstrates that Schloen's comments are an overstatement. In KTU 2.39, for example, the Hittite king's domination over the king of Ugarit is implicit in the use of the term ps (sun) as the primary referent of the Hittite king. The sun imagery connotes leadership, hierarchy, and dominance, without reference to the household. Other words demonstrate the same phenomenon. The term rb also expresses hierarchy, but not through household terminology. For example, KTU 2.4 is a letter to the rb khnm, perhaps best understood as "chief priest" or "head cultic official." The hierarchical relationship that is implied by the use of the word rb reflects some kind of occupational hierarchy. The presumed authority is derived, not from the rb khnm's status as paterfamilias, but from his position vis a vis other members of the same occupational category. Other occupational titles can indicate hierarchy without the use of familial terminology, most notably the word for king itself, mlk. Other titles that could be marshaled as evidence include bazannu and sakinu. One could argue that these titles simply reflect the occupation of the individual, and not hierarchical authority, but t~at would necessitate postulating the existence of rational-bureaucratic authority, which is even more problematic from a Weberian standpoint. Similar non-familial referents

Stone 2003. Stone 2003, p. 121. 352 She is also critical of the case studies of Islamic cities that he uses to describe the PHM. For Stone, 2003, p. 122, Islamic cities were not solely organized according to patrimonialism, but by "occupation, religion, ethnicity; or common village origin." 353 Stone 2003, p. 123. 354 Stone 2003, p. 123. 355 Stone 2003, p. 123. 356 Stone 2003, p. 123. 357 Rourledge 2004, pp. 127-132. 358 Rourledge 2004, p. 130. 359 Rourledge 2004, p. 130. 360 Rourledge 2004, p. 131. 361 Rourledge 2004, p. 131. 350 351

362 363 364 365

Schloen 2001, p. 231. Schloen 2001, p. 231. Rowe 2003, p. 720. Schloen 2001, p. 255.

84

85

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

that demonstrate hierarchy are apparent in Ugaritic name lists. The addition of the third masculine singular possessive suffix -h to words such as lmd (see KTU 4.194 for example), indicate relationships of hierarchy and possession that are not necessarily predicated upon familial terminology. Designations reflecting the geographic origin or ethnic/city affiliation of individuals are further evidence that patrimonial models of authority and social organization were not the only means of mapping social relationships at Ugarit. KTU 4.417, for example, lists families residing in Ugarit, using gentilics as primary personal referents, not patronyms. An easily testable aspect of Schloen's model is his conception that market exchange was not a primary means of circulating goods in patrimonial settings. 366 Schloen states:

Likewise the smaller household probably did not display the same degree of division of labor as is expressed in the palatial texts. The numerous lists of individuals grouped according to occupational activity (see KTU 4.69 for example), are not replicated at the household level. These individuals are described according to their occupational category or specialist skills/roles, a semiotic system that likely did not exist at the household level. Indeed, the very existence of this degree of standardized, specialist activity, demonstrates that the PHM model is insufficient to account for the complexity of economic action at Ugarit. All of this is not to say that Schloens argument is incorrect, but rather to argue that the PHM model alone cannot adequately explain economic activity at Ugarit. Conclusions

In a patrimonial state characterized by substantive and practical rationality - regardless of its size and degree of centralization - there is typically no real market in basic commodities, most of which circulate instead on the basis of reciprocity and redistribution. 367

From this overview it is clear that there are certain areas of explicit disagreement amongst scholars of the Ugaritic economy. At a surface level, there are those arguments that are typical of cuneiform scholarship in general, disagreements about nuances of meanings of words or reconstructions of historical processes. More fundamentally problematic are those issues that stem from different conceptions of what are called economic modalities in this study. Before moving on to the argument at hand, it is useful to identify the major areas of controversy. The scholars mentioned above conceive of the mechanisms of trade very differently. The Brandeis Hellenosemitica approach presupposes what could almost be considered a functionalist approach to eastern Mediterranean trade at this time, where each region provides specific resources or adds value to goods, and these goods circulate through trade mechanisms. In contrast, Feldman emphasizes not the economic benefits of this trade, but rather the way that elite goods function as markers of identity in the Late Bronze Age. Feldman's identification of an international style that reifies and articulates themes of ruler-ship suggests that Late Bronze Age trade was more than just the movement of copper. At the same time, as Liverani has shown, the rationale behind Late Bronze Age trade is masked in the textual sources through language of reciprocity and redistribution. Related to this problem are the different conceptions of the people engaged in trade. Were these private capitalists, royal ambassadors or elite families who acted both in self-interest and in the interest of their sovereign? Indeed, this lies at the heart of the problem for understanding the relationship between the palace at Ugarit and the other prominent houses, especially those belonging to individuals who have been recognized as playing a role in international affairs. Were all of these houses directly under the authority of the king's household, as in Schloen's model? Or should power be seen as less directly stemming from the authority of the king as paterfamilias and more from the wealth of these local elites that could outlast dynastic politics? Schloen's arguments

Schloen later clarifies this statement by acknowledging that there is minimal evidence for large redistributive schemes, and that the acquisition of goods was more based on reciprocity, embedded in social relationships.Y" Stone's criticism of Schloen, that he argues that professionally manufactured goods circulated solely through redistributive schemes, is an unfair misreading of his work. 369 However, Schloen does seem to suggest that market exchange was not a significant force in the circulation of goods. This thesis shall be tested in the chapters that follow. It is difficult to reconcile textual attestations of economic activity found in the palace at Ugarit with economic activities that could be presumed for a patrimonial household. Palace texts record the distribution and receipt of goods. Individuals and towns, both of which would be considered subordinate household members through the PHM model, are provided with set amounts of goods, or are recorded as providing the palace with set amounts of goods. A similarly regimented system of distribution at the household level is not attested textually. While this is an argument from silence, it seems evident that the possibility must be made that distribution and receipt of subsistence products between father and dependents (children and wife) was not as systematic as that between king and dependents. Fathers likely did not require a set payment of commodities from their sons, as the king would expect from the village. These comments may seem self-evident, but they demonstrate how quickly problems arise when the PHM model is stretched to apply to every economic situation. 366 367 368 369

Schloen 2001, p. 79. Schloen 2001, p. 79. Schloen 2001, p. 199. Stone 2003, p. 123.

n

I

86

87

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

bring up a new issue in the study of the power that lies beneath the Ugaritic economy. For Schloen, power rested not in bureaucracy, but in the relationship between officials and king. Whitt takes a different stance and attempts to identify the bureaucratic offices present in the palace at Ugarit. The relationship of the palace to non-royals at Ugarit is directly related to issues of land tenure. Boyer sees two different types of land tenure, both based on the power of the king to grant land, although both reflecting different degrees of royal authority. Gray uses similar, though less dynamic models of feudal authority over land. Libolt, Miller, and Heltzer both assume that there were two types of land tenure at Ugarit, one based on royal prerogative and another based on sub-altern traditions. The issue of craft specialization is another locus of disagreement in the scholarship on the Ugaritic economy. Gray and Rainey both see Ugarit's economy as highly specialized, with Gray arguing for the presence of guilds. Schloen has argued that even though occupational specialists engaged in specialized activities, even urban villagers engaged in some level of agricultural/subsistence production. Vita thinks it best to understand occupations as overlapping categories and not fixed categories of identity and work specialization. These and other themes will be addressed in the following chapters. The purpose of this research is not so much the study of the specific details of the Ugaritic economy, although that is of course of paramount importance in constructing the argument. Instead, the goal is to identify evidence for these different conceptions of Ugaritic economic modalities. These questions that lie beneath most studies of ancient economy need to be addressed as questions in their own right, not simply as presuppositions towards the investigation of other questions. Common to most of the perspectives addressed above is a substantivist approach to the ancient economy. Only a few of the scholars working with the Ugaritic material have taken a formalist stance towards the economy. Yet even given the general agreement of the appropriateness of a substantivist approach amongst these scholars, each seems to posit radically different models of social life and hence a radically different model of economic life. This problem reflects the limits of top-down, "totalizing" models of society. Top-down models smooth out difference and cover evidence that does not fit well with the model. Once imposed, a top-down model is difficult to escape and the variability of data is lost, as is the actual lived complexity of ancient economic life. Here then, the importance of a Network-based model is clear. A Network-based model, as applied in this study, allows for the variability of data and complexity is assumed, not smoothed over. In this study, the Network-based model shall attempt to understand economic interactions as larger components of a complex multi-variant system. Most of the following investigation shall examine the economic interactions at specific nodes of contact. Each interaction that has been identified for study shall be examined on its own and then

compared with the larger context of economic interactions in general. Presuppositions about the organization of these economic activities shall be avoided in the initial stages of the analysis; a Network-based model does not require one to posit either a Twosector or a patrimonial organization to society from the outset of the investigation. After the various economic interactions that have been attested at Ugarit are investigated, some conclusions will be offered. These conclusions are best understood as possibilities and limitations that Ugaritians may have had in regard to economic activity. As such, these limitations and possibilities were manifest in complex manners. The picture that results is that of a complex economic life (although not a chaotic one) embedded in the social world of ancient Ugarit. The attempt to answer these questions begins in the next chapter (Chapter Three) in the investigation of the specific language used in ancient Ugarit to describe economic actors and activities, especially important since language is so central to the constitution of understanding within a society.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

89

TERMINOLOGY OF SOCIAL DESIGNATIONS

CHAPTER THREE

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

The criteria of a past performance of leisure therefore commonly take the form of "immaterial" goods. Such immaterial evidences of past leisure are quasi-scholarly or quasi-artistic accomplishments and a knowledge of processes and incidents that do not conduce directly to the furtherance of human life. So, for instance, in our time there is the knowledge of the dead languages.. , Thorstein Veblen To young people of the current generation the very idea of philology suggests something impossibly antiquarian and musty, but philology is in fact the most basic and creative of the interpretative arts. Edward Said

Before considering the evidence of the economic modalities at Ugarit from a textual perspective, it is important to comment on some of the problems inherent in the study of these materials. This chapter contains three separate sections dealing with certain categories of words and concepts at Ugarit: terminology of social designations, terminology of occupational designations, and terminology of land holding. Each of these categories of terminology present particular problems for translation, and at the same time are central to understanding economic modalities. These three sections are not intended as glossaries for the alphabetic vocabulary, but are intended to serve as extended investigations of key terminology. 1 The terminology to be discussed here has been particularly problematic in the reconstruction of Ugaritic economic life and subsequently social life. Vocabulary with definitions that have not been controversial shall only be discussed in passing here. For example, the word brt is well understood to refer to the occupation of ploughman.i and therefore need not be discussed in depth here. Discussion of prepositions and measurement terminology will be presented in volume 2.

This lexical category has already been widely studied by scholars of Ugarit. Words referring to social structure or social categories are important in the reconstruction of economic modalities as the translations of social designations tend to carry with them conceptions about the nature and structure of economic relationships.

bns This word has been at the root of many disagreements about Ugaritic social structure. In itself bns means simply "man," as shown in the polyglot (Ug 5. 130) where it is equivalent to Akkadian amilum (an Akkadian biform of awllum).3 This simple definition of the word can be misleading. Roth defines the use of the Akkadian equivalents of this word in the legal literature, "The term used for (1) the general, nonspecific, "person" as subject of a law provision, and for (2) a member of the highest privileged class, in contrast to a member of the muJkenu-class or to a slave.l" In essence, bns is equated with a term that has two uses in Akkadian, a specific use and a general use.? It is often difficult to determine what is meant in the Ugaritic texts. The use of bns as a general, non-specific term is certainly apparent in the Ugaritic administrative texts. This is best exemplified in texts such as KTU 4.380, which lists quantities of donkeys and bni at specific geographic regions. Likewise, KTU 4.358 lists amounts of bnim at a specific location. In these types of contexts, it seems most appropriate to understand bni as a generic designation for person. There are other situations where it is not as clear whether bns should be understood as a generic word, or a word with specific class connotations. For example, texts like KTU 4.752, list the bni who are at the disposal of another individual. Is there any implication of class in this kind of list? It is unclear from the reading of the text itself, and it is impossible to find any textual situation that necessitates a reading of bns as a class-based category. Since there is such a clear class-based meaning of the equivalent term in Akkadian, this kind of implication cannot be discounted a priori. However, it must also not be assumed a priori that there was a three-tiered understanding of class at Ugarit, akin to that described in the Code of Hammurabi. This is a general problem with the use of this word in construct with another noun. The problem of whether or not bns is being used in a general or specific sense is obscured by the implied relationship between the two words in construct. While a general sense of possession is indicated, the nature of this possession is not explicit in the phrasing.

Huehnergard 1987, p. 114. Roth 1997 p. 268. 5 In its general use, this is a case of a privileged term "standing in" for its sub-altern opposite as in the generic use of "man" to mean both male and female persons in English. 3

A lengthy discussion on the problems of translation would not be helpful here. On the problems of translation, see Derrida 1978; 1981a; 1981b; Heidegger 1962; and Saussere 1972. 2 See for example del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 372. 1

4

91

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

This leaves translation open to multiple interpretations. Yet there are certain situations where this usage is quite consistent. Most consistent is the use of bnf in construct with a geographic name. This is the case in KTU 4.125, where bnf from certain locations are listed. For example, line 3 reads bnl gt gl'd. Here, this construction is used much in the same way as the Akkadian construction amilum plus geographic name is used - to signify the location of origin of the person in question. There are, however, other situations where the exact nature of the implied relationship between the two words in construct is not as clear. Most difficult is the meaning of bnf mlk.

and "men of the king"), based on current understandings of Akkadian this equation poses more difficulties than it solves. Even though the equation of these two expressions is not supportable, Heltzer's general interpretation of bni mlk needs to be outlined further, as it is not entirely dependent on comparative lexicography. Heltzer argues that the bnf mlk were individuals who were dependent on the palace. There were numerous occupations engaged in by bnf mlk, as is attested through numerous lists, 11 but their binding characteristic was that "they, in contrast to the villagers of the kingdom derived their main or only source of income from their service, receiving payment in kind, silver, land, etc."12The bnf mlk were also obligated to the palace through taxes and corvee labor.P It is difficult to unpack the evidence that Heltzer uses to argue these points since he builds his evidence on one assumption after another, and presents that evidence as lists of fragmentary text translations. Much of it is tied up in his understandings of the terms pilku and ilku, which is discussed below, but should be noted at this point, are probably not accurate.l" Further evidence is based on the lists of occupational specialists found in the Royal Palace. These lists typically take the form of a list of occupational categories, followed by some quantity of a good, and are understood by Heltzer as payments to craft specialists for royal service.l? Sometimes these texts describe the individuals as bnf mlk (for example KTU 4.144), but not always.l'' Certainly KTU 4.609: 1, which reads spr bpr bnf mlk b yrb ipb[nm], should be understood as a list of rations distributed to men in a given month. I? Yet Heltzer's further assumption that any texts that describe distributions from the palace represent distributions as parts of a royal service system is not supportable.l" Heltzer states outright that the term bnf mlk is frequently omitted in the alphabetic texts, but should be understood as implicit.!? This is a questionable assumption. Compared to the Marxist scholars-" (particularly Heltzer), Schloen takes a contrary position on the translation of bnf mlk. Schloen defines the bns mlk as a group that, "includes any landholder who performed service (often part-time service) for the king, whether he was a member of a professional group or an ordinary farmer, and whether

90

bns mlk. Perhaps the expression that has caused the most problems in the study of Ugaritic economic texts is the expression bni mlk, rendered straightforwardly as "men of the king." The prominence of this term in the Ugaritic material has inspired numerous reconstructions of Ugaritic economy, and been the locus for much disagreement. Marxist scholars tend to see the bnf mlk in terms of Two-sector production models. Liverani states that the bnf mlk were "non-possessors of the means of production, of units in the great productive organization of the palace, for whose sake they work and for whom they receive payment and direction.I" In this understanding, the bnf mlk are members of the palace work force. They are completely dependent on the palace, not only for access to productive resources, but for subsistence equipment as well. Michael Heltzer proposes a similar reading of bni mlk. He understands this term as "royal servicemen."? Heltzer understands bnf as a social designation, in opposition to the word da-ka-ru, which is a biological designation, best understood as "male". 8 For numerous reasons, this distinction is problematic, and it is unlikely that Heltzer's distinction represents an emic Akkadian distinction." Heltzer argues that bnf mlk is equivalent to the Akkadian expression ardeMES larri, but he is unable to prove that this equivalence is necessary or accurate.l" Indeed this equation seems unlikely since amilum, the equivalent of bnf, is normally distinct from ardu (= wardum). In Akkadian legal material, the wardum "class" is normally described as distinct from the au/ilum class. While it is tempting to equate these two sets of terms ("servants of the king,"

Heltzer 1982, p. 11. Heltzer 1982, p. 14. 13 Heltzer 1982, p. 16. 14 See Heltzer 1982, pp. 23-37 for his most thorough discussion of these terms in reIation to bnf mlk. 15 Heltzer 1982, pp. 37--48. 16 Heltzer 1982, pp. 43--44. 17 Heltzer 1982, pp. 3-9. 18 Heltzer 1982, p. 10. 19 Heltzer 1982, p. 12. 20 Zamora 1997, p. 93, takes a position similar to Liverani's and Heltzer's, understanding the function of the expression bnsmlk as: "designarfa puesa los dependientes reales, miembros deI sector palacial." 21 Schloen 2001, p. 246. 11

12

Liverani 1989, p. 127. Heltzer 1999b, p. 424. 8 Heltzer 1982, p. 3. 9 Heltzer's differentiation of bns and dkr is unconvincing. He draws the distinction between the two words based on their Akkadian equivalences in the polyglots, HeItzer 1982, p. 3. It has been demonstrated above that amilum, the equivalent for bni has both general and specific meanings. The equivalent of dkr, Akkadian zikaru, in Heltzer's understanding represents only the biological aspects of male, and therefore bns cannot have biological meanings. The definition and equivalence of ancient words is not an all or nothing situation, where if a word has one meaning, it cannot have another meaning. 10 Heltzer 1982, p. 3. 6

7

92

93

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARIT1C ECONOMY

he lives in the capital city or in a rural village."2! For Schloen, who sees Ugaritic society linked through patrimonial ties (both biological and metaphorical), there should be no distinction between the palace sector and the non-palace sector, since all goods and services in the kingdom of Ugarit were theoretically, although in a decentralized manner, within the domain of the king. So for Schloen, the designation bns mlk indicated the individuals in question engaged in service for the king. Some difficulties with this reading can be levied. Following Schloen's patrimonial model, an expression akin to "son of the king" would better reflect a completely patrimonial conceptualization of society. This expression, bns mlk, does not itself reflect a patrimonial orientation. Also problematic is Schloen's understanding that bns is simply an abbreviated form of bns mlk. 22 As has been discussed above, there is no reason to assume that this is the case; in fact bni is simply the generic term for "man". Furthermore, there is minimal evidence to demonstrate that the bni mlk were landholders. There are in fact no published texts where bns mlk are associated with land that they themselves hold. In general, the difference between Schloen's and Heltzer's models relates to how the two scholars view the semantic value of the term. For Heltzer, the expression is indicative of class or status, and is essentially a proper noun. For Schloen, the expression is more general and refers to individuals engaging in work for the king at a discreet moment in time, but implies no further status or rank. Schloen's understanding of bns mlk is more convincing, as it better fits the understanding of bni derived from comparison of Akkadian equivalents. Both agree though that the terms bnsand bns mlk are used inrerchangeably.P While this may have been the case to some extent, not all bnswould have been considered bns mlk. Rowe, like Schloen, disagrees with the typical Marxist reading of the expression bns mlk, but unlike Schloen, she argues for a more formal inrerpretation.i" According to Rowe, a bns mlk was an individual who had a debt relationship to the king, most likely a service-based debt obligation.P This was a social category based on juridical relationships (as opposed to economic relationships), and the specific juridical relationship was one of what she refers to as "antichretic/" debt service."27 Rowe argues that the actual evidence for the existence of this group is meager: the expression is only attested in eight tablets.i" In these eight tablets, Rowe points out, the common theme is that

these individuals perform some kind of work for the king. 29 The work performed is not the kind of service argued for by Heltzer, since bns can appear in construct with other individuals besides the king. 3D Rowe sees the service as related to the fulfillment of debt obligations, where labor is serving as payment for a loan, both on the principal and on the interest.I! The exact nature of the obligation differed depending on the individual situation; all that is implied by the expression bns mlk is that the individual has a debt obligation to the king. Before evaluating these differing interpretations, it is important to examine the use of this expression at Ugarit. Most noteworthy is the description of individuals as bnl mlk in lists. Sometimes people described as bns mlk are listed according to personal name, and sometimes they are listed according to occupational category. Both uses are attested in KTU 4.609. In other contexts, bni mlk is used to further specify an individual. KTU 3.2 may be an example of this, where lines 5-7 identify a person by patronym and possibly by the designation bns mlk, though it needs to be stated that the reading mlk is not entirely secure. An important context for understanding the use of the term bns mlk is in texts that list the location of people outside of Ugarit. For example, KTU 4.367 is a list of bns mlk who are at the village of tbq. Perhaps related to this use, are the occasions where bns mlk are described as under the authority of a specific individual. KTU 4.144 lists bns mlk who are d bdprt: KTU 4.370 lists bns mlk who are d tarin 'rnsn. These appearances of the term bns mlk refer to people living in or working for authorities other than the king - either in a different village or under a particular supervisor. In three of the eight texts where the expression bns mlk is attested, it is recorded that this group of people receive textiles (KTU 4.144 and KTU 4.182) or food rations (KTU 4.609). Given the other attested appearances of this expression, it should be assumed that these distributions were given to the bns mlk while they were engaging in work for the palace. Whether or not these distributions should be understood as "payments" or "provisions" is unclear. What can be certain is that the bni mlk were individuals who performed varying services for the palace (see KTU 4.370 and KTU 4.609 for the attested occupational categories). While engaging in this work, the bns mlk were under the authority of higher-ranking palace personnel (KTU 4.141) and could be requested to perform service by palace personnel (KTU 4.370). The whereabouts and skill sets of the bnl mlk were kept track of by the palace scribes (KTU 4.144 and KTU 4.367). These observations lead to a more nuanced understanding of the term bns mlk. The construct relationship between the words bns and mlk indicate that there has to be some relationship; the easiest relationship is to assume that bns mlk are bns who are,

Schloen 2001, p. 223. Schloen 2001, p. 224. 24 Rowe 2002, p. 17. 25 Rowe 2002, p. 17. 26 Antichretic debt service is a particular type of debt relationship where the debtor pledges labor or the use of real estate and/or mobilia in return for an extension of credit. This is best understood in opposition to a productive loan where the debtor uses the credit as a means of producing capital and repays the principle (and interest) with the capital produced from the initial investment of the credit. 27 Rowe 2002, p. I. 28 Rowe 2002, p. 4. 22 23

29

30 31

Rowe 2002, p. 6. Rowe 2002, p. 7. Rowe 2002, p. 9.

94

95

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

in some way under the authority of the king. The nature of this authority may be residential, occupational, or it could be a debt relationship like that suggested by Rowe. 32 It has already been noted that bni and amilum are equivalent. The use of amilum in Akkadian contexts does not clarify the situation, as the word is often used with another noun to demonstrate a relationship between a person and another person or institution.P At the-present, it seems that there are two equally plausible understandings of bns mlk. Rowe's interpretation of this expression, an expression pointing to a debt relationship, may be correct.l" When bns appears in construct with other nouns, a similar situation is assumed, that the individual in question was engaging in the payment of debt to another person or institution in that administrative situation. In every case, it makes sense to understand the bns in question as someone in debt to another. It is also possible that a simple work relationship is implied by the use of this term. Either way, it is clear that the individual(s) in question are obligated to perform work for the individual to whom they are referred to in construct. Whether that obligation is justified based on wages or whether it is justified based on debt obligation is unclear. There is no evidence that this expression refers to a distinct class of people. In this study, bns mlk shall be understood to refer to individuals engaging in work for the palace (either because of debt or to gain some sort of payment), without further connotations of class or social status.

of "vassal" at an individual level.40 He bases this argument partially on KTU 1.5 II 12, where Baal is called an 'bd to Yarnm.t! In this case, 'bd has a precise technical meaning, referring to a subordinate who must offer tribute to his superior. There are possibly different uses of 'bd at Ugarit in different contexrs.v' KTU 4.35, line II 2 uses the word 'bdm as a heading, preceding a list of personal names. In these situations, 'bd is used as a professional designation, like tnnm or nsktIt. KTU 4.71:III 10, KTU 4.126: 13, and KTU 4.320 show similar uses. In these texts, the 'bdm, contextually seem more akin to a professional group than to a social group. They are listed among other occupational groups and individuals listed as 'bdm are listed according to name, patronym, or area of origin - the same means of describing individuals of other occupations. Other references reflect a meaning of the term 'bdm that seems less like a designation of a formal occupation, and more reflects a usage derived from household terminologyf" In KTU 4.195: 9, a location called bt 'bdm is mentioned. KTU 4.636 is an account of amounts of rations given (or allotted) to 'bdm and animals. The uses of the Akkadian equivalent, wardum, only adds to the ambiguity. The word in Akkadian can refer to a slave or dependent servant at the household level. It can express a situation of dependence or subordination. It can also reflect a more formal class division, in conjunction with auiilum and muskenum. 44 As it stands, it is best to understand the Ugaritic word 'bdm as referring to a lower status individual, although not a fixed class akin to Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Translations should use either slave or servant, depending on the basis of the subordination (slavery for debt-based subordination and service for occupation-base subordination). In the absence of a secure context that allows the basis of subordination to be determined, the Ugaritic term 'bdm itself should be retained.

'bd Difficult for interpretation is the Ugaritic word 'bd, which is morphologically equivalent to the Hebrew word 'ebed, and can be understood as slave or servant. This same semantic ambiguity is inherent in the Ugaritic data as well. In the polyglot (Ug. 5 137), 'bd is equivalent to Sumerian fR and Akkadian ardu. 35 The general sense of this word is not difficult or problematic. It either means slave or servant, or both. 36 The question is whether or not 'bd refers to a distinct class of people, or whether it just indicates a subordinate labor position. Heltzer believes that 'bdm are the royal workers but are not slaves in the class sense.V Widbin is more specific in his suggestion that they are "professional agricultural workers."38 Liverani, on the other hand, understands the word as "servant."39 Greenfield argues that the word 'bd was used to express the notion

32

34

Another word, which at first glance has an obvious meaning, but has caused confusion in studies of the Ugaritic economy, is b'l. The meaning of this word (when not representing the deity) is typically taken as "lord."45 Other meanings typically understood for this word (and its West Semitic cognates) revolve around concepts of possession, mastery, or domination. This is the semantic range of its use at Ugarit.

Rowe 2002, p. 17.

The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) N2, p. 56. Rowe 2002, p. 17. 35 The equivalence of Ugaritic 'bd with Akkadian ardu is further evidence that Heltzer's equation of ardiMES Iarri and bns mlk, Heltzer 1982, p. 3, cannot be upheld. See the discussion under bni mlk. 36 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 139. 37 Heltzer 1982, p. 64. 38 Widbin 1985, p. 431. 39 Liverani 1989, p. 129. 33

bel

Greenfield 2001, p. 903. Greenfield 2001, p. 901. 42 This word is also a frequent component of Ugaritic personal names, and in these situations acts as a term denoting a relationship between two entities that is semantically the same as the relationships referred to when 'bd is used outside of the context of personal names. 43 Schloen 2001, p. 256 n.1. 44 See Roth 1997, p. 268. 45 Huehnergard 1987, p. 114. 40

41

96

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin associate b'l with a verbal from of the same root that appears in the G stem and the S-stem. 46 As a verbal form, del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin suggest that this word means: "to make, manufacture; to work".47 They cite KTU 1.17 VI 24, which describes the construction of bows, and KTU 4.182: 56, which describes the activities of the mbf (see below for this term).48 Both of these activities are specialized craft activities, which is in keeping with the general semantic range described for b'l above where an individual is described as a "master" of a particular raw material. Their suggestion that b'l can mean "labourer, unskilled labourer" is possible, but it is more likely that it reflects some sort of specialist artisan.t? The confusion about this word comes from its use in census lists at Ugarit. Under the heading of a particular personal name, b'l is frequently listed as a member within that household. Clearly in the subordinate context implied by the relative positioning of the title to the individual listed by name, the semantic range of master or possessor is more difficult. Heltzer attempted to solve this problem by reading the word in a general sense of workmen. 50 This reading is not based on any data other than conjecture. Pardee, in a personal communication to Schloen, argues for a slightly different understanding of the word." The word is taken, in the contexts of the census lists, as an abbreviation for b'l au - which would translate as "owner of a wife" and therefore would be the same as "husband". This is the best understanding of the term in the census lists, and solves the problem of the word's sense in its textual contexts, although is itself based mostly on conjecture. The use of the word b'l in KTU 4.153 is also worth discussing in detail. This is a list of personal names, followed by the expression b'l plus a term for textile, either b'! au or b'! SSlmt. KTU 4.609 lines 35-36 list personal names after the occupational categories b'l tdtt and b'l tgppn. In both cases, the use of b'l in construct with another word indicates occupational specialization related to the second word. KTU 4.224 has an obscure reference; line 6 reads: "b'l br[t]," perhaps with similar connotations. KTU 4.647: 7 describes someone as b'! any, best understood as "captain of a ship." A more difficult use of this term is found in KTU 4.15, where under the heading bt il, ten lines follow in the form: b'l bt PN. Yet, when one translates these passages assuming a semantic range of master, owner, or possessor, interpretation is not difficult (i.e., "owner/master of a house"). As such then, the term b'l should be understood as indicating an individual who either possesses or dominates another person or thing.

46 47 48 49

50 51

Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin Heltzer 1976b, p. 89. Schloen 2001, p. 327.

2004, 2004, 2004, 2004,

p. 205. pp. 205-206. p. 205. p. 205.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

97

n'r

Another term appearing in the census lists is n'r. 52 There seem to be two general senses as to its meaning. It is sometimes suggested that the word refers to young men (the age of the men being the important information),53 and at other times it is suggested that it refers to some sort of fighting force or type of warrior. 54 The two uses of the term are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and it may mean different things in different contexts. It is important to discuss the semantic possibilities within the differing contexts. In the census lists, n'r appears alongside of the feminine form n'rt. In the census list contexts, these words appear as members of the household in a subordinate position to the named head of the household. This suggests that the terms refer to youths, or at least younger members of the household. Schloen points out that terms for unmarried, adolescent sons and daughters are better described by the attested gzr and pi! respectively, and adult children are bn and bt respectively.55 From this, Schloen argues that n'r and its variant forms (i.e., n'rt) refer to retainers of either sex and not the biological offspring of the head of the household. 56 This use of the term would also make sense for the textual situations in which n'r follows another occupational heading. In short, the n'r is some kind of assistant to the previously noted individual. In the military contexts of the usage of n'r, the word appears frequently in lists, after (or in reference to) other military occupations, most notably the maryannu, as in KTU 4.179. In this context, the meaning "assistant" makes good sense.57 It is equally possible that n'r in these lists refers to the actual biological offspring of the individual holding the better understood occupation. The word also appears without reference to other occupational categories in occupationallists. KTU 4.68: 60 lists n'rm along with other, better understood occupational categories. KTU 4.126 and 4.745 provide similar contexts for the use of this word. The word n'r seems to have a distinct meaning within the household as well. KTU 4.102 is a census list. The household mentioned in line 8 has two n'rm. Whether or not the n'rm mentioned in KTU 4.367:7 are members of a distinct occupational category, are individuals with a particular household status, or both is unclear. In conclusion, n'r is best understood as a young individual. The individual in question may be a young member of the household, who is not biological kin, but perhaps 52 This word should not be confused with its homonym, which is a type of flour, Pardee 2002c, p.107. 53 Dahood 1968, pp. 365-366; Rainey 1965a, p. 11; Virolleaud 1939, p. 62. 54 Cutler and MacDonald 1977, p. 17; Rainey 1965a, p. 21; 1975, pp. 98-99. 55 Schloen 2001, p. 324. 56 Schloen 2001, p. 324. 57 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 616.

98

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARlT1C ECONOMY

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

fulfilling debt obligations or acting in a serving capacity. In other situations, the n'r is best understood as a retainer or assistant, especially when listed in connection with occupational categories. In general, the word is used in situations where a relationship of dependence is emphasized over other characteristics.

adrt The form adrt is minimally attested at Ugarit. However, its appearance in the census text KTU 4.102 is notable. The purpose of this text, apparently, was to enumerate the dependent household members in specific households (identified by the patrimonial figure). In lines 4,9, 16, and 28, the word adrt appears after the word att (presumably since lines 4 and 9 are broken). The syntax suggests a construct formation, but it is unclear what part of speech adrt is. Rainey has suggested that the word should be understood as "noble" thereby giving the two words a meaning of "noble wife."58 The translation "noble" is somewhat problematic, given the specific feudal connotations, but perhaps the term "pre-eminent" captures the prestige of the individual without reference to historically specific class designations. This translation also well reflects the semantic range of this word as an adjective, which seems to connote high quality. 59 Another possibility, related to the general semantic range of this word is suggested by Macdonald and Tropper. Macdonald argues that this refers to "a woman of maturity", and Tropper suggests "alte Freute",60 Since the text in question is a census of Cypriotes living at Ugarit, the term might be better understood as specifically referring to Aegean social contexts.v' The question of what this word means in the census lists is not answered completely by these suggestions. A number of possible meanings can be postulated: a widowed mother; a senior wife (perhaps implying polygamy); an important woman; or simply an old lady. Given the census context, it seems likely that this figure is a dependent and not the head of a household or a woman of particular ranked importance and since no other wives are associated, it is unlikely evidence for polygamy. The term most likely refers to a widowed mother, or an older woman (perhaps an aunt of the head of the household) who is a dependent.

The words bbt. and bN as attested in the alphabetic texts at Ugarit should be understood as cognates of the Akkadian bubt.u. This social designation, bubt.u is found in Akkadian sources of the Bronze Age, in Amarna letters, Nuzi documents, and Assyrian literature. It is generally understood as either a professional name or class designation.f In the Amarna letters, the bupsu own land. 63 At Alalakh, the bupsu are a specific class of people, one subsection of a group called the fabe name. 64 Von Dassow's discussion of the role of this group at Alalakh is helpful, as it incorporates evidence from Ugarit. She sees bupsu as a class term. 65 It consisted of a large class of "peasants" who engaged in agriculture, paid taxes, and could be obligated to provide labor or military service to the crown.P'' Von Dassow bases this suggestion partly on some of the non-economic texts at Ugarit. She discusses the bubt.u's role as one of the major groups of people in Kirta's army, in KTU 1.14: II 37-38.67 A Ugaritic letter, KTU 2.17:1-3, mentions the need to pay the bubt.u.68 It is important to discuss the role of this group in the Ugaritic economic texts, as there is not much scholarship on this category in the economic texts. Heltzer does not make much comment about this group, other than, "they were among the lower strata of the non-slave population.P" Schloen suggests that bbt. "seems to denote a low-ranking person or dependent who nonetheless has a family of his own; i.e., a married client."?" The bbt. represent a similar social position as the n'r, with the major distinction being that bbt. have families, and n'r do not, according to Schloen." Since both terms are found in census lists, they should not be understood as equivalent terms, but rather terms that both imply a level of dependence. The spelling bbt. is found in two alphabetic economic texts - KTU 4.360 and KTU 4.430. KTU 4.360 is a census document. One household is listed as containing one bubtu. KTU 4.430 records the locations of certain people, one of whom is a bubt.~. Unfortunately this text is too fragmentary to be very useful. The alternative spelling, bpt. is more frequent, but still not that common especially compared to its attestation at Alalakh. The word is found in KTU 4.351, but this text is too fragmentary for useful translation. KTU 3.82 has one mention of bpt.. Line 25 reads bn agpt. bpt. d [ytb] b S'rt, describing that a certain individual, a bN, is dwelling in a certain 62 63

Rainey 1965a, p. 11. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, pp. 22-23. 60 Macdonald 1978, p. 167; Trapper 2000, p. 840. 61 The same sense in a non-Aegean context may be reflected in the use of the word alit.. Watson, 1985, p. 534, takes this as a Hurrian term for "lady". However, it is better underst~od as a deity n~e, rather than a social designation (see del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, ~. 53) In .the context of Its attested use. It is possible that a social designation is used in reference to a deity, but without other attestations, this cannot be proved with certainty.

99

58

64

59

65 66 67 68 69

70 71

Mendelsohn 1941, p. 37. Mendelsohn 1941, p. 37. Mendelsohn 1955, p. 9. Von Dassow 1997, p. 393. Von Dassow 1997, pp. 393-394. Von Dassow 1997, pp. 393-394. Von Dassow 1997, pp. 393-394. Heltzer 1982, p. 76. Schloen 2001, p. 327. Schloen 2001, p. 327.

100

101

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

location. None of this evidence is particularly compelling. The OPt. do not seem to make up a significant portion ofUgaritic society in Ugarit's final days, at least from an administrative perspective. Perhaps this is a group that disappears through Ugarit's history - the literary and epistolary references may represent unusual or anachronistic situations.

and for the individual to be managed by a superior." The use of these designations at Ugarit is contingent upon who was recording what data at what time. In other words, it is not assumed a priori, that the designation of someone through an occupational category held the same kind of weight in identity articulation as it does in modern, Western contexts. However, following Durkheim, it is important to recognize the possibility that the identification of an individual with a particular occupational category may act as a primary means of integrating that individual into society at large.78 Indeed, at Ugarit, it may have been the individual's occupational role that connected him or her to other Ugaritians beyond the kinship level. Indeed, here is another form of identification distinct from Schloen's PHM. What is discussed in the following sections are those occupational designations that are not widely agreed upon, or those terms where it is felt that it is important to emphasize certain nuances of meaning for the reconstruction ofUgaritic economic modalities. So words like mrjrglm (guards, military workers/"), J!rm (potters'"), and tnnm (archers, warriors'") will not be discussed here.

gzr Rainey and Heltzer have both understood this term to refer to some sort of male youth, with heroic or military overtones.F Miller states that "most if not alL the examples in Ugaritic are the nominal form gzr, meaning "hero, valiant one, warrior" and perhaps sometimes "youth".73 Rainey cites the use of this term in the Kirta story to describe one of Kirta's sons who went on a mission for him, where hero or youth could both make sense.74 The word gzr is very infrequent in administrative texts; however, in these contexts the meaning "hero" is unlikely. It is only attested in KTU 4.102, which is a census list. From the literary uses of the term, as well as its appearance in this solitary administrative document, Schloen argues that the word refers to an unmarried adolescent son, as opposed to a married son, for which the term bn is used. 75 This makes good sense, and that meaning is assumed in this study./" The frequency of this word in literary texts considered with the infrequency of the word in administrative documents suggests that perhaps this word had fallen out of common use at Ugarit towards the final years of the city, the period when the bulk of administrative documents were written. This kind of argument from silence can only be taken as a suggestion though; there is not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. TERMINOLOGY OF OCCUPATIONAL DESIGNATIONS

Before launching into an analysis of individual terms for different occupations, it is important to discuss the conception of occupation employed here. It is not viewed as a static category, of which an individual either is or is not. Occupational designations represent specific modes of understanding identity at one particular moment, and following Weber are categories that describe the functions of an individual within a larger productive unit, which allow both opportunities for the individual to earn income Rainey 1965a, p. II; Heltzer 1987, p. 245. Miller equates this Ugaritic word with the Hebrew root *'-z-r, Miller 1970, p. 160. 74 Rainey 1963, p. 67. 75 Schloen 2001, pp. 324-325. 76 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 329, provide translation values of this word that correspond to Schloens as well as Heltzer's and Rainey's. Vaughn, 1993, p. 424, reading it in the literary contexts, takes it as hero or warrior. 72

73

skn The word skn at Ugarit is universally understood to refer to a prominent official. Various translations are offered for this type of official such as prefecr.F The vocalization sakinu is also not controversial. Van Soldt has successfully argued that skn, sdkinu, sakin mati, sakinnu; and MASKIM all refer to the same office by comparing uses of different spellings in the same texts or in parallel texts. 83 This is a very important point since the relationship between these words had never been convincingly demonstrated. The precise responsibilities of the sakinu at Ugarit are somewhat difficult to identify. There was doubtless more than one sdkinu at any given time in Ugarit, each answering to different authorities at different times. Singer states that this official: "had plenipotentiary powers in top state matters, in the legal, diplomatic, and commercial realms and was particularly involved in the foreign affairs of the kingdom."84 According to Schloen, the responsibilities of these officials "were broad and ill defined."85 Van Soldt offers more specific observations on the responsibilities of the sakinu. 86 He states that

Weber 1978, p. 122. Durkheim 1984, p. 201. 79 Astour 1972, p. 13; Cutler and MacDonald 1977, p. 17; Heltzer 1982, pp. 115-121; and Watson 1995a, p. 538. 80 Heltzer 1982, p. II; Huehnergard 1987, p. 134; and Vita 1999, p. 491. 81 Cutler and MacDonald 1976, p. 34 (although in contrast with Cutler and MacDonald 1977, p. 26); Heltzer 1982, p. 107; Huehnergard 1987, p. 187; and Widbin 1985, p. 93. 82 Huehnergard 1987, p. 157. 83 Van Soldt 2001, pp. 585-586. 84 Singer 1983, p. 15. 85 Schloen 2001, p. 253. 86 Van Soldt 2002, p. 827. 77

78

102

103

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

this is the highest non-royal office in the kingdom of Ugarit. 87 The siikinu had mr' under his authority, gave legal decisions, and provided security for messengers.Y Outside of the siikinu's authority were real estate transactions and participation in international matters.f" Following Schloen, it seems that a siikinu operated as a representative of whichever royal government official they were described in reference to. 90 The siikinu was an emblem of royal authority in different spheres of administrative life. The roles of the siikinu in the facilitation of the circulation of goods are noteworthy for this study. Monroe has identified three "commercial" activities of the siikinu: "he oversaw the kiiru overseer; he controlled the imposition of commercial taxes; and he brokered the incoming requests of foreigners who sought business with the Ugarit palace."91 Monroe bases this argument on his reading of a number of syllabic letters written to the siikinu that involve these kinds of activities.i? Certainly these activities are attested in these letters; what is uncertain is how formal these responsibilities were. The evidence for the siikinu participating in these activities is meager, and it seems to reflect the role of this office as a general manifestation of royal authority, rather than as an office with rigidly formulated responsibilities. Schloen may be right in juxtaposing the office of siikinu with the office of bazannu. 93 The bazannu was a leader whose authority derived from his relationship to local elites, rather than the king, whereas the siikinu was explicitly associated with the king. 94 The bazannu then, would have been the head of the village administration at the local level. In Schloen's view of the kingdom of Ugarit, as a decentralized kingdom organized through nested levels of patrimonial authority, the local bazannu would have had considerable power, and likely the villages were only minimally administered through the direct authority of the king. 95 Schloen's reconstruction of the separate roles of these two individuals better fits a Two-sector approach than a PHM approach.

discussion.?" The word appears as mryn in the alphabetic script and as maryannu in the syllabic script. 97 The most frequent appearance of this word is in occupation lists: PRU 6 93 (RS 17.131), KTU 4.69, KTU 4.126, KTU 4.173, KTU 4.174, KTU 4.179, KTU 4.232 and KTU 4.416. It also appears in construct with LUGAL (PRU 3 79ff (RS 16.239), and PRU 3 140ff (RS 16.132)), indicating a connection

mryn The problem of the exact definition of the mryn in Syro-Palestine is well recognized. Given the importance of this occupational category in the administrative documents at Ugarit, it is important to clarify certain issues about this group at Ugarit. Larger issues about the mryn will be set aside for now, but readers are advised to see von Dassow's

with the king. As long ago as 1910, Winckler argued that this term is derived from Indo-European, and related to the Vedic word for youth. 98 Later scholars have frequently followed this view.''? Von Dassow has raised important arguments against the Indo-Aryan origins of this group of people, though, and these reservations need to be taken seriously.l'" She argues that equipment used in horse-drawn chariotry is found in the Near East in levels predating possible movements of Indo-Aryan groups into the region, which indicates that this technology developed locally''" The linguistic evidence, according to von Dassow, likewise does not indicate a movement of Indo-Aryan chariot warriors into the region during the Late Bronze Age. While the Indo-Aryan etymology of the term (mdrya) is not often debated.P? von Dassow does suggest that Indo-Aryan words attested in cuneiform scripts are actually fossilized forms preserved in Hurrian from prior contactls) with Indo-Aryan speakers. According to von Dassow, these linguistic elements do not reflect a living language. For von Dassow then, since there is no explicit connection between Indo-Aryan groups and chariot technology in the LB Near East and no demonstrable movement of an Indo-Aryan population to the region, the mryn should not be considered an invading class of Indo-Aryan chariot warriors.P" The evidence linking the mryn with chariot equipment is quite strong. Scholars of Ugarit have normally understood this word as "charioteer" or at least originally related to this kind of military equipment. Huehnergard translates this word as "charioteer."104 Heltzer argues that mryn were individuals who owed military obligations to the king in the form of chariot service.P'' Rainey reiterates previous translations of the term as "noble chariot-warrior."106 That mryn were involved in chariot service is clear from a number of textual sources. Rainey notes that PRU 3 192ff (RS 12.34 +12.43) lists chariots in the possession of certain individuals some of whom are clearly designated Von Dassow 1997, pp. 258-331. See Huehnergard 1987, p. 149 for other spellings. 98 Winckler 1910, pp. 291-298. 99 For example, see Huehnergard 1987, p. 149; Rainey 1965a, p. 19. 100 Von Dassow 1997, pp. 261-267. 101 Von Dassow 1997, p. 263. 102 Von Dassow 1997, p. 261; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 580. For disagreements, see Diakonoff 1972a, pp. 115-116; and Kammenhuber 1968, p. 233. 103 Von Dassow 1997, p. 267. 104 Huehnergard 1987, p. 149. 105 Heltzer 1982, pp. 111-115. 106 Rainey 1965a, p. 19. 96 97

87 88 89 90 91

92

93 94 95

Van Soldt 2002, p. 827. Van Soldt 2002, p. 827. Van Soldt 2002, p. 827. Schloen 2001, p. 253. Monroe 2000, p. 199. See Monroe 2000, pp. 197-201 for his discussion of these texts. Schloen 2001, pp. 252-253. Schloen 2001, p. 252. Schloen 2001, p. 252.

104

105

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

as maryannu. 107 Rainey also discusses the Memphis Stele, where Amenhotep II records his capture of maryannu with their chariots.l'" Rainey also lists AT (Alalakh Text) 131, from Alalakh, which lists maryannu who had chariots and those that did not. 109 That there were circumstances were maryannu were associated with chariots is uncontestable. The question ,now is whether or not this association with chariots was in fact the defining feature of this group. Vita has argued that maryannu were not chariot soldiers, and that it is better to think of them as a social group. 110 Von Dassow makes a similar argument, stating: "The social class termed maryanni was an upper class, the "nobility" whose most characteristic feature was the possession and use of chariots ... »rn Von Dassow associates the appearance of this social class at Alalakh with the incorporation ofAlalakh into the Mitanni empire. 112 According to von Dassow, this group was a social class associated with chariot warfare, who could also hold other positions.U" While non- maryannu could drive chariots in battle, at Alalakh, only maryannu could own them.U" At Ugarit, von Dassow points out, chariot service was part of the pilku dues (see below) owed by the maryannu to the king. 115 As has been noted above, the most common appearance of this term at Ugarit is in occupation lists. In the Akkadian texts, the term is found in a number of interesting contexts. It has already been noted that the term appears in lists of owners/possessors of chariots (PRU 3 192ff (RS 12.34 +12.43)). A particularly interesting syllabic text recounts an individual's elevation to the status of maryannu (PRU 3 140ff (RS 16.132)). The term also appears in the alphabetic texts. KTU 4.103 lists the ubdy of the mryn along with the ubdy of other professions. Individual ubdy holders are listed beneath the designation of occupation. KTU 4.137 records that thirteen mryn were quartered in the palace, along with numerous other military personnel. Likewise, KTU 4.163 lists nineteen mryn living at the palace. In KTU 4.149, wine is listed as having been delivered to mryn quartered in the palace. KTU 4.230 also records wine delivered to the mryn. The appearance of mryn in KTU 4.173, KTU 4.174, KTU 4.179, alongside other military personnel, further suggests that this group did in fact have a military function. KTU 4.377 is a list of equipment. In line 34 there may be a reference to harnesses held by the mryn. Von Dassow's approach to the maryannu seems the most consistent with the evidence. Since the king was able to elevate individuals from lower social stations to the

position of maryannu (see PRU 3 140ff (RS 16.132)), this position must not have been contingent on previously held specialized skills. More likely, it reflects an elevated social standing that allowed individuals to use their own or the palace's chariot while engaging in military service, a much preferable military role than that of the foot soldier. Although Schloen has leveled criticism at von Dassow's conception of rigid social hierarchy at Alalakh, it seems that von Dassow's arguments at the very least reflect the best emic understanding of the role of the maryannu at both Alalakh and Ugarit.U" This study shall assume that the maryannu were an elevated social group, who typically offered their pilku as chariot based military service.

107 108 109 110 111 112

l13 114 115

Rainey 1965a, p. 19. Rainey 1965a, p. 19. Rainey 1965a, p. 19. Vita 1999, p. 465. Von Dassow 1997, p. 258. Von Dassow 1997, p. 268. Von Dassow 1997, pp. 269, 286. Von Dassow 1997, p. 331. Von Dassow 1997, p. 309.

bdl Many suggestions have been made for the definition of the word bdl. The most frequent interpretation is that the word refers to some type of merchant. There are, however, numerous propositions for alternative understandings, and those other interpretations shall be discussed as well. The form bdl is not attested per se in Akkadian, but is equated in the polyglots with the Sumerogram DAM.GAR.MES, which is understood as some kind of "trader" or "merchant."!'? The etymology of the word is unclear, although a similar form (ba-da-lum) is attested at Ebla, and there is a word in Arabic (bad(d)ala) that means "to exchange."118 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin base their interpretation of this word, as "substitute, reserve personnel," on the attestation at Ebla. 119 Heltzer's suggestion that the word is formed from the contraction of bd (meaning "in the hand of") and I (meaning "to") cannot be upheld for a number of reasonsl?", and subsequently his suggestion that it means "into the hands of" has not been accepted. 121 Translations of "trader" or "merchant" are by far the most common interpretation of bdl.122 The difficulties with this proposition seem to be two-fold. First, bdl are consistently listed as auxiliary personnel of other occupations.P" However, Pardee's understanding of bdl is instructive for this problem. Pardee states that bdl are "some

Schloen 2001, p. 304. Huehnergard 1987, p. 112. 118 Huehnergard 1987, p. 112. 119 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 217. 120 Some of the reasons that this cannot be are as follows. The preposition bd is already a contraction of the preposition b and the word for hand yd, Sivan 1997, p. 198, and it is unlikely that a second preposition was further added into the form. While it is frequent for nouns to take on the grammatical role of preposition, it seems unusual to posit a reverse formation, in which prepositions take on a nominal function. Since the form is attested in Eblaite, there is no need to postulate a Ugaritic morphological environment as its original formative context. 121 Heltzer 1999b, p. 433. 122 Astour 1972, p. 12; Rainey 1963, p. 136-137; Widbin 1985, p. 332. 123 Heltzer 1999b, p. 433. 116

117

106

107

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

kind of 'commercial agents' whose role was to serve the economic interests of the group to which they were attached."124 He bases this assertion on the equivalence of bdl with DAM.G.AR.MES in the polyglots as well as the appearance of bdl in lists in subservient positions to other occupational groups. The notion of commercial agents working for other kinds of occupational groups is not unheard of in antiquiry.'P This definition, commercial agent, seems like the best understanding of the word here. Commercial agent does not necessarily imply (or rule out) that the bdlm engaged in buying and selling for profit, but rather that they functioned to procure or distribute goods on behalf of certain groups. The second problem, which is a bit more difficult, concerns Heltzer's calculations about the number of bdlm. In his view, bdl made up more than 1/3 of the population. 126 This figure seems to be unreasonably high, but the fact that bdl is frequently attested is problematic. Schloen's reading of bdl would solve the problem of the high number of attested bdlm. He interprets this group of people to be assistants, deputies, or helpers. 127 They were "landless dependents of certain land-holding royal servicemen (bunusu malki) who were acting as substitutes for their masters."128 Schloen argues two lines of analysis that lead to this translation. His first line of reasoning does not involve positing a Semitic etymology for this word, but rather to look to Hurrian.F? He follows Rowe's suggestion 130 that the word should be broken down into a Hurrian root (P/bid(d)), which means "to help," and the Hurrian occupational suffix.l3l After accepting the Hurrian etymology (with a semantic range involving helping and assistance) Schloen establishes the subordinate class of the bdl through comparison with occupational lists at Alalakh. 132 In the Alalakh lists, the equivalent of Ugaritic bdlbiddallenni (based on Kilmer's equation)133 appear to either be synonymous to or are a sub-class of the baniabbe. 134 Schloen suggests that baniabbe is the Hurrian term for Old Babylonian mulkenu since they are described as landless in Akkadian texts at Ugarit. 135 Thus, the Ugaritic bdl were roughly equivalent to the mulkenu class. The word mulkenu is not well understood, but it is frequently attested in Hammurabi's Code as a class of people subordinate to atoilum but above slaves.

Schloen's other line of reasoning is based on the attestation of this word at Ebla, although it is inconsistent with his proposed Hurrian etymology for the word. He notes that Archi no longer understands the term as merchant, but prefers "representative" or "vizier."136 If bdl can be associated with the use at Ebla, then this is further proof that the bdlm were assistants. And when bdl and tamkaru are found together at Ugarit, it does not suggest an equation, but rather a gloss to clarify that these particular bdl are helpers to merchants. There are a few problems with Schloen's argument. Ugaritic .bdl and Hurrian biddallenni are likely equivalent. But biddallenni is not necessarily equivalent to muikenu or baniabbe. The evidence from the lists is very unclear and contradictory. Further problematic is the fact that both of these designations are not well understood. The contexts of the Ugaritic attestations of this word are the most important evidence for its meaning. In KTU 4.69, bdl are listed as components of occupational categories. In line III 6, they are listed as bdl mrynm. In line VI 17, they are similarly associated with mrjrglm. Both attestations follow immediately after their respective, associated group and each type of bdl has an associated list of personal names beneath it. KTU 4.232 lists bdlm by themselves, amongst the other occupational categories. KTU 4.85 contains a reference to the bdl qrty. In this case, the bdlm are associated with a particular geographic area. Similarly, KTU 4.96 lists: bdl gt bn tUn. In this case, the bdlm are associated with a smaller geographic unit, agt. KTU 4.214 also lists bdlm, defined by their relationship to a geographic region. Here, bdlm from ar are listed who do not have some sort of military escort. A group of bdlm from the same location, but presumably who had a military escort, is listed starting in line III 1 of the same text. The most probable definition of this term remains Pardee's suggestion of "commercial agent."137 This translation makes sense of both the context of the word's use in the Ugaritic economic texts and with the attested equivalent in the polyglot, DAM.GAR.MES. The bdlm were associated with occupational groups or geographic regions. The bdlm may have had access to military accompaniments, but since this is known only in one text, that may have represented a unique situation.

Pardee states 2000b, p. 74. In the accounts ofXenophon, traders are brought along on a military expedition with the military. See also the discussion of Zettler's analysis of Dr III Temple of Inanna at Nippur in Chapter Two for another analogous situation. 126 Heltzer I999b, p. 433. 127 Schloen 200 I, p. 228. 128 Schloen 2001, p. 228. 129 Schloen 200!, p. 227. 130 Rowe 1998, p. 372. 131 Schloen 2001, p. 227. 132 Schloen 2001, p. 227. 133 Kilmer 1959, p. 234. 134 Schloen 200!, p. 227. 135 Schloen 2001, p. 227. 124 125

mkr Unlike bdl, the term mkr meets with very little controversy. Astour, Heltzer, and Widbin all agree that the word, as it appears in Ugaritic economic texts, should be translated as merchant.P" Huehnergard suggests that its verbal form is based on a Semitic root that was loaned into Sumerian (DAM.GAR) from the Akkadian

136 137 138

Schloen 2001, p. 227. Pardee 2000c, p. 74. Astour 1972, p. II; Heltzer I999b, p. 440; Widbin 1985, p. 332.

109

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

tamktiru. 139 He notes along with this though, that the root "m-k-r is unusual in Akkadian and must have fallen out of use.140 KTU 4.369 lists amounts of tribute paid in silver by groups of mkr. Here mkr are labeled as mkr of particular geographic regions. Similarly, the mkrm in MO 47 are associated with specific locations: Ashkelon and Cyprus. This text records that the mkrm of these two regions traded ebony and certain types of garments for amounts of oil. KTU 4.27 probably lists the amounts of mkr in particular geographic regions, although the reading mkrm is uncertain. This word also appears in lists of occupational categories, as in KTU 4.36, KTU 4.126, KTU 4.173, KTU 4.174, KTU 4.207, KTU 4.214, and KTU 4.745. In KTU 4.38, mkrm appear, alongside other occupational categories, in a list of quantities of flour, silver, and sheep. KTU 4.263 is titled spr mkrm, listing personal names with measures of unspecified goods. In KTU 4.68, mkrm are listed as having contributed one archer, along with other occupational groups and geographic regions. In KTU 4.179, the mkrm may be credited with contributing one burtidu. KTU 4.163 records that thirteen mkrm reside in the palace. The attested uses of mkr at Ugarit support its identification as "merchant" or "commercial agent".

not impose on him custom-duties."142 Heltzer's translation only makes sense if one understands the role of the "customer" as a tax-collector (perhaps an English language error is involved). This view is especially problematic since other scholars uncritically follow Heltzer's view. In this case, Widbin while not explicitly citing Heltzer, translates the same term as "Customer" (with a capital "C").143 Vita correctly bases his understanding of this word on its meaning in other Akkadian contexts, translating it as 'tax collector.T'" The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary lists attestations of mdkisu from the Old Akkadian to the Neo-Assyrian stages of Akkadian, all of which 'refer to a tax collector of some sort. 145 Ellis states that this term certainly dates from-the Old Babylonian Period. 146 The sheer volume of evidence for this meaning is overwhelming and convincing. The problem here is that the occupation of mdkisu is attested in some marginal references at Ugarit - in expressions of good will or in isolated situations where an individual is described as a mdkisu. Does this mean that the occupation of tax collector existed at Ugarit, but is not mentioned in administrative documents? If taxation was farmed out to private individuals then this is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Perhaps it reflects an occupational obligation to the palace, an obligation that English speakers would associate with 'tax collector' even though no emic term as such existed at Ugarit. Or, does it suggest that the references to the mdkisu come from an earlier time than the administrative documents and by the time of Ugarit's destruction, this role was anachronistic?

108

makisu Discussion of this Akkadian word may seem inappropriate in the context of this discussion on alphabetic Ugaritic words, but the lack of alphabetic equivalent for this word is problematic. In Akkadian, this word reflects an office or occupation of tax collector. It is found in syllabic texts at Ugarit: PRU 3 15ff (RS 15.33); PRU 4 196ff (RS 17.78); RS 17.232; and RS 17.314. The usage of this term in these texts is clear. In PRU 3 15ff (RS 15.33) the term appears with the U) determinative in front of it (line 27), and the line reads: la-a LU-ma-ki-su lu-u l[a] i-ma-ki-su, "let not the tax collector levy taxes against him." In this case it is clear that the mdkisu occupation and the tax itself are related. A similar statement is made in PRU 4 196ff (RS 17.78), where the tax collector is mentioned explicitly in relationship to the tax imposed. Neither of these references reflects an actual event, but rather are gestures of good will in the letters. A mdkisu appears as a witness in PRU 4 239 (RS 17.232). This does not help to establish the role of the mdkisu, but it does attest to its existence at one point in time at Ugarit. Likewise, a mdkisu is attested in PRU 4 189 (RS 17.314) but in a fragmentary section of the text, and nothing about his activities can be discerned. Heltzer translates this word as "customer.t'l"! Here Heltzer has created a word for the individual who collects customs dues, since he bases his understanding of this word on PRU 4 196ff (RS 17.78). There he translates: "The customer (mtikisu) shall

md There has been next to no agreement on the meaning of the word md that frequently appears in occupational lists. Huehnergard's analysis of this word emphasizes its Akkadian origins. He reads it as an Akkadian loanword, specifically a participle of the root idit.147 However, he is uncertain of the exact meaning of the word, offering "official" or "courtier" as possibilities.U" Certainly mudit is well attested in Akkadian; The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary argues that it describes an individual who has knowledge or is an expert. 149 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin also translate md with terminology describing an individual possessing expertise, but add a connotation that this constitutes a formal

142 143 144 145 146

139 140 141

Huehnergard 1987, p. 147. Huehnergard 1987, p. 146. Heltzer 1982, pp. 146, 152.

147 148 149

Heltzer 1982, p. 146. Widbin 1985, p. 412. Vita 1999, p. 474. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) Mil, pp. 129-130. Ellis 1976, p. 60. Huehnergard 1987, p. 145. Huehnergard 1987, p. 144. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) M/2, pp. 164-167.

111

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

group. ISO If this reading is accurate, it is still left to understand how this term was understood in Ugaritic, and what formal role this occupational category had. Numerous suggestions have been made, especially for the meaning of the word when it is in construct with another. Gray's argument that the md was a cultic official, described by a term derived from the root *m-d-d, is no longer seriously considered. lSI Heltzer translates md when' it is in construct with mlk as "friend of the king, " and relates this word to the Akkadian mudit. IS2 No etymology is given, but it should be assumed that he is in agreement with Huehnergard. Monroe also agrees with this reading, explicitly relating the word to the Akkadian term e/idft. I S3 For Monroe, this term indicated that an individual: "carried exemption from taxes and access to more information."IS4 Monroe's definition of md as a term designating relationships as opposed to an occupation cannot be upheld given the prominent place of md in occupational lists recovered from Ugarit. Vita has suggested that the md is a scribe, and when it is construct with a village name, refers to the village scribe. ISS He offers no argument for this translation, but follows Sanmartin.P" Sanmartin argues that this word derives from the Akkadian mudit. I S7 The primary evidence that Sanmartin cites for the role of mudft as scribe comes from the appearance of this term in relation to other words for scribe, especially Zf.IB.BAR.RD. IS 8 Clemens demonstrates that this term cannot necessarily be equated with sipiiru, as this is not a typical phonological shift. ls9 Since words for scribe are relatively infrequent at Ugarit, according to Sanmartin, this reading is likely.160 This does not adequately take into account the use of the term spr at Ugarit, however.l'i' Pardee rejects this scribal theory, and suggests that a md is some local representative of the royal administration.I'f This fits with Heltzer's observation that a king makes an individual a md.163 Libolt understands this term in a similar fashion to Pardee. To Libolt, md reflects an official relationship to royalty at Ugarit, with possible military implications.164

In order to evaluate these arguments for the meaning of md in Ugaritic administrative documents, it is important to look to the attestations of the term. That md is an occupational designation is clear from KTU 4.245. This is a list of personal names; names are explicitly described as either a md of Athart or of the king (or perhaps before the king). No indication of the actual function of a md is hinted at in this text. Likewise, the appearance of a md in the context of other, better-understood occupational categories (such as brs bhtm and khnm) in KTU 4.38, KTU 4.47, and KTU 4.99 further demonstrates this. In KTU 4.38, distributions of flour, silver, and sheep to a md are recorded. The reference in KTU 4.54 is less clear. This text is labeled as: mtjrglm d bt b'l: mlk, "guards who are at the house of DN (or lady of the king)." Line 13 states "two md." Does this mean that the mdwere mtjrglm? The line divider immediately above line 13 makes the relationship uncertain. KTU 4.103 indicates that a md could possess ubdy fields and 4.387 indicates that a md could receive monthly rations. KTU 4.690 lists amounts of silver in relation to personal names, designated mdm. None of these texts provide compelling evidence about the function of this occupational category. The Akkadian attestations of this term are equally ambiguous. Individuals are described as mudft in PRU 3 79ff (RS 16.239); PRU 3 8Hf (RS 16.143); PRU 3 83ff (RS 16.157); PRU 3 85ff (RS 16.250); PRU 3 113ff (RS 16.353); PRU 3 115ff (RSI6.148 + 254B); PRU 3 134ff (RS 15.137); and PRU 3 162ff (RS 16.348). These texts tell us that a md could be attached to different individuals (i.e., the king or queen), but are not explicit about these individuals' role(s). PRU 6 93ff (RS 19.131) is a list of professions where mudft is also listed. The lexical entry in Assyriological Studies (AS) 16 33ff lists mu-du-u, alongside ND.NU, kabzu-zu, and si-ib-ba-ru. This evidence is also ambiguous. Given the use of md in Ugaritic economic texts, firm conclusions about its meaning cannot be reached. It is likely that a md is some type of knowledgeable official that can work for a member of the royal family, or for local governments. Libolt may be correct in asserting the possibility of a military component (on account ofKTU 4.54), but this is by no means certain. At present then, it is best to understand the mdm as individuals who were assigned to certain functionaries at Ugarit.

110

150 Del Olmo Lete and Sanrnartfn (2004, p. 524) teads: "class or corporation (skilled, initiate, or expert... ')". 151 Gray 1952, pp. 50-51. 152 Heltzer 1982, p. 161; 1999, p. 435. 153 Monroe 2000, p. 125. 154 Monroe 2000, p. 125. 155 Vita 1999, p. 465. 156 Sanmartin 1989, pp. 337-341. 157 Sanmartin 1991, p. 211. 158 Sanmartin 1989, pp. 338-339. 159 Clemens 2001, p. 394. 160 Sanmartin 1989, p. 339. 161 Although see Clemens 2001, pp. 395-396. 162 Pardee 2000c, p. 75. 163 Heltzer 1982, pp. 161-163. 164 Libolt 1985, p. 125.

mr'

The term mr' appears frequently in economic texts at Ugarit, yet there is no consensus about the word's meaning. The word also appears in Akkadian as UJ:MES mur_u. It frequently stands in construct with another occupational designation or a personal name. The term clearly represents some sort of occupational designation, given its appearance in lists with other occupational categories (see PRU 3 199ff (RS 16.257 + 16.258 + 16.126), PRU 6 131 (RS 19.35A), PRU 6 136 (RS 17.240), KTU 4.47, KTU 4.68, KTU 4.69, KTU 4.99, KTU 4.126, KTU 4.207, KTU 4.416, and KTU 4.745).

112

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

The most common translation given for this word reflects a notion of command or authority. Huehnergard translates the word as "commander(?)" though the question mark in parenthesis shows his uncertainty about this translation.l'? Commander is also how Rainey translates this term, although he describes the function of the mr' as military officer. 166 Miller follows Rainey's reading.l'" Both Boyd and Huehnergard correctly point out that Rainey is incorrect in positing an etymology with the Akkadian word toarum, since the Akkadian root should be understood as *w-r-w, not *w_r_'.168 Cutler and MacDonald suggest that some mr' could have held a .military position, but not all of them did, and there is nothing implicit in the occupational category that indicates high rank.l''? Heltzer offers a similarly ambiguous reading. He translates the term as "liason-officers" but concedes that the actual role of this occupation is unclear, other than that individuals noted as such belonged to the king, the sdkinu, or the prince.l?" Widbin also uses this translation.V' Other suggestions that have been made include "equerry,"I72 "chief groom?,"173 and "guild."174

in KTU 4.69. In KTU 4.416, mrum are listed as having four fields. Tribute for the Hittite king is given by mru skn in KTU 4.610. In KTU 4.752, mru ibrn are said to be under the control of 'prm. Ten are listed as quartered in the palace in KTU 4.137 and in KTU 4.163. Perhaps KTU 4.173, KTU 4.174, KTU 4.179 reflect a similar situation, although given the other professions listed, these texts are better taken as military rosters. The evidence from the alphabetic texts helps define the role of the mr' at Ugarit. This term, which at first seems quite troubling, offers no real problems in interpretation. This is a term for some type of military/police agent. The attestation of mr' under the dominion of the king, the king's son, the sdleinu, the 'prm, and in military lists indicates that Cutler and MacDonald are quite right in their definition of this official.175 Likewise, van Soldt's observations on the security responsibilities of the sdkinu suggests that mr" under the sdkinu's authority may have been responsible for enforcing security.176 These occupational categories, however, should not be seen as rigid categories, and jobs should not be understood to have had highly structured obligations and activities. The mr' is best understood as some sort of military agent, under the authority of whichever power the specific mr'is listed with. From PRU 3 162ff (RS 16.348) it is clear that mr' were also obliged to perform pilku obligations unless explicitly pardoned from this.

The context of use of the term at Ugarit well reflects the ambiguities of previous translation attempts. The syllabic texts demonstrate that mr' could be considered a pilku obligation. In PRU 3 162ff (RS 16.348), the king exempts an individual and his sons from the pilku obligations of mr". The exact nature of the office is not explicit in this text, but the fact that it is considered a pilku obligation, indicates that it is a service given to the king in exchange for land (see below). This observation becomes less clear with PRU 3 145ff (RS 16.139). This document records a field transfer. It is noted that that there will be no pilku obligation on the field being transferred, but that the new field holder will be required to perform the mr'service. Silver is given by people designated only as LOMESmur_u_ma, in PRU 6 116 (RS 17.64). Frequent attestations of mru in the alphabetic texts are as mru skn (KTU 4.47, KTU 4.68, KTU 4.126, KTU 4.610), and as mru ibrn (KTU 4.47, KTU 4.68, KTU 4.105, KTU 4.126, KTU 4.752). It should be assumed that the mru skn were officials working under the sdleinu. The mru ibrn may have worked under the authority of the king's son, Ibiranu. It seems that the designation mru was somewhat generic, and that it reflects a type of work done under the authority of a larger authority figure. Individuals grouped under the heading mrum were given amounts of silver, as is recorded

Huehnergard 1987, p. 148. Rainey 1965a, p. 18. 167 Miller 1980, p. 312 n.62. 168 Boyd 1975, pp. 129-133 and Huehnergard 1987, p. 149. Rainey 1965a, p. 18 n.20. 169 Cutler and MacDonald 1977, p. 20. 170 Heltzer 1982, pp. 14, 156. 171 Widbin 1985, p. 288. m Watson 1995a, p. 538. 173 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 571. 174 Astour 1972, pp. 12-13.

ev

Sf

When not representing the numerical value "ten," 'Jr is an occupational category. The value "ten" may reflect the word's etymology, or the word may be related to the root *'-5-r, which relates to serving drinks. 177 The word is ambiguous and it is difficult to determine which etymology, if either, is more likely. The etymology assumed by various scholars is frequently reflected in the translations offered. For example, Heltzer suggests that sr are, "overseerts) of (teams) of ten."178 Astour suggests "merchants," organized in decumates, on Greek analogy.179 Monroe generally agrees with Astours suggestion, but demonstrates that the prosopographic evidence is inconclusive. 180 Another suggestion was made by Gray, who suggested a translation of "butlers," likely based on the similar word in Hebrew. 181 Rainey makes a similar suggestion. 182 Dietrich and Loretz relate this word to the Ethiopic"assara "invite, call a meeting" and the nominal form 'asur "feast, banquet".183 Following this, sr as an occupational category would refer to servers at a banquet.

165 166

113

175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

Cutler and MacDonald 1977, p. 20. Van Soldt 2002, p. 827. Huehnergard 1987, p. 163. Heltzer 1982, pp. 152-154; 1999b, p. 435. Astour 1972, pp. 24-25. Monroe 2000, p. 142. Gray 1952, p. 50. Rainey 1962b, pp. 170-171. Dietrich and Loretz 1991, p. 309.

114

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARIT1C ECONOMY

The 'Irm should certainly be considered an occupational category. The term appears in lists of personal names under occupational headings, as in KTU 4.126, 4.412, and PRU 693. That this term can be further modified is indicated by 4.712, a tablet which is titled: spr rb 'Irt, best understood as: "list of chief 'Jr." Following this title are six personal names, each with an associated number. KTU 4.416 features 'irm along with other' occupational groups, and associated with amounts of land. Akkadian documents also describe a-Ji-ru-ma in ways that can best be understood as service. In PRU 3 65 (RS 16.247) and PRU 3 133 (RS 15.127), a-Ii-ru is described as an occupation, although the duties or nature of the profession are not described. Less clear evidence comes from KTU 4.392. Chariot'P" parts are delivered to the bt 'Irm in this text. This, at first glance might seem to provide definite evidence against the translation of this term as servant or butler, but when one considers that chariot parts are delivered (in the next line of the tablet) to the bt albnm (house of PN) this argument is no longer definitive. The 'Irm did have an associated structure; unfortunately the term bt is sufficiently ambiguous to provide many possible understandings. This occupational group was also involved in pilku service, as is evident from PRU 3 134ff (RS 15.137) and PRU 3 154 (RS 16.242). There is good evidence for following Gray's, Rainey's, and Dietrich and Loretz's suggestions that 'irm are best understood as butlers or servants at a banquet. KTU 1.3.1 describes a servant of Baal preparing a feast for him. Lines 8-9 read ndd/ fJr w yJqynh, translated by Smith: "He stands, serves, and offers him a drink."185 The context of the passage is unquestionable; clearly fJr here is some verb describing an action oriented around service. The word sr may be a nominal form of the same verb. This use of a related form in a literary text is not definitive evidence that the 'Irm in economic texts were servants involved in providing drinks, but it does shift the balance of probabilities. It seems that Gray's translation of "butler," while not particularly elegant, is the most accurate. Given that this occupation was one that had hierarchies (i.e., a rb), had associated structures, and was engaged in at the palace, it seems that the 'Irm were kitchen or dining room staff, although the exact extent of their duties is not clear.

best understood as "steward."187 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin translate this word as "quartermaster", deriving it from the word for "miller."188 While these ideas are based on sound understandings of words as they are used in other locations, they do not apply to albn in the Ugaritic administrative documents. This word is not an occupational category but is a personal name. In PRU 6 70 (RS 17.50), the expression DUMU a-la-bi-ni is without a doubt a personal name, as it appears in a list of other personal names. The alphabetic attestation, albn, in KTU 4.102, is best understood as a personal name since it appears in construct with the word bt, and so indicates the patrimonial association of a particular house. Likewise, KTU 4.337 describes a transaction involving an individual listed by name, not profession. Distributions to the bt albnm in KTU 4.392 are not to a house of occupational specialists, but to a house designated with a patronymic formula. At Ugarit, albn is simply a personal name.

Heltzer has argued that albn at Ugarit should be understood as a miller, based on the known meaning of this word in Akkadian. 186 Watson has stated that this word is

Another difficult word in Ugaritic is Yfb. This is demonstrably an occupational category, as it is attested in occupational lists, including KTU 4.47, KTU 4.68, KTU 4.99, KTU 4.126, KTU 4.207, and KTU 4.609. KTU 4.151 lists a number of personal names, and at the end of the tablet states the total number of yshm. The significance of the appearance of the word in KTU 4.147 is unclear. KTU 4.626 records a request made by the Yfbm. A list of items was requested, although it is difficult to comment on any meaningful connection between the types of items requested. The ubdy of the Yfbm are listed in KTU 4.692, as are a number of personal names designated as ysbm. Unfortunately these attestations do not help to understand the occupational function of this group of people. Dietrich and Lorerz have argued that the term should be understood as "herald," and is related to the root *s-w-h, which has a semantic range of "crying, calling out."189 Heltzer has followed this suggestion. 190 Huehnergard argues that this derivation is impossible.l?' While Huehnergard does not explicitly state his reasons, his assertion is possible. There is minimal comparative evidence that can be mustered to support a root II and III weak root transforming into a nominal form in this manner, with metathesis of the X and §. Unfortunately, while the reading of "herald" must be abandoned if one follows Huehnergard, he does not offer a better reading. l 92 Van Soldt tentatively suggests an etymology based on the root *X-s-h, based Watson 1985, p. 534. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, pp. 55-56. 189 Dietrich and Loretz 1968, p.100-1O 1. 190 Heltzer 1982, pp. 163-164. It should be noted that the Akkadian equivalence Heltzer provides is not based on a parallel use of the Akkadian term or the appearance of the word in polyglots. 191 Huehnergard 1987, p.134. 192 Huehnergard 1987, p. 134. 187

188

184 Chariots are distinguished from other wheeled vehicles in the Ugaritic language. Cognate to Hebrew and Akkadian, mrkbt refer to chariots. 185 Smith 1997, p. 106. 186 Heltzer 1982, pp. 80-81; 1999, p. 450.

115

116

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

on the root attested in Arabic, meaning "whiteness."193 Assuming a connection between these two roots, van Soldt reads this profession as "bleachers" of fabrics. 194 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin translate this term as either a "worker who prepares or sizes textiles", or a "metal worker, bronzesmith" .19S Neither suggestion can be backed up with sufficient evidence. 196 At this stage, it is best to understand this term as referring to some sort of craft specialist without committing to the particular kind of activity. ngr In the polyglot, this word is equivalent to Akkadian SES, and Hurrian n~tiru.197 Heltzer's suggestion that the word means "overseer" is not necessarily incorrect, but it is somewhat misleading since it has administrative connotations that are not implicit in the use of the term.l'" Pardee notes that ngr is not equivalent to Akkadian tikil, which is the basis of Heltzer's suggestion.l'" It seems, however, that Heltzer in his 1999 article changed his view from his 1982 discussion of the term, where he understood the term with the sense of military guard. 20o He notes instances when the noun is in construct with krm (4.141, 4.609) and in construct with mdr' (4.618)201, and suggests meanings of vineyard-keeper and sown field-keeper respectively.P'' Huehnergard identifies this form as a G-stem participle, with a basic meaning of "guard."203 Given the context in which this word is usually found, this is a probable suggestion. Attestations of related forms of this word in other types of Ugaritic writing further indicate that a translation of "guard" is appropriate. Most frequent is the appearance of verbal forms based on the root *n-g-r. This usage appears in a literary context, in KTU 1.4 VIII. 14. More important to this argument is its appearance as a salutation in letters. For example, KTU 2.11 includes the expression: ilm tgrk, which should be understood as: "may the gods protect you." Given the common and clear uses of verbs based on the same root, it is safe to conclude that a ngr was a guard, and often a guard of a specific kind of field.

Van Soldt 1990, p. 353. Van Soldt 1990, p. 354. 195 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, pp. 986-987. 196 These readings are based on the materials associated with this particular group in attested contexts, del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, pp. 986-987, and while these ideas are certainly plausible, this is not particularly strong evidence. 197 Huehnergard 1987, p. 153. 198 Heltzer 1999b, p. 428. 199 Pardee 2000c, p. 74. 200 Heltzer 1982, p. 67. 201 Note also the appearance of a figure called ngr mdr' in KTU 1.23. 202 Heltzer 1982, p. 67. 203 Huehnergard 1987, p. 153. 193

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

117

s/sgr The word s/fgr (the sand f are interchangeable) has been taken as the Ugaritic equivalent of the Akkadian word febru, meaning "young one" or "small one."204 Watson has demonstrated that the equation of these words requires one to postulate two consonantal interchanges, one of which is not attested elsewhere, and hence translating Ugaritic s/fgr as young one is flawed. 20s Instead, Watson argues for a context-derived translation and shows that this word only appears in Ugaritic administrative documents relating to shepherding.P" This same observation had led del Olmo Lete to argue that the slfgr were shepherd boys under a higher ranked shepherd.i'" Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin offer a better candidate for an Akkadian cognate, fubtiru, meaning "child" or "servant", since this well fits the context of the use of the term. Unfortunately, one still has to postulate two consonantal interchanges. Looking to other Semitic languages, Watson argues that in Mehri, this same root (*s-g-r) means, "to keep a constant eye on" and in Harsusi, *s-g-r means, "to look far away into the distance'l.P" The South Arabean cognate is phonologically equivalent to the Ugaritic word. 209 It would appear that *s-g-r "keep an eye on" is not the primary meaning of this word, weakening the argument for semantic equivalence.P" Furthermore, Watson admits that this root does not refer to shepherding in either Mehri or Harsusi.P! Watson may be correct in looking to Mehri, but this is far from certain. Watson's contextual evidence is much more compelling (and fits with del Olmo Lete's observation), and it should be assumed that in the attested uses at Ugarit s/fgr refers to lower-ranked shepherds. It cannot be determined if the lower ranking is based on age, status, training, or experience.

brd The designation brd appears to make the most sense in a military context. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary lists numerous examples of this word, contemporaneous with LB Ugarit, where the word refers to "a type of soldier".212 Watson suggests that it could be derived either from Hurrian buradi/e (which means warrior) or an Egyptian word (with similar consonantal and obviously unknown vocalic spelling) for youth. 213 Whatever the etymology, the word appears to reflect a military occupation or position.

194

204 205 206 207 208 209 210 2ll

212

213

For example, see del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 755. Watson 2002a, pp. 203-204. Watson 2002a, pp. 204-205. Del Olmo Lete 1993. Watson 2002a, p. 206. Watson 2002a, p. 206. Leslau 1987, p. 526. Watson 2002a, p. 206 n.21. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (til, p. 244. Watson 1999, pp. 536, 545.

118

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

Both Heltzer and Vita suggest that it refers to conscripted troops.P" Heltzer also suggests that conscription may be on a monthly basis.2ls The actual use of this term at Ugarit is more complex, but certainly seems to carry connotations of protection and military specialization. In KTU 2.16, for example, the word prd seems to be used as a verb (perhaps an infinitive) with the sense of keeping alert or keeping guard. The economic texts better reflect a role where the prd are military specialists. KTU 4.179 is a list of numbers of military personnel, although the precise role of all of the occupational groups is not entirely clear. Line 15 summarizes the preceding list as tgmr prd, or "total: warriors," and is followed by a number that adds up to the amounts of individuals above. So it can be safely assumed that prd include all of the occupational designations listed above this line, including nonmilitary personnel such as the mkrm. KTU 4.230 lists amounts of wine distributed to various personnel. The prd are granted forty units of wine. Numbers of prd in various geographic locations are listed in KTU 4.683. The numbers vary from town to town, but since the text is broken, it is unclear exactly how much these numbers vary. The village of ap, for example, has forty, and it is probably safe to assume a similar scale for other villages. Similar lists were found at Ras ibn Hani: KTU 4.777 and 4.784. The best means of understanding this word then, is to consider it a general word for military personnel. Warriors or troops are sufficient English renderings based on current understandings of this term.

outlined. Furthermore, given the recurrence in relation to other terms, perhaps some notion of assistant or trainee can be suggested, although this is far from certain.

g.snm The word psnm is not well understood, and does not seem to be paralleled in Akkadian at Ugarit. Watson argues that psn is related to the Hittite word passann-, which means "domestic."216 Heltzer has translated the word as "dependent" based on its consistent position beneath other occupational titles. 217 This translation does not reflect the occupational role of such people, but rather the recurrence of the term in relation to other occupational categories and as such is basically a non-translation. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin similarly are unable to identify the precise role of this group and simply offer the description of the word as "a social group".218 The word is most certainly an occupational category, since it is found in occupational lists including KTU 4.137, KTU 4.162, KTU 4.163, KTU 4.173, KTU 4.174, and KTU 4.179. As these lists are primarily lists of military personnel, it should be concluded that this occupational category played some sort of military role that at present cannot be fully

214 215 216 217 218

Heltzer 1999b, p. 429; Vita 1999, p. 493. Heltzer 1982, pp. 105-111. Watson 1995a, p. 543. Heltzer 1982, p. 107. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 409.

119

The word hbtnm also appears in occupational lists of military personnel, KTU 4.137, KTU 4.163, KTU 4.173, KTU 4.174, and KTU 4.179. Widbin translates the word as "under-official," but this simply reflects the difficulties in understanding it. 219 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin are only able to identify this word as a reference to a social group.220 Since it appears only in the context of military personnel lists, it should be assumed that this is some sort of military personnel. Unfortunately, at present, it is impossible to be more specific. trmn

The occupational category trmn is particularly problematic at Ugarit. There seem to be three scholarly understandings of this word: as an occupational category, as a word for "king" or as deities (or representations of deities). These three approaches cannot be reconciled; it is highly unlikely that the word had a wide enough semantic range to encompass all of these categories of words. Heltzer has argued that this word should be understood as "weavers", although he explicitly comments that the etymology of this word is unknown.F' He equates trmn with the Akkadian term uliJptiru, which is understood to mean "weaver."222 As with many of Heltzer's equivalences, this one has no basis. He has simply assumed that the two terms are equivalent, although they are not attested in parallel (as in a multilingual tablet, for example). Heltzer's argument stems from the actual context where this word appears in Ugaritic texts. PRU 3 181ff (RS 11.732), cited by Heltzer, lists textile tribute (mandattu) given to the Hittite king. Since this is an Akkadian text, Heltzer's recognition of a word describing the textiles that could be read tarmani is unhelpful, since this is just an attestation of a possibly similar looking word in a different language. It is more useful to look at the uses of trmn in Ugaritic texts. The word appears in KTU 4.182 clearly in the context of textiles. Although broken, line 3 probably lists amounts of wool given for mlbStrmnm. Likewise, line 20 seems to indicate the delivery of another type of fabric for the trmnm. Line 15 mentions a delivery of fabric to the trmn qrt; line 13 probably records a similar delivery to the trmn mlk. The 219 220 221 222

Widbin 1985, p. 453. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 334. Heltzer 1982, pp. 96-97. Heltzer 1982, pp. 96-97.

121

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

translation "weavers" would make sense in this context, as it describes deliveries of fabric. KTU 4.168 notes textile deliveries in a cuitic context. Lines 5-8 state that when the mlbi trmnm become old, it should be replaced. Here also, the trmnm could refer to weavers. What is troubling though is that this term does not appear in occupational lists. While this may be negative evidence, it is a good hint that the meaning of this word should be sought elsewhere. The contexts listed above could just as easily allow for a translation with cultic connotations. The trmnm could be deities or some sort of representation of deities, such as statues, or more likely both. Widbin argues this point, in connection with KTU 4.182 and with the literary texts. 223 Clemens further notes that this word only appears in connection with deity names.F" This study shall assume that the trmnm was not an occupational category, but rather some sort of religious item, possibly the statues of deities. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin have argued that trmnm was used to describe the kings of Ugarit, based on Akkadian sarruma. 225 When this word is used in construct with mlbl as in KTU 4.168 (see above), it is referring to the clothing of the kings. The attestation of this word in connection with the personal name nqmd (a king from Ugarit) in KTU 1.6 VI 58 points to this reading but does not necessitate it.

context. This does not constitute sufficient evidence to demonstrate a connection of this occupational category with textile manufacturing. In the mythological texts, the context of the use of mb~ seems more related to battle than manufacture. A word spelled similarly, is found in KTU 1.2 I 39, and is clearly a weapon used by Baal against Yamm's messengers. The word appears in a similar battle context in the story of Aqhat (KTU 1.19 III: 47, 52; IV 34). It is difficult to reconcile these two contexts, the literary and economic. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin posit two separate etymological bases for this word, one relating to battle and one relating to textile manufacturing.P" While there is the possibility that this may have been a specialized type of military personnel, given the strong Akkadian evidence, this word should best be understood as "weaver" until stronger evidence can be marshaled.

120

Another candidate for the occupation of "weaver" is mb~. The Akkadian cognate (mabifu) has a number of different meanings, which include "weaver", "hunter", "pounder" and "plowman" .226 The wide semantic range of this word in Akkadian has led to a number of interpretations. Gray translated this term as "sacrificial butcher."227 Heltzer, at one point translated this word as "guards," although he later translates this as "weavers."228 This translation is the one suggested by del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin. 229 Clearly the term is an occupational designation, given its appearance in occupational lists: PRU 6 136 (RS 17.240), KTU 4.99, KTU 4.103, KTU 4.125, KTU 4.128, and KTU 4.332. Similarly, KTU 4.124 is a list of mb~ followed by personal and. geographic names. KTU 4.187 is broken, but likely the same kind of text. The appearance of this word in Ugaritic economic texts is not entirely helpful in determining its meaning, beyond the fact that it was an occupational category. In KTU 4.182, a text recording fabric deliveries, the term appears in a somewhat broken 223 224 225 226 227 228 229

Widbin 1985, p. 104. Clemens 2001, pp. 348-349. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 932. These definitions are listed in The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) Mil, p. 102. Gray 1952, p. 50. Heltzer 1982, pp. 123-124 and Heltzer 1999b, p. 452 respectively. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 541.

Cultic Officials The subject of culticlreligious workers is an important and well-studied one. This is not the place for an in-depth discussion of these occupations, but it is important to mention some of the key occupational categories frequently mentioned in the Ugaritic administrative texts. It is interesting to note that there is no distinction in the occupational lists between those that work in sacred contexts and those that work in profane contexts. From the perspective of the Ugaritic administrators, there was no distinction, or no need for distinction in the recording situations. One of the most frequent cultic officials mentioned in Ugaritic administrative documents is the khn. Clemens states that translation of this term as "priest" is "universal."231 The common attestation of the Hebrew cognate in the Hebrew Bible has meant that this translation has not been questioned. Following Clemens, who notes that the functions of this official are unclear, the translation "priest" is a suitable working understanding.P'' It is important to keep in mind, while studying the administrative appearance of this term, that since the exact duties of the official are unclear, there may be elements of its economic role that are obscure. A more difficult term is qdim. This occupational term is thought to refer to a cultic official, based on etymology. Initially arguments were made that this official engaged in sacred prostitution or other cuitic sexual acts. 233 This idea is no longer upheld and the notion of sacred prostitution for this period and region is no longer considered plausible.P" Other suggestions have been made that are equally lacking

Del Olrno Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 541. Clemens 2001, p. 301. 232 Clemens 2001, p. 303. 233 For example, see Rainey 1964, p. 22. 234 For a scathing critique of the scholarlyidea of sacred prostitution, seeTigay 1996, pp. 480-481. For a critique of the more general concept of sacred marriage, see Cooper 1972-1975 and Renger 1972-1975. 230

231

122

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

in evidence. Heltzer has argued that the qdim were diviners, although he can supply no plausible corroborating evidence.P? Other unlikely suggestions are described by Clemens.P" This discussion shall assume that the qdim were cultic personnel, of a lower rank than the khnm (on account of their lower listing in occupational lists), but that the exact functions of this group are not clear and that that may hinder understanding of their economic role. Another important occupational category that should be understood as cultic are the Irm. The most common translation of this occupational category has been "singer."237 The designation of this group as "singers" is no longer questioned, since the publication of a bilingual occupation list by Bordreuil and Malbran-Labat.P" While it is still possible to harbor reservations on the cultic nature of this occupational category,239 it is safe to assume that these individuals were singers, and that there were definite situations where they sang in a cultic context. 240 LAND-HOLDING AND OBLIGATIONS

Terminology related to landholding and its concomitant obligations is particularly important for addressing Ugaritic economic modalities. This is one of the primary means of integrating royal power with the surrounding agricultural lands. Weber associates this type of domination with patrimonialism when land is understood as part of the larger household of the king. 241 In fact, in Weber's view, this kind of domination is absolutely essential in an ancient city economy, which requires the import of comestibles to enable the urban workers to concentrate on added-value exports. 242 This topic entails issues about real estate (its ownership and usufruct) and the mechanisms by which the state is able to marshal labor. It is in the analysis of these obligations that the "drudgery problem" identified by Chayanov can be explored, that is to say, it is possible to understand what factors can force household producers to produce to a surplus level, even in the face of the distaste for labor. 243 The following discussion departs from the previously stated goal of exploring issues specific to Ugaritic alphabetic texts. Much evidence about landholding at Ugarit comes from syllabic texts, so it is important to include substantial discussion of both.

Heltzer 1982, pp. 136-137. Clemens 2001, pp. 304-311. 237 See, for example, Gray 1953, p. 50 and Heltzer 1982, p. 137. 238 Bordreuil and Malbran-Labat 1995, pp. 446-447. 239 Clemens 2001, pp. 312-314. 240 The strongest evidence for some cultic function of singers is KTU 4.168, line 4, which mentions the lrm 'ttrt, 241 Weber 1978, p. 1032. 242 Weber 1978, p. 48. 243 See Tannenbaum 1984, p. 28.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

123

ilku/pilku At Ugarit, the Akkadian word pilku appears in about forty Akkadian texts.244 This word is widely considered synonymous with the Akkadian word ilku, since the word ilku appears in only about four texts at Ugarit, but in very similar contexts. 245 Huehnergard adds that this is an odd use of the word pilku, since it normally means "demarcation" or "district" in standard Akkadian.v'" Attempts at understanding pilku as an Ugaritic word have not been successful, and further weakened by its attestation in Old Babylonian texts from Susa. 247 Speiser has argued that pilku should be considered an Akkadian word, and not a word specific to Ugarit. 248 Dietrich and Loretz take the two words as equivalent.P'? Huehnergard is forced to conclude: "pilku is not Ugaritic, but simply an Akk. term, curiously used by the Ugarit scribes instead of ilku. "250 Kienast also takes pilku and ilku as equivalent, referring to the term as: "(P)ilku".251 In order to verify that pilku and ilku are equivalent, it is important to compare the uses of these terms at Ugarit. The four definite attestations of ilku at Ugarit appear in land grant texts. In PRU 3 117ff (RS 15.143), PRU 3 118ff (RS 15.155), PRU 3 135ff (RS 15.140), and PRU 6 77 (RS 19.32), the king grants land with the explicit notice that there is no ilku connected to the land donation. In the first three examples, the exact same expression is used: it il5-ku ia-a-nu. In all of these cases, which are statements that there is no ilku in those particular situations, there is a common context that clarifies the use of this term. The ilku is something owed to the king that accompanies the donation of land by the king. The word ilku is also used in one instance with international correspondence (Ug. 5 33 (RS 20.212)), where the king ofUgarit owes the Hittite king service called ilku. The word pilku appears much more frequently, and in almost identical contexts, in Akkadian language tablets that describe the donation of land to an individual by the king. The closest parallel use of pilku is a statement in one land grant text that pilku is ~ot owe~. PRU 3 145ff (RS 16.139) use the similar expression: it pil-ku i-na A. SA. MES Iu-toa-ti ia-nu. So while this is not precisely parallel, and cannot definitively prove this point, the two words are best understood as synonyms. Given the importance Heltzer places on the differences between ilku and pilku for his reconstruction of the Ugaritic economy, it is worth turning to his clearest statement on this issue:

235

236

244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251

Huehnergard 1987, p. 168. Nougayrol1955, p. 226; Huehnergard 1987, p. 168; and Schloen 2001, p. 217. Huehnergard 1987, p. 168. Boyd 1975, p. 255; Huehnergard 1987, p. 168. Speiser 1955, p. 162. Dietrich and Loretz 1972b, pp. 165-166. Huehnergard 1987, p. 168. Kienast 1979, p. 443.

124

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

The existing land-fund can be divided into two categories: 1) communal land, where the dominant role was played by the village community, which was itself a dependency of the royal administration in fiscal matters, i.e., natural and silver taxes, corvee, conscription, etc.; this land was alienated (sold and purchased) within the community on the condition of observing collective obligations (ilku in Ugarit) and the individual obligations of the family ('unt/ unussu in Ugarit), 2) royal land, with its two main subdivisions: (a) Dispersed royal economy, well known not only from Ugarit, but also from other countries of the area, especially from Mycenaean Greece; and (b) lands distributed as conditional holdings to royal servicemen of various professional groups, in return for their professional services (Pilku/'ubdy in Ugarit). It is interesting to note that the word pilku in the Akkadian of Ugarit originally also meant divided land-plot, as did temenos in Greek, which also appears in Linear B texts.252

This reconstruction is problematic. At Ugarit, the ilku is never expressed as a communal obligation. It is only attested at an individual landowner level in royal land grant texts indicating that the individual gaining the land does not owe the obligation. There is no textual evidence that ilku is rendered for communal land, or that it exists separately from royal authority. There is, in essence, no evidence from the uses of pilku and ilku at Ugarit to demonstrate Heltzer's separate spheres of land use. It is important to identify the basic meaning of pilku and ilku. Huehnergard translates this as "feudal service."253 Heltzer defines the word as "corvee."254 Schloen states that, "in all cases it [pilku] refers to the regular service obligation of the landholder. .. not to the landholding itself."255 Kienast translates the word as "Lebnspflicbt;" indicating that the word refers to service obligations not to land. 256 Certain aspects of pilku can be illuminated from direct examination of the Akkadian texts. The pilku is discussed in land transfer documents and is connected with the granting of land to individuals by the king of Ugarit. The overwhelming abundance of evidence that pilku is charged in these contexts makes it apparent that pilku is a service provided to the king. The nature of this service can take many forms, and is related to the occupational categories that are mentioned in the palace administration. In the Akkadian texts, this pilku service is described in primarily two ways. The word pilku is written in construct (in either the genitive or accusative case) with a term for profession, indicated as such by the use of the determinative UJ.MES. In PRU 3 154 ff (RS 16.242), the pilku required is that of the a-li-ri-ma (for more on this term see above). Other occupational categories that are attested as pilku service include leatherworking (PRU 3 77ff (RS 16.142)), the maryannu (PRU 6 31 (RS 19.985)), the mud (see above) of varying sorts (PRU3 162ff (RS 16.348)), and bronze casting (PRU 3 78ff (15 Y)). The second means of expressing this is essentially the same, but instead of 252 253 254

255 256

Heltzer 1988, pp. 10-11. Huehnergard 1987, p. 168. Heltzer 1982, p. 16. Schloen 2001, p. 246. Kienast 1979, pp. 443, 445.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

125

writing pilku in construct with the following word, the same relationship is expressed by coordinating the two words with sa. No difference in meaning should be assumed to be implied by the use of the two expressions. Occupational categories listed with sa include latammiiti" (PRU 3 131ff (RS 15.122) and PRU 3 17Iff (16.173)), the na-mu-ti (PRU 3 (Fr.)), LOMESsa re-Ii (PRU 3 126 (16.162)), and LOMESUN_tu (PRU 3 89ff (RS 15.123)). Also expressed with fa are services associated with specific individuals (as opposed to explicitly specialized activities). Examples of this include pilku service for the sons of the queen (PRU 3 (RS 16.138)). A noteworthy text is PRU 3 134ff (RS 15.137). In this text, King Ammistamru II removes the individual in question from pil-k[i] LOMESa_Si_ri_ma to LOMESmu_de4' This text demonstrates the power of the king over pilku obligation. The king is able to abolish the obligation or change the nature of this obligation. It also continues to demonstrate pilku service as an obligation of service to the king, and as a means for the king to gain access to specialized labor. Heltzer reads this text alongside of PRU 3 78ff (15Y), a problematic land donation text where the king transfers an individual from his occupation as a leather worker to the occupation of bronze-smithing.P? While this text may represent pilku service, it is not explicitly mentioned as such in the text, and so it is impossible to be certain. The word ilku appears in many Akkadian contexts outside of Ugarit and it is important to understand the term in its wider cuneiform usage. Postgate has studied the use of this term in its Middle Assyrian context. Postgate states: "In the Middle Assyrian kingdom we would still define the ilku institution as a system whereby individuals owed personal service to the state for a specified length of time, as a condition of entitlement to land."258 Postgate argues that the Middle Assyrian evidence includes accounts of ilku service in terms of days of service, showing that the word involves a service-requirement.P? The requirements for service were inheritable, at least at Nuzi. Postgate suggests that the Nuzi system, while unique in the Middle Assyrian Period, demonstrates that ilku was not granted to specific individuals, but rather to particular circumstances that could be passed on from father to son. 260 The ilku system was a system imposed by palace authorities on a pre-existing system. Postgate states: "Hence we see the ilku system as imposed from above on to an existing land regime: it would not have entailed large-scale reassignment of land-ownership, merely the acknowledgement of the status quO."261 While Postgate discusses the issue from a chronological perspective, Maria de Jong Ellis discusses the nature of ilku within the broader context of land assignment. For 257 258 259 260 261

Heltzer 1982, p. 20. Postgate states 1982, p. 304. Postgate 1982, p. 305. Postgate 1982, p. 307. Postgate 1982, p. 311.

126

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

Ellis, ilku: "describes the service which an individual performed for the state, and which by extension came to be applied to land held in return for (or subject to) such service."262 This service, according to Ellis, was normally performed as a service requirement of lands held in the patrimonial estate. 263 To Ellis, ilku land (meaning land requiring ilku service) needs to be distinguished from biltu land. Biltu land is land retained by the state, cultivated by low level state personnel, under the administration of state-officials, where the net yield of the agricultural work is returned to the state. 264 Ilku lands (which can be called Iuleussu or sibtu fields), are assigned to individuals in return for service.F? The beneficiary is responsible for the cultivation of the land (either by his own hand or by hiring staff) and he can either receive the net yield or a portion of the yield after the net yield is given to the state. 266 The Old Babylonian legal material is a rich source for information on the nature of ilku service. The Code of Hammurabi has three distinct sections that discuss the ilku obligation. Paragraphs 26-31 of Hammurabi's Code deal with the disposition of land and ilku given particular situations in which military personnel no longer perform the ilku. Law 26 suggests that if the military personnel does not go on a campaign (when ordered) his land will be given to the informant. Law 27 states that if the military personnel is captured, and his land is given to another individual who subsequently performs the ilku, if the original holder returns, the land is given back to him and the original holder shall begin performing the ilku again. If the son of a captured military man is old enough to perform ilku, then the land shall be granted to his son (according to law 28), but if the son is too young, then the mother shall retain only 1/3 of the land (law 29). Laws 30 and 31 define the length of time under which a military personnel can absent himself from the land (to avoid the ilku obligation) and still have the land returned to him if another has taken the land and begun performing the ilku in his place. Laws 38-41 of Hammurabi's Code outline the condition of sales of land related to ilku obligations. Certain personnel are prohibited from giving land to female members of their households, or from giving land to pay debts, when that land is conditional upon certain set services (law 38). The female members of the household may be assigned land if that land was purchased (law 39). Certain occupational groups may sell their land (which is encumbered by ilku service obligations) if the buyer takes over the ilku obligations. Certain female religious functionaries are entitled to receive portions of their father's estate as inheritance, but are not required to perform the attached ilku service (law 182).

The pilku at Ugarit is consistent in usage with ilku in other regions in other periods, and in the comparative evidence the terms ilku and pilku are roughly synonymous, although there may be some slight grammatical nuances regarding word choice that have yet to be identified. The pilku is a service requirement owed to the central government ii;e., the palace) in return for land that has been granted by that same administration. The form of this service is specialized labor, of varying sorts, although it cannot be noted with certainty the duration of this specialized labor and the relationship between the specialized labor provided and the individual's other subsistence ventures. unt The semantic range of ilku is consistent with the semantic range of words in other languages. Eichler connects this term with the Hurrian word inoille attested at Nuzi. 267 At Ugarit, however, the same semantic range for ilku can be found in the Ugaritic word un!.,268 which seems to be a loan, through Akkadian, from the Hurrian word unusse. 269 The Hurrian word unuile is attested at Alalakh as well in the Late Bronze 270 Age. Von Dassow suggests that unt; is related to the Hurrian verb un which has a base meaning of "to come."271 This is particularly interesting when compared with the relationship between ilku and the Akkadian verb aldku, which has a similar meaning.F? Huehnergard questions whether un!. derives from Hurrian, and states that it could be a Semitic word with a Hurrian ending. 273 Whatever the case may be, it is clear that unt and unusse are cognates.

It is important to look at the uses of the word unt at Ugarit, while recognizing that the issue of etymology cannot adequately be solved at present. The word appears in KTU 2.19, a legal contract in alphabetic script.F" This contract clears a certain individual of un!. forever. Unfortunately, no description of the previously imposed unt; is present in the text. The best evidence for the semantic overlap between unt. and pilku comes from the parallel uses in alphabetic texts. KTU 3.5 is a royal land donation text, similar to those mentioned above (see the discussion on ilkulpilku) , but in the alphabetic script. The phrase w un!. in bh, meaning: "and there is no uru; on it," is equivalent to the Akkadian expression it il5-ku ia-a-nu, used in three of five attested examples of the word ilku (see above). This is exactly the same context and situation.

Eichler 1967, p. 92. Kienast 1979, p. 443; Rowe 1993b, p. 250. 269 Diakonoff 1971, pp. 39-41; Libolt 1985, pp. 111-115. 270 Von Dassow 1997, pp. 141-142. 271 Von Dassow 1997, pp. 141-142. Von Dassow also notes the attestation of the adjectival noun unuffuhuli which consists of the root unuffe and the Hurrian occupational suffix -uh(u)li. 272 Von Dassow 1997, p. 410. 273 Huehnergard 1987, p. 108. 274 This text is erroneously in the letter section of KTU, though the genre is listed as "legal." 267

268

262 Ellis 1976, p. 13. It should be noted that later Ellis asserts that the term ilku did not properly refer to land per se, Ellis 1976, p. 20. 263 Ellis 1976, p. 20. 264 Ellis 1976, pp. 12-13. 265 Ellis 1976, p. 12. 266 Ellis 1976, p. 13.

127

128

129

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

KTU 3.2 preserves a similar situation. However, the interpretation of unt. is not as clear. MO 39 records that the arable land possessed by Yabninu is not subject to unt but the actual house on the described land is. Whatever the etymology, the words unt, unulle, ilku, and pilku show the same semantic ranges, and for all intents and purposes, they are equivalent in translation. Rowe has observed that the uses of these different terms correspond to different scribal hands, and the selection of a term reflects scribal choice more than different nuances in meaning. 275 More information about this institution can be gained by analyzing the contexts of the use of unt, at Ugarit. It appears in more different types of tablets than pilkulilku. KTU 3.4 records a situation where seven individuals are redeemed from people described as Beirutians, by Iwri-kalli for one hundred shekels of silver. The text explicitly states that there will be no unt. for them until they repay this sum of silver ro Iwrikalli. KTU 3.7 reflects a similar situation. A certain m[ry (either a personal name or a general term meaning "an Egyptian") guarantees the unt. of eight individuals, three of whom are designated mdrglm (guards).276 Unfortunately the text is too fragmentary for substantial comment. The term also appears in economic texts. It appears twice in KTU 4.86, in association with the number one and lists of personal names. The actual function of this tablet is unfortunately obscure. Likewise, KTU 4.209 is quite broken. Half of the tablet is preserved, and each line ends with unt abd. Perhaps a personal name or occupational designation originally was listed at the beginning of each of these lines, but it is not clear now. The term may also appear in KTU 4.638, which is very fragmentary, but certainly seems to involve fields. None of these attestations amounts to much on its own, but taken together, do indicate that the palace actively kept some sort of record of these obligations.

convincing evidence that this is in fact the case.279 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin read it as "land, plot, farming".28o Likewise, del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin take updyas: "share-cropping (plot)" ,281 and ubdit as: "share-cropping, leasing system, tenancy". 282 KTU 4.7 is a field transfer text. The first line describes the fields as ubdy trrm. Likewise, KTU 4.103 lists field transfers under the heading: ubdy mdm. Another field transfer text, KTU 4.692, lists the ubdy y[bm. KTU 4.110 is also a field transfer text, but this time instead of being titled ubdy of an occupational group, the first line reads: Jd ubdy ilitm " or ubdy fields of a geographic name. This same expression, Id ubdy is also found in KTU 4.389, although the exact purpose of this tablet is not particularly clear. Vineyards are similarly modified by the term ubdy in KTU 4.244. KTU 4.631 is also a field transfer text. Here the heading reads: spr ubdy art, "list of ubdy of GN," followed by field transfer notes. This word also appears in contexts other than field transfer texts. KTU 4.164 records olive yields from the ubdym in the region of Mulukku. The term ubdy refers to an actual, physical field. The use of this word as a heading for field transfer texts and in construct with the word Jd or krm, as well as records of yields from ubdym, indicate that this is not an abstract concept, but a physical location. The word ubdy is best understood as the designation for land granted with service obligations attached. Schloen explicitly argues that the word refers only to the land, not to the service that is connected with it. 283 Watson similarly describes ubdy as "property held in fief."284 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin translate it as "land, plot, farming (in a taxed leasing system...)".285 Indeed, while ubdy lands may be intrinsically related to ilku service, the term does not refer to that service. At this point, it is useful to return to Heltzer's understanding of land tenure at Ugarit, and specifically his philological arguments for his reconstruction. It has already been shown that Heltzer's view of ilku and pilku as different types of service obligations is incorrect.P" These two words are synonyms. It has also been demonstrated above that the word unt; appears in identical, corresponding circumstances as the word ilku, except that unt is used in alphabetic texts as opposed to Akkadian texts. In other words, unt is the Ugaritic word for the Akkadian words ilku and pilku. Heltzer correctly assigns an equivalent translation value for ilku and unt. but incorrectly argues for a different meaning for pilku and unto All three words refer to the same situation, a service obligation, usually in the form of specialized labor, owed to the king, in return for landholding. Heltzer is further incorrect in asserting that ubdy is the Ugaritic

ubdy, updt, ubdit Another important word related to the question of land tenure and obligation is ubdy with its related forms. Giiterbock demonstrated that this word is Hittite in origin. 277 While the Hittite origin of the word is agreed upon, the semantic range of the word is not. 278 Heltzer sees it as semantically equivalent with ilku, but is unable to marshal

Rowe 1999, p. 172. Rowe argues for a slightly different reading of this text. She suggests that this is a list of Egyptians who entered into unt. service, Rowe 1993b, p. 251. This reading is very possible and should be taken into account. The only major concern is that the geographic regions listed are not places within Egypt, but from within Ugarit. This does not, however, rule out the possibility. If Marquez-Rowe is correct, than this may be evidence for non-Ugaritians compelled to enter into ilku service, although no rationale for this action is given in the text. 277 Gtiterbock 1957, p. 360. 278 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 7; Watson 1995a, p. 542. 275

276

279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286

Heltzer 1982, p. 35. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin Schloen 2001, p. 247. Watson 1995a, p. 542. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin Heltzer 1988, pp. 10-11.

2004, p. 7. 2004, p. 89. 2004, p. 6.

2004, p. 7.

130

131

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

(alphabetic) equivalent of the word pilku.287 The term ubdy does not refer to a service obligation at all, but in fact refers to an actual piece of real estate that was likely encumbered by some sort of obligation. It is not the service but the land itself. On the whole, Heltzer's reconstruction of a Two-sector landholding system cannot be supported by the textual evidence.

The meaning of this term is universally understood to be "tribute".295 The rationale for this translation derives from its use in various contexts at Ugarit. The clearest use is in KTU 3.1, which Knoppers argues is a text that accompanied the payment of tribute.P" It is recorded in this text that Ugarit is sending argmn to the Hittite king (Lines 18 and 24). A similar reading of this word is suitable in the mythological context of KTU 1.2 I 37. Here, EI states that Baal will bring tribute (argmnk) "to you," meaning to Yamm. This is paralleled in the next two verses. While the second verse is broken, and so the reading is uncertain, in the third verse, the parallel term is mnbyk, meaning "your gifts."297 These two uses of the word provide strong evidence for translating argmn as "tribute." This word does not appear very frequently in economic texts, but its few appearances are important given that the social relationship implied by the term is clear. KTU 4.43: 1-4 reads: t.lt. d y[298 / bd Immn / I argmn / I nskm. This details copper brought as tribute for smiths, by a specific individual. It is likely that the "tribute" aspect of the relationship was that the copper was brought to smiths working under royal authority, not as tribute owed to smiths by a certain individual, although grammatically that possibility cannot be ruled out. Less ambiguous is KTU 4.261, which is a spr argmn nskm (list of the tribute of the smiths). Following this heading, tribute amounts, paid by individuals, grouped by geographic origin, are recorded. KTU 4.610 records the argmn ps, or the tribute to the Hittite king given by individual villages, and possibly by occupational groups, although the relationship between the obverse and reverse of the tablet is not secure. The amounts of tribute given by each town do not seem to follow any specific pattern. Tribute from individuals and groups is recorded in KTU 4.369. What is important about these few examples of this word is that it demonstrates an important underlying sense related to power and authority. In the treaty text and the mythological text, the relationship represented is one of subservience and dominance, where the subordinate owes certain items to the dominant force. This payment is justified by the power relationship between the two distinct groups or gods. This same kind of justification for the circulation of goods is given in the economic texts, and it indicates a means of understanding economic reality that lies outside of the domestic sphere. It is not modeled on, or understood through domestic analogies, but rather through the metaphor of international relations, or vassal and suzerain.

gt

This term was initially difficult in the reconstruction of Ugaritic economy because of the Hebrew cognate meaning "wine press."288 Indeed, other than a few isolated cases, there is near unanimous agreement on the basic nature of the gt at Ugarit. The gt (vocalized gittu289 ) is equivalent to the Akkadian word dimtu.29o While dimtu in Akkadian has a base meaning of "tower," it comes to have the meaning of "estate." From the Old Babylonian period on, the use of dimtu refers to an estate outside of the urban center. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary suggests that these estates were fortified.F" However, the use of this term in documents from Nuzi does not require this interpretation. 292 The attestations of this term within the Ugaritic administrative material are numerous. Most frequently, a gt is referred to in construct with another word, usually a geographic or personal name. This construction is used to identify particular estates throughout the kingdom (i.e., it is the name of the estate). Each gt should be understood as an entire complex, an estate and building, primarily involved in agricultural production.F'" More will be said about this institution in later chapters, but for now it is sufficient to state that a gt was an agricultural estate. argmn Obligations on a different scale are represented by the term argmn. The word is Hittite in origin, derived from the Hittite word arkamme. 294 Since the term is used in contexts where Ugarit sends goods to its Hittite rulers, it is likely that this was the avenue from which the word entered Ugaritic. It also seems to be only applied to this scale of economic obligation - between states or cities, and is not used at lesser levels.

Heltzer 1988, pp. 10-11. For the Hebrew definition, see The Brow-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon (BDB), p. 178. The mistake in equating the Hebrew and the Ugaritic words still occurs (see Michaux-Colombot 1997). 289 Schloen 2001, p. 234. 290 Heltzer 1982, p. 49; Liverani 1989, p. 146. 291 The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) D, p. 146. 292 See Harvard Semitic Series (HSS) 9 102: 3f and Harvard Semitic Series (HSS) 9 109: 5. 293 Libolt 1985, p. 57. 294 Watson 1995a, p. 541. 287 288

295 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, pp. 100-101; Gordon 1965, p. 60; Heltzer 1982, p. 100; Watson 1995a, p. 541. See van Soldt 1990, p. 344 n. 164 for an explanation of why this term should not be translated "purple" according to the seemingly cognate Hebrew word. 296 Knoppers 1993. For a different interpretation, see Dietrich and Loretz 1966a. 297 Smith 1997, p. 101. 298 The orthography here is odd since the final 'is missing.

132

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ntbft) Appearing twice in the alphabetic economic texts, ntbt has some interesting connotations. Sasson has suggested that the word refers to a kind of "trading concession."299 Sasson compares it with the Akkadian word barranu and the Sumerian word KASKAL, both of which mean "road" as well as "business venture."300 Sasson also argues that the large sum of money paid in KTU 4.336 for the ntbt further demonstrates the likelihood of this reading. Astour, agrees with Sasson's reading of this word. 30! In KTU 4.336, an individual purchases a ntbt for 220 units of gold. A similar transaction is recorded in KTU 4.388, but this text is quite broken. The best evidence comes from KTU 2.36, where the word is attested in line 16. There the context is a discussion of Egypt's ntbt through the country of Ugarit in the transportation of goods. Indeed, no other understanding of this term in KTU 2.36 is plausible, and this word should be taken as "trading concession" following Sasson.302

THE LANGUAGE OF THE UGARITIC ECONOMY

questioned.t''" The repeated use of these categories reifies them and empowers them in the manner proposed by Giddens. 305 It is safe to see the use of administrative language as a type of power assuming a Foucauldian understanding of power where it is a continual process that is exercised, even if it is not consciously apparent to those exercising the domination.P'" At this stage it is important to now move beyond the level of the word to the level of the complete text, which is the subject of Chapter Four.

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has provided an overview of some of the major lexical problems associated with alphabetic Ugaritic economic texts. As is evident from the previous discussion, much can be learned about economics at Ugarit by the examination of the emic language used in economic situations. Words shape and reflect reality; in many ways available language provides conceptual constraints on activity. To some degree the language affects how the possibilities of economic actions are "framed", which as has been discussed in Chapter One, has been identified as one of the primary variables that motivates individuals in economic action. 303 Economic decisions and actions are not necessarily made based on "rational" principles (i.e., marginal utility), but are more often based on how an individuals understands (or is compelled to understand) the particular situation, most commonly through language. At the same time it can be argued that the economic actors did not question this kind of framing. Rather, language is an excellent example of the "naturalized arbitrary" as identified by Bourdieu, where the legitimacy of such categories is not even

Sasson 1966, p. 136. Sasson 1966, p. 136. 301 Astour 1970, p. 120. 302 Sasson 1966, p. 136.This word is also cognate with Biblical Hebrew 11~113. At least two attestations of this word in the Hebrew Bible may have similar connotations to the use of the ntbt in Ugaritic. In Judges 5:6, in the Song of Deborah, there is a mention of the economic situation of caravaneers before the soon to begin war. The cryptic expression :l~' 11~l11, literally "goers on the paths" may actually reflect individuals who travel on protected trade routes. In Proverbs 8:2, mention is made of a "house of 11~l11", which may refer to a customs house or toll building. 303 Kahneman and Tversky 2000a, p. 4.

133

299

300

304 305 306

Bourdieu 1977, p. 164. Giddens 1984, p. 19. Foucault 1977, p. 26.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

CHAPTER FOUR

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC .ECONOMIC TEXTS

In the multiplicity of writing, everything is to be disentangled, nothing deciphered; the structure can be followed, 'run' (like ~e thread of a stocking) at every point and every level, but there IS nothing beneath: the space of writing is to be ranged over, not pierced; writing ceaselessly posits meaning ceaselessly to evaporate it, carrying out a systematic exemption of meaning. Roland Barthes (trans. Stephen Heath)

When reading the economic texts from Ugarit, form-critical analysis becomes particularly important. While the texts may be fragmentary or their meanings may be obscure, it is often possible to derive meaning from comparison and analysis with other, similar texts. In particular, with the regular absence of verbal forms, and the typical lack of preservation of the tops and bottoms of tablets (which was where headings were often placed), it becomes important to understand each text within a broader context of similar administrative documents. Scribes seemed to have chosen from a limited corpus of models when composing a text, and it can be assumed that the form of the text was directly related to its administrative function. This chapter shall illustrate some of the patterns of form and function within the Ugaritic corpus and demonstrate how these two issues are deeply related in interpretation. Discussion will center on the alphabetic administrative documents, as opposed to the syllabic texts, since the laconic nature of the alphabetic texts provide more problems for interpretation. Other scholars have recognized general patterns in this material and cuneiform economic texts have been traditionally organized according to their subject matter. Broadly speaking, texts are grouped according to categories like silver, textiles, and comestibles.' This practice is logical given the nature of cuneiform research. When reading through economic texts, it is "natural" to see what kinds of materials were the focus of the texts and list them accordingly. Furthermore, this system of organization is very useful to scholars, who tend to focus on a particular section of the economy such as the commodity cycle of certain products like silver, textiles, and comestibles.

Certainly this approach represents an important means of organization, and it is the starting point, broadly speaking, for the presentation below. A second means of organizing these texts has been offered by Pardee and Bordreuil.i They categorize the Ugaritic administrative material as "lists," "official acts" or "business documents."3 Under the category oflist, Pardee and Bordreuil further subdivide the texts according to the subject of the lists (personal names, place names, and receipts and disbursements). Under their category of "official acts and commercial documents," they further subdivide the texts into palace documents and private documents. The following discussion will draw on both of these kinds of analyses and systems of organization. It is suggested here that form and function are intricately related. The economic texts are first broadly divided into what is identified as the subject or focus of the administrative event. The next level of categorization divides the texts based on their literary or formal characteristics. The method of notating information is often directly related to the type of information being collected. An important component in understanding what information is being collected in these economic tablets is to identify the primary referents in the texts. In many ways, the perspective of the scribe is more important than the actual details of the form of the tablet. An understanding of the goals/reasons for writing the tablet is desired here. Identifying the primary referents in each tablet is important in determining what information was recorded, especially given the lack of conscious description about the purpose of each tablet. The following discussion of the genres of the tablets is organized around the primary referent in each text. The primary referents are the subjects of the writing process, those aspects of economic life that were deemed important to record in each situation of scribal activity, the situation that is represented by the writing of the tablet. In general, this analysis should help to clarify the administrative purpose of the texts. Basic questions of why these texts were compiled, as well as what kinds of economic issues were recorded by scribal activity will be examined as well. What follows is a categorization of the texts based on these criteria. It must be noted that it is not being argued that this is the only means of organizing the texts. This organization is intended as an heuristic device, not as a monolithic system of understanding. This kind of analysis is heavily dependent on definitions of genre used in "New Rhetoric." Genre in this sense refers to a combination of the form and the situation, or Sitz im Leben, where the text is used.? The analysis of the forms of administrative texts within the context of their Sitz im Leben allows the reconstruction of the ways that particular economic situations were framed. As discussed in Chapter One, the

2

3 1

Huehnergard 1989, pp. 317-321.

135

4

Pardee and Bordreuil 1992, pp. 712-721. Pardee and BordreuilI992, p. 713. Giltrow 2002, p. 24.

136

137

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

way that a situation is framed can be of central importance in determining the individual's response to the situation.? The following chapter seeks to identify the methods by which the palace administration (and other users of economic texts) framed the economic situation, and in essence how that process of framing constrained choice at Ugarit. Approaching the study of 'economic texts at Ugarit through this understanding of genre has a considerably larger goal: the reconstruction of the context of the production of written records relating to the economy at Ugarit. Basic questions about the nature of administration are central, as a means of understanding not just the organization of economy, but also the nature of the written record. The textual record provides a glimpse into the economic activities of the past. However, this remains simply a glimpse since only certain kinds of economic activities involved the production of written records. It is of central importance in the investigation of the economy using textual records to understand why the textual record has been preserved as it is. A useful analogy for this approach comes from archaeology and the investigation of cultural formation processes. For an archaeologist, it is absolutely essential to be aware of the cultural activities that led to the deposition of the data in the form that archaeologists encounter. It is not sufficient to simply determine that a class of artifacts was buried, for example, rather it is necessary to understand how and why these artifacts were buried (i.e., hoarding, mortuary practices). The same is true of the archaeological record as manifest in tablets and other written records. It is essential to determine why these tablets were created, not just to rely on readings of what the tablets say. It is assumed then that it is possible to determine larger patterns of written record production. The purpose of this chapter is to illuminate those situations that led to the creation of a tablet, thereby not only understanding the tablets themselves but also to be clear about when a tablet (as evidence for economic activity) could be expected to be found. At this point it is useful to layout the taxonomy that is imposed on the economic texts in the following section. The major referents that are identified as key informational goals are people, places, commodities, equipment, and land. The first referent discussed is "people", and within this group, texts recording information about personal names, occupations of individuals, and censuses are identified. Records of people are discussed, first when only a personal name is given in a tablet, followed by discussions of personal names in reference to other personal names, occupational categories, geographic names, numbers, and commodities. The next category of genre is that class of text where occupational categories are the primary referents. First occupational categories alone will be discussed, followed by those tablets that discuss occupational categories along with personal names, geographic names, and numbers. Following this is a

discussion of those tablets that treat occupational categories as collective units. The discussion of text genre continues with a discussion of census texts, which straddle the genre categories associated with personal names, occupational categories, and geographic locations. The subject of geographic locations is dealt with next. First, simple lists of geographic names are discussed, then, lists with names and numbers. Tablets with information about fields, about the circulation of goods in specific locations, and about agricultural equipment in specific locations are also discussed in the context of geographic referents. Records of commodities are discussed following this, categorized into discussions on comestibles, wine, olives, oil, precious metal, salt, and textiles. Related to this is the discussion on records about equipment, including agricultural equipment, transportation equipment, and the equipment of individuals. Tablets relating to land are discussed next, including texts categorized as field transfers, ubdy fields, and unt. records. The last genre of tablet discussed includes those tablets that explicitly discuss specific types of economic activities.

5

Kahneman and Tversky 2000a, p. 4.

RECORDS FROM PRIVATE ARCHIVES

The goal of this chapter is to look at the genre of texts, here understood as involving both the form of the text and the situation of the text's composition/use. For this reason, it is important to keep separate the context of the various tablets. As the palace is far and away the largest source of tablets, it was important to keep separate those tablets from the palace from the tablets found at other sites. While this division may not reflect emic perceptions of Ugaritic society, (if one follows Schloen's understanding then the palace would have been understood as a larger scale of private household), it is important to keep them separate in this study. Primarily this is because with the palace texts one can assume that the tablets reflect a higher level of authority. There may be manifestations of royal (or other authority) in the other archives, but this cannot be assumed a priori so it is better to keep the two groups distinct. Indeed, it has been demonstrated in Chapter One that larger institutions often mediate individual decision-making in economic activities.f So at the outset it is important to keep the various institutions separate, even if the actual mediation of economic activity turns out to have no practical difference. RECORDS OF PEOPLE

One of the largest classes of economic tablets written in Ugaritic deals with keeping track of people. In these texts the people play a variety of roles, as laborers, as producers, and as consumers. Due to the often cryptic form of these texts, it is not always

6

Smith 2000, p. 203.

138

139

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

immediately apparent what administrative/economic information was intended with the act of inscribing the tablet.

KTU 4.354, KTU 4.364*, KTU 4.372, KTU 4.406, KTU 4.229, KTU 4.233*, KTU 4.112, and KTU 4.543. This type of text is also well attested in the syllabic corpus. Examples include: PRU 3 196 (RS 15.42 + 110), PRU 6 82 (RS 17.242), PRU 6 83 (RS 17.430), PRU 6 84 (RS 19.30), PRU 6 85 (RS 19.79), PRU 6 86 (RS 19.82), PRU 6 88 (RS 19.94), PRU 6 89 (RS 19.110), PRU 6 90 (RS 19.114), PRU 691 (RS 19.132), PRU 6 92 (RS 19.173A), Ug. 5 97 (RS 20.20), and Ug. 5 98 (RS 20.07). While it takes the form of a simple list of names, KTU 4.607 is unusual. Since every name begins with the i-aleph it has been suggested by Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin, that this is actually a scribal exercise. 10 Tablets simply listing names, without any other preserved information are also attested in archives outside of the palace. At Yabninus House (Southern Palace), texts of this type include: KTU.4.649, KTU 4.651, and KTU 4.653. At the House of Rap'anu, KTU 4.700 is a simple list of names. KTU 4.760 found at Urtenu's House, is a simple name list. North of the Tablet House, KTU 4.724 may also fall into this category. The Library of the High Priest contained two texts of this type: KTU 4.2 and KTU 4.12. KTU 4.730, KTU 4.731, and KTU 4.737 are all texts of this type, found at the House of the Hurrian Priest. From the Ville Basse, KTU 4.37 should be considered one of these texts. The Ville Sud yielded KTU 4.723. Tablets without a secure or known provenance that fall into this category include: KTU 4.8, KTU 4.435, KTU 4.495, KTU 4.496, KTU 4.504, KTU 4.506, KTU 4.514, KTU 4.687, and KTU 4.787. It is impossible to precisely reconstruct the use of these lists of names in the Ugaritic administrative archive when no discussion is given explicitly in the text itself Pardee and Bordreuil argue that without headings, it is impossible to understand the exact purpose of such tablets. II The likeliest function of these tablets is as a means of recording labor forces, although these lists may record other types of information, such as deliveries or receipts from certain individuals. Monroe suggests that these lists are "simple head counts."12 Other tablets of personal names (for example see the discussion of KTU 4.635 below) specifically describe people under the authority of a higher status individual. At present, the best interpretation of these tablets is to understand that they reflect lists of individuals under the authority of a higher individual (from whose perspective the tablet is written). It must be recognized, however, that this is conjectural. There is much that these simple name lists can tell us about administration at Ugarit, even if it is impossible to fully understand their original functions. Since these tablets lack explicit discussion of the type of information that is recorded, it should be

Personal Names The use of personal names in the Ugaritic archival records demonstrates that the masses of workers were not simply faceless, unnamed individuals, under the control of the palace. A certain degree of autonomy is suggested by the use of personal names, both in and out of the palace archive. While these texts may demonstrate a significant degree of obligation towards institutions such as the palace, temples, and elite households, the fact that individuals were kept track of in this manner demonstrates a distinctiveness amongst the population. From a prosopographic perspective it is not really possible to outline (even limited) biographies of most of these people, as neither the recurrence of names nor the provision of secondary information (i.e.,occupation, gentilic, or patronym) is sufficient to make identification absolutely certain. What follows is a discussion of those tablets with a primary interest in personal names, organized according to the information supplied alongside of the personal names. With PersonalNames Alone

Many of the tablets from the palace archive preserve only lists of personal names, which Monroe calls "acephalous" as opposed to those tablets with headings, which he calls "cephalous.'? It is important to distinguish between those texts which, when compiled, were only personal names, and those texts that originally had more information. This kind of determination is somewhat subjective, since it involves hypothesizing about non-existent sections of tablets. The sheer repetitiveness of the forms of the tablets helps to limit the likely options, making this not as arbitrary a distinction as it might seem. What follows in this subsection is a discussion of those texts in which the primary orientation of the information is towards the personal name, or individual identification. Examples of these tablets consisting simply of a list of personal names are abundant. Patronyms are frequently listed, and often the patronym rather than the actual name itself is used. Tablets of this type8 include: KTU 4.334, KTU 4.114, KTU 4.115*, KTU 4.84, KTU 4.97, KTU 4.130*, KTU 4.147*, KTU 4.148*, KTU 4.159*, KTU 4.289, KTU 4.662, KTU 4.672, KTU 4.678, KTU 4.679, KTU 4.321 9, KTU 4.445, KTU 4.448, KTU 4.449, KTU 4.452, KTU 4.453, KTU 4.455, KTU 4.458, KTU 4.520, KTU 4.524, KTU 4.537, KTU 4.539, KTU 4.543,

7 8 9

Monroe 2000, p. 187. Tablets marked with a * indicate complete tablets. This text is in a strange format. It is three lines, with four names in each line.

10

11 12

Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin 1995, pp. 420-421. Pardee and Bordreuil 1992, p. 713. Monroe 2000, p. 188.

141

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

assumed that this would have been obvious to the people who would have made use of these tablets as records. Without explanatory information, it is conceivable that these tablets may have only had a use as records for a short time, since the recording goal of the tablets would likely have been forgotten if these tablets were stored for long periods of time. Whitt has commented on the lack of dates on tablets such as these, which is unusual for cuneiform archives, limiting their utility as archival documents.P Along with the small group of people who could have used these tablets, the lack of supplementary data likewise limited the length of time after the tablet had been recorded that it could have been administratively useful. A simple list of names would not have been particularly useful much after the administrative moment when it was composed, and it is safe to say that these tablets were used by the scribes to help organize information at a particular moment, and were not used as a means of storing data for later retrieval. These observations suggest that the nature of economic organization had few distinctly bureaucratic characteristics, and was more manifest as an ad hoc organizational system. The very presence of such texts demonstrates that participants in the palace economy were not nameless, unknown individuals. Within the context of the palace, and the administration of economic matters at the palace, individuals were named, and referred to by name by the administrators. At a large center like Ugarit, this probably suggests somewhat regularized contact between these individuals and the palace. The names as listed do not give much identifying information, and for the tablets to have had any function, it must be assumed that the record keeper had a significant degree of familiarity with these people. The act of recording signifies that the information was too complex to trust to memory, but the limited degree of recorded information suggests that what needed to be recorded was which individuals were associated with the situation in a particular instance.

name. A similar construction, w lmdh ("and his apprentice") is also used after personal names in texts KTU 4.194, and KTU 4.227. Another kind of designation that appears frequently is sgr, which can appear with or without reference to a personal name (see Chapter Three). Also used in this manner is the term r'h, in texts KTU 4.391, KTU 4.440, and KTU 4.740. Essentially though, these texts fulfilled the same functions (or at least take the same form) as those lists that consisted solely of personal names. What is particularly noteworthy about the use of these referents in connection with personal names in the administrative documents is the further evidence for regularization that this demonstrates. The palace administrators accord some individuals greater recognition than others. There is an implicit hierarchy of status here. There are individuals that the palace recognizes by name. Beneath them (or very minimally in association with them) are people who are identified solely by their relationship to the named individuals, and are not listed by name themself. Perhaps this is a distinction in age (as is very likely the case with the use of nhlb), Whatever the nature of this status difference, this is further evidence that there was a regular association of individuals in the administrative documents, and a lower status group of people who acted within the palace administrative system, but were not recognized by this administrative apparatus by name. This subordinate group should be distinguished from slaves, who are described separately in the cuneiform record. For example, PRU 3 188 (RS 16. 126A), written in syllabic script, lists seventeen slaves eli (upon, to the debt of) a specified individual. It is possible to recognize tablets that identify relationships between individuals or groups of people. As has been mentioned above, lists of names may reflect an attempt to account for individuals under the supervision or authority of the person who used the tablet. Some texts make this use of the tablet explicit. For example, KTU 4.635 states that specific individuals are under the authority of other individuals (like the king, queen, or sakinu). Also interesting in this text is the high number of foreigners listed as such. In these situations, the very presence of such lists indicates that this is not a normative situation. In other words, the need to record this information indicates that prior to the recording of this information, those individuals were not necessarily under the authority of the superior, at least for the specific event that the tablet was written to account for. A tablet found outside of the palace archive (in the House of Rap'anu) follows this form somewhat. KTU 4.704 is a list of personal names, with the numbers one or two written beside the names. No occupations are listed for the individuals in the body of the text, but at the end of the tablet a total number of soldiers is provided, and from that, it should be deduced that the individuals listed above were in fact soldiers. The total number given is 13, which the numbers above add up to. This means that sometimes the same name is used to denote two people, which is understandable given that

140

With Reference to Other Individuals Personal names were not the only means of identifying individuals within these kinds of texts. Frequently, instead of a person's name, their relationship to another individual is the primary means of identifying them administratively. Words other than personal names can be used in these name lists in place of personal names. In KTU 4.311, KTU 4.315, KTU 4.413, KTU 4.571, KTU 4.581, and KTU 4.605 the designation w nblh14 ("and his heir") is used in reference to a previously listed personal Whitt 1993, pp. 284-285. The h affixed to the word nb! is the third masculine singular suffix. In some of these texts, another form nblhm is employed as well. Typically, this form is found in a line immediately following a line where nblh is found (for example KTU 4.66:3-4). The best understanding of this form is as a plural form ("their heirs"). However, it is possible that this is simply an enclitic particle i-ma), although on nouns this particle is normally found in association with prepositions, vocative expressions, or on words in status constructus, see Sivan 1997, pp. 192-193; and Trapper 2000, pp. 826-829. 13

14

142

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

the name is written as son of x. So personal names that have a "two" listed after should be understood as indicating brothers. KTU 4.370, records the personal names of bns mlk requested by a particular individual. Some of the names seem to be grouped under occupational designations. From this text, it is apparent that some individuals were able to request human resources, most likely as labor resources, from the palace. The palace had the ability to fulfill this kind of request, and did so by assigning particular individuals, specified by name, to the requestor. An unusual text is KTU 4.133, which lists the personal name of individuals who possibly took the place of other individuals. It is assumed that this indicated some kind of work related substitution, but this is not explicitly laid out in the text. 15 If this reading is accurate, then this is more evidence for the regularization of individuals in the palace administrative record. It implies that there was an expected role of certain people (although that role is not explicitly laid out) and that there was a need to record situations where someone filled in for them. The role fulfilled by these individuals could not have been overly specialized (although it is not impossible that one bronze smith was replaced by another). Likewise, it seems more plausible to assume that the individuals were filling in as laborers rather than as individuals receiving goods from or giving goods to the palace. An alternative reading takes the expression "PN tht PN" as indicating that the first PN is subordinate to the second PN.16 If this is the case, then this text is simply a roster, listing individuals under the authority of other individuals.

With Reference to Geographic Locations Geography plays an important part in the specification of individuals within the administrative record. There seem to be three possible types of informational goals achieved through listing individual names in reference to geographic regions. One was the notation of the geographic origin of specific individuals. I? Another was the notation of the current geographic location of specific individuals. These are very different kinds of information, although from a formal standpoint can be difficult to distinguish. The third kind of geographic-related information is the relationship between specific individuals and property (i.e., ownership), and is easier to identify. What follows is a discussion of the various forms where this kind of relationship between people and places is manifest, and an attempt at classifying which of these three types of information is recorded.

Pardee 1976, p. 304. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 866. 17 It is preferable to distinguish this from ethnic affiliation, which mayor may not be implicit in these gentilic designations.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

143

It is hard to categorize those tablets that feature a geographic name, followed by a list of personal names, into one of the above mentioned three categories (similar texts are found where an occupational designation is given rather than a geographic heading). Texts of this type include KTU 4.79, KTU 4.108, KTU 4.371, and KTU 4.383. KTU 4.25, from the Library of the High Priest, could also be categorized here. What is uncertain in all of these texts is whether they list individuals from these regions, or whether they list individuals at these regions. KTU 4.335 departs slightly from this style in providing a more specific heading. It states that it is a list of people from a certain geographic region presumably under the charge of someone (however, that section is broken). Unfortunately, because the heading of this text is so specific, it cannot be understood, with certainty, as analogous to the texts that list only a geographic name followed by individuals. At present, the recording goal of these texts must remain uncertain. There are instances where it is clear that the tablets functioned to notate the current location of particular individuals. In KTU 4.122, people at a particular gt are listed. Similar information is found in the broken tablet KTU 4.200, which takes a slightly different form. The personal name is listed first, followed by the statement "at gt x." KTU 4.557 lists people who live in a particular town (yt.b b /:Jqr). PRU 681 (RS 19.182) lists individuals from certain towns on the Syrian coast. PRU 6 78 (RS 19.41) identifies individuals from Qaratu currently residing in Siyannu. It can be assumed that these situations reflect an administrative need to keep track of the location of certain people. This administrative situation also occurred outside of the palace. Yabninus House (Southern Palace) yielded tablets that noted the location of individuals, including KTU 4.643 and KTU 4.648. Likewise, there are examples of texts where the appearance of personal names and geographic names together are intended to describe the location of origin of the individual. Personal names and gentilics appear prominently in KTU 4.85. In this text, personal names are followed immediately by a gentilic, in the form PN GNy. It is unlikely though, that this was the main recording goal of this text. The list was probably compiled in order to record some administrative situation akin to the lists of personal names, where the personal names appear in isolation. In this situation, it was necessary to record that the person in question was not from Ugarit. A similar situation is attested in the syllabic text PRU 679 (RS 19.42) that also includes individuals described as Ugaritians along with individuals described as foreigners. This is very compelling, for it demonstrates that the palace administration kept track of non-Ugaritians, and boundaries of otherness were directly manifest in the administration. There was enough perceived difference between people from Ugarit and people from other villages in the kingdom that this was recorded.l" Since the geographic names listed after

15 16

18 Ugaritians outside of the city of Ugarit were also kept track of administratively. PRU 6 80 (RS 19.111) explicitly lists individuals from Ugarit living in other cities. This suggests that the palace felt

144

145

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

the personal names vary, it should be assumed that in this administrative instance, all of these people were in the same general location, so the presence of a geographic name reflects more than just a need to specify particular individuals, but was seen as information intrinsic to their identity. This kind of notation was not unique to the palace. At Yabninu's House, KTU 4.619 describes people in similar terms. Found in the Northwest!", KTU 4.45 'and KTU 4.51 similarly fall into this category. KTU 4.50, also from the Northwest, takes a slightly different form. Each group of personal names in this text has the group's gentilic as its heading. These texts that describe people using geographic referents are informative about administration at Ugarit, and about how identity was manifest at the site. They demonstrate that information about economic issues was tracked beyond the city of Ugarit, indicating some degree of economic/administrative control other than military throughout the kingdom. Yet within the boundaries of the kingdom of Ugarit, people were still identified as inhabitants of certain villages or regions, and identity as an "Ugaritian" extended only to individuals from the city itself. There is no sense of a collective citizenry amongst the people of the kingdom of Ugarit, based on this evidence. Likewise, it seems that the movement of individuals was somewhat limited, even beyond the limited access to transportation resources. The very act of recording the location of origin and the location of habitation of certain individuals reflects some level of domination. This evidence also demonstrates some of the strengths and weaknesses of Schloen's thesis. Certainly these types of texts show the house of the king as the dominant economic entity within the kingdom, and certainly this is the apex of authority. On the other hand, the primary referents used to describe people are not always patronyms, but are in many cases notations of where they are from. While this is not absolutely inconsistent with Schloen's model, it does indicate that the household was not always the dominant metaphor for the structuration of social relationships. Or, perhaps Ugarit was not as vertically integrated, as the Patrimonial Household Model would imply.

tablet. Examples of this are KTU 4.104, KTU 4.106, KTU 4.109, KTU 4.116, KTU 4.260, KTU 4.281, KTU 4.331, KTU 4.350, and KTU 4.588. KTU 4.232 is a variation on this. In this case, the personal names are grouped according to geographic location (that is to say specific personal names are listed beneath specific geographic names). Each personal name is followed by a number (either two or three as preserved). Outside of the palace archive, name lists associated with numbers are also attested. KTU 4.617 comes from Yabninu's House and records over eighty names with asso]b bth, "bnlm who ciated numbers, all under the fragmentary heading: bnlm dt if[ are [ ] in his house." From the House of Rap'anu, KTU 4.697 appears to be a list of names and numbers, though the names are not clear. Among the tablets at the House of Urtenu, KTU 4.763 falls into this category. KTU 4.713 should be classified here, which came from the Ville Sud. Unprovenanced tablets that fall into this category include: KTU 4.57, KTU 4.58, KTU 4.64, KTU 4.432, KTU 4.433, KTU 4.435, KTU 4.711, and KTU 4.785. There are a relatively large number of possibilities for what these numbers stand for and what these texts record. Virolleaud initially called these "etats de solde," referring to the fact that their form was always a name followed by a number.i" Pardee and Bordreuil emphasize the problems with interpretations of such tablets, since without an explicit verb to explain the direction of movement of goods, or explanation of what the number means, these texts could reflect any number of economic situations.P Incomplete as this understanding of these texts is, it is arguable that only a limited group of people would have found this information useful, from an archival standpoint, and that that utility could only last for a brief amount of time. It is likely that these texts were used to organize a specific economic event and were helpful tools for the scribe/administrator at the time, but would not have had much use over a longer period.

With Chattel Commodities, and Precious Metals With Numbers There are a number of texts preserved in the palace archive that consist solely of personal names followed by a numerical value. It is difficult to be certain about the use of these tablets, when the item that the number stands for is not clear from the the need to record anyone who was "out of place", or in an unexpected location. It is possible to argue for any number of motivations for this kind of record keeping. It seems likely, however, that this "out of place-ness" would have been considered disruptive, or dangerous for the larger community or that the "out of place" individual was endangered because of their unusual position. 19 The Northwest is a designation from the Ninth and Tenth seasons of excavations, see Schaeffer 1938, 1939. Later, this region would be identified as the palace. Since the exact provenance of tablets found in this region is uncertain, these tablets are best considered separately from those tablets found in clear association with the palace.

Lists of personal names associated with amounts of commodities and chattel are common within the palace archive. Texts of this sort may seem straightforward, but in fact are quite difficult in the alphabetic script when no verbal forms describe the direction of movement of items and/or there is no heading describing what type of transaction is recorded. Pardee and Bordeuil note that there is nothing in these texts that necessarily indicate the direction of movement of goods. 22 In general, it is assumed that these lists reflect distributions of items to the listed personal names or payments to

20 21 22

See Pardee and Bordreuil 1992, p. 7I6. Pardee and Bordreuil 1992, p. 7I 6. Pardee and Bordeuil 1992, p. 7I6.

146

147

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

the palace from these individuals. Astour takes a stand on this issue, stating: "Ugaritic lists in which personal names are followed without other indications by quantities of silver, wine, oil, etc., represent payments to the state rather than by the state."23 It is important to look at each form of text individually to be certain about the direction of movement of goods. Either way, the existence of such tablets reflects the palace's interest in such transactions: These transactions were recorded by the palace, hinting at a degree of managerial interest in this kind of economic activity. Silver was often noted alongside of personal names. The most common form these texts take is a name followed by an unmodified number. At the bottom of the text, a total quantity of silver is given, which suggests that the number listed above must have been a silver quantity. Examples of this include: KTU 4.72, *KTU 4.111, and KTU 4.276. Both KTU 4.658 and KTU 4.682 include the word ksp (silver) alongside the number. Unfortunately, it is impossible to state with certainty the direction of movement of this silver in most of these texts. In KTU 4.276 the preposition I precedes the personal name. In that case, it is certain that the text reflects distributions of silver to the person specified (see Chapter Three for more on prepositional usage), and the presence of the tablet in the palace archive suggests that the person received the silver from the palace. One can presume, based on this attested instance, that silver was distributed to individuals, from the palace. Silver, could be and was possessed by nonroyals at Ugarit. Since the other texts are not written in this form, it is difficult to generalize based on this tablet. On the one hand, it can be argued that since the movement of silver towards individuals is attested in one case, an analogous situation can be assumed in the other cases. On the other hand, the fact that this formulation is not used in the other texts can be construed as indicating that a different direction of movement is expressed in the other texts. Tablets listing personal names and amounts of silver (in shekels) are also found outside of the palace. KTU 4.759 is one such text. KTU 4.212 describes the movement of large amounts of silver, in one case 1048 units, to specified individuals. Smaller amounts, around 3 for each individual, are dealt with in KTU 4.90, found in the Northwest (probably associated with the palace). Quantities of textiles associated with particular individuals are reported in the palace archive as well. Lists of individuals taking wool (and the amounts that they have taken) are recorded in KTU 4.131. A number of other texts record this same kind of information, but these are oriented towards occupational groups, rather than personal names. In KTU 4.165, individuals are listed with unmodified numbers. Yet on the reverse of this same tablet, quantities of garments are recorded. There is no demonstrable connection between the numbers on the obverse and reverse of the tablet. Specific types of garments received by specific individuals (grouped roughly by occupational

category) are recorded in KTU 4.188. KTU 4.190 also records the distribution of kinds of textiles to individuals. All of these texts reflect a clear situation where individuals took textiles held by the palace. The palace kept track of who took what quantities of textiles. This is clear evidence that the palace distributed secondarily produced products to individuals, although the rationale behind the distribution is not specified. From the area designated the Northwest (see note 19), KTU 4.46 lists personal names alongside various types of textiles (fflmt or f'rt). Note that the form of the text is simply a name with the class of textile written beside it. KTU 4.52 is similar, but in this case, the type of textile is a msg. Wine was also distributed to individuals grouped according to occupational category. KTU 4.93 is a list of individuals with the quantities of wine that they were given. The scribe recorded the distribution of wine from the possession of the palace to other individuals. This was a typical economic activity engaged in by the palace. It also was a situation that required record keeping, hinting at a logic behind the distribution. That is to say, the presence of the record means that wine was not given out haphazardly or as was needed, but that there was some rationale behind its distribution. The equipment of individuals seems also to have been the subject of administrative notation. There are texts that seem to keep track of the personal property of individuals - perhaps the equipment that they brought with them that needed to be distinguished from royal equipment. In KTU 4.107, the designation yd np!h "with his equipment" is repeated. Presumably a personal name would have been written before this statement, but the tablet is not well preserved. In KTU 4.92 the np[ of a sakinu is noted. The same term, np[, is used in KTU 4.248 in a record of property transference. The np[ of shepherds is accounted for in KTU 4.624. It is interesting to note that the equipment listed as belonging to the shepherds are all types of weapons. Tools and equipment belonging to individuals are also recorded in the syllabic texts. PRU 6 141 (RS 19.112) lists particular items belonging to an individual, including knives, sickles, and rope. PRU 6 168 (RS 21.199) is similarly structured, listing types of items, a numerical value, and noting to whom the items belonged. Without reference to the word np[, KTU 4.627 lists items belonging to someone (the part of the tablet with the name is broken) who dwells in the house of the king. Beneath this heading are quantities of items, all described as belonging "to him". Unfortunately, the tablet is very fragmentary and the actual goods cannot be determined. The appearance of this term, np[, in these contexts is clear evidence for some notion of private property. There is a need to distinguish between the property of the palace and the property of the individual. This may seem like a point that should be taken for granted, but underlying many assumptions about the economy of Ugarit is the notion that the palace owned everything.P'

23

Astour 1972, p. 12 n.15.

24

See for example Schloen 2001.

149

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

The palace administration kept track of transportation and draft equipment/animals under the control of certain individuals. KTU 4.186 lists people who had some control over wagons, whether ownership or some sort of functional control. A list of people with teams of horses is preserved in KTU 4.427. People who possessed oxen are listed in KTU 4.422. The amounts of oxen possessed by specified individuals are listed in the syllabic texts: PRU 3 206ff (RS 16.294), PRU 6 118 (RS 18.116), and Ug. 5 14 (17.332). In KTU 4.366, boats Ct.kt) are listed after personal names. Ownership in these situations is uncertain. All of these types of transportation equipment and draft animals are associated with personal names. This could mean that these people owned these items, or it could mean that they had access to equipment understood as the property of the palace. The presence of records such as these within the palace administrative archive strongly suggests the latter understanding, that the palace was just keeping track of who was using which of its equipment. Since all of these kinds of equipment were relatively valuable, it seems probable that the palace owned these items, but let individuals use them for a variety of purposes. The sharing of draft animals is attested in other non-industrial economic situations. Medieval manors and Early Modern French villages typically shared draft animals communally, in order to lessen the burden on individual owners, especially given the high costs of upkeep, versus the relatively inconsistent seasonal cycles of use. It is not always safe to draw parallels across time and space like this, but given that Ugaritians likely operated under similar resource constraints, this is a very possible scenario. Amounts of sheep possessed by people are recorded in KTU 4.616. Note that one geographic name is also included in this list. The situation when this text was written is difficult to reconstruct, given that the quantities of sheep listed are quite small. As sheep husbandry was undoubtedly a major component of subsistence strategies, it is difficult to understand why the palace would have been interested in recording that these people (and this one village) each had one, five, or ten sheep. Given the scale of sheep listed, it is likely that this list represents amounts of sheep delivered to or taken from the palace. The mention of one town name complicates this text. While it is possible that the palace recorded the distribution of sheep to this one town, it seems easier to understand this text as a record of sheep deliveries to the palace. There are more syllabic records preserved regarding the possession of sheep by individuals. Frequently this is expressed as: x amount of sheep ina qat PN. PRU 3 188ff (RS 16.290) and PRU 6117 (RS 17.136) can be categorized as such. In both of these cases, the amounts of sheep are substantially larger than in KTU 4.616, ranging from 30 to 111. Another expression that indicated the possession of sheep is: x amount of sheep eli PN. Texts that fall into this category include: PRU 6 115 (RS 17.37), PRU 6 119 (RS 19.69), and PRU 6 121 (RS 19.141). Similar ranges of amounts are found in these texts. While similar in form, these different expressions likely indicate different situations. Syllabic texts using the word qat likely indicate people who possessed

sheep, and is equivalent to the use of the Ugaritic bd. Syllabic texts that use the preposition eli are expressing similar information as those alphabetic texts that use the preposition 'I, and indicate a transference to or a debt upon the personal name following. The palace also recorded the weapons possessed by certain individuals. In KTU 4.180, the obverse lists individuals "without arrows," and the reverse lists individuals with chariots. In KTU 4.204, various individuals are recorded as possessing weapons of varying types. Conversely, KTU 4.180 lists individuals who do not possess certain kinds of military equipment. That the palace recorded situations where individuals did not possess equipment demonstrates that the normative situation was for these individuals to possess this equipment. This does not necessarily imply ownership, although the existence of inscribed arrowheads in other Late Bronze Age Levantine sites could be taken as evidence that a similar situation existed at Ugarit. Certainly though, these types of texts reflect a situation where the palace kept records of who lacked equipment in order to supply it to them. The distribution of rations is recorded in KTU 4.269. This tablet records the distribution of rations, for a one-month period, to a specific house (bt). Unfortunately, the tablet is broken in the section which provides more information on this bt. Note that the break also allows that bt could be the first part of a geographic name rather than the word for "house." Whether to an individual house or a larger entity, this text explicitly describes amounts of cereals given by the palace in a specified month. The word bpr is typically understood as rations. This translation is somewhat problematic, given that the use of the word rations carries an implication of payment in subsistence goods for services. In this case, there is no indication for the rationale behind the palace's distribution of such goods. Liverani reads this text as a monthly summary of the products at a particular establishment devoted to the secondary production of goods derived from animal husbandry (cheese and wool).25 This text, based on Liverani's reading, indicates how much of each product was left at the establishment or how much needed to be distributed for the month in question.j" In the Northwest (see note 19), KTU 4.55, lists personal names (and in a few cases gentilics) alongside the word dd, referring to some good measurable in dd. This particular item was either distributed to or received from these individuals.

148

Occupational Categories Lists of occupational categories appear relatively frequently in the archives of both Ugarit and Alalakh. Often, these lists provide no explicitly stated rationale for their compilation. At the same time, these texts often show remarkable homogeneity in form,

25 26

Liverani 1989, p. 144. Liverani 1989, p. 129.

151

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

often to the extent that a distinct order (possibly ranking) of occupational categories can be discerned because of the order of appearance of the groups in the lists. For example, Gray notes that the mryn are always at the top of these lists, and argues that these groups are best understood as "guilds."27 Rainey similarly understands these groups as "guilds," artisans that are organized to some degree based on particular craft specialist skills.r" For Rainey, the best evidence for this kind of organization is the group payments that are made to these collectives.29 Cutler and MacDonald have put forward a classificatory system for texts dealing with occupational categories, in their discussion of the question of the presence of guilds at Ugarit. 30 Cutler and MacDonald suggest the following categories of texts: "(1) "guild" dues/allocations: (2) "guild" payments issued: (3) land grants to "guilds": (4) "guild" representatives: (5) lists of individual "guild" members: (6) lists of "guilds" without enumeration: (7) a special text ("tools of the trade") ... ".3! Many of these lists take the form solely of lists of occupational categories, without any other types of information (like personal names or numbers) and without any discussion on the purpose behind the compilation of the list. KTU 4.126 is one example of this form.

Another style list lacks the word spr in the headings of the occupational categories. Instead, the occupational category is stated, and below are listed personal names and patronyms. In the fragmentary KTU 4.623, mryn are listed. This form can also be found in KTU 4.286, which is a list of ksd (archers?). The long, but broken, KTU 4.412 lists more than one occupational category. Each occupational category (and subsequent list of personal names, patronyms, and heirs) is separated from the others by line dividers. The list of occupational categories follows the typical order. The long but fragmentary text KTU 4.183 may belong to this category. KTU 4.277 also groups personal names beneath occupational headings. The order of the various components of the text is unusual and therefore difficult to interpret. Lists of personal names under the heading of specific occupational categories are also found in the syllabic record. List of names of troops are attested in PRU 6 75 (RS 19.121). Two of these types of texts were recovered from the trenches at the site designated as the Northwest. This kind of document is not limited to the palace. KTU 4.633, from Yabninu's House (Southern Palace), is a fragmentary example of this kind of text, although only khnm can certainly be said to be listed there. KTU 4.35 was found on the acropolis, but follows the normative form of these types of documents found within the palace. KTU 4.692 was found in the House of Rap'anu and lists individuals under the heading ysbm. The Library of the High Priest also includes a tablet (KTU 4.27) listing merchants (mkrm). KTU 4.65 lists the names of brtm (plowmen). KTU 4.66 lists tnnm (archers). KTU 4.485 and KTU 4.545 also fall into this category, although both lack provenance. None of these texts give an explicit rationale behind their composition. The form of the texts is instructive in understanding the hierarchy of information. The recordkeeper organized the tablet according to occupational category. The personal names are then grouped under these headings. This does not constitute proof that these individuals were organized as a group of craft specialists, since this text is written from the perspective of the palace. Rather, it reflects an administrative need to identify individuals who engaged in a particular specialized activity. It also says nothing about the nature of this specialist labor. It cannot be assumed from these texts that these were full time occupations, or the only occupations that these people engaged in. It needs to be understood that the situation of these texts' composition reflects a need, by the palace, to identify individuals with certain skills or certain assigned tasks.33 Found outside of the palace, south of the House of Rasapabu was KTU 4.690, whose first line reads: spr mdm. Beneath this heading are individuals listed along with total numbers of shekels. Perhaps this reflects a silver debt of some sort or a record of

150

With PersonalNames

Often these lists include the names and patronyms of individuals grouped according to occupational category. One form of this kind of list begins with the heading "tablet32 of x occupational group." After a line divider, a list of names and patronyms follows, presumably listing individuals of x occupational group. For example, KTU 4.155 is a list of builders (brIm) that follows this structure. A list of 'bdm is found in 4.320. And in KTU 4.134 bdl (merchants) are listed. The amount of bsn (an uncertain occupational category) in a certain location is listed in KTU 4.542. A line divider is not always present. KTU 4.215 lists brim, followed by personal names, patronyms, and dependents. There is no line divider in KTU 4.322, or in KTU 4.561, both of which are lists of mryn. Sometimes the reason for the placement of the line divider is obscure. KTU 4.245 is a list of personal names grouped under the headings of various types of md. While the positioning of line dividers immediately before new subject headings (e. g., before line II) are readily understandable, the reason for the placement of line dividers (in instances without a subject heading) remains obscure. Gray 1952, pp. 50-51. Rainey 1962b, p. 166. 29 Rainey 1962b, pp. 166-167. 30 Curler and MacDonald 1977. 31 Curler and MacDonald 1977, pp. 13-14. The problems involved in the use of the term "guild" as well as the issue of whether or not occupational categories per se existed at Ugarit are discussed in Chapter Five. 32 The translation "tablet" as opposed to "list" is justified based on the use of this word in KTU 1.16. 27 28

ot

33 The question of whether or not occupational specialists engaged in their occupational specialty full time is addressed in Chapter Five.

153

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

disbursements of silver. KTU 4.761, found in the House of Urtenu, records distributions of kd (wine) to individuals, under the heading khnm. KTU 4.714, provides: spr rb <srt, "a list of heads of srt-house staff," with individual names and numerals. While the heading of KTU 4.288 is formally similar to these texts, the body of the tablet differs considerably and it thus seems to represent a different situation. The heading reads: spr blblm, which is the same formula as in the texts above. The translation of blblm is not entirely clear, but the best argument is that it refers to some sort of transporter, based on the root *y-b-l.34 After a line divider, lines 2-6 each read: skn GN, "sdkinu ofGN". Line 7 reads: rb ntbt s, "head of sheep paths." Following this is a line divider and three more lines, listing a geographic name and two references to textiles. Perhaps this is a list of items in the possession of each of these individuals, listed as deliverers. This text does demonstrate the difficulties in interpreting texts solely based on the heading, as the contents of this tablet are not predictable based on analogous tablets. A different style of list incorporating personal names and occupational categories takes the form "x personal name y occupational category." Within this style of list, the names are not organized according to the occupational group, indicating that this information is probably secondary for the administrative purpose. KTU 4.332 takes this form. Line 5, after the line divider, suggests that the major similarity among these individuals is their location. Parts of the fragmentary text KTU 4.224 follow this format as well. These texts seem to function as census documents. Since the organization of the tablet is according to personal name, rather than occupational category, it is possible to understand these texts as attempts at keeping track of individuals at certain locations. Had numbers been preserved, it could be assumed that these texts reflected records of payments or receipts. This understanding is still very possible, although there is no way of demonstrating this beyond a reasonable doubt. Another type of list is exemplified by the very broken KTU 4.151. In this text the personal names are listed first. It concludes with the statement "totaly!bm 31 bnsmlk." This statement indicates the total number of men of this occupational category. Presumably the number 31 would equate to the number of names listed above, but since the tablet is broken, this cannot be checked. Texts like this one demonstrate the palace's wish to record the total number of individuals engaging in (or capable of engaging in) specialized labor. This reflects some degree of centralized control over specialized labor by the palace, but the degree of this control is not apparent from the tablets. Some of the more complete lists give a better sense of the purpose of compilation. In KTU 4.214, the lists of personal names are modified by phrases explaining the situation. Lines 4-5 indicate that the associated names refer to merchants (bdb of a particular region who have not been assigned a mhr. In Column III, line 1, the heading

is just merchants from the same geographic area, suggesting that these were merchants more normatively equipped. Implicit in the existence of such a list in the palace archive is the notion that it was the palace's responsibility to assign mhr to merchants, or that the palace felt that it was necessary to keep track of the mhr within the confines of Ugarit as this was presumably an armed, military group. Geese-herders and their assistants are listed in KTU 4.129. The purpose of this text seems to have been to enumerate the number of assistants assigned to specific individuals. In these situations, the palace seems to be assigning labor to occupational specialists, or minimally, is keeping track of that labor. Another, somewhat analogous situation is reflected in KTU 4.752, found outside of the palace, which records: bnsm d it bd rb 'prm, "bnsm who are at the disposal of the head of the Apiru." This demonstrates that there was some sort of administrative purpose to listing occupational groups working under the head of the Apiru, It also demonstrates some of the occupational categories that could be involved with this group.

152

34

Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, p. 8.

With Geographic Names The texts consisting of lists of occupational categories (or individuals grouped according to occupational category) supplemented by geographic information point to the royal administrator's interest in recording the location and/or place of origin of occupational specialists. Pardee and Bordreuil's argument that gentilic references may actually reflect occupational categories, analogous to, as they suggest, the Swiss guards at the Vatican, cannot be ignored, and must be kept in mind when dealing with this category of administrative evidence.P Particularly frequent are texts that keep track of merchants and military personnel (for example KTU 4.33, KTU 4.683, KTU 4.784, and discussion below). It has been mentioned elsewhere (see Chapter Three) that these two arenas of economic activity seem to have been linked. Military expeditions, diplomatic expeditions, and international trade seem to have been related activities in the Bronze Age. This issue will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Eight, but it should be mentioned in passing that all of these activities were engaged in simultaneously, with a combination of palace backing and non-royal elite participation. KTU 4.683 is a list of the brd in a specific geographic area. Beneath the geographic name arr a number of smaller villages are listed. The numbers of brd listed for each is not always preserved, but the preserved amounts range from 30-70. Most commentators understand this text to reflect the payment of military obligations, to the palace, by the villages, in the form of the brd class of military personnel. The geographic region arr seems to be a larger administrative unit, but without explicit explanation, this has to remain a suggestion. Troops are similarly kept track of in the syllabic texts found in

35

Pardee and Bordreuil 1992, p. 715.

154

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

the palace. PRU 3 190ff(RS 11.830), PRU 3 192ff(RS 15.183), PRU 6 71 (RS 17.432), and PRU 695 (RS 19.74) list the amounts of troops in specified geographic locations. Texts that track the location of particular merchants (bd~ include KTU 4.96 and the reverse of KTU 4.86. These texts indicate that there was a relationship between the palace and this type of merchant. Since the text indicates the location of these merchants, it may indicate that these merchants operated on behalf of the palace. Conversely, these texts may simply reflect merchant contacts the palace had in other parts of the kingdom. Geographic information about shepherds is also recorded in the palace archive. KTU 4.103 lists the ubdy-fields of the shepherds. KTU 4.416 lists amounts of fields belonging to shepherds, without specifying the type of field. The location of origin of some shepherds is kept track of in KTU 4.374. Since shepherding is a type of work that is difficult in an urban environment, if shepherds were under the palatial sphere of influence, they likely operated in other, more rural areas. This kind of relationship may be reflected in KTU 4.374. Found outside of the palace, near the House of Agapsarri was KTU 4.729, which lists shepherds, according to personal name, who were from a certain location. Steiner has recently argued that Iron Age shepherds rented fields in order to provide grazing territory for their flocks, and at the same time allow them to harvest fodder to enable them to provision their flocks in the winter months.l" Hopkins argues that there was likely no specialized fodder production in Iron Age Israel, and shepherds would have been compelled to find means of producing their own fodder." It is possible that shepherds were in a similar situation in Late Bronze Age Syria and that these texts reflect records of the land shepherds rented or gained access to through the palace administration. Found in the trenches designated the Northwest, KTU 4.54 lists: mrjrglm d bt b?t mlk, "guards who are at the house of DN."38 The rest of the tablet identifies a number of individuals, by personal name, patronym, gentilic, and/or occupational category. Here is clearly a record of where certain people, of a certain occupational category were stationed in the town.

analogy with PRU 6 93 (RS 17.131).39 Texts such as KTU 4.87 and KTU 4.99, which follow this format, cannot be completely understood. Amounts of disbursements may relate to the standard order of occupations in these texts (see discussion below). As has been noted already, Gray has recognized that the mryn are always at the top of these lists, and always receive the largest amount of distributions.t" It is informative that these kinds of texts were administratively useful, even with the absence of individual names. From the perspective of the palace, it was not always necessary to distinguish craft specialists at the level of the personal name. These texts do not necessarily reflect an organization within the individual occupational categories. As has been stated for similar tablets, since these documents were written from the perspective of the palace, and for the palace's own use, they do not necessarily reflect the self-understanding of the subject of the text. These texts are also found outside of the palace. KTU 4.36, found on the acropolis, lists occupational groups and undefined numbers. This same type of text (KTU 4.745) was found near the House ofAgapsarri. KTU 4.47, found in the Northwest, which may or may not be associated with the palace, lists occupational categories with numbers. For the records that explicitly describe the value of the given number, it is possible to reconstruct the original use of the text. KTU 4.416: 1, indicates that the numeral represents fields. This text then, was a list of fields held by or granted to certain occupational categories, including mrynm, mrum, 'Irm, tnnm, nqdm, khnm, qdim, and init. This text provides stronger evidence for some sort of internal organization in each of these occupational categories. It is hard to understand how this text would have made sense if the categorization of individuals according to occupational category was made solely from the perspective of the palace. Since no explanation is given in this text, it is not clear if the text records a granting of fields to these groups by the palace, or if it simply represents an accounting of fields possessed by these groups. This text also seems to support Schloen's argument that even urban dwellers engaged in agriculture. Here is evidence that craft specialists have access to or possess fields, most likely for farming. So these craft specialists are not only craft specialists, but engage in some subsistence-oriented labor as well, unless it is posited that only their families engaged in working these fields.t! Equipment and weapons were also enumerated in relation to occupational categories. In KTU 4.624, the amounts and types of weapons possessed by specific individuals is recorded. The heading of the tablet explicitly states that the purpose of this

Lists With Numbers Frequently, lists of individuals grouped according to their occupational category include numbers following the occupational designation. Missing headings can make the texts particularly cryptic. From an analysis of these texts, it is clear that the numeral could represent different values. Pardee and Bordreuil suggest that the number should be understood as an amount reflecting that particular occupational category, based on

Pardee and BordreuilI992, p. 714. Gray 1952, p. 51. 41 A major issue that is often ignored on the literature on craft specialists is that families are units of production and consumption, not lone individuals (see the discussion in Chapter One of Chayanov who pioneered methods of studying the production and consumption activities of the family as opposed to simply the individual). So from a household perspective, craft specialists almost always have mixed sources of livelihood. 39

40

Steiner 2003, p. 115. Hopkins 1985, p. 248. 38 Note Clemens argument, 2001, pp. 317-318, that b'lt mlk refers to a deity. This is the easiest reading of the text. 36

37

155

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

156

text is to account for the weapons held or owned by shepherds: nqdm dt kn npsbm. If these shepherds are working on behalf of the palace, then this record may function as a means of recording equipment that is removed from the palace. Other texts record amounts of silver dispersed to individuals. Frequently the individuals are grouped according to occupation. In some cases totals are given of the amounts of silver distributed: to occupational groups as a whole. In KTU 4.69, silver is distributed to specific individuals, grouped according to occupational category, with totals given for the amounts of silver held by the occupational groups as a whole. Rainey takes this as a list of payments made to military specialists by the palace.Y The occupational groups include mryn, mru, mru ibrn, mdrgl, bdl mdrglm, and khn. KTU 4.71 is similarly structured, but involves different occupational categories. Those preserved are kbf and 'bd. In these situations it is easiest to understand the distribution of silver as payment for services. PRU 6 136 (RS 17.240) lists amounts of silver in association with various categories of occupational worker. Silver, unlike textiles or wine (other items distributed by occupational category), does not have a ready use-value in a subsistence economy. Unless it is assumed that these specialists were manufacturing some sort of item in silver (like jewelry), then the only real uses of silver, from a practical standpoint, are to trade it to obtain other items or to hoard it as a means of storing wealth. KTU 4.396 lists amounts of some precious metal (although textiles are another possibility) measured in kkr, probably tin, copper, or bronze (based on the typical usages of kkr), according to occupation group. Unfortunately, the text itself is too fragmentary to draw any specific conclusions. The occupations that are legible are bronze-smiths and builders, both occupations that require precious metals for their craft specialist activities. Note that line 17 indicates a distribution of this item to the king. This text reflects a delivery of precious metals to the palace and its subsequent distribution to various groups associated with the palace. It is not clear if the builders and bronze-smiths are automatically granted these materials due to the nature of their professions, or whether they would have had to supply some substance in return, or if they would not have ownership of the products that they created using these materials. Another form of text that is telling in regards to supplying equipment is KTU 4.53, found in the Northwest. This tablet records the: mtjrglm d inn msg lhm, "the mrjrglm without msg-garments." Following this are lists of personal names, and on the left edge of the tablet are notations about weapons. It is uncertain how these notations about weapons relate to the rest of the text, if they do at all. Found in sounding IV; KTU 4.38 is a unique text in that it takes the form of a chart. The left most column of the tablet lists occupational categories. The three columns to the right of this, list amounts of flour, silver, and sheep associated with each group.

KTU 4.751, similarly lists quantities of foodstuffs according to occupational category. In this case though, the foods are much more diverse, but the only occupational category mentioned is the mrjrglm. Occasionally, numbers are written out before the occupational category. KTU 4.137 is an example of a text structured in this manner. Most of the occupational categories listed in this text represent military occupations. According to lines 12-14 there are 163 bnlm quartered within the palace. The same kind of notation structure appears in KTU 4.138. In this text, numbers of individuals (apprentices and bnsm) assigned to specific individuals (or from specified regions) are listed. It is safe to assume, from these texts, that when numbers are written out in front of a noun, those numbers represent the value of that specific noun, rather than another assumed noun related to the listed one. The broken text KTU 4.154 also records apprentices (lmd) assigned to certain individuals, with presumably the same structure. This class of text reflects an administrative situation where the palace assigns labor to other individuals. Unfortunately the individuals receiving the labor assignments are listed only by personal name, so it is impossible to identify their relationship to the palace. These texts are interesting as well since the assigned laborers are not described with a name, in distinction to the individuals who receive the laborers. This is further evidence of a distinction between unnamed workers and named workers, from the perspective of the palace.

Occupational Groups as Collectives There are some hints in the tablets of the Palace Archives that occupational groups had some sort of internal structure or organization. The distribution (or enumeration) of fields according to occupational category has already been mentioned as possibly indicative of some internal organization. The evidence for internal organization of craft specialists is frequently overstated.P but there are some important ways in which the collective nature of these occupations was manifest. It is useful to look at this question from the standpoint first put forward by Rainey, that proof of the collective organization of these groups is implicit in the fact that they receive payments as collectives.v' Following this logic, it is important to identify what economic activities were engaged in by these groups as collectives, or minimally, what economic activities were ascribed to these groups as collectives. A request for resources, made by a group of potters, is preserved in KTU 4.626. This is explicit in the heading: irst Yfbm, "request of the potters." Following this are quantities of items. While not all of these objects are identifiable, large quantities of precious metals are identifiable, and indicate the large scale of this request. The administrative context of this tablet is clear; an occupational group has requested

43 42

Rainey 1965a, p. 20.

157

44

See Craigie 1982; Gray 1952, pp. 50-51; Rainey 1962b, pp. 166-167. Rainey 1962b, pp. 166-167.

158

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

the disbursement (or acquisition) of resources by the palace. The relationship between the potters and the palace is not clear. Are the potters here specifically potters that work for the palace? The potters could also have been semi-attached laborers who would have had to return payment of some sort as a condition of receiving these products. Records of wool distributions are a common text type in the palace archive. In KTU 4.630, this information is recorded by occupational category. It was not necessary for this scribe to record the names of individuals who took wool. Rather, it was sufficient to write (for example lines 8-9) that ten house builders took wool. The same kind of information is recorded in KTU 4.378, which is a "list of shepherds who took wool." These texts are clear evidence of some kind of redistribution from the palace to these individuals. Craigie takes this as evidence that shepherds were some kind of collective, as opposed to a group that was identified as such in the palace record.P Whether the individuals took wool in payment for services rendered related to the occupational category, or whether the distribution of wool was done irrespective of the individual's occupation is unclear, although the former suggestion seems more likely given the use of the occupational category as the primary referent. These texts come from the context of the palace administration. However, simply because a certain group of craft specialists are attested in the palace record does not mean that this group only existed as a subsidiary group within the palace.t" The accounting text KTU 4.337 is significantly more complex than the other texts described in this section. The heading states that this is a "list of the accounts of sbrdnm (lance-makers, bronze-smiths)," a particular occupational category. In the numerous lines following the heading, the recorded information describes quantities of items that were exchanged for quantities of different kinds of items. It also lists deliveries from named people. The final line, 27, records the total amount of silver (300) that was presumably used in this transaction. The function of this record is unclear, as the form is unique. It seems to demonstrate that this group was able to trade a wide variety of goods, and that they traded these goods as a collective group. The question of the existence of guilds or organized occupational groups at Ugarit shall be put off until Chapter Five. What is important for the discussion here is that occupational categories were administratively meaningful categories for the palace. Administrative situations were organized around these groups; profession was a meaningful category of administrative thought and activities involving palace and occupational groups led to the creation of records in the form of tablets.

Craigie 1982. For an example of this kind of error, see Craigie 1984, p. 33, where he states that most shepherds were palace personnel because they appear in palace administrative documents at Ugarit.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

159

Census Lists Another class of texts detailing information about individuals are the so-called census texts. These texts take a relatively uniform appearance. Each "household" is set off from the rest of the text by line dividers. Each entry begins with a personal name, followed by a gentilic, indicating the place of origin of the preceding person. This gentilic is never fr~m Ugarit proper; the people being censused are always outsiders. After the gentilic, ,the other members of the household are listed, including wives, children, other household members, and animals. Texts of this sort include: KTU 4.80, KTU 4.295, KTU 4.417, and KTU 4.420. Varying slightly from this form is KTU 4.102. It lists the family members of different households, with the patriarch listed as the final element of each entry. The broken bottom section of the tablet mentions Alashiya, indicating that this is a list of famil~e~ w~o origi~ated ~n Cyprus. Astour argues that this text could be a list of Cypriotes hVIng In Ugarit, or It could be a list of Ugaritians who held trade concessions with Cyprus.V Also varying slightly in form but not in kind of information is KTU 4.360. Centilics are not provided for each entry, so it is unclear if these individuals were foreigners or not. The nature of household composition is slightly different as well as it includes multiple wives, and bh Rainey suggests that these texts reflect the government's interest in family composition for fiscal purposes.t" He suggests that in the case that a family member defaults on a loan, the creditor may have seized his family, and hence the palace kept track of this information in case of such a situation.t? A more difficult text is KTU 4.339. It lists bnsm who dwell in Ugarit, as well as the families of those bnim. Sometimes a gentilic is given for the individuals, and in other instances an occupational designation is provided. Lines 17ff. list individuals who are under the authority of the king. Sometimes numbers of bnim are listed under a broader category. The heading of these texts state explicitly what the lists notate. KTU 4.355 is unfortunately broken after the word spr in the first line, but is otherwise well preserved and enumerates numbers of bnlm in various geographic locations. KTU 4.367 lists bns mlk in a particular geographic location. It also indicates the presence of a potter and twenty teams of oxen. A similar, but more fragmentary text is KTU 4.395, which notes how many individuals took cereals and how many took textiles. There are two identifiable goals in the palace administration manifest in these census documents. First, the palace kept track of non-Ugaritians, and especially those non-Ugaritians residing within the confines of the city. It is not clear if this kind of recording was for tax purposes or for purposes of regulating the movement of foreigners. More will be said on this subject in Chapter Eight. The second goal of the

45

47

46

48 49

Astour 1970, pp. 121-122. Raineyl%5,p.ll. Rainey 1%5a, p. 12.

161

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

palace census documents was to record the movement of labor. The ability and the desire to record the movement of the labor force demonstrates the palace's control over labor forces outside of the confines of the palace.

amounts of goods, labor, or some other quantifiable information at each of these locations. Without explicit comments on the tablet, it is impossible to be absolutely certain. Perhaps these tablets reflect and record the service obligations of the towns listed. KTU 4.95 very certainly records this kind of information. Found in the Northwest, the body of this tablet lists a geographic name followed by units of time in months and days. The hea~lng of the tablet explains these units of time, reading: qrht d tSflmn t.lrbh, "cities that r~ndered t.lrbh service." Clearly the information recorded is the duration of time that each city provided in service. Perhaps other texts with palace names and numbers reflect similar situations, but units of time are only listed in months and days, making it unnecessary to write the word for month or day.

160

RECORDS OF PLACES

Much information revolving around geographic locations is preserved within the palace archive. This subject will be discussed in detail in Chapter Eight, with emphasis on the types of economic activities that the palace kept records of that occurred in areas outside of Ugarit. What follows is a discussion of the genres of those texts where the primary organizing referent is the name of a geographic location.

I

,~

Information About Fields Simple Lists As with personal names, there are lists preserved that record only the names of geographic areas - without explanation for the purpose of the compilation of this data. Examples of these lists includer'" KTU 4.119, KTU 4.346*, KTU 4.414, KTU 4.553, KTU 4.622, KTU 4.629, KTU 4.661, KTU 4.684, KTU 4.685 and KTU 4.686. Syllabic lists of towns are also attested: PRU 6 96 (RS 19.91) and PRU 6 97 (RS 19.118). It may be assumed that there was some reason for the compilation of these lists, other than the simple listing of names, and it is most likely that these tablets were an active part of the Ugaritic administrative system. At the very least, these lists demonstrate that the palace at Ugarit held some sort of administrative interest in these other areas. Lists with Unexplained Numbers Slightly more information is provided in texts listing geographic names with associated numbers. Unfortunately it is frequently quite difficult to know what the numerical value referred to. Examples include: KTU 4.73, KTU 4.94, KTU 4.100, KTU 4.267, KTU 4.303, KTU 4.365, KTU 4.621, and KTU 4.676. Syllabic texts of this nature are also well attested: PRU 3 189ff(RS 11.790), PRU 3190 (RS 11.800), PRU 3191 (RS 11.841), PRU 3 192 (RS 16.313), Ug. 5 102 (RS 20.207A), and Ug. 7 pi 13 (RS 34.131). Tablets of this type found in non-palatial contexts include KTU 4.5 and KTU 4.19. Possible interpretations of these tablets are as lists of items distributed to or received from these village locations. Another possibility is that the lists recorded

There are some hints within the administrative record that the palace kept control over certain agricultural fields. KTU 4.110 lists the ubdy fields in certain areas under the control of the sdkin«. The nature of this control is unclear; the sdkinu may have been directly responsible for agricultural production or may have simply been the representative of the king in the area under discussion in the tablet. In KTU 4.375 the amount of ~brm-fields in certain regions are noted. In KTU 4.244, information about vineyards, including their location, quantity, and owner's name, is recorded. It is possible to reconstruct two different, although not necessarily mutually exclusive, motives for the recording of such information. From the presence of these tablets in the palace, it can be assumed that these particular types of fields were under the palace's sphere of influence, either directly, or through service obligations. The motive then, was either to keep track of palatial income (either through taxation or the direct production of agricultural goods), or to keep track of areas to which the palace needed to supply labor and equipment. In these cases, the former suggestion seems most likely. However, it is clear from text types that will be discussed later that the palace did supply agricultural equipment and labor to certain fields. While fragmentary, KTU 4.139 demonstrates that the palace kept track of certain amounts of goods in some locations. Unfortunately the text is too broken for thorough reading. It is possible to recognize personal names and the amounts of shekels listed as present at various gt. The degree of specificity in listing what was at a particular gt indicates the more direct control of the palace over these locations, and suggests that these agricultural estates were estates that were actually maintained by the palace. Information About the Circulation of Goods

50 Texts marked with an * indicate that much of the tablet is preserved. With these texts it can be confidently asserted that in their original form, they contained only geographic names. With broken tablets, it is quite possible that other information was simply not preserved.

Sometimes lists of geographic regions and numbers can be understood to a greater extent. In the case of KTU 4.113, lines 2 and 3 indicate that the numerical value

162

163

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

refers to quantities of some goods measurable in shekels, most likely silver. There is no indication in the text itself about whether these amounts of shekels were payments to or from these villages, or even simply accounting information describing how many shekels of silver are where (although this latter option does not seem very likely). From the area designated the Northwest, KTU 4.49 also lists geographic names with amounts of silver in shekels. KTU 4.48, also from the Northwest, demonstrates a similar problem, but in this case with quantities of wine. It lists geographic names with numbers. Line 13 lists that the total of the numbers is 148 jars of wine. Yet the same interpretive problems remain, did these places receive wine or dispatch wine? There are other texts that are much clearer. In KTU 4.143, the amount of olives from certain places (including the queens gt) is recorded. The phrase w bd krd bmfm I mit arb' kbd, "and from GN, 154 (olives)", shows that goods move towards the palace. In other words, this text records deliveries of olives to the palace, although no rationale for the delivery (i.e., taxation, sales, palace-owned agriculture) is explicit. The mention of gt mlkt b rhbn suggests that the latter option is preferable, although sales or taxation cannot entirely be ruled out. 5! The amounts of specific types of wine at various locations are recorded in KTU 4.213, as well as amounts of wine distributed to various occupational groups. The expression used in this tablet indicates that it functioned precisely as an inventory of amounts of different types of wine at various locations: x amount of y type of wine at GN. Here is ample evidence for royal administrative participation in the circulation of wine. Whether or not these locations were directly controlled by the palace, or whether the palace was involved in a later stage of wine distribution (perhaps skimming off of the top of the local producer's surplus) is unclear.

types of tools include sickles, shovels, pick-axes, hoes, and hammers. Liverani argues that while local workers manufactured stone tools, bronze tools were produced by the palace and distributed to thl royal estates.53 KTU 4.625 reflects this situation.t" Amounts of fodder at various g10graphic locations are recorded in KTU 4.636. Whoever is posited as owner of this equipment, If such a concept is even appropriate, these texts demonstrate the participation of the palace in agricultural production, through the organization of the distribution of equipment and labor. Records of this sort have also been found outside of the palace archive. In the House of Rap'anu, KTU 4.698 lists amounts of donkeys associated with specified geographic locations. Given that the amounts of donkeys are either one or two, it is unlikely that these texts record the total amounts of donkeys in the specified regions. Rather, the numbers must reflect an association with Rap' anu. There are a number of possible explanations. These may be donkeys belonging to Rap' anu in those locations. Or they may have been donkeys that Rap' anu either bought from or sold to those regions.

Information About Agricultural Equipment Agricultural equipment distributed according to geographic region was recorded in the palace archive. With these texts it is difficult to determine the implied ownership of the equipment. Was the palace keeping records of the locations of its equipment? Or, was the palace simply noting which areas have what? In KTU 4.308, the amounts of teams of draught animals are recorded according to geographic distribution. Similarly, in KTU 4.380, amounts of human workers and donkeys are kept track of, according to geographic distribution. Quantities of other kinds of draught animals and human workers in various locations are recorded in KTU 4.618. Liverani takes this text as a document recording the allocation of such supplies from the palace to royal esrates.Y Agricultural tools at eight geographic locations are enumerated in KTU 4.625. The

RECORDS OF COMMODITIES

The notion of commodity may not necessarily be appropriate for the ancient world. It is used here to refer to those types of goods that are easily interchangeable. That is to say, one particular jar of wine is just as valuable as its equivalent. There is no special relationship between these particular objects and their possessors. There are consistent patterns of types of commodities that are the subject of the Ugaritic administrative record: cereals, wine, olives, oil, precious metals, salt, and textiles. These are the most common types of materials that are apparent administratively, and the contexts where these items are the subject of an administrative record are the subject of the following discussion. There are some general problems in interpreting these texts. Pardee and Bordreuil have noted the difficulties in interpreting texts that list amounts of items without any verbal form describing the direction of movement. 55 The basic problem is to determine whether the quantities refer to payments or distributions. 56 Indeed, this is the same problem that is apparent in many of the administrative documents. The laconic nature of the tablets prevents full understanding. Perhaps the tablets were created to help organize a particular administrative occurrence, and once that occurrence was concluded, the tablet itself would have had minimal use, without dates or explanations. 53

The problem is that it is not clear if gtmlkt should be considered a place name or a term designating a gt belonging to the queen. 52 Liverani 1989, p. 133. 51

54 55

56

Liverani 1989, p. 135. Liverani 1989, p. 135. Pardee and Bordreuil 1992, p. 716. Pardee and BordreuiI1992, p. 716.

164

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

Cereals The redistribution of foodstuffs is traditionally understood as an important component of redistributive economies. It is important to look in detail for any evidence that could be understood as demonstrating that the palace redistributed foodstuffs, gained from agricultural producers, to craft specialists and other royal personnel. Too often this role of the palace is assumed a priori. It is essential for this discussion to determine whether or not this actually was the case. Perhaps the clearest tablet-types that could be marshaled for this kind of argument are those that record distributions of cereals in specific months. The syllabic text PRU 6 10 1 (RS 19.130) records cereals dispensed in one month. Although broken, this tablet likely included a list of amounts of cereals distributed to specified individuals. The distribution of cereals to individuals is better preserved in PRU 6 107 (19.25). Depending on how the preposition bd is understood, KTU 4.247 records the delivery of goods from fm) bn bdn to the palace. This is only noted at the end of this large and broken text, and there may be other economic transactions originally recorded on the tablet. Most of the items listed on the tablet are foodstuffs of some sort or another. The reason for this delivery or the status of fm) in relation to the palace is not described. Numerous Akkadian texts detail an amount of cereals in relation to a specified individual. This could simply be recorded as a number associated with a personal name, such as in PRU 6 99 (RS 19.09) and PRU 6 109 (RS 19.131). Other times, similar information is recorded as an amount of a type of cereal eli PN. This is the case with PRU 6 104 (RS 19.43). Another expression used is: amount of type of cereal qat PN, as in PRU 3 188 (RS 16.151). Both expressions are used in PRU 6 102 (RS 19.12). It has already been noted that the palace kept track of the amounts of comestibles at the numerous gt. KTU 4.271 is a record of the quantities of akl in gt listed by name. This is also the subject of KTU 4.400, although kd of wine are also listed. It should be noted that KTU 4.213 records the amount of wine (but not cereals) at particular gt. This text is understood by Liverani as a record of amounts of wine delivered from various gt to the palace.57 Related are the palace records that, although not necessarily referring to gt, indicate amounts of cereals in geographic areas. The amounts of different kinds of cereals in various locations are recorded in KTU 4.345. It is unclear in any of these situations whether movement of those goods is implied or whether the purpose of the record is to note the location of quantities. Similar information is recorded in the syllabic texts, such as: PRU 6 100 (RS 19.51), PRU 6 105 (RS 19.117), PRU 6 110 (RS 19.88),

57

Liverani 1989, p. 144.

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

165

and PRU 6 111 (RS 19.129). In contrast, KTU 4.361 and KTU 4.362 indicate the movement of quantities of flour. Liverani has suggested that texts deali~with the cereals and other agricultural goods at particular gt represent annual surnmaries.l" These annual summaries were compiled before the harvest, and the purpose 'of their compilation was to note how much of each product needed to be left at each gt for the next year, or how much needed to be distributed to each gt.59 The sale of goods at the palace is attested as well. In KTU 4.707, comestibles are noted as having been sold to various individuals. Different individuals trade different goods, such as textiles, dairy products, and sesame (or sesame oil) for small amounts of shekels. There are also tablets that are too broken to glean much information from. They are still informative when some words are identifiable. KTU 4.211 preserves the term for a cereal. Likewise, KTU 4.328 preserves the notations of amounts of flour, but no other information. KTU 4.677 and 4.558 provide similarly meager information. Some kind of good, measured in sp, is recorded in KTU 4.56, found in the Northwest. Quantities, where the number is fully preserved, range from 10 to 90. Lines 3-6 note personal names, and at least the personal name in line 5 can be understood as receiving the text. Wine Broadly speaking, there are four categories of texts relating to wine found within the palace archives. The first category takes the general form of 'x amount of wine for y personal name/ geographic name/ occupational category.' KTU 4.230 ends by totaling the amount of wine distributed, suggesting that the exact quantity of wine was an important datum. KTU 4.246 begins by stating the particular month when the wine was distributed. KTU 4.149 also fits into this category. Ug. 5 99 (RS 20.425) is a syllabic text that lists quantities of wine distributed to (a-na) certain individuals. These texts clearly reflect distributions of wine from the palace, though whether they should be understood as rations given for service, payments given for service, or items that were paid for in some manner that was not recorded is unclear. The second category of wine text, wine sales, is exemplified by a broken text, consisting of KTU 4.219, 4.220, and 4.221 6 What makes this text interesting is the heading, which indicates that these were quantities of wine 'given for silver' - in

°.

Liverani 1989, p. 129. Liverani 1989, p. 129. 60 KTU notes that these three texts are actually fragments of one larger tablet. It should be noted that this is somewhat troubling since 4.219 was supposedly found in a different room than the other 58 59

two.

166

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

other words, sold. Presumably then, the palace sold wine to individuals, occupational groups, and noted the information by month of sale and the rate of sale. The third category of text relating to wine found within the palace administration notes the quantities of wine at specific locations. KTU 4.397 lists the wine in specific places. So does KTU 4.213, but this text also specifies the type of wine (plus quantity) found at each location. Do these texts reflect accounts of royal production centers, or do they reflect the palace administering production areas that are not directly controlled by the palace? A fourth category of tablet relating to wine, found more frequently outside of the palace archive are those texts that simply list personal names and amounts of wine. KTU 4. 715 should be understood in this way. Olives In KTU 4.164, it is noted that there are 370 olives''! in the ubdyofMLK. KTU 4.143, which has been discussed above, also notes amounts of olives in certain locations. People and places are listed with amounts of olives in KTU 4.764. KTU 4.429 lists amounts of kd ztm associated with specific individuals, although whether these are receipts or distributions is unclear. Olives are mentioned in passing in other texts as well, but in these instances, olives are the main subject of the administrative record.

Oil Amounts of oil distributed to individuals designated by their location of origin (i.e., Egyptian, Cypriote) are recorded in KTU 4.352. The quantities of oil are quite large. Perhaps the listed individuals intended to sell or redistribute the oil in some other way in their regions of origin. There are more texts dealing with oil in the syllabic corpus. PRU 3 187 (RS 16.125) lists that 143 jars of oil are in the hand of (qat) an individual specified by name and place. Amounts of oil listed according to name and place (PRU 6 144 (RS 19.38)) and name and occupational category (PRU 3 199ff (RS 16.257+)) are also attested. Line 9 of Ug.5 99 (RS 20.425) lists an amount of oil distributed to a certain person. Oil is also listed as eli certain individuals in PRU 3 198 (RS 16.359B) and PRU 6 112 (RS 17.99). Precious Metals Many scholars of the Ugaritic economy have argued that silver acts essentially as currency within the Ugaritic economy.V Some tablets have been taken as lists of price 61 Or possibly olive trees, though 20 zt are listed as tribute given by Yabninu in KTU 4.91, which is easiest to conceptualize as some measure of olives. 62 See for example Stieglitz 1979, p. 15.

UGARI~NOMIC TEXTS

167

equivalencies, using silver as the common frame of reference. In these situations, it is unclear if precious metals filled the functions of currency; considering precious metals as hierarchically valued goods is methodologically safer.63 This does not necessitate that precious metals have the same range of possible uses as all-purpose currency, but rather that they have an established value in certain set contexts. For example, PRU 6 155 (RS 19.07), a syllabic text, lists a variety of classes of objects with the value in silver. This does not mean that silver functioned as currency per se but simply that silver was used as a means of quantifying the relative values of certain objects. At this point, it is useful to explore the types of texts that feature silver prominently. KTU 4.373 is the remnant of some kind of transaction. A possible analogy with KTU 4.219 (and its joins), and the occurrence of the measurement kd, suggests that this text apparently represents the sales of wine for silver. In both of these texts, the expression "x item for y amount of silver" expresses the trade of one type of item for an amount in silver. The palace pays various individuals silver for textiles received from them in KTU 4.132. It is unclear if silver is playing the role of currency in these texts, but given the general lack of utility of silver, it is plausible to assume that it is functioning to mediate exchange. Likewise, the Akkadian expression 'eli PN,' is used in connection with specified amounts of silver. Silver was exchanged for wool in Ug. 5 13 (RS 17.465), a tablet from the House of Rasapabu. Fragmentary texts attest that gold and silver were in circulation, but often it is impossible to ascertain the purpose of the texts. As with other classes of objects, the Akkadian expression 'silver ina qati PN' is attested, for example in PRU 3 194ff (RS 11.839). KTU 4.598 specifies an amount of silver, but the purpose of the record is not preserved. Similarly, KTU 4.72 records a total amount of silver, with the rest of the record illegible. KTU 4.577 is quite fragmentary, but from what is legible, it appears to be a record of amounts of gold. Similar problems are apparent in the syllabic corpus. Amounts of silver, varying from 4 to 122/3 shekels, are listed according to personal name in PRU 3 194 (RS 11.787). Similarly unexplained lists of amounts of silver associated with personal names are: PRU 3 198 (RS 16.291), PRU 6 139 (RS 19.139), and PRU 6 166 (RS 19.99). A very difficult text involving silver is KTU 4.280. This text records quantities of silver associated with specific individuals, set out for cuitic uses and 'used up in the fields.' How exactly this silver was used up in the field is unclear. Perhaps silver was used for paying laborers, or perhaps it was used to purchase fields. Whatever reading of this problematic text is correct, it can be said that silver is used in a number of different contexts other than primary manufacturing. Records of precious metal being distributed for industrial production are also apparent. An example of this from the syllabic texts is PRU 6 140 (RS 19.92), which 63

See Firth 1967, p. 18.

168

169

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

records a situation where copper was given to an individual to do work of an unspecified nature (a-na e-pa-ie ta-din) for another individual.

significance to these texts.64 He suggests that the garments are brought out at a specific time for particular deities. Clemens registers reservations about the cultic designation of all of these texts. For Clemens, designating KTU 4.192 and KTU 4.193 as cultic is difficult, since this is based on an odd reading of a Kassite deity, otherwise unattested at Ugarit. Line 5 ofKTU 4.316 is broken, but seems to read: [y]rb. dbb[], "month of sacrifice." Clemens argues that this is simply a month name, and any cultic connection has been lost long ago.65 If these texts are not cultic, then they may reflect distributions of textiles in particular months. An unusual text is KTU 4.168. Thirteen lines are preserved in this text. Lines 5-8 (which are set apart from the rest of the text by line dividers) record a statement that "when the fabric of the weavers runs out, and in the house of the king, fabric will be given to them." This is likely an instruction to supply the palace weavers when they run out of material. Lines 11-13 contain a similar order to provision. In this case though, 300 ptt garments will be delivered in a certain month for three years. Lines 12 and lines 9-10 record the delivery of smaller amounts of garments to specific individuals, whereas lines 3-4 record that 130 garments were delivered to the singers (fr) associated with Athtart.P? Textiles are certainly evident in the non-royal archives. From the House of Rap'anu comes KTU 4.705, which lists distributions of textiles to certain people. KTU 4.101, found in the trenches in the Northwest, is fragmentary, but each line reads: lbl (clothing) PN b (for) x amount of shekels. The easiest way to understand this text is as a sales document.

Salt Two texts found in the so-called "oven" (i.e., in Court V) reflect administrative records of the distribution of salt. Distributions of quantities of salt to individuals are recorded in KTU 4.340. Distributions to individuals within the occupational category of mr' are found in KTU 4.344. Outside of the palace, KTU 4.720 also lists distributions of salt to named individuals. Textiles Textiles seem to have been both bought and distributed by the palace. It can be quite difficult to identify textile terminology with actual types of textiles, and for the most part this study does not attempt this kind of analysis. What is of interest here are the contexts where textiles are featured as a component of an economic transaction. The palace bought specific kinds of textiles, as recorded in KTU 4.132. The document records the specific type of textile, the amount of the textile, from whom it was purchased, and for how much. The prices of particular garments (in x amounts of shekels of silver) are recorded in KTU 4.156. Another text (KTU 4.146) seems to indicate the price (or value) of specific garments in an undetermined numerical measurement. It must be noted that this text could be a record of specific quantities of particular kinds of textiles. Textiles listed by type (as a measurement of quantity) are attested. At least nine (but probably originally more) different kinds of textiles are listed by quantity in KTU 4.152. There are 5 different textile or textile manufacturing items listed in KTU 4.206. In KTU 4.270, there are at least eight, and probably more, different kinds of textiles listed, with associated quantities. This kind of text is similarly attested in the syllabic script. Examples include: PRU 3 206ff (RS 15.135), PRU 6 123 (RS 17.328), PRU 6 127 (RS 19.57), PRU 6 129 (RS 19.133A), PRU 6 130 (RS 19,X), and PRU 6 172 (RS.19.140A). Lists were compiled of individuals who took specific amounts of wool (measured in kkr). KTU 4.131 is one such list. Total amounts of textiles taken by the bns mlk of PRT (a GN) are listed in KTU 4.144. Some syllabic texts list: garments qat PN. Examples include PRU 6 126 (RS 19.28), and PRU 6 128 (RS 19.104). An interesting series of texts are those that describe the monthly "bringing out" of specific garments. KTU 4.192,4.193, and 4.316 describe certain specific kinds of garments brought out in particular months. Widbin believes that there is cultic

Wood Records of the circulation of wood as a raw material are attested in the syllabic texts. PRU 6 113 (RS 19.26) notes the distribution of amounts of wood to the men of the city of Arutu and the men of the city ofIbnaliya. PRU 6 114 (RS 19.71) is a list of amounts of types of wood. There is no mention of the reason for the compilation of this list. RECORDS OF EQUIPMENT

Within the broader categorization of texts recording the location, possession, and existence of equipment, there seem to be very different rationales behind the recording

Widbin 1985, pp. 142-143. Clemens 2001, p. 431. 66 Smith has pointed out that in KTU 1.4 II: I-I I, Asherah is described as spinning and engaging in textile manufacture, see Dever and Gitin 2003, p. 558. In a personal communication, Smith has suggested that 2 Kings 23:7 evidently connects garments with Asherah. 64 65

170

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

of this information. Analysis of these situations is rewarding, since these texts reflect issues of ownership and access to the means of production, a fundamental issue in the investigation of economic modalities.

borrowing, renting, or sharing palace property. This may be an indication of resources that were potentially available for service or use. In KTU 4.582 amounts of horses associated with various individuals are listed. KTU 4.586 also lists teams of animals possessed by named individuals. As mentioned above, the reverse of KTU 4.384 lists individuals who possess certain animals. A frequent style of list includes the name of the individual, followed by the amounts and types of animals. An example of this is KTU 4.368. KTU 4.88 combines some of the features mentioned above. It lists that certain amounts of apn (wheels?) were received from a man named prp. Other amounts of the same item, the text goes on to list, were given to various other individuals. The end of the text is broken but it may mention distributions of apn to Egyptians. Another text that lists equipment distributed by the palace is KTU 4.208 + 9.120. Similarly, KTU 4.377 combines various kinds of notations about agricultural equipment including oxen, plows, donkeys, and perhaps harnesses. Lines 1-22 list individuals who possess animal teams (probably oxen). Totals are given in lines 23-26 that do not add up with the numbers given above, suggesting either a scribal mathematical error, or that the totals are not related to the earlier lists. Lines 26 and 27 list agricultural equipment in specific locations, and lines 28-30 indicate donkeys received from people or places. Lines 31-32 indicate distribution of agricultural goods to specific places, and lines 33-34 indicate equipment received from the mrynm. This text is compelling because it hints at a very sophisticated organization of agricultural equipment. The scribe has listed who possesses certain kinds of equipment, where certain kinds of equipment are coming from and where certain kinds of equipment are going. This may be evidence for an amount of palace intervention in the organization of the means of production. The palace may be organizing the use of shared, agricultural resources. Perhaps these individuals have borrowed this palace property. More likely, these individuals are working palace lands and this is a record of who has taken how much palaceowned equipment to engage in harvesting or another agricultural task that requires specialized equipment only for a brief period of time. A text worth singling out is KTU 4.422, which was found in the dump of the palace and consists of 54 preserved lines. A dividing line between lines 1 and 2, indicates that line 1 is a heading. Lines 2-54 consist of two columns of personal names. Line 1 reads bnlm dt it. alpm lhm, "bnfm who have oxen." This is an explicit statement of possession. The intent of this list is to notate who owns oxen. The presence of such a text reflects royal interest in this subject. The problem is determining what the purpose of listing this information was. Did this mean that the palace did not have to supply these bnlm with oxen, and therefore indicate a situation where the palace typically is responsible for providing bnim with oxen? Or, did the palace take this information for reference so that it would be able to marshal the use of these oxen when necessary?

Agricultural Equipment In all but the Eastern Archive of the palace, records of teams of animals and various pieces of equipment related to farming were found. The texts indicate different kinds of interests in regards to this material. Some texts indicate the equipment's location, and other texts indicate that certain equipment was designated for a specific location. The same can be said for specific individuals. Some of the lists record distributions of equipment, and some indicate who has possession of the equipment. In terms of form, these texts are very inconsistent. Sometimes the kind of animal is listed first, followed by the number; other times the opposite is true. The same can be said in cases when the animal is listed in relation to a village or person. Prepositions do occur, but not always. The use of prepositions may clarify some of the relationships between the animals and the villages/people. Certainly the use of b indicates locality and the use of I indicates transfer of the item in question to someone or someplace. The use of bd in these texts is more difficult to understand. Unfortunately, prepositions are frequently omitted entirely. Many of these texts are too broken to be of much value beyond showing that this kind of record was kept in a certain location. Texts that take the form of lists of agricultural equipment, but do not preserve more specific information include KTU 4.306, 4.470, 4.532, 4.535, and 4.576. Similarly, some of the texts list equipment and amounts, but no further data, such as KTU 4.585. There are numerous texts indicating that certain equipment can be found in specific locations. KTU 4.89 describes amounts of pmd at various locations (either villages or gt). The amount of oxen at specific locations is listed in KTU 4.231. While most of the proper nouns are missing in the break, line 10 preserves the word tmtt. This is likely a geographic name, based on the attestation of rb tmtt twice in KTU 2.38. Amounts of horses are explicitly listed as "in" (b-J a number of different villages in KTU 4.384. The amounts are rather vague, with the animals listed simply as plurals in one instance. The reverse of the text indicates animals controlled by various individuals. The number of animals at each location is more explicitly mentioned in KTU 4.302. Lists of animals and equipment under the control of individuals are an important component of the reconstruction of economic modalities. Identifying who has access to and control of the means of production is important. Given that the records of this were found in the palace, some degree of royal control is implied. On the other hand, individuals in the following texts all seem to have some control over the animals and equipment. Perhaps these individuals were palace personnel or perhaps they were

171

173

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

The presence of these texts in the central palace is indicative of a certain amount of palace involvement in the means of agricultural production. Unfortunately the purpose for the compilation of this data is never made explicit in any of the texts. Perhaps at certain times it was necessary to organize larger amounts of agricultural equipment, possibly related to the agricultural season. There are a large number of texts that deal explicitly with teams of animals. One particular form has a heading "smdm apnt bd PN" (pairs of teams in the possession of PN). Beneath are lists of the word apnm designated as "for x personal name." Examples of this include: KTU 4.88 and KTU 4.586. This heading is not always present, even when the teams are listed associated with specific individuals. Examples include KTU 4.377 and KTU 4.67. KTU 4.136 poses problems for these interpretations of the term smd, which in this text seems to be some item that could be made in bronze.V This text is otherwise very difficult to interpret. Quantities of animal teams are also listed according to geographic region. Examples of these kinds of texts are: KTU 4.89, KTU 4.231, and KTU 4.302. Frequently the texts are too fragmentary to make much out of, other than to note that they are lists of smd. This kind of text includes: KTU 4.208, KTU 4.306, KTU 4.368, KTU 4.532, KTU 4.535, KTU 4.576, KTU 4.582 and KTU 4.585. Almost the opposite of all of these texts is KTU 4.422, which lists individuals who do not possess draught animals. The fact that the palace would list this indicates that the palace must have had some responsibility to provision certain segments of the population with draught animals under certain situations. There was some obligation on the part of the palace to provide draught animals, or possibly, all of these documents reflect the utilization of royal agricultural land. Thus, the palace provided the equipment because it was the palace's own fields that were being worked on. There are also texts that deal with horses. KTU 4.470 mentions horses, but this very fragmentary text provides no further information. On the other hand, KTU 4.582 lists horses and the designation smd. Here smd should be understood as a part of a yoke, rather than as a pair of draft animals, indicating the interest of the palace in both animals and equipment. This type of administrative activity may better reflect an interest of the palace in transportation, which shall be investigated next.

are considered with other military equipment. Other land based transportation equipment includes carts and wagons. The fragmentary tablet KTU 4.186 shows that the palace kept track of wagons. Given the infrequency of palatial records of land based transportation equipment (of a non-military and non-agricultural nature), it can be assumed that the regulation of this kind of transportation was not a primary interest of the palace. Ships and ship inventories were of importance in the palace administration. One method of recording information related to nautical issues is to list ships under the heading "ships of a geographic name." Beneath this heading, ships of various types are listed. Unfortunately our lexical knowledge of ship technology is limited, so it is difficult to determine what kinds of ships are referred to. Each ship term is listed in construct with a personal name. Examples of this kind of text are: KTU 4.81, KTU 4.36668 , and KTU 4.421. Inventories of ships were also kept. KTU 4.390 the inventory of a Cypriote ship in a certain location is recorded. Various commodities are listed. KTU 4.338 records amounts of silver sent by ship to the king of Byblos. Ship crews are also inventoried. In KTU 4.394, numbers of people on a ship are listed. PRU 6 73 (RS 19.107A) may be a similar roster of individuals working on ships, but the text as preserved is relatively cryptic. The payment of silver to various men working on ships is recorded in PRU 6 138 (RS 19.46), and since this text was found within the palace it can be assumed that the palace was the party that paid the sailors. Ships were also the subjects of texts outside of the palace archive. Yabninu kept track of ships. KTU 4.647 reflects this interest, although it is too fragmentary for much comment. KTU 4.689, found in the House of Rap'anu is an inventory of ship's equipment. A roster of various ships' crews (KTU 4.40) was found in the Ville Basse.

172

Transportation Equipment The palace kept some records about equipment that fits into the broad category of transportation equipment. Chariots, while strictly speaking a form of transportation, 67 The word smd can be very difficult to understand, as it seems to have quite a large semantic range. De Moor, 1971, p. 135, argues that while the term initially referred to a "crosspiece of the yoke of a pair of draft animals," it developed to mean simply a pair of draft animals. While it is frequently impossible to differentiate the particular use in a given context, it can usually safely be assumed to reflect some sort of administrative activity involving teams of draft animals. So while the exact circulation of equipment cannot be completely reconstructed, a general idea of the kind of economic activity being administered can be identified.

Military Equipment Weapons and military equipment are noted in a few palace records. KTU 4.169 lists quantities of specific kinds of weapons. The fragmentary text KTU 4.670 may have recorded the same kinds of information. Amounts of bows per occupational group or geographic region are listed in PRU 6 131 (RS 19.35A). PRU 6 133 (RS 19.152) also lists amounts of weapons, although the rationale for the compilation of this list has not been preserved. The palace kept track of chariots as well. In KTU 4.145, eight chariots are recorded as having "entered" the palace, meaning that the palace gained ownership of them. The equipment and parts associated with the chariots is also inventoried. Another text, KTU 4.392, may list amounts of accessories designated for use with chariots,

68 It is an assumption with this text and the next that the first line would have read "anyt GN," if preserved.

175

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

according to del Olmo Lete.s? Others?" see this as a text detailing the distribution of rations to various groups and that is how it is understood here. Several texts preserve only the word mrkbt. Examples of this are KTU 4.527, KTU 4.551, and KTU 4.602. KTU 4.500 also preserves only the word mrkbt, but this tablet lacks provenance. Chariots were also kept track of in syllabic texts. PRU 3 192ff (RS 12.34+43) list quantities of chariots, between 1-'-3 or 10, held by certain individuals, grouped according to

class of Akkadian field transfer texts are those texts that record the donation of land to certain individuals, on behalf of the palace, usually in return for subsequent service to the palace. Libolt has dealt with these texts adequately and the reader is referred there or to the summary of Libolt's arguments in Chapter Two of this work,"! The alphabetic texts will instead be the main focus of the following discussion. The alphabetic Ugaritic material is much more cryptic. Statements of field transfers are very brief, following the formula "Id x personal name I y personal name." Examples of this are in KTU 4.222, and KTU 4.425. Other texts may be examples of this but are too broken to say for certain: KTU 4.223, KTU 4.403, and KTU 4.536. More difficult to interpret are those texts that include only one personal name. With the difficult preposition bd, it is unclear whether the individuals listed in KTU 4.357 received fields or became alienated from their fields. Based on the understanding of prepositions outlined in Chapter Three, it is most likely that bd here indicates the initial position of the field. The transfer of property was also kept track of within the palace administration. For example, KTU 4.222 contains one section with statements in the form "field of x personal name to y personal name." These statements indicate the transfer of fields from one individual (or patrimony) to another. A similar construction may also be reflected in some broken tablets, including KTU 4.223, and KTU 4.259. The broken tablet KTU 4.638 reflects a slightly different scribal practice, but records the same basic kind of information. In this text, the notation is in the form "personal name x to personal name y, field z quantity." In these cases, person x gave z amounts of fields to person y. The relationship between palace and land is hinted at with these documents. The palace does not play an explicitly stated role in the transference of land. Since no justification is given for the transference, and since the palace is recording this information, it seems clear that the palace did in fact play a role in the transmission of property ownership in these cases. Skaist has argued that in these situations where the king supervised land transfers, even if the king did not actually hold the land, the land was still under the king's authority, and any transfer required the permission of the king. 72 Another possibility is that the palace acted as legal guarantor or witness to the transaction; if this was the case then there is an implicit concession of the power of the crown by both parties, since the crown is able to enforce that the transaction is followed through with. Minimally, the palace recorded who held what property. These texts could also be understood as recording a situation where the palace was removing the land from one individual's authority to place under another individual's authority. If this is the case, it is not clear whether the relationship between the people and the property is one of ownership or simply the right/obligation to work the land.

174

location.

RECORDS OF LAND

The palace administration kept track of various aspects of landholding for a variety of reasons. As discussed in Chapter Two, the question of land-ownership can be quite complicated, and it is assumed here that a hierarchy of rights existed over real estate as opposed to a simple ownership or non-ownership dichotomy. General possession of fields is kept track of in the economic texts. In KTU 4.399, fields are listed associated with certain individuals. Likewise, fields associated with certain people were also listed under headings of specific geographic regions, as was the case in KTU 4.424. In KTU 4.282, fields of various sizes are listed in association with specific people. A unique text, found in the quartier residentiel, lists the houses owned by various individuals. In KTU 4.750, the location and quantity of houses of individuals who were not from Ugarit are listed. Texts too broken for much discussion include KTU 4.325, KTU 4.600, and KTU 4.641. As noted about other kinds of equipment, sometimes it was important to record that certain individuals did not possess fields. This is the case in KTU 4.298. Texts such as this are interesting since the act of recording that these people do not possess fields indicates that it was expected that they would own fields. If it was not expected that they would own the fields, then the logical record to have written would list individuals who did own fields. Since the palace was keeping track of this information, it is possible that it was the palace's responsibility to supply fields, or that the palace was interested in levying some kind of obligations on owners of such fields. It is very unfortunate that no information beyond the names of the individuals is given in KTU 4.298.

Field Transfers The palace kept track of at least some of the transfers of fields between individuals. The Akkadian record of the transfer of land is very rich at Ugarit. The most notable

69 70

Del Olma Lete 1978, pp. 47-51. Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin 1974, p. 68 and Vita 1996.

71 72

Libalt 1985. Skaist 1988, p. 156.

176

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

It is likely that land designated "Id" was land outside of the city limits proper, but farmed by urban inhabitants (see Chapter Seven). The palace kept some record when authority over certain sections of arable land changed. The issue is further complicated by KTU 4.39, which is this same type of text, but found in the Ville Basse, which is not a palatial context. Given that this tablet is not securelyassociatedwith a building, one needs to be cautious in arguing that non-royal officials engaged in this kind of administration. Perhaps an example of a sale of fields is KTU 4.240, which includes mention of quantities of silver and fields. Unfortunately, this text is quite broken. The existence of a text demonstrating the sale of fields for silver shows that land was in fact alienable, and that it could be bought and sold. Given the broken nature of this text, it is not impossible to rule out the possibility that this text reflects debts incurred with land as collateral. If this is the case, a similar situation where land is alienable and has abstract value can be assumed.

KTU 4.631, and KTU 4.702. Found in the House of Rap'anu, KTU 4.692 lists these kinds of transfers for the occupational category y~bm.

177

unt. Records

It should be noted that records of other kinds of fields were kept as well. The unt. fields also appear in the alphabetic record. In KTU 4.637, the word appears alongside records of fields and personal names. The broken text is not much more revealing. More interesting is KTU 4.209, which lists quantities of unt. This otherwise broken text does not provide more information. This class of field represents fields that were given to non-royals in exchange for various kinds of service to the palace (see Chapter Three). CONCLUSIONS

ubdy Fields Records of specific fields referred to as ubdy fields in the Ugaritic texts were kept by the palace. It must have been important administratively to keep track of which fields were ubdy and to whom they belonged. An example of these kinds of records is KTU 4.389. KTU 4.7 is also such a text, but lacks provenance and is therefore less helpful in reconstructing the relationships of the parties involved. A completely different type of informational goal is reflected in those texts describing the relationship between named individuals and property. Manifestations of this are the lists of updt/ubdt in specific geographic locations. In both KTU 4.264 and KTU 4.309, after a heading stating the information mentioned above, a list of personal names is presented. It can be assumed that this text reflects the need to record this specific type of property holder (see Chapter Three) by both name and location. The information is grouped according to geographic region and the goal of this tablet is to specify these kinds of landholders in reference to their location. A more difficult text is KTU 4.264, which is explicitly called "a list of updt at the disposal of x personal name." A similar situation in which ubdy refers to people rather than real estate is KTU 4.309, which is a list of "ubdym in" a particular geographic location. It is followed by a list of personal names, all but one of which are simple patronymics. The transfer of such fields was recorded. In KTU 4.103, separate sections are set off with headings designating "ubdy of x occupational group." Beneath are entries following one of two formulas. The first is a simple "field of x personal name." The second follows a transfer formula "field of x personal name bd y personal name." This second formula was first recognized as a transfer formula by Heltzer" Similar texts include

73

Helrzer 1982, pp. 28-29.

From this overview of the genres of economic texts used at Ugarit, a few issues are apparent. First, there is very minimal formal standardization in the economic texts. There are similarities, no doubt, but there are only limited examples of types of texts that appear frequently in the exact same form. This seems to reflect a lack of scribal standardization. That is to say, there were no underlying copying or recording principles in terms of the form of the economic texts that a scribe had to uphold. This is in contrast with the legal documents and letters that do seem to have set forms and established systems of notation. The difference between the legal tablets and the economic tablets in form is related to their difference in function. The legal tablets were clearly meant to be records of agreements that could be kept for long periods of time (hence the wide chronological time span of attested legal texts at Ugarit). The economic texts, however, were meant as administrative aids, and not meant to be preserved for posterity, which is in keeping with van Soldt's argument that these texts date to the last years of Ugarit's life. Economic texts reflect particular situations, and are the by-product, in many ways, of specific kinds of economic activity. On the other hand, it is possible to distinguish consistent situations where economic texts were used. While the texts themselves were not identical, there seem to be many cases where certain economic activities necessitated (or at least were facilitated by) the recording of economic texts. There were many situations where this was appropriate. The movement and activities of people under the palace's sphere of influence were recorded. Likewise, the circulation of goods were kept track of and possibly facilitated by the use of economic texts. Economic texts were used in the relations between the palace and other entities, including individuals (both Ugaritians and foreigners), occupational groups, and geographic regions. Agriculture was a sphere of influence that the palace used economic records to organize, both from a production

179

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

standpoint and a circulation standpoint. In general, the status of various locations that were geographically separate from the palace could be reported through the use of these texts. Moving beyond the level of the individual text, much can be said about the nature of economic administration at Ugarit from the analysis of the particular types of tablets that have been identified. Early studies of Ugaritic administration tended to emphasize the elaborateness of the administrative framework at Ugarit.?4 Rainey, for example, saw the palace not as a self-sufficient economic unit but as an administrative centen " The palace thrived economically by skimming off the top of other producers" Indeed, from Rainey's description, the palace survived not based on its own production but on its ability to extract surplus from other primary producers. From a closer examination of the types of tablets, it seems unlikely that administration of non-royal production centers was the primary role of the palace. In general, although there are quite a variety of texts, economic texts found within the palace tend to revolve around military administration, real estate, the administration of gt and other royal property, and the circulation of goods and labor within specific contexts. These are not situations where the palace is extracting surplus from other producers, but rather situations where the palace is organizing its own internal production. It is difficult to understand the purpose of these texts within the context of the Ugarit's economy. What role did the tablets play and why are they a by-product of certain economic relationships? The basic problem for Whitt is the lack of information recorded on tablets that would make them administratively useful at a later time, such as dates or consistent types of information.Z? Whitt has attempted to answer these questions and poses two suggestions for the role of tablets in the Ugaritic archivea" The first function of the tablets is as means of systematization, even if the tablets are never looked at again, the very act of recording helps one learn and remember new data.?9 While Whitt's suggestion is possible, there is minimal positive evidence for systematization within the administrative record. His argument is inconsistent with his observations on the lack of information on the tablets that would have made them administratively useful. The second function of the tablet according to Whitt is to act as a means of assurance for the parties involved.j" Certainly this second option is the case with the Akkadian legal documents that were clearly kept for extended periods of time, but the argument is harder to make for the cryptic alphabetic texts. Land grant

texts are an exception, and clearly represent attempts at record keeping. The form of the texts clearly demonstrates their function as legal documents intended for later consultation. Whitt's suggestions for the possible roles of the tablets within the Ugaritic administrative system suggest an administrative apparatus lacking a formalized or rigorous structure. This is at odds with the description of the administrative structure outlined by Widbin. Widbin has noted similar spheres of interests of the royal administration as those outlined by this study.'" Specifically he notes the following royal administrative spheres of authority: "(1) The internal royal economy... (2) the state-mercantile system ... (3) the military organization ... (4) the organization of the cult." Widbin describes an administrative system, based on the Eastern archives that is very rigidly hierarchical, and seems consistent with Rainey's descriptions of the palace as an administrative center. The bulk of evidence that Widbin uses to outline an hierarchically organized administrative complex are the various roles of individuals within the administrative hierarchy. Widbin identifies specific roles of the king,82 the queen mother.P the sdkinu,84 as well as various other officials and supervisors." The evidence he uses to argue for the specific roles of these officials is not particularly strong. For the lower-level supervisors, Widbin uses texts such as KTU 4.141, where various individuals are listed as bd a specific PN as evidence for that PN's role as supervisorv". Since the same names do not recur, and we are not told in the texts the nature of the supervisor's authority or the purpose of the group being placed under his authority, it is a leap to describe these individuals as supervisors within the administrative system. The evidence for the roles of other individuals is similarly weak. In general, Widbin uses the epistolary tablets as the basis for his reconstruction. This is unfortunate since the epistolary tablets do not demonstrate regularized, recurring administrative obligations, but rather involve unusual or noteworthy situations. Letters often demonstrate non-standard situations or relations with bodies outside of the sphere of Ugaritic royal authority. Thus it is difficult to argue that the activities that these individuals engaged in regarding these letters demonstrate their administrative role. 86

178

74

75 76 77 78

79 80

See Whitt 1993, p. 284, for more comments on this. Rainey 1962b, p. 110. Rainey 1962b, p. 78. Whitt 1993, pp. 284-285. Whitt 1993, p. 290. Whitt 1993, p. 290. Whitt 1993, p. 290.

Widbin 1985, p. 463. Widbin 1985, pp. 383-395. 83 Widbin 1985, pp. 396-398. 84 Widbin 1985, pp. 398-417. 85 Widbin 1985, pp. 416-427. 85b Widbin 1985, pp. 423-427. 86 A noteworthy exception to this observation is the Queen of Ugarit. In her case, the record of her administrative activities is preserved almost entirely in the form of letters. This demonstrates that while she may not have engaged in specifically designated economic tasks, she did have personal economic authority over various people and institutions within the kingdom. 81

82

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF UGARITIC ECONOMIC TEXTS

Schloen takes a very different perspective from Widbin. Schloen's discussion of the role of the skn demonstrates his general understanding of the royal administration. Schloen argues that the skn's roles were "broad and ill-defined."87 Power within the Ugaritic administration was not based on bureaucratic roles but on the relationships between the particular individuals and the king. 88 It is difficult to find specific evidence for this relationship-based authority within the textual record. What is striking regarding the material presented in this chapter is the sheer diversity of economic relationships integrated by (and usually centered on) the palace. The study of the particular types of economic tablets that were kept by the palace is informative about this particular question. While more will be said on this topic in Chapter Six when the textual finds are discussed in relation to their archaeological context, some general conclusions about the nature of Ugaritic administration can be reached. From the types of tablets uncovered, it does not appear that the palace functioned primarily as an administrative center, or at least that the bulk of the palace's economic livelihood came from administrative activity. Administrative activity seems to have been a side effect of three tendencies: (1) the storage of legal documents for later reference; (2) the storage of letters received as parts of mostly international correspondence; and (3) complicated economic activities that involve too much detail for memory. The palace stored the legal texts and it is clear that land was a particular interest of the palace at Ugarit. Letters reflect ad hoc administrative activity and reflect unique situations and events. They do not reflect typical duties or bureaucratic activities, but demonstrate that economic activities were organized around personal relationships. The other category of tablet, and those that make up the bulk of the discussion in this chapter, are those tablets that keep track of issues such as agricultural yields and the circulation of goods and labor, issues that were too complicated to organize through memory. Whether or not these tablets had an archival function is unclear, although it seems unlikely based on the observations made by Whitt noted above.f" There is no positive evidence for a standardized administrative system where certain information was recorded and filed for future reference. These texts were useful for the organization of a particular administrative situation; the method of use after storage in the palace is uncertain as the texts themselves lack evidence for a larger level of organization. The goal rather seems to be to keep things "flowing" in the short term, for example noting who has and who needs what equipment when. Even given the lack of evidence available to understand the filing system of the tablets, the texts provide information on the nature of administrative activities at Ugarit. From the observations made in this chapter, it is possible to comment on how power

is exercised through administration at Ugarit, an act that is evident in the textual remains of those activities. The more these administrative systems are used, the more they reify their own existcnce.P" The administrators (who were using and creating administrative systems), by exercising administrative authority were exercising power over the individual workers." That the participants may not understand the act of administration as a symbolic reification of power does not negate the end result. At this stage it will be useful to look at economic texts more generally and see what the analysis of these texts can demonstrate about Ugaritic economic modalities. This shall be the subject of the next chapter.

180

87 88

89

Schloen 2001, p. 253. Schloen 2001, p. 253. Whitt 1993, pp. 284-285.

90

91

See Giddens 1984, p. 19. See Foucault 1977, p. 26.

181

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

CHAPTER FIVE

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

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. Itamar Singer

At this stage in the investigation, it is useful to summarize the evidence for economic modalities at Ugarit that can be found in the textual sources. The following chapter seeks to answer the specific questions asked about the Ugaritic economy at the outset of this study (see the Introduction). Given the expectations and limitations on textual evidence described in Chapter Four, some general conclusions can be made about the evidence for modalities derived from the textual evidence. WHO ENGAGED IN ECONOMIC ACTION ACCORDING TO THE TEXTS?

From the textual evidence, it is possible to identify various participants and groups of participants in the Ugaritic economy. The individual (and the household of the individual) was a basic economic player, attested as such frequently in the administrative record. Within the administrative record were prominent individuals such as Yabninu and Urtenu who had control of vast resources and the ability to correspond with royalty, individuals who were named but who had significantly less access to resources and authorities, and people who are not named but simply referred to as bns or with terms such as lmd that explicitly connect them to another person. Beyond the level of the individual, it is possible to identify two other means of identifying participants in the Ugaritic economy: geographic regions and occupational categories. Durkheim's conceptualization of the corporate group is descriptively useful here. Geographic regions and occupational categories are treated like corporations by the palace administration in that they are treated as monolithic entities, as solitary actors engaging in economic activities. This is, however, not an emic categorization, but an assigned status as the evidence comes from the palace archives not from the records of the occupational category or the local village. It cannot be assumed that these palacedefined groups saw themselves as such. Finally, the other category of economic actor that is visible in the Ugaritic administrative record includes those organizations that kept administrative records. The major force of this record keeping was the palace, but

183

it has also been seen that other (not explicitly royal) groups or people also engaged in economic record keeping. What follows is a discussion of the concrete evidence for each of these groups. The Individual There are instances of particularly noteworthy individuals engaging in economic activity. These individuals should be understood as elite individuals within the community ofUgarit, given the sizes of their residences (see Chapter Six) and their prominence in royal correspondence. 1 This is consistent with the actions of elites in southern Mesopotamia, as described by Zettler and van Driel and discussed in Chapter Two.2 Both Zettler and van Driel describe situations where wealthy families played economic roles within the community (in the case of Nippur, through their management of the Inanna Temple). Courtois and Malbran-Labat have already acknowledged the important role played by wealthy, non-royal elites within the community," It is worth investigating the direct textual evidence for the activities of these elite families as documented in the textual record. The House of Yabninu provides a good starting point, as the large size, location, and textual finds within this structure had led to its initial misnaming as the "Southern Palace." Text types include: name lists (KTU 4.619, KTU 4.633, KTU 4.643, KTU 4.648, KTU 4.649, KTU 4.650, KTU 4.651, and KTU 4.653), debt lists (KTU 4.634), and information about ships (KTU 4.647). The presence of these texts within Yabninu's archive demonstrates that Yabninu was able to engage in those economic situations, from the perspective of an administrator. Yabninu is also mentioned within the palace archive, in situations where he seems to have a high degree of economic autonomy, although constrained by obligations towards the palace. Large amounts of goods are recorded as being given to the palace by Yabninu. In KTU 4.91, the goods given by Yabninu include various oils, trees, olives, tin, and iron. In KTU 4.158, Yabninu's account lists large amounts of silver, oil, trees, plant products, horses, chariot equipment, precious metals and stone among other items. Other texts attest to individuals bringing tribute, usually individuals from outside of Ugarit, as in KTU 4.181. In KTU 4.272, smaller amounts of materials are recorded as having been brought by a particular individual. The specific types of goods include copper, milk, tin, and oil.

1 These individuals should not be consideted divorced from their households (i.e., families). While the administrative record refers to particular individuals, Schloen, 2001, has demonstrated the intrinsic connection between the individual and the household. 2 Zettler 1992 and van Driel 2002. 3 Courtois 1990 and Malbran-Labat 2000.

184

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

Urtenu was another prominent figure. Akkadian tablets demonstrate his important role in international relations (see Chapter Eight). From the alphabetic texts, he seems to engage in the circulation of a number of different kinds of goods, including wine, comestibles, and textiles. Urtenu also participated in long distance trade ventures, along with partners, that transported materials to Emar. The scale of economic action available for non-elite residents of Ugarit seems quite limited compared to the activities ofYabninu and Urtenu, at least based on the textual record. fu has been stated in Chapter Pour, a distinction should be made amongst these non-elites (although it is uncertain exactly what would have constituted elite from an emic perspective), between those that are mentioned by name administratively and those that are un-named. While this may not reflect a strict social differentiation, from a practical standpoint, it indicates different degrees of community status. Those individuals who were unnamed (administratively) acted as laborers, received distributions, provided payments, and were under the authority of named individuals. Unfortunately it is difficult to come to strong conclusions about this; it is unclear if this is simply a contextual distinction. There is no way of determining if individuals who were not named in one text were named in another, that is to say, to determine whether the nameless where always nameless. In general, they likely had limited autonomy within the Ugaritic economy. Within the groups of named individuals, further distinction can be made based on the texts that describe individuals as bd (in the hand of, under the authority of) another individual. Certain individuals played supervisory roles although this stratification was likely fluid and the authority based around the execution of particular tasks. No doubt, some individuals would have had recurring roles as supervisors. An emergent system likely developed at Ugarit through this type of process. Other named individuals played passive roles similar to those unnamed individuals: acting as laborers, receiving distributions, paying for goods, and other work under the authority of superiors. These named individuals also seemed able to purchase goods or make requests for resources. The distinction between named and unnamed may, in these cases, reflect different textual situations where the name was an important administrative datum.

the agricultural equipment in certain areas (as in KTU 4.89). It is unclear if this implies that the palace owned this equipment, or needed to know where it would have to send equipment. There are a number of texts that attest to this relationship, although the reason for the compilation of the list is not made explicit (either there are only city names, or city names listed alongside a quantity of an unknown product). Amounts of precious metal, perhaps acting as a type of currency, are associated with particular villages (as in KTU 4.113).4 A text that lists the name of the geographic area and an unknown quantity is KTU 4.68, where this number seems most likely to refer to archers. Cities are listed in relation to various types of goods. KTU 4.49 lists cities alongside of amounts of wine (between six and sixteen jars each). It is unclear from this text whether each city received or sent the jars of wine. Either way, texts like this are important evidence that the village acted as, or was considered, a discreet economic unit. Since this tablet was not found in the palace (although its context may have been disturbed) it may also indicate that the village was a separate economic unit from a non-royal perspective as well. KTU 4.95 is also informative of how the village constituted a discreet economic unit. This tablet records amounts of time (in months and days) that each city provided some sort of service. While the exact nature of that service is lexically unclear, the notation of units of time constitutes fairly strong evidence for payments in service as opposed to goods or abstract wealth. In conclusion, the textual evidence demonstrates that villages (or other distinct economic regions) acted economically in relation to the palace in four general spheres. First, the palace was interested in the equipment in various cities. Second, the palace was concerned with military issues relating to other geographic regions, including both military equipment and obligations to provide military service. Third, the palace was interested in other economic obligations owed by the regions. Fourth, the circulation of various goods, both raw resources and goods with added value where kept track of by the palace administration. More will be said about this in Chapter Eight.

The Geographic Region

Foreigners had explicitly different rights from Ugaritians in terms of their ability to engage in economic activities. These limitations are attested in the treaties where these laws are outlined, although one should always be careful to distinguish that these are legal principles and that they mayor may not have corresponded to actual practice. PRU 4 103ff (RS 17.130) lists the restrictions and abilities of foreign merchants for operation within Ugarit. Linder states that this text provides Hittite individuals certain

There is substantial evidence that individual cities and distinct geographic regions acted as discreet economic entities. Various texts demonstrate circumstances in which cities act as an economic unit in relationship to the Royal Palace at Ugarit. Military equipment and manpower were recorded by city of origin. Examples of this include: KTU 4.63, KTU 4.683, and KTU 4.784. Agricultural equipment and goods are recorded by their presence in various cities. The palace kept records of

Foreigners at Ugarit

4

For examples of texts listing just the names of villages, see Chapter Four.

187

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

protections within Ugarit, and that this was likely related to the Hittite suzerainty over Ugarit. 5 More will be said of this topic in Chapter Eight. Syllabic legal documents provide the best evidence for the role of foreign merchants within Ugarit. Cornelius notes the punishments given to Ugarit in response to the murder of foreign merchants, as well as the obligations of Ugarit to compensate for goods stolen from the foreign rnerchants.f Perhaps the most notable example of foreigners engaging in economic activities in Ugarit are the so-called "merchants ofUra." These merchants were Hittite merchants, who gained a trading advantage at Ugarit through an edict of King Hattusilis III,? These traders were explicitly under the authority of the Hittite King and not the king of Ugarit." The prohibition against trade during the winter months is an interesting constraint placed on these merchants." Cornelius rightly interprets this prohibition in light of the difficulties of nautical travel during the winter, and not as a reflection on seasonal/agricultural economic patterns within Ugarit.!?

occupational category (KTU 4.71), and the movement of ubdy fields is also listed according to individuals within specific economic categories. Craigie uses similar logic to argue that shepherds were organized as some sort of collective within the palace administrarion.l" These arguments are all based on the administrative practice of recording

186

\~, . distributions to occupational categories. Cutler and MacDonald have dealt with the question of whether or not "guil~l ~n appropriate term to use to describe these occupational groups in more detail. It is worth relating their conclusions: First, there seems to be no indication of any independent action on the part of the so-called guilds of Ugarit or elsewhere. Secondly, their appearance at all results from the fact that they are merely named in the highest official archives, those of the palace. They seem to be simply subjects of the king. Indeed, we gain the impression that the palace demanded, the palace paid out. It may be, however, that the palace exercised oversight of the personnel which it employed, and on which it depended economically, and that there were "non-palace guildsmen" who organized themselves for the purpose of protection (economically) and made the most of the prevailing economic and fiscal conditions of their day.14

The Occupational Category A contested issue at Ugarit is the nature of the organization (if there is any) of occupational groups. This has been discussed in Chapter Four, but it is important to come to some conclusions regarding what the textual evidence suggests about this particular issue. That palace scribes used occupational categories as categories of economic actors suggests that there was some type of organization of these groups. This is not necessarily evidence of internal administration (within the occupational category) but implies only that these were meaningful categories for a higher authority. The first scholars to study occupational categories argued that that organization was sufficiently regimented that the term "guild" was appropriate. As already mentioned, Gray suggested that the standard appearance of certain groups of craft specialists within the administrative record, grouped according to craft specialization demonstrated the existence of guilds. 11 It should be noted that it is difficult to determine how far Gray would have pushed the medieval analogy, whether he saw these groups as directly similar to European organizations of craft specialists, or whether it was a simple continuance of his use of feudal terminology given a lack of emic terminology. Rainey also describes these groups as guilds. 12 Payments were made according to Linder 1981, p. 35. Cornelius 1981, p. 19. 7 Cornelius 1981, p. 18. B Cornelius 1981, p. 18. 9 Cornelius 1981, p. 18. 10 Cornelius 1981, p. 18. 11 Gray 1952, p. 50. 12 Rainey 1962b, pp. 166-167.

5 6

The argument made by Cutler and MacDonald is that the guilds that seem apparent in the palace archive are a reflection of the palace archive, and not a reflection of an internally organized group of specialist laborers. Texts documenting the movement of ubdy fields and the payment of amounts of silver could simply reflect the palace's administrative procedures/needs and does not necessarily indicate internal organization of these groups. Perhaps the texts simply preserve tallies of individual payments. Schloen has also questioned whether these occupational groups represent formal organizations or whether the use of such terms reflects administrative practices. Schloen states that there is simply not enough evidence for any kind of formal internal group organization to argue that the use of occupational categories reflects anything more than administrative practice. 15 More difficult to explain, if the existence of guilds is not posited, are texts that document situations where the occupational groups seem to be acting as collectives. Lists of tribute payments are given according to occupational categories. A typical list is KTU 4.261, in which the individual metal smiths are divided according to gentilic. There is no evidence that the individuals paid as a collective, however. Each personal name is associated with a number between 500 and 200, although the substance referred to by the number is not preserved. The categorization of each individual metal smith according to gentilic likely reflects administrative or collection practices and does not, necessarily, imply any sort of internal metal smith organization.

13

Craigie 1982.

14 Cutler and MacDonald 1977, p. 29. 15

Schloen 2001, p. 216.

188

189

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

This situation is greatly complicated by KTU 4.43, found in the area designated the Northwest. This text records that 1108 talents of copper were brought from Immn, a royal administrator'", to the nskm (smiths) for tribute (l argmn). From our understanding of tribute, this is exactly the opposite direction of movement that one would expect. Perhaps it indicates the provision of copper so that the smiths can make the goods, which is their tribute, and return those goods to the palace. Perhaps the tribute owed by the smiths was not considered the materials but the labor (or the products with the added-value provided by specialist work). It is, in fact, not absolutely certain that this text reflects royal authority, although it is highly likely given Immn's involvement. Economic activities of individual members of occupational categories are attested. An account of the sbrdn is preserved in KTU 4.337. The rest of the text details various sales made to individuals. The purchases are made in silver, for a wide variety of textiles. The collection of silver from individuals, in quantities from 10-30 per person, is listed in KTU 4.658. The individuals are subdivided by gentilic, but each paid an amount individually. Related to the problem of organization of specialized occupations at Ugarit is the issue of the nature of the lmdm listed frequently in the administrative documents. These lmdm are typically listed in reference to a particular individual. Likely these people are best thought of as apprentices. Their appearance in administrative lists indicates that they were bound to particular individuals (such that they could be identified in reference to those individuals) and that they participated in economic activities along with the person to whom they were found in reference. Individuals could have more than one lmd assigned to them, as is shown by KTU 4.138. Education in specialized occupations, then, seems to have been formalized through this institution, and across different fields of activity. Meaningful occupational categories at Ugarit include md. mryn, 'irm, Inn, mru, Ir; mrjrgl kzy, psl, Yfb, nqd, khn, qdJ, mkr; nsk, 'bd, init, yq1, kbf, trr; Yfr, mbf, and ksd The consistent appearance of these occupational categories in the same relative order in the administrative documents (although not all are always included'") has led scholars to postulate a fairly regimented hierarchy amongst these groups. The hierarchy implicit in the order of these groups is not simply a literaryllexical distinction. 18 Vargyas argues that evidence that this order reflects an actual social hierarchy comes from the consistently higher amounts of goods and land distributed to or received from the groups in the higher levels of the lists compared to the groups in the lower levels of the lists. 19 He has also noted that within these upper levels of occupational specialists, there are

no hints that the positions were hereditary-? High amounts of wealth were accumulated by elite individuals, based on their posts, and not based on the constraints of heredity.i! There are hints that heredity was a factor in the attainment of such posts, especially when individuals are listed along with their nbl (heir). Another piece of evidence that further suggests that these lists represent an actual social hierarchy and not a simple scribal practice are instances where individuals are promoted to a higher rank by the king, for example in PRU 3 140ff (RS 16.132) where a family is promoted from the level of qdI to mrynr? The regularized appearance of occupational categories in a ranked order in lists is telling, as is the apparent differential degree of access to goods based on occupational category. This is a situation where kinship itnot the primary identifying trait of the individual or the primary locus of social c hesion. Instead, this is a situation that would be expected by Durkheim where the div . ion of labor co-ordinates the relationships between individual members of a society.23 In the situation at Ugarit, the division of labor is semi-formalized in as much as a rigid hierarchy recurs, and lying beneath these texts must have been an implicit shared belief in a hierarchy of occupational relationships. In other words, since a recurring hierarchy is identifiable not just in the order of appearance of the occupational categories (which could be taken as scribal practice), then that recurring hierarchy reflects a societal ranking based on what kind of work one does, not on who one is related to. It is interesting to note that tablets listing individuals grouped by occupational category are not only found in the palace. In the House of Rap'anu, KTU 4.692 lists members of the occupational category yshm. KTU 4.690 lists the silver debts of mdm and was found south of the House of Rasapabu, KTU 4.633, found in the House of Yabninu lists individuals who were classified as khnm. Shepherds are listed in KTU 4.729 in the House of Agapsarri. The non-royal evidence is important, since it demonstrates that these categories of occupational specialists were not solely grounded in a royal perspective. Other members of the community recognized these groups. However, these high-class figures were still beholden to the monarchy. It must be concluded that the evidence for the presence of internally organized groups of craft specialists is limited. Certainly the notation of various ranks within the groups ii:e., rb, lmd) hints at some degree of internal organization. Texts describing the movement of goods (whether understood as tribute, requests, distributions, payments) could just as easily be understood as reflecting the needs of the palace administration, or non-royal record keeping, as reflecting the existence of guilds. The information

See KTU 3.9 for more on this individual. Vargyas 1988, p. 118. 18 Based on the evidence of the order of the occupational categories alone, it cannot be assumed that this reflects a social order, since it could just as easily reflect a scribal practice. 19 Vargyas 1988, p. 115. 16 17

20 21

22

23

Vargyas 1988, p. 115. Vargyas 1988, p. 116. Dijkstra 1999-2000, pp. 87-88. Durkheim 1984, pp. 3, 333.

190

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

from the texts does not preclude the possibility that guilds existed at Ugarit, but it does not necessitate this conclusion either.

high ranking is KTU 2.4 where hrsn addresses a skn as "brother," demonstrating an equivalence in rank between this class of administrator and the cultic official. 34

Cultic Officials and the Temples

WHAT KINDS OF ECONOMIC ACTIONS WERE ENGAGED IN?

191

I

It is difficult to determine the validity of considering cultic personnel as a separate group of economic actors at Ugarit. From the palace occupational category lists, it seems apparent that cultic personnel were not considered in different terms from those personnel involved in military, manufacturing, or service occupations. Since it has been demonstrated in Chapter One that institutions can act as mediating forces upon individual economic choice.i" it is safest to consider these personnel separately. It appears that the evidence from private archives indicates that there were some distinguishing traits of cultic personnel. Hence, the non-distinctness of this group within the palace archive may only reflect a particular administrative situation where this distinction was not so important. Lipinski has attempted to reconstruct the economic situation of cultic officials at Ugarit, essentially through collecting information about particular cultic officials, known by name in the Ugaritic records. He starts with the presupposition that the cultic officials formed a distinct class at Ugarit that was hereditary and subject to taboos that the rest of the population was not. 25 This is a difficult assertion to support though. Particularly problematic is how to understand the regularized appearance of cu]tic officials in palace administrative occupational lists. Related to this are instances where individuals are promoted by the king from positions as cultic officials to other appointments." In general, Lipinski demonstrates that upper level cultic officials had a high degree of wealrh.F Evidence for this comes in the sale of property.i" land grants,29 and shepherding activities.t" In other words, the cultic officials at Ugarit participated in agro-economic activities. Other sources of economic power for the cultic officials came from palace subsidies'" and from what Lipinski calls "living from the altar,"32 which refers to the access that cultic officials had to sacrifice meat products after they had been used in the cultic activity. The rank of these cultic officials was apparently quite high. 33 The most impressive evidence Lipinski shows for this Smith 2000, p. 23. Lipinski 1988, p. 126. 26 For example, the already noted PRU 3 140ff. (RS 16.132) where a family is promoted from the level of qdJ to mryn, see Dijkstra 1999-2000, pp. 87-88. 27 Lipinski 1988, p. 134. 28 Lipinski 1988, p. 129. 29 Lipinski 1988, p. 130. 30 Lipinski 1988, pp. 132-133. 31 Lipinski 1988, p. 149. 32 Lipinski 1988, pp. 138-140. 33 Lipinski 1988, p. 135. 24 25

'\

Now that the persons that engaged in ecdpomic activities at Ugarit, at least those that were included in the textual evidence, have.been identified, it is possible to describe some of the major types of economic activities that were practiced at Ugarit. In general, evidence for these types of activities is best found in situations recording the movement of goods, real estate, or labor. These are textually visible activities because they involved change, and hence precipitated the recording of the act. Land transfers and actions revolving around real estate were a major locus of economic activity at Ugarit. Seemingly related to real estate at Ugarit, although involving other aspects of life as well, are those activities reflecting or precipitated by obligations owed to royal authorities. Similarly, it is possible to identify economic activities that reflect cultic duties, obligations owed to the gods, and ritual centers at Ugarit. Debt and credit relationships are attested in the economic texts at Ugarit, and are also dealt with in this section. The last two categories of economic activity are those actions that involve the redistribution or sale of goods. These activities are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but since both situations are attested administratively, it is important to discuss them separately, before determining whether or not they should be considered one type of activity. Economic Actions Involving Real Estate Land was transferable at Ugarit. The most important category of evidence for the transfer of land at Ugarit are the royal land grants written in syllabic script found in the royal palace. These texts have been well studied." Royal land grant texts are best understood as contracts where the palace gives land to individuals in return for certain services. The land granted is land already in the possession of the palace, as opposed to land that was simply within the borders of Ugarit. Knoppers is correct in noting that limitations were placed on the alienability of this land since the palace required certain services in exchange for the donated land. 36 Often the individuals who received the land were in fact members of the royal family. There were other specific occasions when the palace kept track of the movement of land. Records exist of the transfer of ubdy fields. In KTU 4.103, the transfer of ubdy Lipinski 1977, p. 131. See Boyer 1955; Libolt 1985; and Miller 1980, for full discussion and translations as well as the corresponding sections of Chapter Two 36 Knoppers 1996, p. 687. 34

35

193

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

fields is recorded under the heading of specific occupational categories. These fields are usually referred to in reference to a specific individual, but, there is some evidence that there was a higher level of supervision, beyond the mere individual. In KTU 4.110, the fields are listed as located in a specific area (ilstm') and under the control of a particular skn. This same text informs that numerous ubdy fields could be located at one gt, helping to establish the scale of both the field size and the size of a gt. KTU 4.631 lists ubdy transfers in art, but some of the transfers are notably made to qrt (GN or simply a city). Interestingly, these kinds of texts are not only found in the palace. KTU 4.692 records the transfer of ubdy y~bm, yet was found in the House of Rap'anu. Field transfer records were kept by the palace. Fields, described as "field of PN" are transferred to certain individuals, normally without any rationale given for the transfer (KTU 4.222, 4.240, 4.356, 4.357, 4.423, 4.425). It should be noted that fields (Sd) and vineyards (krm) were classified as different types of agricultural land at Ugarit, as in Mesopotamia. This is demonstrated in field transfer texts like KTU 4.424. Other, more static, situations were recorded by the palace. KTU 4.298 keeps track of individuals who did not possess fields. Unfortunately, information about these individuals is somewhat lacking due to the fragmentary nature of this text. Individuals outside of Ugarit could own houses, and some owned more than one house. This is demonstrated by KTU 4.750, which preserved this kind of information. There is some evidence that arable land in Ugarit was understood as divided into categories of arable land, orchards, and house plots, the situation as argued for southern Mesopotamia by Renger.37 Of most interest from the evidence of the palace archives are fields - arable land. Most of the texts involving real estate transactions are referred to specifically as fields as opposed to houses. Perhaps this reflects the environment of the urban farmer, whose fields in the country were geographically separate from his home in the city. Perhaps the texts that simply state the transfer of fields from one PN to another PN reflect a situation that was less legally important than the transfer of lands recorded in royal land grants. While land was apparently alienable at Ugarit, there were limitations on the alienability, or very minimally, that alienability still required the palace to keep track of the transfer of land. It is interesting to consider this situation in relation to the arguments made by Fustel de Coulanges, who argued that Greek land was not alienable because of its relationship to the family hearth and was not based on a specific labor relationship.38 From the textual evidence, there are no stated cultic relationships that bind the land to particular individuals. The possession of land is based in some cases on a labor! status relationship with the palace. In many cases this is not evident. However, the

very fact that the palace kept archival records of land ownership indicates that the land was a particular area of economic activity that the palace exercised a high degree of authority over. Miller's work has helped clari£y-rh~situation, based on his close readings of the texts themselves. He has demonstrated that often the king is privy to the transaction, and legitimizes it, but does not actively participate in the transfer.39 Indeed, land that is not owned by the king is still transferred under his supervision.f? This observation is consistent with the observation made by Libolt that there were probably varying degrees of land-ownership and different hierarchies of rights over real estate." A statement that someone "owns" a piece of land may be too simplistic and may not actually reflect the practical situation. Analyzing this evidence from the perspectives of the models outlined in Chapter Two clarifies the nature of land-ownership at Ugarit. If one accepts an Asiatic Mode of Production model, then it should be expected that large amounts of land would not have been kept track of by the palace authority, as it had no authority over the village sector. On the other hand, if one follows Schloen's model, then it should be expected that individual families owned property, and even though there may have been some limitations, the king still had rights over all property in his role as preeminent pater familias. 42 Whether there was land outside of the palace's authority is difficult to answer based on texts found predominantly in the palace. It is noteworthy that land grant texts are mostly found in the palace archive. Unfortunately, the evidence can be read either way, as an indication that all land was recognized as under palatial authority, or that land outside of the authority of the palace did not require the drawing up of palace based legal documents to legitimate the transfer. In this particular situation, the PHM model and the various AMP models are more consistent than their respective proponents would lend one to believe. Both models posit a situation where the rights of the king over the land were in possible conflict with patrimonial or ancestral rights over land. The only difference is the relative authority of the different types of rights. It can be concluded, then, that land at Ugarit was alienable, but this alienability was restricted. The restrictions were manifest in two forms: the authority of the king and traditional (most likely patrimonial/ancestral) authority. While it is not possible to establish the exact parameters of these rights given the present evidence, this general principle is the most appropriate means of understanding land ownership at Ugarit.

192

37 38

Renger 1995, p. 290. Fustel de Coulanges 1980 [1956], p. 62.

Miller 1981, p. 350. Boyer 1955, pp. 283-293, comments that a dynastic seal is used on land transfer texts, when the king was privy to the transaction and suggests that this seal acted as the official sanction of the state for the transaction. 41 Libolt 1985, p. 9. 42 Schloen 2001, p. 231. 39

40

194

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

Economic Actions Involving Obligations Owed to Royal Authority Evidence for tribute relationships is very important to the study of ancient economy.v' The imposition of tribute obligations was one of the primary methods through which centralized authorities compelled domestic producers to produce in excess of their subsistence needs (i.e.) as a means of negating the drudgery factor identified by Chayanov). There is significant evidence for this activity in the palace records at Ugarit. Amounts of tribute (irgmn) in copper are recorded in KTU 4.181. The tribute comes from specific individuals. Amounts of tribute (argmnm) in silver received from geographic regions, occupational groups, and individuals are recorded in KTU 4.369. The tribute (argmn) of copper-smiths is recorded in KTU 4.261. This list is organized according to geographic region. Under each geographic region sub-heading, a list of personal names follows. Unfortunately the text does not explain what kind of tribute is referred to in the numerical values associated with each individual. A further text mentioning the tribute (argmn) of copper-smiths is KTU 4.43, which was found in the Northwest. Here it seems that the tribute (1108 talents) was given to the smiths by Immn, a major administrator for the palace. Tribute was also given to higher authorities than the king of Ugarit. KTU 4.610 accounts for tribute (argmn) given to the Hittite king. Amounts of silver are listed, ranging from 2 to 152, and each of these amounts is associated with either an occupational category or geographic name. It is safe to say that this text records tribute amounts collected by royal authorities to be given as a whole to the Hittites. The palace gained tribute from a variety of sources. In KTU 4.369, tribute is listed as coming from merchants (20, 150,40, and 100 silver), two geographic locations (300 and 100 silver), from shepherds (84 silver), and from individuals listed only by gentilic. Gifts given to the palace should also be considered tribute, although it is often difficult to understand exactly what the background of the gift is, including the levels of obligation involved. The subject of KTU 4.91 is a "contribution" (mnb) from Yabninu (the resident of the erroneously named Palais sud). The exact composition of the mnb is enumerated in detail. Other times, the notion of tribute is not necessarily appropriate, as it is not certain if the rationale for the delivery of the item to the king is based on the relative status of the subordinate party, or whether it was based on another situation, perhaps a sale or debt payment. A case in point is KTU 4.548, which lists the delivery of metal or textiles to the king, from an individual. KTU 4.272 records the quantities of milk, tin, and copper brought by certain individuals. KTU 4.296 lists quantities of animals taken from certain locations. The nature of this economic relationship is unclear: is it tribute, 43 The term "tribute" is here distinguished from "taxation" in that "tribute" is used for all types of imposed obligations, whereas "taxation" is used only to describe regularized tribute given in the form of goods (but not labor).

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

4.~ich

195

describes quantitaxation, or sales? There is a similar problem with KTU ties of oxen/bulls from specific locations. There are also records that could be understood better as reflecting taxation. The difference between these two concepts is minor, since the movement of goods is from subordinates to superiors. However, tribute does not necessarily go to central governments, and taxation is much more regularized. Texts involving ilku obligations are one category. In KTU 4.153, the ilku of shepherds is listed. Individuals are listed along with the type of garment that they produce. The ilku paid then, seems to have taken the form of the production of specific types of textiles, indicating that the ilku was based on either the shepherds specialized skills or specialized access to resources (i.e., wool). PRU 6 77 (RS 19.32) lists individuals from a specific geographic location who did not provide their ilku, further evidence that this was a type of service-based obligation. The mrjrglm who performed their duties at a certain location (although the location has not been preserved) are listed in KTU 4.33. Individuals are listed by personal name, patronym, and/or geographic origin. This tablet demonstrates that the palace actively kept track of the fulfillment of these duties. The mrjrglm were also the subject of a tablet found outside of the palace archive. In KTU 4.53, the mrjrglm who lacked msg-garments are listed, likely indicating that it was sorneone's responsibility to supply them with these garments. It is likely that individuals with specialized occupations were also compelled to perform some type of military service, although the exact nature of this military service is not entirely obvious. KTU 4.68 includes the label (as the last line of the tablet), "tup-pu ERIN2.MES sa GIS.BAN.MES," which is best translated, "tablet of troops who are archers." The fact that this is written beneath a list of occupational categories suggests that members of these fairly typical occupational categories were also archers. More evidence for this kind of obligation comes from texts that record the amounts of individuals quartered in certain locations. For example, KTU 4.137 lists 163 bnim quartered in the house of the king. Likewise, KTU 4.163 lists 150 bnim who live in the royal palace. These bnim are described as having a number of different occupations, but most have some military relevance. Another type of obligation is reflected in KTU 4.95, which reads: qrht d tSSlmn, "cities that gave payment to flrby." The performance of these obligations was measured in units of time, months and days, and geographic regions were the providers of this service. It should be noted that this text comes from the Northwest. As discussed in Chapter Four, this is the designation that was given to the excavation zone in the area of the palace before it was identified as such, and thus objects from the Northwest mayor may not be associated with the Royal Palace. Based on these texts, it is possible to identify what goods and services the palace received as tribute, as well as from whom. The palace received precious metals from

196

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

geographic areas, as well as individuals within occupational categories. Elite individuals gave other products of varying types to the palace, although there are only a few instances of this recorded textually. Animals were collected from certain locations. Whether or not this should be considered tribute is unclear. Labor was provided to the palace, mostly through ilku obligations. There is some evidence for services provided by the various villages. Related to labor provisions are the provisions of military service to the palace, by individuals as well as geographic regions. The palace also collected tribute from within the kingdom explicitly to give to the Hittite king. In general, the tribute situations recorded in the palace records are relatively limited. This may reflect a situation where the palace actually did not derive much of its income or subsistence and luxury supplies from obligations. Note that not much agricultural yield is described as being sent to the palace in explicitly tributary language. Agricultural goods that are described as sent to the palace originated at the various gt within the kingdom, which should be considered directly supervised by the palace. The other possible interpretation of the minimal tributary relationships explicitly described textually is that the palace did not need to record the arrival of tribute items, except in unusual situations. It is interesting to note how this evidence for types of tribute situations makes sense given the arguments made by various scholars of the Ugaritic economy. As has been noted previously, Rainey had argued that the palace was an administrative center that gained most of its subsistence needs by extracting the surpluses produced by subordinate entities within the kingdom.r' While this may have been the case, it is not supported by the documentary evidence from the royal palace. The types of tribute received by the palace (distinct from the goods received from the various gt) do not reflect base subsistence needs, but take the form of precious metals, specialized labor, and military service. Indeed, based on the textual evidence alone, it is difficult to support Rainey's model of an economy of small-scale producers, producing a surplus extracted by the palace. Heltzer's Royal Service System offers a better fit than Rainey's model, with the textual evidence from the archives at Ugarit. Although Heltzer's philological interpretations are wrong at some significant points, his general understanding of the role of tribute within the economy is not inconsistent with the texts. For Heltzer, there were two sectors of authority within the kingdom, the communal sector and the palace sector.t" The communal sector was dependent on the palace sector, and this dependency was expressed through taxes of precious metals, labor, and military obligation.t" The palace gained income from two sources: its agricultural estates found throughout

45 46

Rainey 1962b, p. 78. See Heltzer 1988, pp. 10-11 for example. Heltzer 1988, pp. 10-11.

197

the kingdom, and from obligations by individuals to the palace based on conditional land-holding, i.e., ilku obligations.47 While some of Heltzer's philological conclusions cannot be upheld (see Chapter Three), this model for understanding the organization of the economy does match the evidence found in the texts at Ugarit. The aspects of Heltzer's model that are supportable by the textual evidence are his adaptations of Diakonoff's Two-sector model, which argues for two distinct areas of authority, royal and "free."48 However, the fact that Heltzer's model fits the evidence does not mean that it best explains the evidence. What is still problematic in Heltzer's interpretation is that it does not take into account that these situations are situations that should be expected in a palatial administrative system. In terms of structuring tribute, it would be cumbersome to describe the payee of the tribute without using language or formulas that seem to express "otherness". In other words, the so-called "communal" sector may only appear to be a separate entity because the recording system necessitates this, and in fact no conceptual difference between Ugarit and its tribute payers existed from the perspective of the Ugaritians. The documentary evidence from Ugarit cannot as easily be marshaled to support Zaccagnini's adaptation of the Asiatic Mode of Production. In Chapter Two, the differences between the AMP models and the Two-sector models were discussed; the major difference is that an AMP model sees all elements of the society subsumed under royal authority. To briefly recap Zaccagnini's model, he sees the authority of a superior owner superimposed over a series of self-sufficient communities, creating a tributary relationship.49 Indeed, while the basic relationship suggested by Zaccagnini seems consistent with the documentary evidence, the self-sufficiency of the superior owner is not emphasized. Given the small scale of the tributary relationship indicated by the textual evidence, the palace could not have been getting the bulk of its income from surplus extraction. Schloen also argues that economic authority at Ugarit was rooted in one superior figure, although instead of using ownership as the metaphor for this social relationship, Schloen suggests that patrimonial authority was the dominant metaphor. Individual households would give tax and service to a village elite, who served the king. 50 This nested series of households, as described by Schloen, could be consistent with the documentary evidence for tribute at Ugarit, since it is possible that the small scale of tribute records at the palace reflects only the final stage of the movement of goods through a series of hierarchical authorities. It is more difficult to understand how a patrimonial metaphor of authority was used by Ugaritians to understand their economic/tribute relationships to elite individuals and institutions. The texts do not show 47

44

~.~ THE TABLETS

48

49 50

Heltzer 1988, p. 75. Diakonoff 1974, pp. 8-9. Zaccagnini 1987, pp. 23-27. Schloen 2001, p. 254.

198

199

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

that this was an emic conception. Van Driel has expressed concern that distribution of wages within palaces were not provided in an equitable fashion as could be expected in a domestic household.f However, van Driel does not provide evidence that household distribution should be expected to be equitable, and that social ranking would not be found within the household. It is difficult, though, to understand a tributary relationship as a manifestation of a household relationship writ large. Some conclusions about surplus production can be made based on this textual evidence. Clearly various types of obligations were owed to the palace. Although it does not seem that individual households/agricultural producers provided the palace with subsistence needs, there are indications of payments in terms of labor. Payments in labor do not necessitate the production of surplus and it seems unlikely that forced tributary relationships to the palace were the dominant means of encouraging production to surplus levels by small-scale producers.

The context of KTU 4.728, the House of the Hurrian Priest, suggests that the text records unfulfilled cultic obligations. In this case, individuals who did not bring oil are recorded. Here is a remnant of the internal administration of cultic obligations; the cultic officials yielded some level of authority over individuals within the community, compelling them to provide amounts of oil.

Economic Activities Involving Cultic Obligations Some economic activities should be considered cultic activities. The analysis of particular cultic activities is a subject in its own right and can only be dealt with cursorily here. Specifically, situations where the cuitic obligations have particular economic ramifications are an important category of activity, too large in scope to be presented in this work. It is apparent that the necessity of provisioning deities (or provisioning deities through their intermediaries, like cultic officials) was likely a stimulus for surplus household production. This means that the act of provisioning deities was important enough to certain households to encourage them to work to produce extra materials (hence acting as a check against Chayanov's drudgery factor, described in Chapter One).52 While some of the texts discussed below likely reflect the economic activities of primary producers (i.e., domestic households) this cannot be ascertained for certain, as only individual names are presented. Typically designated as cultic are those texts that record the bringing out of various textiles in particular months. When a particular month is given in a text, it is not as clear precisely why that is relevant. That is to say, is the month listed to record that the activity took place in that particular month? Or, does it indicate a monthly activity? The broken nature of KTU 4.192, 4.193, and 4.316 make this unclear. All of these texts reflect the provisioning of cultic institutions with textiles; an in-depth analysis of these texts lies beyond the scope of this study.53

Van Driel 2002, p. 326. Although it is impossible to make accurate estimates of the relative amounts of goods given as provisions to deities in relation to the amounts of goods levied as tribute by the palace. 53 However, see Clemens 2001. 51 52

Economic Activities Involving Debt and Credit

It is not a surprise that debts are recorded in the palace archive. Individuals typically held these debts, although there are some texts in which cities held debts. Within the palace archive, texts detail when silver debts were repaid (KTU 4.226). Debts in terms of precious metals are recorded in KTU 4.398, which may be a fragment of a larger legal document. Silver debts are recorded in the very broken KTU 4.197. A brief notice about the silver debt of one individual is recorded in KTU 4.135. The amounts of silver owed by individuals, versus the amount of silver paid by those same individuals are recorded in KTU 4.226. Silver debts owed by various individuals are noted in KTU 4.258. Large sums of some item measurable in kkr are listed as debts in KTU 4.201. A variety of commodities are listed as debts in KTU 4.225. A list of guarantors is found in KTU 4.347. Two broken texts that may describe amounts of debts that have been repaid are KTU 4.439 and KTU 4.466. Texts recording debts demonstrate that the palace did make loans to individuals. Whether these loans were made in silver, presumably so that the individual could purchase something else with silver, or whether the loans were simply recorded in terms of silver as a means of fixing the value of the loan is unclear. Whatever the case, this demonstrates the use of silver as an abstract medium of exchange, as well as the existence of private property independent of palace property. There is little evidence for the recording of silver debts in private households, although texts such as KTU 4.258 indicate that individuals did accumulate debt. This indicates that the palace was the largest single locus of loans to individuals, and that the onus for the record keeping lay with the palace administrators. There is evidence that the palace was not the only body capable of offering credit. This evidence is manifest as debt lists found in archives outside of the palace. For example, KTU 4.634, found at Yabninu's House lists guarantors ('rb), by personal name. The House of Rasapabu has two associated texts that could be understood as debt texts. KTU 4.690 lists the silver debts of mdm. KTU 4.262 lists silver debts of various individuals. KTU 4.699, found in the House of the Letter, is a record of silver debts on ('I) certain people, and a record of guarantors ('rbn). As with all types of texts, these texts are found in significantly lesser quantities outside of the palace, but given the presence of debts owed to non-royals, it must be noted that the palace did not have absolute authority over loans and credit.

200

201

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

Debts were also sometimes discussed in amounts of kkr (talents). This unit of measurement could refer to many types of products, so its use in this context is not clear. Likewise, occasional debts in terms of jars (likely wine or oil) are recorded against certain individuals (KTU 4.283). KTU 4.313 lists debts of oil, in kd amounts. The language of debt and credit within Ugaritic texts is quite consistent. KTU 4.632 lists amounts of silver upon 'CI) individuals, likely because they have taken various kinds of tools. This text is notable because witnesses are listed at the end. Perhaps the acquisition of olives was the occasion for the silver debt incurred that is listed in KTU 4.386, using the same phrasing. This same kind of expression is used in KTU 4.123, but in this case it is not just silver that is described as upon ('I) an individual. Vessels, amphorae, wine, and oil are all described in this manner. Oxen were also described as 'l specific individuals, as in KTU 4.768. Oil could also be considered 'I certain individuals. This is the case in KTU 4.381, at least in the second half of the tablet. Other types of comestibles are described as upon Cl) an individual in KTU 4.747, which was found outside of the palace, in the south acropolis. Payments of debts are expressed through the term Ilm, based on analogy with the Akkadian expression. KTU 4.665 records that 10 units of some good were paid in full. Unfortunately, the first part of the text is broken and no more information is available. KTU 4.667 is similar, but preserves a personal name, and a second set of numerical units. It is clear that amounts of debts are paid in full in this text (i.e., 10 out of 15 are repaid). The practice of guaranteeing debts is established within the Ugaritic administrative record. Specific individuals are listed as guarantors for other individuals. In KTU 4.347, the guarantors are listed according to gentilic. As Renger has commented, the ability for an individual to enter into debt!gain credit with real estate is positive evidence for conceptions of private property. 54 While these situations do not reflect land ownership, certainly the same logic can be applied to other types of goods, including food products. In other words, subsistence goods were owned, and not necessarily part of a situation of communal ownership. This stands in contrast to the AMP models that presuppose communal or village based ownership of property. 55 In this important respect, AMP models do not apply to ancient Ugarit. Unfortunately the tablets recording debt situations do not state the motivations of the creditor for entering this kind of relationship. It is impossible from this evidence to entirely prove Renger's assertion that credit was not extended as a means to facilitate production. 56 Given the scale of materials loaned, production facilitation seems an unlikely goal of the creditors. Renger is most likely correct in suggesting that credit

was given as a means of eventually gaining more wealth through hoarding as opposed to maximizing production and distribution possibilities or by creating patron/client relationships.V

54 55 56

Renger 1995, p. 297. For example, see Zaccagnini 1987, pp. 23-24. Renger 1994, p. 203.

Economic Activities Involving Redistribution The issue of rations and distributions is an important one in the study of ancient economy, since many models are predicated on the assumption that a central authority distributed food and other products to dependents. It is important to determine the scale of the palace's provision of subsistence needs, in order to make claims about: who within Ugarit was self-sufficient, who was dependent on the palace, or more likely what the balance between these two extremes was. It is also important to note if there are particular classes of materials or subsistence support that the palace did provide individuals with, as well as any particular situations where a person was entitled to palace support. There are some texts that can be seen as evidence for distributions from a central authority. The rations given to specific locations for the period of one month are recorded in KTU 4.269. Amounts of rations distributed over a one month period, to individuals, grouped according to occupa~~gory, and described as bnf mlk are preserved in KTU 4.609. KTU 4.279 is an account of amounts and types of wine consumed daily for a period of five days. Better evidence for redistributive economic situations comes from the syllabic texts, which are more explicit in the description of the movement of goods. The deliveries of bronze, wool, and other goods in PRU 3 187 (RS 15.43) are explicitly described as: ii-tu ekallimlim a-na PN, "from the palace to PN." PRU 3 197 (RS 16.181) may reflect a similar situation, since the expression: a-na PN is legible in various parts of the tablet. Here, silver and oil are the subjects of the palace's distribution. Some activities are recorded with reference to the month of their occurrence. Both KTU 4.192 and KTU 4.193 describe the "bringing out" of particular garments in a particular month. Clemens 58 and Widbin59 interpret these texts as records that reflect the issuing of garments to deities. A similar situation may be reflected in the broken KTU 4.316. Other activities recorded as having taken place in a single month include the delivery of wine. On the basis of these isolated texts, it is difficult to determine whether this was an expected monthly delivery, or whether there was an administrative need to record that the activity had occurred in that month. KTU 4.219, KTU 4.220, and KTU 4.221 (all part of RS 16.380 A) record deliveries of wine in particular months. In a different format, KTU 4.246 supplies information about the 57

58 59

Renger 1994, p. 203. Clemens 2001, pp. 373-375. Widbin 1985, pp. 142-143.

203

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

delivery of wine in one particular month. Silver and grain deliveries are recorded for a particular month in PRU 6 152 (RS 18.270). The delivery of foodstuffs and fodder in one particular month is noteworthy, in KTU 4.688. What makes this text compelling is that it was found in the Maison au Porche a Colonnes, and may reflect an administrative situation where a receipt was given along with the delivery to a non-royal party. It records that eight units of food (akb, and two dd of fodder (akll drkm) were delivered in a particular month. The small scale of the delivery suggests that this household received these products in the stated month. There are a few tablets that directly attest to the redistribution of goods by the palace. KTU 4.609 explicitly states that it is a: spr bpr bns mlk b yrb ittbnm, "a list of rations of bns mlk in the month of i{tbnm." Following this are occupational groups, with individual names indicating who exactly received the rations. The organization of this tablet indicates that the reason for the distribution was likely services performed according to the given occupational designation. No rationale is actually given in the text itself. A more common type of text reflecting redistribution are those stating numbers of people (listed by occupational category rather than personal name) who took (lqlJ) amounts of items. KTU 4.630 lists that brt. (plowmen?), brs bhtm (house-builders), brs qm (wood workers), nsk bzm (arrow smiths?) all took various amounts (ranging from 4-16) of textiles. KTU 4.41, found in the Ville Basse, uses the same word, lqb, to describe that named individuals took food (aM. Since this tablet was not found in the palace, it complicates the understanding of those texts found within the palace, indicating that redistribution may not be an appropriate way of thinking about this transaction. Perhaps a sales transaction is a better analogy. Amounts of goods measured in dd are listed as delivered to occupational groups and individuals listed by personal name in KTU 4.128 and KTU 4.175. Distributions of quantities of goods in dd are recorded in KTU 4.387. Outside of the palace, in the south acropolis, KTU 4.746 records amounts of dd delivered to certain individuals. The provenance of the text (outside of the palace) may be telling that the palace did not have a monopoly on this kind of transaction, but the insecure find-spot means that little can be conclusively demonstrated. Wine was given directly to occupational groups by the palace, according to KTU 4.216. Texts such as KTU 4.46 and KTU 4.55 that list amounts of goods in association with individuals may reflect some kind of redistribution. Since neither of these texts was found in the palace, and it is not certain whether or not the listed individuals were givers or receivers, they cannot be used as clear evidence for this kind of interaction. From this overview of the textual evidence, a few situations where the palace engaged in redistribution activities can be identified. To start with, there are situations where the palace distributes items, but the tablets do not specifically describe the individual's relationship to the palace or the reasons for the distribution. There are texts that

describe distributions to certain groups of people. Distributions are listed as given to specific occupational groups. More difficult to understand are the texts that describe the distribution of various goods, including items described as "rations" (bpr) to the bns mlk. Distributions of various products are made with references to periods of time in months (textiles, wine, grain, fodder, and silver). This evidence is particularly important for evaluating Heltzer's Royal Service System Model. The tablets that record distributions to bni mlk constitute proof for Heltzer that this group is in fact dependent on the palace.r'' While Heltzer's philological arguments about the meaning of bni mlk cannot be accepted (see Chapter Three), it is important to recognize that this is a situation where certain individuals are given supplies, likely in exchange for labor. The exact reasons for these distributions are not explicit in the texts. The fact that the individuals are referred to by their occupational categories in these situations indicates some sort of specialize~ labor basis for the relationship. In other words, because people are listed in these.rxts according to their occupational category, it is likely because of their occupational category (or at least related to their work) that they received the distributions/fhe scale of the distributions is not large, and certainly from the amounts attested textually, the entire city of Ugarit could not have been supported by a palace-based redistribution system.

202

Economic Activities Involving Trade or Sales Explicit evidence for buying and selling is also attested in the royal archive. The act of selling is usually expressed by the Ugaritic expression x d ntn b ksp "x item that was given for silver".This expression is a derivation of a similar Akkadian phrase: ana kaspim naddnum. Libolt understands the use of naddnu in land transfer documents as indicating transfers of property qualified by payments.v' In KTU 4.274, the sales of amounts of wine are recorded. Oil sales are similarly described in KTU 4.290. Some kind of sale is recorded in KTU 4.659, but the text is too broken to understand exactly what was sold. KTU 4.132 describes sales of colored wool, seemingly from private individuals, in exchange for set amounts of silver. Finished types of textiles were sold for amounts of silver, or at least the sale was rendered in terms of amounts of silver in KTU 4.156. Not all trade records use this expression. Often commodities are described as traded by the use of the preposition L Donkeys, tin, silver, and wool seem to be traded, or priced against one another in KTU 4.268. Since this text is broken, the relationship between these traded goods is not very clear. It is unclear if all of these goods are traded for silver or if these goods were traded for other goods, indicating a sort of

60

61

Heltzer 1982, pp. 3, 14. Libolt 1985, pp. 38-39.

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

barter system rather than the abstract use of a medium of exchange. Sheep are traded for silver (ina pu-ba-ti) in the syllabic text PRU 3 187b (RS 16.357). Other items seem to be traded in KTU 4.150, including oil. The attestation of prices indirectly attests to the presence of buying and selling. Prices of cattle seem to be preserved in KTU 4.142. For Stieglitz, exchange facilitated by currency, was based 'on the exchange of fixed weights of metal. 62 According to Stieglitz, almost all commodities had a standard rate of value based on a notion of its equivalent value in metal. 63 Liverani argues that there are certain ways of expressing price in Ugaritic.64 According to Liverani, the expression: x ksph(m/n) should be understood as "so many (shekels) is its (their) silver."65 Likewise, Liverani identifies the expression: b x ksp, as stating: "for x amounts of shekels."66 There is evidence that cattle were also sold, and that the value of cattle was rendered in terms of silver (KTU 4.142). Numerous texts attest the sales of wine (KTU 4.219, 4.274). Various classes of items can be identified as transferred through sales situations in the palace. Precious metals and textiles were sold for silver according to KTU 4.341, although the exact purchasers and sellers are obscure in this text. KTU 4.333 is also obscure, although it seems to indicate the sales of some item measured in dd (probably cereals) and some item measured in kkr for silver. KTU 4.707 also records a similarly diverse amount of items traded for shekels. KTU 4.101, found in the Northwest, records what must certainly have been trade. Each line records that IbI (a type of clothing) were given to named individuals for varying amounts of shekels. There are minimal other readings for this text. Slaves may have been sold in KTU 4.659. Here, this broken text states that individuals purchased (nlql;t) other individuals. The presence of witnesses at the end of this text indicates its legality. Also sold at Ugarit was the right to conduct and engage in trade. Various documents suggest that trading, in certain instances, was an activity requiring royal permission. Scale and location were likely the mitigating factors; it is doubtful that the palace would have been interested in small-scale trade between farmers within the city. Large-scale trade, especially at the ports, was of interest. KTU 4.266 is a receipt of the purchase of some kind of concession related to Ma'hadu. In this document, an individual acquires (lq1) Ma'hadu for four hundred gold. While it is possible that the actual port was sold in this transaction, this seems implausible.V It is easier to understand this text as reflecting the purchase of some kind of concession. Astour has suggested that the concession purchased was the right to collect imposts at the harbor

for a year.68 The two cylinder seal impressions attest to the official character of this document, and likely gave the text a legal weight and the weight of royal authority. KTU 4.172 is nearly identical. A similar document is KTU 4.336, although in this case the geographic region is not mentioned. The fragmentary tablet KTU 4.388 was probably worded very similarly to KTU 4.336, but it is too broken to be certain. One of the most important texts for understanding the organization of trade at Ugarit is PRU 6 156 (RS 19.20). This text lists items given to Sukunu for him to sell: qat Isu-ku-na na-din a-na ma-ka-ri. Items given to Sukunu include cheese, fish, textiles, clothes, and purple wool. This type of text is not frequently attested, but the importance of this particular text cannot be understated as it demonstrates a situation where the palace provides an individual with goods for exchange. Unfortunately, the text does not record information about the nature of this individual's relationship to the palace, or any obligations owed to the palace in exchange for th~ight to sell. Linder has argued that KTU 4.43 reflects a similar situarion.v? According to Linder's understanding, this text records the transfer of copper to I cal merchants after it has arrived at Ugarit from Cyprus. Linder uses KTU 4.390 and. TU 4.394 as further evidence of this kind of transfer of goods from the palace to the merchants for further trade, although neither of these texts explicitly lays out this scenario. Rather, these records held by the palace are simply inventories of ships from Cyprus. Linder draws this conclusion from the fact that the palace keeps track of these goods, and assumes a certain level of royal control over the situation. Cornelius similarly sees trade as organizedthrough royal authority?" Although most of his arguments are based on faulty interpretations made by Heltzer, one observation Cornelius makes is particularly interesting. He notes that in PRU 4 219ff(RS 17.424 C +397B), lines 20-21, the expression tamkdr sa sepiSu (merchants of his feet), indicates a group of merchants directly under the service of the king." Rainey has similarly argued that a formal relationship existed between the palace and certain merchants. The receipt of rations from the palace is the strongest evidence offered by Rainey.72 Hence, Rainey's use of the term "business agent" reflects this understanding of these traders as people who engaged in the acquisition and distribution of goods, through trade. Heltzer make a similar suggestion, although Heltzer argued against the translation of bdl as merchant.?" Heltzer describes the situation where trade is managed through royal authorities:

204

62

63 64 65 66

67

Stieglitz 1979, p. 15. Stieglitz 1979, P: 15. Liverani 1989, p. 137. Liverani 1989, p. 137. Liverani 1989, p. 137. The sale of entire cities is attested in texts from Alalakh (see for example Alalakh Text (AT) 52).

68

69

70 71 72

73

Astour 1970, pp. 121-122. Linder 1981, p. 33. Cornelius 1981, p. 16. Cornelius 1981, p. 16. Rainey 1963, p. 314. Heltzer 1978, p. 122.

205

206

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

Trade was controlled by the authorities. This centralization of commercial activities compensated for the lack of capital and goods in the hands of individuals under the existing conditions. There was also a special state service-organizatio~ for the. reg~latio~ and management of commercial activities, at least during the penod studied III this monograph.f

Here, Heltzer argues for a similar situation to that described by Rainey, where those agents involved in trade worked on behalf of the palace. Heltzer sees the royal authority as more monolithic than Rainey and Astour, and seems to argue here that private merchant activity was not possible. The transaction preserved in KTU 4.625 could also be understood as trade. Here, amounts in shekels of silver are given for a variety of items: sickles, shovels, pick-axes, hoes, and hammers. Many items like those described in this text have in fact been retrieved from the archaeological record (see Chapter Seven). This amount of shekels is likely their price, based on the presence of the word mhrhn. Beneath the heading of prices is an inventory of amounts of these items at various locations. There is evidence for trade that was not directly organized by the palace, although it is not clear if the palace was completely uninvolved in this "private" trade. Cornelius notes numerous instances of non-royal merchant activity, although, argues that the king coordinated even these activities.P Other than letters describing situations of international or inter-city trade (which will be discussed in Chapter Eight), there is a striking lack of texts from private contexts that can be taken as clear evidence for sales transactions. There is no positive evidence for private (non-royal) transactions through sales mechanisms. This does not mean that there were no such transactions but rather that trade relationships cannot be demonstrated through the textual evidence. There is a strong possibility that the production of a tablet was not a necessary by-product of the sale of goods, and that this kind of evidence should not be expected. Despite the limitations of the textual evidence, some positive conclusions can be drawn from this material. Items could be traded, and the Ugaritic language has the means to express this kind of transaction. The classes of goods that could be traded are diverse, including: comestibles, animals, textiles, precious metals, and possibly the rights to engage in certain activities. Silver is the most common means of facilitating trade; in sales situations, silver is usually the abstract form of value in use. There is no clear textual evidence for a concept of "prices." Given the prominence of this concept in Mesopotamian legal literature, the possibility that there were prices (and just not recorded at Ugarit) cannot be ignored. This does not constitute evidence for Neoclassical price-setting mechanisms, however (see Chapter One). Nor does it constitute evidence for market-based trade, at least as it is understood through Polanyian terms,

74

75

Heltzer 1978, pp. 157-158. Cornelius 1981, pp. 16-17.

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

207

where the social relationship between those engaging in trade is constituted only for the duration of the trade activity. On the other hand, it does demonstrate that a purely redistributive economy (such as posited in temple economy models) cannot be upheld. Finally, there is evidence that the palace engaged in trade through individuals responsible for facilitating such transactions. These individuals are better thought of as commercial agents than merchants since their clearest motivations seem to be the accumulation of resources and finished products rather than capital accumulation. This is consistent with Zettler's conception of economic activity at the Inanna Temple in Ur III Nippur (see Chapter Two).

Economic Actions Involving Requests A number of economic activities are attested in the Ugaritic archives involving irlt, requests. It is not clear what kind of action is going on in these texts. Do the requesting groups work for the palace? Or, do the requesting groups have to pay for the e deliveries at a later (or prior, unmentioned) date. Potters requested a number of r w materials in KTU 4.626. None of these materials seem to reflect ceramic prod tion materials. The materials, measured in kkr, are either metals or textiles. The presence of pttm (flax) suggests textiles are more likely. Requests for human labor are preserved, such as in KTU 4.370, which involves a request by a certain individual for bns mlk. The names of the bns mlk, grouped according to occupational category, make up the remainder of the tablet. This topic of requests has already been discussed in some detail above, in the context of occupational groups as economic actors, especially in relationship to the possibility of the existence of guilds. No further comment on this subject will be made here. What is important to note is that these texts reflect a particular mechanism for procuring raw materials. It was possible to submit requests to a centralized body (the palace) in order to acquire goods. This reflects a high degree of centralized organization and control.

WHAT KINDS OF GOODS AND LABOR WERE CONTROLLED OR DISPOSED OF, AND BY WHOM?

Directly related to the type of economic actions that were engaged in is the question of what kinds of goods and labor were involved, and who was involved with these goods and labor. Silver certainly features prominently, and given its limited utility from a production standpoint, will be discussed separately from the next category of goods, precious metals. After the discussion of metals, the issue of the various types of comestibles that are attested textually shall be discussed. These comestible types include: cereals, olives (and olive oil), wine (and grape products), and salt. Textiles were also an important category of product attested in the textual record. Various individuals kept

209

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMIC MODALITIES AT UGARIT: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE TABLETS

track of transportation equipment, the subject of the next section of this discussion. Somewhat overlapping with this category, but worth discussing separately given the possible different roles in the economy, is military and agricultural equipment. Evidence regarding private property follows this discussion. The last two sections discuss the issues of types of labor that there is evidence for in the administrative record. The activities of merchants' are discussed followed by the activities of other occupa-

particular role in this enterprise. Likewise, Heltzer's argument that Ugarit prospered from acquiring gold cheaply from Egypt, and silver cheaply from Asia Minor is possible, but not shown by the evidence.I? In general, the textual evidence cannot substantiate the argument that Ugarit acted as the port of entrance for Cypriote metals to the Levant.

tional groups.

Comestibles

208

Silver Within the palace archive, silver is distributed to a number of different categories of people. It is often distributed to people listed according to occupational category as in KTU 4.69 and KTU 4.71. Other times the texts listing silver distributions are not organized around the occupation of the individuals receiving silver, though this information is sometimes present (as in KTU 4.98). Most frequently attested are situations where silver is listed as distributed to certain individuals (KTU 4.276, KTU 4.280). Often debt obligations were reflected in amounts of silver (see above). Silver is frequently the subject of texts found outside of the palace, hence indicating its wide use. KTU 4.721 and KTU 4.717, both found near the Tablet House, but not within, may reflect the exchange of goods for silver. KTU 4.212 also records large amounts of silver having moved into the possession of specified individuals. Geographic regions are recorded in relation to small amounts of silver in KTU 4.49, found in the Northwest. Given the small amounts of silver, this text likely records payments or receipts from/to each village from/to whoever wrote (or had written) the tablet. Amounts of silver located at certain locations outside the palace was also recorded by the palace, as is the case with KTU 4.139, further indicating the prominence of silver within economic situations in the kingdom.

Other Precious Metals In general, precious metals other than silver are not mentioned frequently in the Ugaritic texts. There are exceptions to this, however. Copper is frequently the subject of these administrative texts, in KTU 4.43 for example. In this context, the copper was brought to smiths, likely as a resource for secondary manufacture. Precious metals other than silver seem to circulate for the purpose of production rather than as an abstract medium of wealth. As has been mentioned in Chapter Two, Ugarit's close proximity to Cyprus has led scholars to posit a strong connection between this port city and the circulation of precious metals throughout the eastern Mediterranean. This model is certainly plausible, but it must be noted that the textual evidence does not indicate that Ugarit played a

Various cereals were the subjects of economic action. Quantities of cereals were distributed to individuals by the palace (for example KTU 4.83). Sometimes these food staples are referred to as bpr as in KTU 4.269. Possibly having a similar semantic range as the English term "rations;"? bpr were distributed to houses, occupational groups, and individuals. Monthly totals of emmer are given in line 30, indicating that this may ! While this does not inform us about the scale of private ownership, it at least attests to the possibility of this. Cline is probably correct in positing that the palace, middlemen, and wealthy merchants could all sponsor maritime trade.Y

the adoption of numerous aspects of Egypt's material aesthetic, as opposed to a military based or legalistic based subordination. Ugarit's relationship to Cyprus is also complex. In a letter from Niqmeda III to Cyprus", the Ugaritic king refers to the Cypriote king as "father", clearly a sign of subordination. Yet there is little other evidence indicating that Ugarit was formally subordinate to Cyprus. Perhaps the use of the term "father" demonstrates that Cyprus was a world power, like Hatti or Egypt. Other polities are treated as equals ofUgarit, and it is more difficult to determine if coercion of any kind played a role in the construction of economic interactions. Each of these situations is discussed below.

324

Overland There is explicit evidence for overland transportation of economic materials in the textual record. However, there is minimal information on the exact logistics of the caravan trade.P Routes of travel have been identified based on the textual evidence. KTU 2.36 discusses caravans from Egypt and their routes through Syria, mentioning Ugarit, Nuhasse, and Qadesh. Singer suggests that this fragmentary text reflects a complaint on the part of the Ugaritic king that these caravans were bypassing Ugarit, depriving the city of trade opportunities, as well as customs dues.l" Since Ammistamru II had the power to deny passage of horses through Ugarit between the Hittite and Egyptian kingdoms (see PRU 6 179 (RSL. 2)), this must indicate that such a trade existed. Documents from private archives also mention caravan trade: PRU 6 14 (RS 19.050); PRU 6 16 (RS 22.006); and RSO 7 33 (RS 34.173).55 The caravans of Shipti-Baal are discussed in more detail below. b) Major International Relationships Ugarit's relationships to other major powers seem to have been constituted quite differently given each particular situation. With Hatti, Ugarit definitely plays a subordinate role, although Ugarit adopts very few Hittite cultural practices. The siruation with Egypt is almost exactly the opposite. Ugarit is also subordinate to Egypt, but this subordination is manifest in terms of deference to the status of the Egyptian king and

Hatti Arguably, Ugarit's most important economic relationship, at the time of its destruction, was its relationship to the Hittite empire. Textual evidence in the form of treaties demonstrates that the Hittites directly controlled Ugarit, and provides significant information about the nature of this imperial control. Attacks on Ugarit's southern kingdom, especially Siyannu, led Ugarit to eventually enter into a treaty relationship with the Hittites, for military protection.57 This particular treaty, between King Niqmaddu ofUgarit and King Shuppiluliuma of Hatti, established tribute obligations upon Ugarit and set out the northern border of Ugarit.t" The tribute obligations (preserved in PRU 4 80ff (RS 17.382 + RS 17.380)) involved the delivery of 500 shekels of gold, as well as gold and silver vessels to the king, queen, and higher officials.59 From this point on until the fall of Ugarit, Ugarit remained dependent on the Hittites.P" It is important to mention though, as Klengel has,61 that there was no explicit guarantee on the part of the Hittites to preserve the current royal dynasty at Ugarit, nor was there any similar guarantee of support on behalf of Ugarit. A more formalized vassal relationship is indicated by the treaty between Murshili I and Niqmepa.F This treaty is preserved in fragments of three Akkadian copies at Ugarit (see PRU 3 89-101 and PRU 4 54ff (RS 17.344)).63 As opposed to the treaty between Niqmaddu and Shuppiluliuma, this treaty did not include any tribute obligations.P" The major components of this treaty are political and military as opposed to economic. Established at the coronation of Niqmepa, the agreement compels Niqmepa to appear

Ug. 5 2I (RS 20.I68). Klengel I992, pp. 132-133. 58 Klengel 1992, p. 133. 59 Singer 1999, p. 635. 60 For a history of Ugaritic-Hitrite relations during this period, seeAstour 1981, pp. 10-26; Klengel 1992, pp. 133-151; and Singer 1999. 61 Klengel 1992, p. 134. 62 Klengel 1992, p. 135. 63 Singer 1999, p. 639. 64 Klengel 1992, p. 136. 56 57

48

49 50

51 52

53 54

55

Singer I999, p. 659. Cline I994, p. 85. Monroe 2000, pp. I03-I04. Monroe 2000, p. I04. Cline I994, p. 85. Monroe 2000, p. 79. Singer I999, p. 674. See Singer I999, p. 675.

325

327

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMICS BEYOND THE CITY

frequently at the Hittite court, extradite fugitives, and report hostile persons.v' However, given that tribute obligations are later lessened upon Ugarit because of the removal of Siyannu, as requested by Niqmepa in PRU 4 82 (RS 17.382+380), it is dear that tribute remained an important aspect of Hittite-Ugaritic relations. In this same letter, Niqmepa requests the ability to decide on his own whether or not to provide Hittite messengers with gifts.66 Singer suggests that the tribute was collected yearly and was given directly to the Hittite elites.67 If Knoppers is correct, then KTU 3.1 is an itemized inventory of tribute sent with the tribute from Ugarit to Hatti. 68 The tributary relationship between Ugarit and Hatti was not static. Texts later than the treaty between Murshili I and Niqmepa indicate that the specifics of the tribute were negotiable. In PRU 4 150ff (RS 17.059), the Hittite King, Ini-Teshub, allows the Ugaritic king to pay 50 mina of gold instead of soldiers and chariots to battle with Assyria. King Ibiranu ofUgarit did not please his Hittite overlords; in PRU 491 (RS 17.247) his not having appeared at the Hittite court is mentioned. In Ug. 5 30 (RS 20.255A), an Ugaritic king is told to come aboard a Hittite vessel with tribute of gold, silver, and precious stones. Castigations against Ugaritic kings for not paying sufficient tribute are frequent; whether or not these should be understood as anything other than formulaic statements is not dear. The international correspondence has preserved much information on the nature of this relationship. As is typical of Late Bronze Age international correspondence, the language used to describe economic transactions is obscure regarding the nature of the transactions, yet it explicitly identifies the relative difference in power and status between the parties. Often the correspondence mentions tribute being given to the Hittites and ndr 69 given in return to Ugarit. This is the case in both KTU 2.13 and KTU 2.30. Here, dominance and subordination are formalized, almost codified. The power relationship is purposefully and explicitly constituted by the Hittites, and agreed to by the Ugaritians. At the same time, the system of dominance is conditional, predicated on particular actions on both ends. Economic power is explicitly constructed. Given the apparent explicitness of Hittite domination, it now remains to discuss the material. Food was one of the most important Ugaritic exports to the Hittite empire, and features prominently in the international correspondence. Singer describes Ugarit as an entry point of grain for Hatti.7° Grain is mentioned in KTU 2.39, although the exact nuances of the situation are lost in the breaks of this tablet. Food from other

locations was transmitted to the Hittites through Ugarit. In Ug. 5 33 (RS 20.212), the transmission of food from Mukish to the Hittites is described as a life and death matter," Precious metals were also important items of tribute. Gold is mentioned in KTU 2.36 as an item of tribute, but few details are given. Other miscellaneous products were also provided to the Hittites by Ugarit. In KTU 2.36, purple and red dyed textiles are discussed. Pardee understands this text to state that the king of Ugarit does not have enough of these items for the Hittites, according to the terms of the tribute relationship.F Beyond mere commodities, Ugarit was obliged to send military personnel to the Hittite empire and at the same time, was incorporated into the Hittite sphere of protection." COS 3.450 (RS 94.5015) preserves discussion, and possibly a disagreement, about the provisioning of military personnel. Ugarit was protected by the greater military might of the Hittites. At the same time, Ugarit's sovereignty and ability to protect itself was undermined by the transference of its armed personnel to the Hittite military. Given all of the evidence for the unequal economic relationship between Ugarit and the Hittite Empire, there is minimal evidence that the Hittites had anything but a political hegemonic relationship to Ugarit. Singer has commented on the surprising lack of Hittite cultural influences on Ugarit, given Hatti's political dominance.Z" Hittite does not seem to have been an important written language at Ugarit. Hittite weight standards were not used;75 neither were Hittite glyptic motifs used outside of royal legal rnaterials.?" The lack of Hittite material culture at the site, and the significant lack of Hittite artistic forms emulated in elite culture at Ugarit indicate that control over the site was rooted more in military and security rather than hegemonizing economic elites within the site. The reason for providing tribute to Hatti was straightforward: to protect Ugarit's borders using the military superiority of the Hittites. If Ugarit did not remain faithful to its Hittite allies, the Hittites could use force (and did so when Ugarit rebelled against Murshili II along with other Syrian stares).'? This is a very different type of power than that exercised by Egypt over Ugarit.

326

Klengel 1992, pp. 135-136. Klengel 1992, p. 136. 67 Singer 1999, p. 650. 68 Knoppers 1993. 69 Pardee 2002c, p. 92, translates this word as "vows," stating that it: "refers to the Hittite king's reaction to the gift he had received, either abstract (he would make vows to the gods of Hatti and Ugarit) or concrete (reciprocal gifts to Ugarit in return for their military aid)". 70 Singer 1999, p. 648.

Egypt Before Ugarit was brought into the Hittite empire, there were very strong connections between the Syrian city and Egypt. Most of the evidence for the political history of Ugarit dates to the period after the reconstruction of the palace, by Niqmaddu II,

65 66

71 72 73 74

75 76 77

Klengel 1992, p. 149; Singer 1999, p. 716. Pardee 2002c, p. 97. Beckman 1992, p. 45. Singer 1999, p. 650. Monroe 2000, p. 57. Monroe 2000, p. 65. Beckman 1992, p. 45.

329

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMICS BEYOND THE CITY

after its destruction by fire, mentioned in el-Amarna Text (EA) 151.78 Prior to this, Ugarit seems to have been affiliated with Egypt, perhaps under its control during the time ofThutmosis IV 79 Ugarit's correspondence with Egypt is attested in the Amarna Letters (see EA 45, 46, 47, 49), and Ugarit is mentioned in passing by other letter writers (EA 89, 151). Early scholars of Ugarit had assumed that Ugarit had at one time been under the direct control of Egypt, especially based on the possibility that Ugarit is mentioned in the Karnak reliefs.80 This has come under attack in recent years, and it is now thought that Ugarit, while still having close ties with Egypt, was never directly ruled by Egypt, and that there is no significant evidence to substantiate this claim." Singer describes the situation well:

There is textual evidence for particular economic activities engaged in by Egyptians at Ugarit. Egyptians are attested as having lived at Ugarit. One Akkadian text details a land donation from the king to an Egyptian (PRU 3 149 (RS 16.136)). In KTU 4.352 Egyptians receive quantities of oil. Egyptians receive wine from the palace in KTU 4.230. PRU 3 19 (RS 15.011) describes an Egyptian that released individuals for 400 shekels. A similar Egyptian interest in human resources is apparent from Ug. 5 126ff (RS 20.021), which mentions that the Egyptians released an individual, but not his possessions. Pharaoh Merneptah's refusal to send Egyptian sculptors to construct a statue of Baal at Ugarit (RS 88.2158) is not on the basis that this kind of activity did not take place, but rather that they are currently busy, and will be sent later. This certainly indicates that foreign craftsmen could be sent to Ugarit, and that these craftsmen were under the power of the king, not private individuals. The Egyptian presence at Ugarit is also manifest in the large amounts of Egyptian or Egyptianizing material culture found at the site. Even though Ugarit was under the Hittite sphere of influence at the time of the city-state's destruction, very minimal Hittite material culture has been recovered from the site. Yet numerous elite Egyptian artifacts have been recovered from the site, a testament to the aesthetic influence of Egypt. From a cultural standpoint, Egypt held a hegemonic relationship over Ugarit, even though it lacked direct political control of the Syrian city. The scale and pervasiveness of the objects does not necessarily reflect an unequal exchange relationship. However, in many ways, the high level of visibility and prestige/value of these Egyptian objects is more important, indicating an imbalance in cultural relationships between the two regions. There appears to have been a high degree of culture hegemony over Ugarit, manifest in the elite tastes at the city. Higginbotham has described a similar situation in Canaan proper during the Egyptian Nineteenth Dynasry.'" Calling her model an "elite emulation model", Higginbotham argues that: "Political units at some distance from a prestigious culture tend to view it as the center of civilization and power. By linking themselves to such centers, local rulers are often able to enhance their own status and authority."87 This very much corresponds to the situation at Ugarit during the period of interest to this study. On the other hand, as Singer points out, even though the bond with Egypt was "economically lucrative and culturally influential", these ties did not protect Ugarit from the hostile intentions of other Syrian states.f"

328

'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 Suppiluliuma I. 82

By the period examined in this study, Ugarit had been under the authority of the Hittites for some time. However, ties to Egypt remained particularly important. It is interesting to consider the manifestation of those ties, given that Egypt never directly ruled over Ugarit. Ugarit certainly had an economic relationship with Egypt, even while under the Hittite sphere of influence. The treaty between the Hittites and the Egyptians after the Battle of Kadesh in 1284 is frequently cited as the event that allowed the resumption of Ugarit's trade relationship with Egypt. 83 Singer suggests that since an equivalent amount of objects have been recovered from Ugarit with a Ramses II cartouche as with an Amarna pharaoh cartouche, that this further corroborates that ties with Egypt were just as strong under Hittite domination.r' Ugarit's favorable geographic position (see above) certainly contributed to Egypt's favor of the city for economic transactions. Both overland (PRU 6 14: 19-29 (RS 19.50)) and sea trade (PRU 6 116 (RS 17.64)) from Egypt to Ugarit are attested textually.85 In KTU 2.38, the King of Tyre wrote to the king of Ugarit about ships that had been wrecked on their way to Egypt. These Ugaritic vessels had been dispatched by the king of Ugarit to Egypt. The cargo of these ships consisted of grain (for Egypt) and provisions (for the sailors). RSO 14 1 (RS 88.2158) indicates the types of cargoes sent by Egypt to Ugarit: textiles, ebony, and precious stone in large quantities. 78

79 80

81 82

83 84 85

Klengell992, p. 130. See Astour 1981, pp. 15-17 for discussion on this issue. For example, see the account in Drawer 1968, p. 10. Singer 1999, p. 626. Singer 1999, p. 627. Astour 1981, p. 24; Singer 1999, p. 673. Singer 1999, p. 673. Astour 1981, p. 25.

Cyprus Without a doubt, Ugarit's economic relationship with Cyprus was of great importance. The close proximity, approximately 105 km away, allowed for relatively rapid sea

86 87 88

Higginbotham 1996. Higginbotham 1996, p. 155. Singer 1999, p. 627.

331

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMICS BEYOND THE CITY

travel between the two. 89 Scholars have long acknowledged that the trade relationship between the two regions was quite significant. Cypriote trade in the Late Bronze Age is a complicated topic given the uncertainty surrounding Cyprus's relative standing amongst other Bronze Age polities. Likewise, the types of exchange involving Cyprus that are attested are particularly difficult to understand. Liverani has demonstrated some of the "irrational" elements in Cyprus's exchange activities.?" Perhaps the prime example of this can be found in EA 40, which documents an exchange event with Egypt, where both polities send each other ivory."! Given that Cyprus has no native ivory resources, one must assume that from a rational economic perspective, this exchange would have caused a net loss for the Cypriotes involved.F Nevertheless, the exchange occurred, indicating that economic profit was not necessarily the driving force behind Cyprus's exchange relations and that Cyprus actively traded goods and resources that had been acquired elsewhere. The economic relationship between Cyprus and Ugarit is usually not portrayed by scholars as particularly problematic. As has been mentioned above, based on the use of patrimonial referents, Cyprus was the dominant partner. Astour's recognition that Ugarit sent food to Cyprus, and that Cyprus provided Ugarit with copper and Mycenaean ceramics is in line with most mainstream scholarship on Ugarit. 93 However, it needs to be noted that there is minimal evidence for the import of raw or unworked copper from Cyprus.l" Analysis of copper found on Crete has suggested that that copper was derived from local sources.i" but it should be noted that coppersourcing is a particularly controversial issue at present.l" Similarly, the ox-hide mould found at Ras ibn-Hani'? further complicates the model of copper as a solely Cypriote import. Fine furniture is requested by an Ugaritian living in Cyprus in a letter from the Urtenu archive.l" It is also suggested that Ugarit exported to Cyprus items from the rest of the Near East.'? As evidence, Singer cites RSO 7 35 (RS 34.153), a text where horses are given to a Cypriote.l'" Less compelling for the theory that Ugarit facilitated

the movement of items from areas other than Ugarit are Singer's texts demonstrating amounts of oil given to Cypriotesr''" neither KTU 4.352 nor Ug. 5 21 (RS 20.168) indicate where the oil in question was produced. Found within the palace archive at Ugarit were numerous census texts, listing men from Cyprus living at Ugarit, and detailing the families and households of these men (i.e., KTU 4.102, and KTU 4.360). These texts have already been discussed in Chapter Four. To repeat the features that are salient to this discussion, these census texts list Cypriotes residing in Ugarit and record the number of household members and animals that have accompanied the individuals in question. No comments are preserved to explain the reason why these Cypriotes were living in Ugarit. There is ample evidence that individuals from Ugarit lived at Cyprus, or at least spent substantial amounts of time at this location. Another interesting situation involves the rb mand, chief of the harbor of Mahadu, writing from Cyprus. While KTU 2.42 and KTU 2.43 are broken, it is clear that this individual is attempting to buy boats from Cyprus on behalf of the king of Ugarit. 102 This demonstrates that Cyprus was a location that manufactured boats and sold them, and that these boats were desired by the Ugaritic king. It also indicates the ad hoc trade relationship between the two regions; there was no formalized system in place by which boats were automatically brought to Ugarit to be sold. The boats were first commissioned by the buyer.

330

Astour 1981, p. 28. Liverani 1979b. 91 Liverani 1979b, p. 22. 92 Liverani 1979b, p. 23. Although there is always the possibility that the ivory traded was not necessarily equivalent; perhaps the elephant tusks sent from Cyprus had some sort of added value or secondary manufacture that was not expressed in the textual sources. 93 Astour 1981, p. 28. 94 Cline 1994, p. 60. 95 Cline 1994, p. 90. 96 For more on this controversy, and especially on the problems of sourcing using lead isotope analysis, see Budd et a11995a; Budd et a11995b; Gale and Stos-Gale 1995; Hall 1995; Muhly 1995; Pernicka 1995; and Sayre et a11995. 97 See Bonni and Lagarce 1997, p. 412. 98 Malbran-Labat and Bordreuill995, p. 445; Singer 1999, p. 677. 99 Singer 1999, p. 676. 100 Singer 1999, p. 677. 89

90

Ura That enclaves of foreign merchants lived and operated in various Mediterranean cities during the Late Bronze Age is well known. 103 Particularly instructive as to how these foreign merchants were integrated into Ugaritic society are the perceived problems with the merchants from Ura who operated in the city. Ura was a small Cilician city on the Mediterranean coast.l?' According to Klengel, individuals from Ura acted as "commercial agents" for the Hittite king, lOS a position that is followed by Lernaire.P" Goods were shipped from Ugarit to this coastal city, and then transported across the Taurus Mountains to the Hittite mainland.l'" For example, Ug. 5 33 (RS 20.212) describes 500 measures of grain shipped from Mukish to Ura, and destined for the

Singer 1999, p. 677. Lipinski's 1977 translation of this text suggests that the author of the letter is an Egyptian merchant. Knapp 1983, pp. 38-40, criticizes Lipinski's interpretation of the letter as based on a misunderstanding of Ugaritic epistolary formulas. Knapp's improved reading, Knapp 1983, p. 39, suggests that the sender of the letter was a Cypriote merchant. 103 See Cline 1994, p. 107. 104 KlengelI992, p. 138; although see Lemaire 1993. 105 Klengell992, p. 138. 106 Lemaire 1993, pp. 228-229. 107 Klengel 1992, p. 138. 101 102

332

Hittite state. The growing economic power of these foreigners at Ugarit raised concerns with Niqmepa who complained to Hattushili III. lOB The basic problem was that these merchants were gaining too much real estate in Ugarit and too many Ugaritians had become beholden to them. 109 The Hittite king responded by establishing rules for the economic behavior of the merchants of Ura while at Ugarit, in a long text, PRU 4 103ff (RS 17.130).u 0 These merchants were allowed to operate in Ugarit during the favorable months. They could not buy real estate, nor gain it from individuals who could not otherwise pay their debts. Debtors and their families could, however, enter into the service of these merchants. III

OtherMajor City-States The Kingdom of Arnurru'V was located to the southeast ofUgarit and is mentioned frequently in the international correspondence. Both diplomatic and economic relations are identifiable from the textual record. In RSO 7 88 (RS 34.124), in the context of a diplomatic affair involving an Amurrite princess, Yabninu brings 100 shekels of gold and mardatu textiles to the court,l13 seemingly on behalf of the king of Ugarit. The king ofTyre refers to the king ofUgarit as his brother (RS 18.031) indicating a degree of parity in the relationship between these two states. Tyre and Ugarit had an economic relationship that is attested textually. In KTU 2.38, the King ofTyre writes to the king of Ugarit to inform him that the Ugaritic ships that had been dispatched to Egypt, had been wrecked off of the coast Tyre, but that much had been salvaged of the cargo and crew, and the boats had been moved to Acco. On a less friendly note, the King ofTyre wrote to Ugarit in PRU 4219 (RS 17.424) to complain about the high customs dues imposed by the harbor-master at Ugarit. Relations with Siyannu-Ushnatu were more hostile than with Tyre. Siyannu bordered Ugarit directly to the south, and until the treaty between Murshili II and Niqmepa, had been part of the greater Ugaritic kingdom (see above). Singer goes so far as to call the situation an "economic war" .114 Difficult diplomatic relations are indicated by an edict ofTudhaliya IV (PRU 4 291(RS 19.81)) that solved a marriage dispute.U'' At a more directly economic level, PRU 4 161 (RS 17.341) lists a number of aggressive economic acts by Siyannu, including: theft, illicit trade, damage to vineyards, and the attack of a dimtu by babiru under the control of Siyannu. 116

108 109 110 111 lIZ

113 114 115 116

ECONOMICS BEYOND THE CITY

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

Klengel 1992, p. 137; Lemaire 1993, pp. 229-230. Klengel 1992, p. 137; Singer 1999, p. 660. Duplicates of this text include PRU 4 103ft' (RS 17.461) and PRU 4 102ft' (RS 18.03). See Klengel 1992, p. 137. For more on the history of Amurru, see Singer 1991. Pardee 2002c, pp. 90-91. Singer 1999, p. 664. See Klengel 1992, P: 142. See Klengel 1992, p. 142-143.

333

c) Elite Economic Actors Within Ugarit Now that some of the economic modalities of international relations have been discussed, it is useful to look at some examples of how individuals were able to operate within the context of these modalities. Numerous important economic actors have been identified at Ugarit, and for some individuals, it is possible to sketch out preliminary biographies. This is not the goal of this investigation. Instead of detailing all of the major "players" as it were, three individuals have been selected to exemplify the types of economic participation that an elite individual could engage in at Ugarit. These exemplary individuals are the queen, Yabninu, and Urtenu. The close connection between these individuals and royal authority is predicted in the centerperiphery model of Rowlands, which emphasizes that royal power often dominates mercantile capital. 117

The Queen There is a great deal of epistolary material directed towards, and written by, the queen of Ugarit. Unfortunately, since she is often unnamed in the correspondence, it is unclear whether these letters all involved the same person or not. Regardless of the specific identification of the queen, the nature of this correspondence makes it possible to address some of the economic situations that a queen of Ugarit was able to participate in. It cannot be demonstrated that any particular queen actually engaged in all of these activities. It is at least possible to identify the economic modalities of this office. I I B The queen received imports directly from high-level officials. COS 3.45Z (RS 94.2479) is an inventory of items shipped by a governor of an unnamed location to the queen. The materials sent include cereals, oils, vinegar, and olives. Numerous other texts attest to queens receiving large imports of varieties of items, such as PRU 3 182ff (RS 16.146+161). Indeed, all of these items are sent to queens, described as the queen and it seems that the office of queen allowed a certain degree of economic activity. Other letters indicate that the Queen had certain diplomatic duties or was able to receive certain diplomatic honors.

Yabninu One of the prominent figures in the Ugaritic international correspondence is Yabninu. Yabninu is the inhabitant of what was once called the Palais sud, due to the similarities in architecture and text genres with the royal palace. Indeed, initial interpretations of Yabninu's role at Ugarit emphasized his connection to the palace. Courtois considered Rowlands 1987, p. 6. See Singer 1999, p. 696 for the most plausible reconstruction of the identities of various queens at Ugarit. 117 118

335

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

ECONOMICS BEYOND THE CITY

him a regional governor,119 and Lackenbacher calls him "le grand administrateur" .120 Closer analysis of the evidence suggests that Yabninu held no official position in governance,121 and he is best understood as a private, although wealthy and well connected individual. In this capacity, Yabninu engages in a variety of activities, typically involving long distance trade and international relationships. Pardee describes Yabninu as, "one of a relatively small number of important personages who were deeply involved in the distribution of resources in the city-state and worked both within the royal administration and in a capitalistic fashion on their own."122 Pardee's statement is somewhat problematic, given his use of the anachronistic term "capitalistic". A slightly more cautious reading can be supported by the texts, where Yabninu works in affiliation with the palace as well as attempting to gain wealth at a personal level. The evidence that Yabninu had a formal role in the palace administration is slight and likewise, the problems with the utility of the term "capitalism" for the study of the ancient world have been dealt with in Chapter One. Numerous texts demonstrate that Yabninu had access to significant amounts of resources. KTU 4.91 records the "gift" given by Yabninu to the palace. The "gift" is quite extensive, including 1400 jars of oil, 600 jars of some kind of perfume, and numerous other specialized products. In KTU 4.158, the "account" ofYabninu is listed. In this case, the palace seems to have given him a number of products. Although the text itself is cryptic, it is probable that these products were entrusted to Yabninu in order for him to distribute or trade them on behalf of the palace. Yabninu also seems to have engaged in behavior expected of international diplomats. In RSO 7 88 (RS 34.124), a letter from the king to the queen mother, the king writes that Yabninu has traveled to Amurru. Yabninu takes 100 shekels of gold and mardatu cloth (which is typical of the kinds of items associated with Yabninu in other texts) and is also described as having taken oil in a horn and pouring it on the head of the Amurru princess.V" Whatever the exact significance of this act was, clearly Yabninu was operating in a capacity beyond that of wealthy merchant or entrepreneur. Yabninu's residence is evidence of his prominence in the city of Ugarit. This residence has already been discussed in Chapter Six, but to briefly reiterate, the building lies directly to the south of the palace and was constructed in a similar monumental fashion. Comparing the textual evidence with the archaeological, Yabninu was clearly an important individual (both in wealth and royal connection) within the city ofUgarit. He lived in close proximity to the palace and seems to have engaged in ventures in association with the palace. At the same time, from the administrative perspective of

the palace, Yabninu is construed as an "other". Yabninu holds an account and gives a gift to the palace, indicating that he is tied to the palace but not part of its internal administration. Yet while on merchant ventures, as evident from his trip to Amurru, Yabninu engages in both trade activities and diplomatic activities. Indeed, he was both an independent agent and a representative of Ugarit's royalty.

334

Urtenu

Urtenu and the extremely important archive that was discovered in his house have already been the subject of discussion (Chapter Six). The material culture of the house is elite: many Egyptian or Egyptianizing objects, stone artifacts, and possible chariot pieces. The range of international connections held by Urtenu are further indicated by the Cypro-Minoan materials discovered in his house, that have already been discussed in Chapter Six. The textual evidence indicates that like Yabninu, Urtenu was heavily involved in international commercial ventures. Unlike Yabninu, Urtenu's archive indicates trade situations more explicitly, some of which shall be discussed in this section. A letter to Urtenu from one of his associates, COS 3.45LL (RS 94.2284), demonstrates some of the trade relationships in which Urtenu engaged in. Jars of some substances (including wine probably) had been sent alongside of the letter to Urtenu. Furthermore, Urtenu is described as having sent particular textiles to the author of this letter. It seems to also be a request for further transactions, involving purple wool, and the payments that may be made for this wool. 124 Understanding lines 24-34 is a problem. Within these lines, references are made to silver that was sent by Urtenu, and an offer of bpn garments is made to Urtenu in exchange for wine. Urtenu seems to have been an important personage in a trade caravan between Ugarit and Emar. Headed by Shipti-Baal'P, who was a son-in-law of Queen Tarelli,126 Urtenu participated in a trade caravan with numerous other Ugaritians. The administrative practices surrounding this caravan are attested in RSO 7 30-36. Letters such as RSO 7 30 (RS [varia 26]) take the form of what Monroe has called the "royal model of exchange." 127 Royal models of exchange are emulated here, between private citizens. Given the preponderance of this type of exchange language, perhaps characterizing it as "royal" is misleading. Rather, it should be understood as an international language of exchange, akin to the material culture international leoine posited by Peldman.F" Urtenu, then, should be understood as a wealthy commercial agent, involved in a number of long distance trading ventures.

See Pardee's translation in 2002c, pp. 113-114. See Vita 1997 for a discussion of why this individual should not be considered an Egyptian, even though an Egyptianizing seal with his name in hieroglyphs was found at Ugarit. 126 Singer 1999, p. 658. 127 Monroe 2000, P: 151-152; see above. 128 Feldman 1998. 124

119 120 121 122 123

Courtois 1990, pp. 108-110. Lackenbacher 2000, p. 23. Monroe 2000, p. 314. Pardee 2002c, p. 91. Pardee 2002c, p. 91.

125

336 3.

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has demonstrated that economic activities extended beyond the walls of the city of Ugarit and that the nature of economic modalities was constituted differently within the kingdom then outside of the kingdom. Within the kingdom ofUgarit, most of the available evidence comes from the textual record of the administration of the periphery by the palace. However, a number of letters between private individuals demonstrate that, given enough access to wealth, private individuals engaged in trade and commercial ventures with other villages in the kingdom. Outside of Ugarit, these private individuals were able to participate in similar ventures. These ventures seem to have been in collusion with royal authorities and normally involved diplomatic actions as well. All of these situations seem to have been organized on an ad hoc basis. There is no evidence that permanent trade patterns or relationships were in place. Rather, individual desires and circumstances led to the establishment of a commercial venture and determined what products were sold or bought.

CHAPTER NINE

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another. Adam Smith A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. Karl Marx

In this investigation of the Ugaritic economy it has become apparent that there was no economy per se. "Economy" as a distinct subsection of society is an imposition of 18th century concepts and in some ways is more misleading than helpful. What has been referred to as "economy" here, should best be understood as the emergent effect of a network of contingent exchange relations, not a thing in and of itself There are no hard (or even soft) edges that can be outlined as "economy", yet none of this is to say that economic activities did not take place. It is simply that the old questions asked of Ugaritic economic activity are misplaced. The question should not be what kind of economy Ugarit had. Nor should it be whether or not private trade existed, if private trade was typical, or if private trade was marginal. The evidence presented in this study indicates that the palace and others were immersed in multiple exchange relations. While some were more prominent textually and some were more common in practice, multiple forms of exchange relations co-existed. The significant question to be asked then is: how did the palace and others derive political and economic dominance through the coupling of distinct networks of exchange relations? In determining how this economic dominance was derived, it has been made clear that no one mode of exchange was in fact exclusive to the various actors. Markettrade, reciprocity, and redistribution (better understood in the Near Eastern context as debt patronage) were open to all actors to some extent. Modes of exchange were not systemic totalities. The mode of exchange itself was not exclusive or exclusionary nor did access to a particular mode of exchange lead to dominance. What is more important is how the particular economic actors (especially the palace) converted their own nodal position within this emerging network of exchange relations into political and economic advantage (i.e., power). No mode of exchange set the tone for the rest of the

338

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

"economy" as may be argued by a structuralist Marxist, but neither can the actions of these agents be explained solely through rational profit motive frameworks. Investigation centering on the type of mode of production has been shown to be the wrong approach to ancient economic life. What should be investigated is how the powerful attempt to shape and perpetuate given exchange networks. To some degree, these attempts can be seen as larger strategies where agents that can operate across more networks are able to gain greater economic power. Here is where the issue of the palace truly should be addressed. The palace was not "in control" of the economy as naive readings might suggest. The palace was an individual economic agent, relatively more powerful than other agents. However, because the palace was situated at a nodal point for so many exchange networks and social relationships (through, for example, juridical authority and military authority), it was significantly more powerful than the other economic actors. So it is not a question of a different type of economic control that the palace wields but it is a question of a different scale of economic control. Here then, cryptofeudal models, Two-sector models, and patrimonial models run aground in the study of economic practice, as shall be demonstrated below. Viewing the palace as one economic actor among many allows questions about economic power to be addressed. Where are the crucial control points in the network? How are different networks of exchange articulated? What specific strategies convert this collection of exchange relations into power? These questions can best be answered through the Network-based model articulated in this work. The Network-based model allows economic activity to be studied without assuming that particular modes of exchange constitute systemic totalities, and it avoids an essentializing approach to economic activity. Economic action can be successfully mapped out from the perspective of many of the economic players. What follows are some concluding remarks about previous models used to explore the economy ofUgarit. Some remarks relate to methodological problems (such as how to integrate textual and archaeological data), but most relate to previous characterizations of the Ugaritic economy as a fixed totality. Following that, the Network-based model will be outlined in brief, and conclusions based on its application to the Ugaritic material shall be presented. This will lead to a re-evaluation of the Polanyian approach to non-industrialized economies and modes of production. Taking the conclusions from the application of the Network-based approach in light of the new critique of the formalist-substantivist debate, conclusions about how economic actors were able to perpetuate political and economic authority will be presented. Most importantly, in the case of the palace, it is demonstrated that this power was not gained through top-down administration but through a haphazard arrangement of the receiving and distributing of goods. This constant arrangement and re-arrangement facilitated the creation and emergence of social relations between the various economic actors at Ugarit. Finally, some implications for Near Eastern studies in general and suggestions for further research shall be outlined.

339

1. INTEGRATING TEXTS AND MATERIAL CULTURE Textual evidence, as manifest at Ugarit and the ancient Near Eastern world are archaeological artifacts in and of themselves, as opposed to the many texts from the Classical world and the Biblical texts that have been preserved in literary forms since antiquity. Tablets are found in archaeological contexts, during archaeological excavations, and are initially retrieved as artifacts. Even if looted, tablets still go through the same initial recovery procedure as artifacts. Other than a few scholars, the analysis of tablets rarely ever starts with the same type of analysis given to material culture. 1 At the same time, textual and artifactual data must also be understood on their own terms, from within the context of the very distinct methods that have been developed for analysis. Material culture cannot act as a simple check against textual evidence or vice versa. This naive use of archaeology continues to plague Biblical Archaeology, where archaeology is used to either "prove" or "disprove" the Bible. 2 Dever has recently argued that the Biblical text can be checked through archaeology by identifying "convergences" between the two datasets." While this is at a surface level appealing, it is still no different from the approach of G. Ernest Wright who used archaeology as a means of better understanding the Bible. There are no simple "convergences" between these types of data. There can be "convergences" between analyses of these types of data, but this is an interpretative convergence, and never occurs without significant prior interpretation. The search for "convergences" between material culture and text has plagued the study of the Ugaritic economy from earliest efforts." With these methodological considerations in mind, the basic conclusions of this examination are presented here.

2. A RE-EVALUATION OF

MODELS OF

NEAR

EASTERN

At this stage it is useful to offer some conclusions about the relative utility of some economic models (outlined in Chapter Two) that had been developed with the specifics of the Near Eastern world in mind. The following conclusions do not argue that any model is right or wrong; instead, the conclusions are intended to evaluate the relative utility for the various models in the investigation of Ugarit's economy at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Evaluations and conclusions will be offered on the following models, all of which were outlined in Chapter Two: temple economy, cryptofeudal models, Two-sector models, the Patrimonial Household Model (PHM), and semi-institutional house models. See for example Zettler 1996. See for example Shanks 1999. 3 Dever 2001, pp. 85-93. 4 Perha~s the clearest misuse of this "convergence" methodology was Schaeffer's application of it understandmg the nature of guilds at Ugarit. This issue will be discussed in detail below. I

2

to

340

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

Temple Economy The Ugaritic evidence has upheld the criticisms of the traditional temple economy models.P The palace at Ugarit was the most prominent economic power; from the administrative evidence, temples held minimal economic authority over the general population at Ugarit compared to the power of the palace. In Frankfort's model of the temple economy, he suggests that the economic authority of the temple was justified on the grounds that the gods owned all of the land within their sphere of influence." No evidence for the existence of such an understanding is apparent in the Ugaritic materials. Frankfort's model also requires that all citizens perform labor for the god, and that the temple organized all productive labor, for all classes of individuals'? Once again, there is no evidence for this scale of temple economic activity at Ugarit. Pollock has offered an adapted model of the Mesopotamian tributary economy for the fifth and fourth millennia. fu described in Chapter Two, Pollock understands that most primary economic production on the floodplain took place at the domestic level, with a larger institution funding itself mainly from extracting surplus from these producers, as opposed to producing on its own.f While this may be a valid interpretation of the fifth/fourth millennium evidence from Mesopotamia, this model does not fit well with the Ugaritic evidence." The archaeological evidence for domestic production does suggest a high degree of standardization and shows that most household producers had direct access to (if not ownership of) the means of production. However, Pollock's model does not fit well with the administrative evidence. While there is much evidence for the palace taxing the population, this evidence is meager in comparison with the administrative materials recording the direct production activities of the palace. Direct production, from a quantitative perspective, appears to have been a much more important means of providing income for the palace. Some conclusions can be made about the economic practices of the Ugaritic temples. Cultic officials participated in numerous activities that could be considered economic. There is no room to discuss the economic aspects of cultic activities here, although offering and sacrifice can be understand well from a Maussian gifting perspective. In terms of production, Lipinski has identified property sales and grants as well as shepherding as significant economic activities of the temples.l? Given the preponderance of land related activities, some level of agricultural activity can also be assumed. KTU 4.29 records labor (human and animal) assigned to temple lands. Based on other texts from Foster 1981; Gelb 1969, 1971; Zettler 1996. Frankfort 1970, p. 44. 7 Frankfort 1970, p. 44. 8 Pollock 1999, p. 79. 9 Pollock never claims that this model should be used for the second millennium or for Ugarit in particular. This discussion is simply meant to evaluate the comparative utility of this model. 10 Lipinski 1988, pp. 129-133. 5 6

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

341

the Library of the High Priest, it is possible to conclude that the acquisition of goods was important to at least some cultic officials. Lists of goods were found within this complex including: precious metals (KTU 4.23); textiles (KTU 4.4, KTU 4.10); and foodstuffs (KTU 4.14, KTU 4.23, KTU 4.34). When we add to these the records of merchants, (KTU 4.27) it is clear that the temples engaged in the circulation of goods in a secular realm of economic activity. The scale of activity, however, is certainly not equivalent to that of the palace. Indeed, these records should be seen as a minor aspect of the administration of the temple complexes, as opposed to a larger scale system involving all of Ugarit. So, while there is substantial evidence for the economic activities of the temples, this evidence does not support a temple economy model per se. Crypto-Feudal Models

fu discussed in Chapter Two, one of the first types of models used to understand Ugaritic economic activity were feudal models. The works of Gray, Boyer, and Rainey best exemplify this model. 11 In varying degrees these authors compare the societies of Ugarit and medieval Europe. In brief, feudalism is best understood as a system of social organization that connects people with vertical ties (rarely horizontal) through oaths of loyalty and vassalage. Theoretically, each individual can understand his place (or hers indirectly) in terms of who is subordinate to him and towards whom he is obligated. This system creates a radically decentralized form of government, and was the key organizing principle of Europe between Rome's fall and the rise of absolute monarchies. At this stage some conclusions can be offered about the utility of this type of model for the study of Ugarit. Boyer's 1955 discussion of land grant texts is the basis of his discussion ofUgaritic feudalism. The provisioning of land grants in medieval Europe was one of the primary means through which a lord could guarantee the military assistance of a knight or lower-level lord. Boyer interprets the land grant texts with this model in mind, although military assistance was not the major contribution of the vassal; rather specialized labor or payment was. 12 The specifics of the categories of texts in Boyer's model have been criticized and will not be further criticized here.P The land grant texts do demonstrate that in some situations land could be given by the palace on the condition of the provisioning of service. There are two major flaws in interpreting this kind of text through the lens of medieval feudalism: the significantly smaller scale of authority reflected and the absence of serfdom. On the question of scale, there is minimal evidence that these land grants were a major means of social organization at Ugarit. There are only about 83 certain published land 11

12

13

See for example Gray 1952, Boyer 1955, and Rainey 1962. Boyer 1955, p. 294. Libolt 1985, p. 6; Schloen 2001, pp. 216-218.

342

343

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

grant texts from Ugarit, and these span from the reign of Niqmaddu II (ca. 1370 BCE) to the end of Ugarit's LB occupation. The authority of the king of Ugarit does not seem to be derived from the agreement of the vassals to enter into service for him. The new landholders in the land grant texts did not start out as individuals with holdings outside of the sphere of the king's authority. They were individuals who already had a place in Ugaritic society, under the domination of the king, and were simply entering into a more specific economic relationship with him. It needs be mentioned that these land grant texts are better understood as credit-debtor relationships rather than as oaths of fealty. What is likewise non-feudal about these land grants is the lack of any evidence for serfdom. Of primary importance in the organization of medieval feudal society was the inalienability of land from the small-scale producer (the serf). While the serf could agree to give a significant proportion of his produce to the lord, as well as tie his lands to a larger manor (involving other serfs all under the authority of a lord), the serf himself could not be removed from his land. It was these ties of the serf to the land that characterized medieval feudalism, and since there is no evidence for this situation at Ugarit, it is better to not use feudal models to understand these land grant texts. Once again, a credit-debt model seems to better fit the specifics of the situation as well as avoids the historically specific problems of using a model derived from a particular historical period. Conclusions about the feudal interpretations of Gray and Rainey can be made together as the problems and strengths of both scholars' work are similar. Rainey, like Boyer, sees land grant texts as feudal grants of property. 14 Criticism of this type of understanding has already been offered above. Gray describes Ugaritic society as feudal, as opposed to tribal.P Patrimonial authority will be discussed below, but certainly there is evidence that at the very least kinship was a dominant ordering principle at Ugarit. For both scholars, the income of the palace was gained primarily through exactions on their feudal subjects, with the authority from those exactions derived from the king's role as a feudal lord. 16 As has been demonstrated above, the administrative evidence from the palace suggests that that administration revolved around the palace's own production centers, as opposed to simply being a system set up to organize the exaction of tribute. While these issues are problematic, the most substantial difficulties in Gray's and Rainey's models are their understandings of guilds and the relationship between guilds and the king. Both interpret the occupational specialists found in administrative texts as guilds. I? These guilds were organizations of craft specialists within Ugaritic society and provided the palace with various products. There are two fundamental problems

with this thesis. First, medieval guilds originated with the urban merchant classes, who banded together to fight for rights to trade without additional obligations imposed by the landed nobility. It was the lack of place in traditional medieval society, and especially in the feudally constituted relationships, that led to these organizations of merchants. Only later, did artisans band together using this mercantile model. It is difficult to reconcile this historically specific situation with that argued for by Rainey and Gray. Indeed, guild is a radically inappropriate analogy for the situation, since these so-called guilds are organized directly as part of the royal administration. The second problem is perhaps even more problematic, that the supposition that there were guilds at Ugarit was based on faulty evidence, an issue that shall be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Indeed, these crypto-feudal models are more problematic than useful in interpreting Ugaritic social and economic organization. While oaths and tributary relationships did connect the villages within the kingdom and Ugarit to the Hittite empire, this system operated at a much higher scale than feudalism. The king at Ugarit did not gain his economic or political authority through the offering of land grants in return for service. Rather, this was simply another economic possibility for some members of Ugaritic society. It was far from the dominant organizing principle that feudalism was in medieval Europe.

14

15 16 17

Rainey 1965, p. 15. Gray 1952, pp. 50-52. See especiallyRainey 1962, p. 78. Gray 1952, p. 50; Rainey 1962, p. 166.

Two-sector Models of Society Marxist models for understanding Ugarit are complicated and diverse. Asiatic Mode of Production models (AMP)I8 are not useful in the investigation ofUgaritic economy given the environmental and archaeological evidence presented in Chapter Seven. There is nothing that suggests that the royal palace had a monopoly on hydraulic technology and subsequently it cannot be argued that this was the economic basis of palatial authority. The Marxist models most used in the investigation of Ugarit are Two-sector models, derived from Diakonoff's identification of two distinct (and coincident) relationships between people and land.!" This model was discussed in detail in Chapter Two, but as a brief reminder, this model posits two separate sectors. One sector is patriarchal, where land is alienable; the other sector is under royal authority, where the alienability of land is limited.P The scholars most associated with this model in the examination of Ugarit are Heltzer and Liverani. Some conclusions about the utility of this model, especially as interpreted by these two scholars shall now be provided.

18 19 20

Modern interpretations of this theory are best exemplified by Wittfogell957. See Diakonoff 1974. Diakonoff 1974, p. 8.

344

345

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

Out of the approximately 1000 texts (alphabetic and syllabic) surveyed in this work, only a small portion can be best explained through this model and no text necessitates positing a Two-sector model. Indeed, the many texts recovered from outside of the palace context but within the city of Ugarit are very difficult to understand from a Two-sector perspective. There are some types of texts, found within the palace archive that could be successfully explained through a Two-sector approach. Texts that are essentially a list of villages would be good candidates to support a distinction between the royal capital and the traditional village sector, and there are between 10 and 30 texts-! that could be considered structured like this. There are 29 texts where it is evident that the primary identifying referent for an individual is the geographic region of origin. These types of texts support the notion of the Two-sector, but cannot be considered strong evidence as such. The institution of the gt is one of the primary pieces of evidence in the Two-sector perspectives, and their identification of this as a royal agricultural production center has been upheld in this study. There are 42 texts that feature this institution in clear contexts. So out of approximately 1000 economic texts, letters, and contracts, the Two-sector models really can be used to understand only about 100, with any degree of certainty. Scholars working from a Two-sector perspective would disagree with this, counting some other classes of texts as evidence, but as shall be demonstrated below, this evidence cannot be upheld. The most criticized aspect of these models, especially Heltzer's interpretation, are not the models themselves but the philology used in their support. Much of this issue has been dealt with in Chapter Three. The term bns mlk has been particularly problematic. Both Heltzer and Liverani provide problematic interpretations of this expression as "royal servicemeo''P and "non-possessors of the means of production,"23 respectively. For both scholars, this is the best evidence for exclusive sectors of society, and bns mlk is a social designation for subordinate members of the royal sector. In Chapter Three, it is concluded that this understanding of the term is unlikely and Rowe's reading of this expression as debtor terminology is mostly accepted.i" Likewise, Heltzer's interpretations of various terms relating to landholding (especially ilku, pilku, and un!) were proven faulty in Chapter Three. These are important criticisms of these models, since they demonstrate that Ugaritic uses neither social designations nor property designations to distinguish between these two sectors. This observation does not show that the model is not useful, but it does weaken its utility as a model for interpreting emic conceptions of economic activity.

More problematic for the utility of this model is the identification of the boundary between these two sectors. Where does royal authority end and where does traditional patrimonial authority begin? A simple bifurcated model of society prevents an understanding of the complexity of relations between the various groups at Ugarit. It is difficult to understand how elite non-royal figures at Ugarit (like Yabninu and Urtenu) fit into this model. Similarly, cuitic institutions hold land and authority, yet are not fully demarcated from palatial administration. It is difficult to distinguish who at Ugarit or in the villages of the kingdom (all taxed and administered by the palace) falls outside of royal authority. The distinction between royal and non-royal is apparent in the Ugaritic administrative record, as should be expected. This expectation does not arise from the entrenched difference between royal and non-royal authority. Rather it derives from the perspective of administration. The palace administration records were written from the perspective of the palace. Authorial voice should be assumed to be the palace. Given a conception of self there must also be a conception of "otherness,"25 and this distinction is expressed administratively. The treatment of non-royal groups as "other" in the administrative record should not be construed as reflecting strict social boundaries, but rather as representative of the palace voice. From the palace's perspective, there were two sectors, the sector directly controlled by the palace and the sector not controlled by the palace. However, there is no evidence that all members of society held such a formalized conception. The scholars who have used Two-sector models have mistaken representation for reality. There was not a strict distinction between royal authority and non-royal authority. Rather, royal authority was one of many types of authority, but it happens to be the perspective from which most of the textual evidence has been preserved. As an heuristic device, the Two-sector model has considerable value. It can be especially useful in identifying distinctions between palatial authority and authority derived from other internal Ugaritic institutions. It can be useful in helping detect sub-altern voices and economic situations within Ugarit. By looking at how difference is explicitly constituted along these lines, there is a great possibility to enhance modern understandings of Ugarit. At the same time it is a mistake to postulate a rigid division of society in two halves, as there is no evidence that this distinction was as concrete as made out by Heltzer and Liverani.

It is difficult to give absolute counts for these texts, as many are fragmentary so it is impossible to know how many are simply pieces of the same tablet, or how many are missing fragments that would otherwise alter the interpretation of the tablet. 22 Heltzer 1999, p. 424. 23 Liverani 1989, p. 127. 24 Rowe 2002, p. 17. 21

The Patrimonial Household Model (PHM) Another useful model for studying Ugarit, and at the same time a model that runs the risk of smoothing out alternative possibilities of economic organization, is David Schloen's Patrimonial Household Model (PHM). Without a doubt, Schloen has created

25

See Ricoeur 1992.

347

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

a useful model for understanding much of the organization of Ugaritic society (as summarized in Chapter Two). Much of the evidence for the economic modalities at Ugarit reflects patrimonial authority. It is easiest to understand the archaeological evidence for domestic, non-elite production in the residential sections of Ugarit through Schloens PHM. The shared means of production (and presumably shared division of labor) as well as the shifting use of space likely coincides with the patrimonial organization of such activities. Patrimonial authority (in practice and as metaphor) is also evident in the administrative record. In practice, the identification of individuals within the administrative record is often primarily through patrimonial referents (in at least 126 administrative texts). In the international correspondence, patrimonial metaphors are also invoked, although it is impossible to identify situations of this in the administrative texts (if there were any) given the paucity of data. 26 Terminology such as brother and father help economic actors situate themselves and their relative authority in relation to other economic actors (see Chapters Two and Eight) 27. In comparison with the Two-sector models, the PHM accounts for a significantly larger amount of texts found at Ugarit. As has been stated above, out of approximately 1000 texts, the Two-sector Models can only strongly explain about 100 texts. The PHM model well explains most of the international correspondence and Schloen would argue that it could be used to explain much of the legal literature. If one also counts occupationallists where individuals are listed with patronymic referents (approximately 22), field transfers where patronymic referents are used to describe the fields in question (approximately 15), census texts indicating the members of various households (approximately 6), or any text using the formula "house of PN/king/queen" (approximately 7), then the PHM can convincingly account for about 150 texts. If one also includes any text where any variation of the patronymic formula "x son of y" is used to describe an individual (that have not already been included), then the number becomes significantly higher, close to 300. This is much higher then the Two-sector models, but it must be stressed that only the correspondence and the formula "house of x' can be convincingly best understood through the PHM. Indeed, there are numerous problems associated with the application of this model in an economic study, which shall be discussed below. Most importantly, patrimonialism is not the only referent for social location and economic authority, in practice and in metaphor. Routledge's criticisms must be recalled.i"

Routledge, in his discussion of Iron Age Moab, notes that the PHM model essentializes social categories, and has the potential for obscuring other factors in the constitution of other social relarions.i" At Ugarit, it is possible to force most situations into the PHM model, especially given the views of Schloen that the PHM reflects an ideal type that in actual practice is affected by the interplay between fact and symbol.I" Given the power of this model, it is important to be explicit in identifying some of the nonpatrimonial situations and metaphors used by Ugaritians to understand and justify economic relations. Numerous referents for individual identity (as economic participants) are derived from situations outside of the family. The use of occupational categories to identify individuals should not be understood as patrimonial. The approximately 22 texts where names are listed beneath an occupational heading (for example KTU 4.69) demonstrate that during the compilation of these lists, occupation provided the primary referent for constructing economic interactions, not patrimonialism. The economic authority of the mryn, in evidence by their consistent priority in lists of occupational categories and higher amounts of payments (see KTU 4.69 for example), shows that members of occupational categories had differing status in relation to other occupations, as opposed to status based distinctions (based on ranked kin groups). It is possible to argue that patrimonial authority lies at the basis of these distinctions, arguing that the family provides the limitations and possibilities for entering certain occupations. However, from an emic perspective, that is not what is presented administratively and this distinction should be treated as a legitimate ancient understanding. Similarly, the approximately 33 lists of personal names organized around geographic names, or names where a gentilic is used to help specify the individual, indicate that geography/place of origin are important tools for the understanding of economic relations (for example see KTU 4.295). Here it is possible to force these geographic referent situations into a patrimonial model by assuming that the geographic referent serves to locate the patrimonial household of the individual in question. However, the simple fact remains that it is not the household that is referred to at this scale, but the village or region. Other economic situations lie outside of patrimonial authority and are best understood by means other than through the PHM. In KTU 4.35, a field is transferred (in line 24) to a dr khnm (association of priests) as opposed to an individual. Here, an organization constituted by members of a certain occupation receives property. Also outside of the household is the use of the term adrt (see Chapter Three) meaning "pre-eminent." Used in census text KTU 4.102, this term further clarifies some individuals' standings, not through position within the family, but through relative status within society.

346

26 It is also difficult to determine when patrimonial metaphors were used in correspondence. Certainly in letters between the royal courts this was likely the case, but in the correspondence within Ugarit, given the limited prosopographical data available, family referents may actually refer to biological family members. 27 For example, see KTU 4.399 where the use of bn in line 8 is used to express membership in an organization as opposed to literal biological son-ship. 28 Routledge 2004, pp. 129-130.

29 30

Routledge 2004, pp. 129-130. Schloen 2001, p. 359.

348

349

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

Likewise, both bupfu and maryannu are used to indicate the standings of individuals within society without reference to the family. Situations are also evident at Ugarit where authority is not justified through patrimonialism but through bureaucratic positions. Weber distinguishes between societies where power is manifest through kinship and societies where power is manifest through bureaucracy.'! However, both types of authority are identifiable at Ugarit, without evidence for contradiction or conflict. As discussed in Chapter Two, numerous scholars of Mesopotamia have connected the act of administration with bureaucracy.V If this can be upheld, then certainly the palace archive is appropriate evidence for the power of bureaucratic authority. If one follows Weber's own terminology, and bureaucracy is understood as power derived from training and the holding of offices, then bureaucratic authority is also evident at Ugarit. 33 Texts like KTU 4.141 list individuals who are under the authority of one specified individual. Similarly, officials like the skn (see Chapter Three) may derive their authority from their relationship to the king,34 and the authority of the king may be based on patrimony, but the authority granted to the skn as representative must be understood as bureaucratic. There are a number of texts, dealing with the skn that suggest evidence for bureaucracy per se. At least four administrative texts use the office of skn as the primary referent for the individual, rather than his familial connections. Three more administrative texts refer to the bt skn rather than the house of a PN. There are at least 14 legal texts where the office of the skn is used as the expression of the individual's authority (as opposed to a familial title like father to indicate power). In at least nine letters, the title skn functions as the primary identifying marker of an individual involved in the correspondence, although in some of these, familial metaphors are used in tandem." The last economic relationship that appears to be constituted outside of the family metaphor that will be discussed (although not the last that could be identifiedf") is debt and credit. As discussed in Chapter Three, Rowe's understanding of the expression bnf mlk as individuals in debt to the king shows that economic relationships are

defined and organized according to debt.37 While debt and credit may be extended by patrimonial authority and between patrimonial households, it is the obligation created by credit/debt that constitutes the economic relationship. The organization of the relationship is entirely based on the fact that one party is indebted to another party. Schloen's PHM is a valuable tool for the study of Ugaritic economics. Patrimonial authority played an important role in the organization of economic relationships. It is important to recognize, however, the limitations of this model and not use it as a means of essentializing the complexities of economic relationships at Ugarit. The value of the PHM will become clear though in the discussion of the last set of models for the study of the Near Eastern economy - the semi-institutional household models.

31 32

Weber 1978, p. 215. For example Civil 1999, p. 35; Hunt 1991, p. 150; Michalowski 1991, p. 56, and Morony 1991,

p.5. Weber 1978, p. 215. Schloen 2001, p. 253. 35 See van Soldt 2002, pp. 820-822. 36 Gender certainly plays a role in the structuring of economic relationships at Ugarit. The sheer dominance of male actors in the administrative record (all but one certain instance) indicates that there were gendered conceptions of work. Likewise, the role of elite women is minimal, although the actions of the queen are well attested in the correspondence. At the household level, it is assumed that women were active participants in economic activity, but without recourse to ethnographic and historical analogies, it is difficult to delimit the nature of women's economic activities. The topic of economics and gender would constitute a monograph of its own and is worth further study in detail. Likewise, age could also be seen as a limitation and determining factor in economic relationships and activities, but the lack of evidence precludes the possibility of such study at this time. 33

34

Semi-Institutional House Models The co-existence of kinship and bureaucratic authority has been recognized at Ugarit and in other Near Eastern settings. Gelb's work on Mesopotamia has demonstrated the existence of large public households, institutions described in patrimonial terms but that function as larger organizations.V Gelb's studies show relative bureaucratic standardization within these institutional households, most noteworthy what he calls "the Mesopotamian ration system."39 Zettler's analysis of the Ur III Temple ofInanna at Nippur depicts an institution that is organized along both patrimonial and bureaucratic lines. Within the institution are bureaucratic offices, which are transformed into hereditary offices,40 exactly the opposite of the situation one would expect using Schloen's PHM. Zettler's analysis of the institution over time demonstrates that the organization was relatively stable, run by local elites who accumulated wealth and status over rime.'" Similar situations have been identified at Ugarit. Courtois' recognition that the Southern Palace was actually non-royal but run by a local non-royal elite named Yabninu'? indicates that institutions similar to the Nippur Inanna Temple operated at Ugarit. While Yabninu's House has similar types of texts as the royal palace (see Chapter Six), the authority Yabninu wielded was neither royal, nor bureaucratic. Rather, he was a wealthy, local elite. The excavations of Urtenus House have led to the recognition of a similar situation, with another individual. At Ugarit some elite families operated out of large households, run at an institutional scale. Power was both bureaucratic (in terms of household administration) and patrimonial (with the head of household the most

37

38 39

40 41 42

Rowe 2002, p. 17. Gelb 1979, p. 11. See Gelb 1965. Zettler 1992, pp. 211-213. Zettler 1991, p. 114. Courtois 1990.

351

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

powerful figure). Accordingly, such family operations cannot be seen as solely bureaucratic or patrimonial, but a mixture. These households accumulated wealth and status, yet cannot be understood through feudal models, Two-sector models or the Patrimonial

this perspective the parties should be understood as separate. Yet it is assumed that there is some social connectedness between the two groups, even if that social connectedness is only temporary, manifest to facilitate the economic action. For even if the agents do not know one another personally, the interaction will be framed through some sort of social role-playing. After identifying discrete groups engaging in an economic interaction, the next step should be to determine the nature of the economic interaction. Two separate "natures" should be looked for: the nature of the actual interaction and the nature of how that interaction is understood by the separate parties. A variety of interpretations are possible, using many of the perspectives that have been suggested throughout this study. Is there competition involved, or reciprocity, or both? More important for this level of study is descriptive analysis, which involves describing the transfer of goods or labor. The other level of interest is the determination of how each party understood the interaction. At the outset, framing becomes an issue, since, as has been discussed in Chapter One, the way that an interaction is framed at the outset determines how the agents proceed.v' Framing is identifiable in antiquity in a number of ways. Language is of course a limitation, as are the material possibilities available for each agent. As Liverani has suggested.v Polanyi's modes of integration well reflect ancient views of economic situations, and while imperfect, this is a useful heuristic device for the modern interpreter. It is also important to attempt to understand the motivations for the interaction. Intrinsically related to this are the power relationships that are manifest at each node of contact. Beyond the level of interaction at a single identifiable node, it is important to attempt to identify what modalities connect the separate nodes of economic activity. It is necessary to understand how the separate groups that interact at a node of activity are able to meet. What facilitates this encounter? This can be difficult to identify, as the basic guiding principles may be principles that are completely unquestioned by the agents, so this is where structuration theory and practice theory can be of utility. The connections between various groups, as mediated through economics, lie at the heart of the investigation of economic modalities. Durkheim has suggested that an urban society is connected through the Division of Labor (DOL) ;46 or, if connected simply through objects, Durkheim describes this connection as negative solidarityf? Weber distinguishes between open and closed groups, and this distinction should be useful in an investigation of the ancient world. Weber (and his later followers such as Stager and Schloen) also sees kinship, or ideal models of kinship, as a primary mechanism for tying people together.

350

Household Model.

3. A NETWORK-BASED MODEL (NBM)

OF

ECONOMIC MODALITIES

The Two-sector, PHM, and semi-institutional household models are valid tools for understanding the economic modalities at Ugarit. However, all three are problematic since none of them allow for the complexity of economic relationships within Ugarit and tend to oversimplify (if not essentialize) the situations. What shall be presented in conclusion is an alternative model for investigating ancient economics, purposefully constituted as a non-monolithizing apparatus for making understandable the extremely complex reality of ancient economic life. This approach is referred to as a Networkbased model (NBM), since the economic modalities are primarily understood from the perspective of a network. It is argued in Chapter One that traditional methods of economic analysis, derived from the scholarly discipline of economics, cannot be used to understand ancient economic modalities without some adaptation. Supply and demand curves cannot really be drawn up in the case of Ugarit. Even if these were meaningful categories of ancient economic thought (which is very arguable), the evidence needed in order to apply these models is lacking. On the other hand, an economy as a whole is too complex to be understood as a single entity. A "bird's eye view" is not really possible without simplifying the data. The Network-based model (NBM), first outlined in the Introduction, is valuable since it allows economic action to be studied on the macro-level without positing systemic totalities or essentializing economic action. Working under the assumption that the evidence that has been preserved only hints at the actual variety of economic practices that occurred, a Network-based approach views the economy as a non-linear adaptive system, which is self-organizing within certain limitations. It assumes that a network involves certain norms (if not actual rules) that govern the interactions at each node of contact and that some degree of power relationship is manifest at each node of contact, but that power is not necessarily manifest in the same way at each node. The bulk of the analysis from the Network-based perspective takes place at the nodal points of economic action and at the connections between these various nodal points. The study of individual nodes of economic contact can be quite productive. Each node should be understood as a situation of economic interaction between discrete groups.43 Even if those groups do not normally see themselves as distinct, from

44 45

Here, a Two-sector model could be applied without having to postulate the existence of two rigidly segregated groups. 43

46 47

Kahneman and Tversky 2000a, p. 9. Liverani 2001, p. 7. Durkheim 1984, pp. 200, 205. Durkheim 1984, pp. 74-75.

352

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

4. A NETWORK-BASED

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

353

MODEL (NBM) OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES APPLIED TO UGARIT

The wealth of data that has been analyzed in this study so far facilitates an adaptation of a Network-based model as an heuristic device for viewing the economy from a broader, synthetic perspective. Compared to the Two-sector Models and the PHM, the Network-based model can successfully explain all of the classes of texts recovered from Ugarit (as opposed to the approximately 100 and 300 respectively of the other two dominant models) without smoothing over and hiding difference or forcing data to fit. It is now useful to demonstrate this approach in explicit detail. The concluding discussion is organized around a discussion of various parties involved in economic interactions, and the NBM for Ugarit is summarized in Fig. 9.1. Each group is discussed in relation to its interaction with another group in order to identify: the nature of the interactionfs); the perception of each party about the interactionfs); the motivation of each party for the interactionis): and where and how power is manifest in the interaction(s).

Other Royal Authorities

Non-elites Outside Ugarit's Sphere of Influence

o·

A. Interactions Involving the Royal Palace Administration Discussing the Royal Palace Administration is useful for understanding a number of important economic situations at Ugarit. However, this is somewhat of an artificial category, as the category "Royal Palace Administration" better reflects a category of evidence (tablets and material culture retrieved from the palace) rather than a single entity. Indeed, so far this study has demonstrated the ad hoc and non-formalized nature of royal administration (see Chapter Four), and it must be understood that the Royal Palace Administration was a flexible category, likely fluid in its self-perception and its outward manifestations. This may seem like a distinction without real difference. Conceptually it is very important, since the imposition of a hierarchic bureaucratic structure on an ancient institution drastically redirects the analysis in a specific direction. What follows here is a discussion of situations where an entity constituted as the palace administration interacted with a parry that was explicitly not constituted within the palace administration.f

Local Non-elites

a) Non-Royal Elite Residents of Ugarit and Royal Administration Much has been discussed about the various types of non-royal elite economic activities at Ugarit in this study. Very specific evidence, mostly in the form of epistolary and account texts demonstrates some characteristics of the nature of these interactions. Elites were able to engage in long distance commercial activities, and while engaged in these activities, had access to resources of the palace (see Chapter Eight). Indeed, it is

b

E&es within the Kingdom ofUgarit but outside of the city

...

~

Direct Exchange

u u . u••u

•••

~---------l~

o ...u.~

Non-elites within the Kingdom ofUgarit but outside of the city

Exchange Through an Intermediary

Fig. 9.1. A Network-based model (NBM) ofUgaritic Exchange Relationships 48

In many ways this is akin

to

the use of Two-sector models that is described earlier in this chapter.

355

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

likely that they would in fact exchange palace-owned goods (see Chapter Four; see KTU 4.158 for example). While engaging in commercial relations outside of Ugarit, these individuals could act as representatives of the palace in diplomatic engagements. However, when back in Ugarit, these individuals were considered distinct from the palace administration. This situation is most formally indicated by the fact that they offered tribute to the palace, as opposed to transferring goods without formal acknowledgement, which would symbolize the work of one segment of a whole (see KTU 4.91 for example). Indeed, the evidence for the nature of the interaction directly reflects each party's understanding of the nature of the interaction. As Monroe has noticed, the interactions between these groups are described in the terms associated with the international royal models of interactions.t? The exchanges are described as gifts, and in fact there is no evidence that the provisioning of tribute to the palace was anything but voluntary. In actual fact though, the presentation of offerings was likely anything but voluntary; it is best understood as part of a Maussian total system of gift-giving, where the actors are compelled by the social obligations inherent in giving. Power is held by the palace in these situations, although the palace seems to encourage the understanding of the tributary relationship in terms of gifting and privilege. The elite are entirely dependent on the palace to engage in these interactions, for it seems that their ability to engage in trade outside of Ugarit is facilitated by the personal relationships of the palace with specific foreigners.t" It is likely the elite actors could not simply conduct trade, but rather required the formal relationships between the states as a type of ideological infrastructure. The motivations of each group in these situations are relatively transparent. At a base level, both parties hold the desire for resource accumulation. The desire to acquire other goods, or to trade currently held goods, seems to lie at the basis of the interactions. Both parties gain resources and luxury items from the interaction. This should not be conflated with capital accumulation, however. There is no evidence that the resources are further employed to generate more profits. Rather, it seems that the goods themselves are the desired outcome. As a result, terms such as capitalist and entrepreneur may seem appropriate on a surface level, but in fact they do not accurately reflect the situation. There is an ideological component to these interactions as well. Certainly the elites who were able to participate in these interactions held a high status within Ugarit, a status that is directly manifest in the material culture.P! Mycenaean ceramics, cylinder

seals, and Egyptianizing artifacts would all have seemed exotic and impressive at Ugarit, cosmopolitan though it was. The luxurious material culture of these elites no doubt reflects an archaeologically intangible conception of status within the community. Similarly, Feldman's argument that these elite international luxury goods present an ideology of kingship and authority must be considered a motivating force of the palace.52 Having these goods demonstrates the status of the palace within the community, both at Ugarit, and on the international level.

354

Monroe 2000, pp. 151-152. These international economic actors were also dependent on the palace to arrange the legal mechanisms for the international visits. Chapter Eight discusses the textual evidence for these legal mechanisms, such as PRU 4 I03ff (RS 17.130). 51 For a full discussion of elite material culture, see Chapter Seven.

b) Non-Elite Residents of Ugarit and Royal Palace Administration Unfortunately the evidence for economic interactions between non-elite residents and the palace administration is particularly one-sided. Indeed, only the palace's take on these interactions is preserved directly. However, it is possible to make educated inferences on the non-elite conception of these interactions. It is important to make sure that it is understood that this evidence is indirect and a number of presuppositions must be incorporated. The most significant evidence for economic interactions between these two parties comes from the palatial administrative texts. In these texts, non-elite economic activities of a number of types are preserved (see Chapter Four for a full discussion). Non-elites generally provide labor for palace production (for example KTU 4.122). These nonelites likely provide goods of some type, although there is minimal evidence for this. The palace, on the other hand, seems to playa part in acquiring necessary raw materials for productive activity (for example KTU 4.626), and some of the actual means of production (for example KTU 4.380). Ownership of the goods produced in these interactions is not clear.53 The perception of these situations is not explicitly discussed in the texts, which is telling in itself. A straight-forward reading of the texts indicates that the parties saw the relationship as inherently redistributive. Goods and labor move only in two directions: to and from the center. No language of exchange or gift giving is used. It seems that this relationship was framed as almost "natural" behavior. Indeed, by organizing economic activity in this manner, the palace is at the same time, reifying its right to organize in this manner (see Chapter Six). It was likely the perception of both parties that this relationship was "natural" and unquestioned. 54 The relationship was not framed in a manner that would have allowed other conceptualizations of the situation. The unquestioned nature of this relationship intrinsically relates to the motivation of the non-elites to continue to participate in this system. Following Giddens and Bourdieu, the act of participation creates a negative feedback loop. The perception

49

50

Feldman 1998. In KTU 4.626, for example, textile manufacturers suggest certain goods, but no mention of payment (if required) or explicit comment on the ownership of the end product is provided. 54 See Bourdieu 1977. 52 53

356

357

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

that daily life has remained constant, and the continued practice of those same ways of life, motivate the continuance of such patterns of behavior. From the palace's perspective, it seems unlikely that there was any Machiavellian attempt to keep control of the non-elites through these economic activities. While the palace probably did not question the appropriateness of the constitution of the relationship, there is no evidence that the relationship was created as a conscious means of exercising domination, even though this was the end result. At the same time, other motivating factors are likely, although the evidence is somewhat ambiguous. Texts noting the distribution of materials to individuals suggest that these non-elites gained some commodities and goods from the palace, including foodstuffs (for example KTU 4.636) and textiles (for example KTU 4.144). However, all of the published private houses at Ugarit showed evidence that production equipment for both of these classes of goods was available at the domestic level. Resource and labor accumulation was certainly a motivation of the palace, and was likely a motivation apparent to the administrators. Other obligations tied non-elites to the palace in an economic relationship of subordination. The land grants that have been preserved indicate that land was bestowed upon individuals in return for certain types of specialized labor (see Chapters Four and Five). This kind of system of obligation certainly limited individual choices, and helped the palace to control or orient certain kinds of specialized craft activities. However, the relative scale of royal land grants is not clear. Do the preserved texts reflect a maximal amount of land based obligations, or was this preserved evidence just the tip of the iceberg? Power was held by the palace, even though non-elites theoretically held power because of the palace's reliance on their subservience, labor, and resources. However, there is no indication that any sort of Marxist class-consciousness was present at Ugarit, and the actual power of non-elites likely did not manifest in any practical form. These non-elites likely did not substantially question the authority of the palace and it is in this non-questioning that the power of the palace resided. The act of administration controlled and limited individual actions and choices.

KTU 4.683). Both parties receive resources, and resource accumulation was clearly an important motivation for this relationship. The motivation for this relationship and the constitution of power in this particular relationship is derived from the military power of the palace, backed up by the greater Hittite military authority. The treaty texts demonstrate that the Hittites had the right to transfer authority over certain regions between particular kingdoms (for example, see PRU 480 ff (RS 17.382+380); for a complete discussion see Chapter Eight). This was a relationship of both duress and security. Military power enforced the obligations, but the marshalling of that military power as a force to provide security against other states also may have made this relationship desirable.

c) The Peripheral Kingdom of Ugarit and the Royal Palace Administration Interactions between the royal administration and the kingdom of Ugarit have been discussed in detail in Chapter Eight; so only cursory mention will be made here. Based on the available evidence, the palatial administration of the periphery was entirely concerned with the flow of resources - human and material. Human and material resources, in this interaction, are moved from one place to another. The perception of this situation by the periphery is not preserved. It should be noted that no evidence indicates trade or reciprocal relationship on the part of the palace. All terminology is entirely redistributive. No justifications ever seem to be provided (for example

B. The King of Ugarit It may seem somewhat odd to differentiate the king from the palace authority, and inappropriate if Ugarit is viewed fully from Schloen's perspective. However, it is conceptually safer to keep these categories separate whenever possible. There are economic situations where the king acts independent of the palace administration. This separation does not negate the fact of the palatial administrative dependence on the king, but rather acknowledges a more complex manifestation of these two parties.

a) Non-Royal Elites and the King Not much needs be added here from what was said above about non-royal elite interactions with the palatial administration; however, a few points need to be clarified about the nuances of the economic relationship between elite and king. Some of the epistolary texts demonstrate that there were definitely elite individuals who took orders directly from the king (see Chapter Eight for more thorough discussion). These "administrators" dealt with the king directly, and required his advice or permission before facilitating the movement of goods (for example KTU 2.26). Whether these elites should be formally considered part of the palace administration is not clear; perhaps it is best to consider them as elites who were affiliated with the palace, unless a title such as skn is attested. It is difficult to determine, based on the textual evidence, the amount of international contacts that non-royal elites had that were based on the king's personal relationship to other kings. It is not clear if the initial network connection was based on the king's personal status amongst other international powers or if this related to Ugarit's standing in general. It is possible to hypothesize about the king's motivations for facilitating international trade through local elites. Resource accumulation was most definitely a goal of these interactions. Particularly noteworthy, however, is the provisioning of the Royal Palace with international luxury goods (see Chapters Six and Seven). Based on Feldman's

358

359

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

reading of these objects, all of them reflect some notion of kingship and demonstrate the status of the king as king. Receipt of these goods in international exchange settings demonstrated the king of Ugarit's "royal-ness" to an international audience. The actual possession of these objects made a similar statement within the city of Ugarit itself

send specific types of goods amongst one another. There is minimal evidence to suggest that this kind of interaction was competitive. Profit motive was not explicit. The resources are not traded so as to gain abstract profit, but rather to acquire desired goods not otherwise available. There does not seem to be a set standard of prices; indeed the value of the goods sent seems to be determined by the receiver who sends back an appropriate gift. The perception of these interactions is framed in terms of reciprocity. Monroe has referred to this as the Royal Model of Exchange.t" but its prominence amongst nonroyals indicates that this may not be the most appropriate way of describing this situation. All of the evidence for exchange (or commercial team ventures involving exchange) seems based on personal relationships. There is no formal marketplace where exchange occurs described in the texts (see Chapter Five). Nor is there any evidence of anonymous sales, that is to say, sales between individuals who lack a pre-existing social connection. This could, however, be a function of the types of evidence preserved, as letters are more typically sent between known-parties. Other means of exchange between parties that do not already know one another may have existed, but the activity did not create any types of material evidence that have so far been identified. The motivations for these activities seem to reflect the desire for resources and possibly status within the community. The goal of these situations, from an economic perspective was certainly the acquisition of resources. Friendships and personal relationships may also be connected to the desire to participate in these interactions, although given the prominence of resource circulation, from the perspective of this study, resource accumulation should be understood as the primary motivating force. The issue of power in these interactions between non-royal elites is complex. On the one hand, there is no explicit hierarchy amongst these individuals. That is to say, there do not seem to be fixed class differentials amongst these individuals that predetermine a power relationship. On the other hand, it is possible to see in certain situations (i.e., the caravan dossier of Urtenu discussed in Chapters Six and Eight) that hierarchy is present and that certain individuals wield greater influence than others. There seem to be two major sources for this power: royal affiliation and wealth. The power of royal affiliation is evident in the prominent position of Shipti-baal in the trade caravan at Urtenus House, given Shipti-baal's royal affiliations and his position as the head of the venture. Likewise, Yabninu's prominence in royal affairs and seemingly close ties to the royal family most likely allowed him certain privileges within the kingdom, although these are not explicitly evident in his relationships with other elites. The power of accumulated wealth must also have been important, although this is also not explicitly evident. It is safe to assume that the greater access to resources one had, the better the position to engage in exchange activities, even those activities formally constituted in terms of reciprocity.

b) Non-Elite Residents of Ugarit and the King For the general populace of Ugarit, these symbols of kingship, manifest in material culture, doubtless conveyed a message of authority. Along with the monumental palace, the material manifestations of kingship reflect a degree of authority and symbolic power that was certainly felt by non-elite Ugaritians. It is unclear how much day-to-day contact this group would have had with the king; without a doubt it varied as non-elite really reflects a status vis d vis others at Ugarit, but does not really reflect a group that would have understood itself as such. One particular issue is worth mentioning in this context: the question of the relationship between the king and the bns mlk. The bnl mlk are the one non-elite group for which there is textual evidence about the nature of their relationship to the king. If one follows Rowe's suggestion ? that the bns mlk were individuals with a debt obligation to the king (see Chapter Three), then even more can be said about the relationship between the king and non-elite individuals. It was possible for non-elite individuals to borrow or incur debt from the king. Their debt was repaid through the performance of service to the king. Possibly goods in kind may also have been used to repay the debts, but we lack the evidence for this.

C. Non-Royal Elites at Ugarit The relationships between non-royal elites and the palace administration, as well as with the king have already been discussed above, and need not be returned to here. The relationship between these non-royal elites and foreigners shall be discussed below in Section E. Here, the focus shall be on the economic interactions amongst non-royal elites, and the interactions between non-royal elites and non-elites residing within Ugarit.

1. Non-Royal Elites and Other Non-Royal Elites There seem to have been many situations where non-royal elites interacted economically within Ugarit. The best-preserved interactions of this type are commercial ventures and exchange situations. The caravan dossier from the House of Urtenu attests to a network of elite individuals working together to facilitate resource exchange through long distance trade (see Chapter Eight). Likewise, the exchange of resources is well established through the epistolary documents, where individuals request and 55

Rowe 2002.

56

Monroe 2000, pp. 151-152.

360

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

2. Non-Royal Elites and Non-Elites at Ugarit

Evidence for economic interactions between individuals from these two groups come from two major sources: tablets found within elite architectural structures that mention individuals who may be considered non-elite (see Chapter Six), and the luxury goods found in funerary contexts within private, non-elite domestic structures (see Chapter Seven). Based on this evidence, there seem to be two major types of interactions between these groups: the fulfillment of obligations based on cultic or credit issues and the exchange of goods. Evidence for the fulfillment of obligations is hinted at in texts found in elite structures (residences and cultic buildings) listing the receipt of goods from various individuals (KTU 4.788). That these individuals should be understood as non-elites is an assumption; not enough prosopographic evidence is supplied to allow reconstruction of many individual biographies. However, it is safe to assume that at least some of these individuals were of significantly lower status than the elite individuals with whom they were interacting. In these texts goods and/or labor are listed as provided to the elite individual (KTU 4.34), or for cultic activity (KTU 4.728). Two different motivations should be assumed for these interactions. Cultic offerings reflected motivations/obligations towards the divinity, or payment for cultic services. The non-elites' motivations were likely the desire to have cultic needs fulfilled, whether out of feelings of personal preference or an understanding that these activities were necessary. Power, in these situations was held by the divinity, although mediated through the cultic officials who engaged in the appropriate ritual activities. Fulfillment of obligations in non-cultic situations seems to reflect debt relationships. Indeed, credit seemed to have been a possible means of acquiring goods at Ugarit. The problems of credit and the escalation of debt is a complaint brought against the merchants of Ura (see Chapter Eight). Debt lists are also attested in the palace administration and private residences (for example KTU 4.262). Without a doubt, entering into debt reflected, at some stage, the desire to accumulate resources or circulate goods. The circulation of goods and resources affiliated with credit/debt relationships relates to the second type of evidence for elite and non-elite economic interactions --'- the luxury goods found within domestic funerary contexts (see Chapter Seven). The non-elites who possessed these goods must have gotten them from somewhere. Given the international style of these artifacts (for example, Mycenaean ceramics and stone vessels) and also the well attested engagement of non-royal elites in international trade, it is most likely that non-elites gained access to these items through elites. While there are no texts recording sales of Mycenaean pottery (for example), trade is the most likely candidate as the means of access. So it should be assumed that there were exchange interactions between these two groups, revolving around luxury goods.

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

361

Motivation for the receipt of these luxury goods, through trade or debt relationships, seems to have been to fulfill funerary needs. There may have been other contexts of use for these luxury items in non-elite settings, but as they have been preserved, these items are found in association with the dead (see Chapter Seven). Power was held entirely by the elites who could acquire these objects. It is not clear how value for these objects was determined and if supply or demand played any role in the transactions. However it was manifest in specific situations, power seems to have been rooted in economics in these cases, as opposed to ideological or "naturalized" values. D. Non-Elite Residents of Ugarit The economic interactions of non-elite residents ofUgarit have already been discussed, other than interactions with foreigners and amongst themselves. Those interactions amongst individuals who could be categorized as non-elite shall be the subject of this section. Given the lack of textual evidence for these kinds of relationships, conclusions about these situations are based mostly on the material remains from non-elite contexts. The contexts at Ugarit that can be safelydescribed as non-elite are private residences. Within these households, access to resources can be reconstructed with some degree of certainty. It has been demonstrated in Chapter Seven that production resources were shared amongst the residents of domestic households sharing single blocks. Some of the shared resources, such as hearths, are located in what can be understood as communal space - courtyards within the blocks. However, production equipment (like textile and olive oil production gear) and subsistence equipment (like wells) are located within the confines of individual domestic structures in the block. This means that certain individuals had greater ease of access to this equipment. There is no way of knowing, given the present state of evidence, if this acted as a constraint on other individuals' access to this equipment. However, that is the most plausible conclusion to draw. The relevance of this is that it demonstrates the presence of ranking, at least from a practical perspective, of production amongst non-elite units. It is further plausible that a division oflabor within the household existed (see Chapter Seven). However, the investigation of this goes beyond the scope of what has been investigated thus far. It is not overly difficult to suggest the motivations of these economic interactions. For the most part, they revolve around meeting subsistence needs. These kinds of activities were likely relatively conservative, with day-to-day work learned through day-today activities. Once again, this is a situation where Bourdieus Practice Theory is particularly informative, as it may be assumed that for the economic participants, notions of ownership and division of labor were at least somewhat naturalized. Power in this context was likewise "naturalized." Schloen's Patrimonial Household Model remains germane. Although each domestic situation was unique, a basic patrimonial understanding of power can be postulated.

362

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

E. Ugarit's International Relationships

It would be remiss not to implement the NBM of economic modalities on interactions between Ugarit and other international powers. Especially given the importance scholars have placed on Ugarit as a center of international trade, this particular avenue of research should not be overlooked. Most of this material has already been discussed in Chapter Eight, but it is useful to sum up this discussion here within the context of other economic interactions at Ugarit. Textual evidence from Ugarit makes it very clear that, at least during some times of the year, foreigners (individuals deemed as non-Ugaritians by the Ugaritians) resided within Ugarit. Census lists of Cypriotes are attested at the palace (KTU 4.102). Letters describe merchants from Ura (see Chapter Eight) and requests are made for craftsmen to be sent from Egypt (RSO 14 1 (RS 88.2158)). By ancient Near Eastern standards, Ugarit was a cosmopolitan city. In instances where a reason for these peoples' presence in Ugarit is identifiable, that reason is entirely economic. It should be mentioned, however, that the census lists that record Cypriote families and property present at Ugarit do not explain why those people came to Ugarit (see, for example, KTU 4.102). Two basic kinds of activities can be identified: trade and specialized craft activity. Both of these can be considered a type of resource acquisition. Indeed, the benefit of these activities was resource accumulation, especially of prestige goods, or specialized goods that could not be produced at home. In the case of craftsmen being sent to Ugarit, conclusions can be drawn from the request made to the Egyptian court (RSO 14 1 (RS 88.2158)). While craftsmen were not sent (at least the pharaoh had turned down the request for the moment), the negotiation of this transaction is telling about international requests. The correspondence uses the language of reciprocity, with the king of Ugarit taking a subordinate role. These laborers are requested and referred to in the same way that other international goods were exchanged: the Ugaritic king asked for them from the Egyptian king, and the Egyptian king decided whether or not to supply them. The merchants who came to Ugarit to engage in exchange activities reflect a different situation. While there may have been some pre-arrangements made to trade certain goods, it seems that these individuals came with a wide variety of goods, which they exchanged for various things, including real estate and credit (see Chapter Eight). One needs to avoid drawing too close parallels to market-exchange in this situation. No physical market place has been identified; no price-setting mechanisms have been recognized; and there is no evidence for whether or not these merchants had a social relationship with the people with whom they traded. It is difficult to determine how either party perceived the interaction between foreign merchants at Ugarit and local residents. No texts survive to describe this activity. Firm

363

evidence for where power was manifested in these relationships is likewise difficult to find. A number of variables can be safely assumed. On the one hand, the international merchants had access to significant enough quantities of resources to make the trip, and therefore had some economic clout. The desirability of exotic and foreign goods, and the difficulty in gaining access to these resources through other venues, may also have given foreign merchants at Ugarit a degree of power. The complaints of the growing indebtedness of Ugaritians to merchants from Ura attest to this. On the other hand, the activities of foreigners at Ugarit were circumscribed, and the subsequent restrictions on the merchants of Ura after complaints were made informs about that situation (PRU 4 103ff(RS 17.130)).

F. Conclusions and Summary From this overview, it is clear that the Network-based model sufficiently allows for the complexity of exchange situations at Ugarit without smoothing over differences. Unlike prior models applied to Ugarit, the Network-based model considers the palace as simply one of many economic agents, not the sole economic agent. When one looks at the larger picture created by the application of the Network-based model, some patterns become readily apparent. These patterns of exchange are portrayed in Figure 9.1. In this figure, all of the possible exchange patterns are depicted. It should be noted that this chart demonstrates all of the exchange patterns attested at Ugarit but does not reflect the relative frequency of these exchange relationships.V A quick glance at the chart shows that the sheer number of possible exchange relationships cannot be accounted for in any of the previous models that have been applied to Ugarit. A Two-sector approach would greatly simplify the exchange possibilities and would disguise the important role that elites, residing in various locations, play in the economic activities at Ugarit. Similarly, given the diversity of exchange relationships, the nested social relationships of Schloen's PHM are not apparent in this sphere of activity. What is readily apparent is that the palace, by far and away, engages in more different types of exchange relationship than any other type of economic actor participating in exchange at Ugarit. At least seventeen different exchange relationships/situations can be identified for the palace. When the relative scale of activity is taken into account, the sheer dominance of the palace is apparent. Given the relative dominance of the palace, it is not complete dominance. As is apparent, numerous types of groups participate in exchange relationships without involving the palace in any way. Likely these kinds of activities would go unattested archaeologically so one should assume that in actual practice at Ugarit, there were more

57

Figure 9.1 also simplifies the relationship between king and palace, for ease of demonstration.

364

365

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

of these kinds of activities than can be reconstructed now. In terms of scale, it is safe to reconstruct that elite actors would still have had access to more exchange relationships than non-elite actors. From the summary in Figure 9.1, it is also apparent that elites of all types acted as intermediaries in exchange relationships to a significant extent. While it is likely that these elites required some support from the palace (military, financial, symbolic), this would have been a primary means of accumulating wealth and/or status. Elite activities were the dominant mechanisms for the circulation of goods, and the only group that acted as an intermediary in an exchange relationship. Elites, acting as middlemen, would have had access to a variety of goods and services, at least for a limited duration, and would have had substantial possible avenues for profiting from this position. In contrast, there are only limited situations where the elites act as the end receivers in the exchange relationships, so it should still be understood that royal agents acted as the driving forces for exchange. Elites, while participating in the conveyance of a variety of goods, were almost parasitic (in the Weberian sense) in skimming profit (in terms of finances or status) through the exchange activities of royal palaces.

redistriburion, and market exchange) are useful analytical tools for investigating Ugaritic economy. 59 What follows is a discussion of the evidence for each of these forms of integration found in the Ugaritic materials, followed by conclusions on the utility of this conceptual framework. Starting with reciprocity, there is textual evidence for this activity in the Ugaritic textual record. At a surface level, the best evidence for this pattern of behavior comes in the various letters dealing with economic matters, discussed in Chapter Eight60.

5.

THE FORMALIST-SUBSTANTIVIST DEBATE

Chapter One has dealt in detail with the history of the formalist-substantivist debate. There it was concluded that while the use of formalist (Neo-classical) models is not necessarily incorrect for the study of the ancient economy, there are substantial difficulties in their implementation. First, there is the basic problem of sources. Although a significant amount of evidence has been explored in this study, the amount and types of available evidence are inappropriate for the application of formalist models. Second, formalist models assume too much a priori about ancient economic motivations and organizations. It is possible that ancient economic actors followed the same impulses as modern economic actors, but this is unproven. Formalist models, however, do not allow these assumptions of "sameness" to be tested. Third, recent economic theorists (such as Kahneman and Tversky) have demonstrated the importance of understanding economic action within the context of the participants' culture and individual decision-making processes.They have demonstrated that economic action is not entirely based on rational decision-making processes, but is influenced by a variety of factors external to the actor. So while the formalist approach has been rejected on both practical and theoretical bases, the utility of the substantivist approach needs to be discussed in relation to the evidence from Ugarit. In Chapter One, it is argued that Polanyi's basic thesis, that the economy is embedded within society, is valid for the study of the ancient world.t" What is left unanswered is whether or not Polanyi's "forms of integration" (reciprocity,

58

Polanyi 1957, p. 250.

An example discussed in that chapter is KTU 5.10, which records the giving of items between individuals referring to each other as "brother" and "sister". Although the language of the transaction is reciprocal, it is argued by Liverani and Monroe that while these transactions use the language of reciprocity they in fact detail profit-seeking exchange situations.v' However, since the buyers and sellers (in the case of KTU 5.10 the "brother" and "sister") know each other and are of relativelyequal status (as evidenced by the use of equivalent although gendered familial terminology), this interaction would still conform to Polanyi's reciprocity pattern of integration. Economic self-interest, as defined by Polanyi, is discouraged, so that the self-interest involved in these transactions is typically obscured by the language of the text. Economic actors are pretending not to act out of economic self-interest, but out of generosity, even though the actors are actually acting out of self-interest and not out of generosity.62 Redistribution is also in evidence at Ugarit (see Chapter Five). Texts detailing the distribution of goods from a higher status figure to a lower status figure (or vice versa) make up a significant component of the corpus of economic records.v' The most explicit of these texts are those that record the distribution of rations by the palace (for example KTU 4.243, KTU 4.269 and KTU 4.609). KTU 4.361 and KTU 4.362 record distributions of flour to individuals, presumably from the palace. KTU 4.361 is explicit in stating that the flour was distributed by the skn official. Wine distributions to a variety of individuals and groups, presumably from the palace, are recorded in KTU 4.149, KTU 4.216, and KTU 4.230. KTU 4.378 lists shepherds who took textiles. Takers of wool are listed in KTU 4.131 and KTU 4.188 lists other individuals who took finished textile products. KTU 4.261 provides evidence of redistribution from a subordinate to a superior institution. Here, the tribute of various occupational groups is recorded.

See Polanyi 1977, pp. 39--42 and Chapter One. At least 20 letters, in both alphabetic and syllabic script, and three administrative texts use the language of reciprocity. 61 Liverani 2001 and Monroe 2000. 62 See Liverani 2001 for more on this. 63 At least 56 administrative texts from the palace, and ten from private residences can be taken as evidence for redistribution. Four of the texts from the palace are clearly texts detailing the distribution of foodstuffs to palace workers. Other texts from the palace are not as clear. Any texts recording the movement of goods between individuals or groups of different status, without any rationale for the transaction given were taken as possible evidence for redistribution. 59

60

367

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

Indirect evidence for redistribution activities can be found in KTU 4.213. This tablet records amounts of wine at various locations. It is probable that this list was compiled to facilitate plans for the subsequent redistribution of wine. KTU 4.263 lists merchants and quantities of a good measured in prs and ltb (likely grain). It can be presumed that these merchants received these quantities of goods from the palace. However, even if the situation is the opposite of what is postulated, it still presents evidence for redistribution as it records subordinates providing a larger institution with

schemes involving these kinds of goods points towards trade as a better explanation. Here the texts and archaeology point to a complex situation, where ancient trade likely was not analogous with trade in the modern world and the existence of formal marketplaces. As mentioned in Chapter Five, trade is expressed in Ugaritic by the expression x ntn b ksp "x item that was given for silver". Various documents recording the sale of goods at Ugarit have been preserved that incorporate this expression. KTU 4.219 and KTU 4.274, for example, list sales of wine. In other tablets this expression is not used, but, nonetheless, these tablets preserve accounts of exchange. KTU 4.707 records exchanges made by individuals for various goods. KTU 4.659 may be a record of the purchase of slaves. Strong textual evidence for the existence of trade comes in the form of texts detailing the sales of trade concessions (KTU 4.172, KTU 4.266, and KTU 4.336). According to Polanyi, this form of integration involves price-setting mechanisms.P Prices are in evidence in the texts from Ugarit. However, the rationales behind the establishment of prices are uncertain. There is no evidence that price-setting mechanisms rooted in marginal utility determined prices. KTU 4.132 explicitly gives prices of a variety of textiles. The prices (in shekels) of finished textiles are recorded in KTU 4.146. Although it cannot be stated with certainty, KTU 4.142 likely gives prices for cattle. Silver frequently acts as the standard through which value is expressed at Ugarit. The evidence remains unclear about its use as a form of currency, although it likely did not act as money per se (see Chapter One for more on this distinction). At Ugarit there were individuals whose primary occupation was the procurement and exchange of goods. Both bdlm and mkrm have been discussed in Chapter Three. In neither case does it seem that the primary goal of these workers was the accumulation of capital. Rather, they seemed to be responsible for dispersing certain goods and gaining other goods. At no time is there evidence that any sort of profit is reinvested to make more profit. The situation is slightly different with some of the elite individuals. As discussed in Chapter Eight, texts from Urtenu's House demonstrate that he and others invested in a trade caravan that terminated at Emar. Archaeologically, trade is manifest at Ugarit through the variety of international goods discovered at the site (see Chapter Seven). It is very difficult to explain the presence of large amounts of Cypriote and Egyptian (or Egyptianizing) artifacts at Ugarit without postulating the presence of international trade. International trade is also in evidence textually. Textually, letters describe these commercial ventures. There is a high degree of personal connection amongst all of these contacts. Indeed, this trade must be understood as a trade network, as opposed to the anonymous market based trade that is bereft of social relationships, posited by Neo-classicists. Likewise, this trade was constituted on an ad hoc basis, and likely each exchange was uniquely constituted.

366

products. Redistribution is also evident in non-palatial institutions. KTU 4.688 records the distribution of rations, but was retrieved from a private household. This demonstrates that redistribution cannot be characterized as a pattern of integration where the palace acted as the sole superior institution. At Ugarit it seems more likely that this form of integration was replicated at varying scales and varying levels of authority. This is consistent with the heterarchical approach argued for in Chapter One, where power is manifest in different ways, in different scales and in different situations. It shall be argued below, however, that the emic conception of redistribution in the ancient Near East appears to have been more akin to debt patronage. From a practical standpoint, the results of debt patronage and redistribution are similar, but the motivations for and justifications of the respective modes are quite different. 64 Polanyi's third pattern of integration, market-exchange, is also evident at Ugarit. To reiterate the discussion from Chapter One, exchange involves a situation where both parties are more concerned with the gain that each will receive from the transaction rather than a social relationship, even though a social relationship is in fact implied in the transaction. The clearest manifestation of this pattern of integration is trade. Exchange at Ugarit is evidenced through complex sets of data, and in some ways is one of the most problematic topics of this study. Textually and archaeologically there is very minimal evidence for market-exchange. In the textual record, there are some tablets that mention the sales of goods, but the exact medium of sales (where and how trade is facilitated) is never explicit. At the same time, the scale of redistribution identifiable in the palatial records could not support the entire city, and it is impossible to reconstruct a situation where all the residents ofUgarit were directly dependent on the palace, in a grand redistributive scheme. Likewise, from an archaeological perspective, it is clear that everyone had access to standardized tools and labor, as well as luxury goods, but no marketplace is safely identifiable. The ubiquity of moulds and weights could be understood as evidence for widespread trade. However, centralized redistribution cannot be ruled out based on the archaeological evidence alone. The absence of textual evidence for complex redistributive

64 At least 21 administrative texts can be taken as clear evidence for market-exchange, either because prices of goods were listed or the expression "x good was given for y amount of silver" was employed.

65

Polanyi 1957, p. 254.

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

In sum, the evidence at Ugarit demonstrates that all three of Polanyis patterns of integration can be identified at Ugarit. Market-exchange seems to be the least visible pattern

defined in amounts of silver are recorded in: KTU 4.135, KTU 4.197, KTU 4.258, KTU 4.266, and KTU 4.398 for example. Debts defined in other terms are recorded in KTU 4.201 and KTU 4.225. If Rowe is correct, then the term bns mlk refers to

368

of integration that is employed. Redistribution and reciprocity are visible to about the same degree, given the difficulties in precisely identifying redistributive activities. However, no pattern can be identified as dominant. It would be a misnomer to identify Ugarit as a city characterized by trade given the prominence of redistribution. Likewise, it is readily apparent that the Ugaritic economy did not operate through the palace taking all goods and subsequently redistributing them. At the same time, the expected Structuralist Marxist perspective, that redistribution was the mode of exchange that served to articulate or define all other modes of exchange (in other words, a "Social Formation") cannot be upheld either. From this perspective, all types of Polanyian modes of exchange could be identified but one of the three patterns would be distinctly dominant. The evidence does not point to a systemic totality; it suggests that these modes of exchange are in fact the emergent effect of contingent networks of the exchange relationships themselves. What then is the validity of Polanyi's substantivist model to the analysis of the economy at Ugarit? Based on these conclusions, the answer seems to be two-fold. First, classifying economic activities as one of these patterns helps to identify the power relationship involved in the activity. Second, it can be useful (as argued for by Liveranil-? to see how the parties involved in the transaction viewed the activity. Liverani has demonstrated that not only do people tend to understand economic activity in categories roughly consistent with Polanyi's, but that they describe those actions differently depending on the circumstances.V This substantivist model, then, allows one to understand the power involved in the transaction as well as the way the economic actors interpreted (and described) the transaction. There are some aspects of economic activity that the Polanyian models are not well equipped to help interpret. The issue of debt and credit is particularly problematic, as debt relationships can be understood equally in all three categories, depending on the circumstance.f" At least for the ancient Near East, it seems more appropriate to see Polanyi's category of "redistribution" as a type of debt or credit relationship. Debt relationships seem to be the primary means through which larger economic actors gain resources and distribute resources through other ventures. Indeed, significant evidence for debt patronage has been identified at Ugarit, and while the end result of debt patronage may have been "redistribution", this is not the emic means used to understand

369

individuals in debt to the king.7° The numerous mentions of these individuals in the palace archives (see Chapter Three for a complete discussion) demonstrate that the palace actively used debt as a means of marshalling productive labor and/or gaining commodities. Debt was an important component of economic life at Ugarit; in order for Polanyian models to be useful, this form of integration must also be considered. Polanyian models further do not assist in identifying the purposes of wealth accumulation. Formalist models tend to see capital accumulation and investment as primary driving forces. Polanyi's driving force, cultural contexts, are too reductionist to be of value. Capital accumulation cannot be rejected out of hand. The debt relationships described above may reflect drives for capital accumulation. However, based on Renger's criticisms, it is more likely that debt was a means of ensuring a secure flow of goods and labor. This then, is one of the primary methods of gaining economic power. The flow of goods and labor from one sphere of life are guaranteed and this then facilitates the use of these resources in other contexts. Here, an alternative motivation to capital accumulation is offered, roughly based on the ideas of Veblen discussed in Chapter One. Prestige goods provided the owner with the ability to alter his or her status within the local community. Chapter Seven details many of the luxury goods found at Ugarit, mostly in elite or funerary contexts. It is likely that the drive to gain these goods lay at the foundation of many economic activities. Certainly this was an important goal in many situations, a goal that is obscured through Polanyian analysis. The conclusions presented here about the efficacy of Polanyian models are mixed. On the one hand, his patterns of integration can be helpful in identifying power relationships as well as the emic perspectives of the actors themselves. On the other hand, more complicated economic activities, such as debt or conspicuous consumption, are obscured through the slavish application of these models. Now that Polanyi's system of investigation has been critiqued in light of evidence from the Network-based approach, it is important to identify, in particular, the various loci of economic authority at Ugarit. 6. SUBSTANTIVE ECONOMIC AUTHORITY AT UGARIT

that process. Numerous texts attest to debt relationships that existed at Ugarit. 69 Debts

Liverani 2001. Liverani 2001. 68 Here it is important to recall Renger's observation (1994, p. 203) that offering credit was not a means of investment, but a means of hoarding wealth. 69 At least 28 administrative texts explicitly describe debt relationships, and if one includes redistributive texts under this category, that number could be increased to 90. 66 67

As argued in Chapter One, there are a variety of possible bases for power (in the Weberian sense) in economic relationships and situations. Throughout this study, economic relationships have been investigated using the tools of social theorists (i.e., Bourdieu, Gramsci). In some ways, this may seem at odds with the more localized

70

Rowe 2002.

370

371

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

and historically specific approach employed in the Network-based approach, but this is in fact not the case. The large body of social theory available about how power relations are structured can well be used in tandem with the Network-based approach. A theoretical base derived from anthropology and sociology helps understand larger strategies of power accumulation, especially across the various nodes of economic contact. Indeed, using the insights of social theorists about generalized patterns in human behavior, it is possible to identify the emergent systems of economic authority through the Network-based approach. At Ugarit, the palace in particular seems to have engaged in a larger strategy for accumulating economic power. As has been stated previously, the palace's position at the nodal point of a variety of exchange and social relations allowed it to wield a significant degree of economic clout. The palace had the ability to extract, transfer, and employ resources over a wide range of networks, and in so doing articulated socio-economic relations where the palace was dominant. What follows is a summary of some specific ways that the palace was able to perpetuate economic dominance. These global strategies were not created through top-down administration but through a haphazard arrangement of economic actions. So it should not necessarily be viewed as a conscious strategy, but rather as an emergent system.

kind of labor or performing some service for the king,73 The ability to extend credit or loans was not limited to the palace, as texts listing guarantors have been found in Yabninu's House (KTU 4.634), and in the House of the Letter (KTU 4.699). A list of silver debts (KTU 4.262) found in Rashapabu's House further attests to the ability of non-royal individuals to extend credit at Ugarit. Debt and debt relationships are apparent at the city and state level as well. The various treaties and impositions put on Ugarit by the Hittites have been discussed in Chapter Eight (see for example KTU 4.610). While these situations are not extensions of credit, tribute obligations tie the subordinate to the superior through compulsory payments of goods and or labor (in these cases military). Ugarit initially entered into the treaty situation as a means of gaining military security from the larger Hittite empire.Z" Ugarit's entry into the tributary relationship was structured as voluntary and thus should not be seen entirely as an example of the coercive force of the Hittites. Similar tributary relationships existed between the city of Ugarit and the villages within its borders, discussed in detail in Chapter Eight.75 Uniformity in production is apparent at the inter-village level within the kingdom. From the viewpoint of the palace administration, the same types of goods and labor seem to have been extracted from most of the outlying villages; there does not seem to have been any kind of division of productive activity on a regional scale. The palace did not organize production specific to each village, but rather seems to have assumed that the same kind of productive activities were engaged in at each village. By creating a tributary, debt-based relationship, the palace was able to gain access to these goods and this labor without directly intervening in local production. The palace does not directly intervene in production in these villages. Rather, the palace is situated in a node of political relationships between the various villages and as such is able to transfer resources from one network to another. Similarly, tax collection and the imposition of tax obligations can be seen as an institution of indebtedness, but on a more massive scale. Evidence is present in great quantities that the Royal Palace engaged in tax collection. Yet there is minimal evidence for the infrastructure of tax collection and it is uncertain whether the palace directly taxed its subjects or participated in some form of tax farming in collusion with local elites. Some organization of taxation is apparent, in terms of whose taxation was recorded together. Occupational groups were taxed and geographic regions were taxed, and from an administrative perspective were considered associated units. Individuals were likely also taxed, paying through labor. However, the evidence for this is not usually expressed in terms that definitely point to taxation. Local elites gave tribute to the

Power Through Debt Debt acted as a means of controlling labor and resources in the ancient Near East. Steinkeller has identified situations where credit was extended when there were no means of paying back the 10an.71 He concludes from this that loans were made to gain control of land and labot.? The evidence at Ugarit does not allow evaluation of debtors' ability to repay loans. It does, however, demonstrate that debt provided a valuable means for the debtor to control land, labor, and the flow of goods, much in the way that was recognized by Steinkeller. The clearest manifestations of debt-based power relationships are instances of loans extended to individuals, from other individuals or larger institutions. The evidence for individual debt has already been presented above, and needs not be dealt with again. Debts in amounts of silver and amounts of commodities are both attested in the Ugaritic record. Records exist that record the repayment of the debt (for example KTU 4.667). Other tablets list guarantors of individuals who had become indebted (see KTU 4.347 for example). If Rowe's theory that the bns mlk were individuals who had entered into a debt relationship with the king is accurate, then this demonstrates a situation where the creditor gained control of productive labor. As Rowe noticed, every attested situation of the bni mlk involves these individuals engaging in some

73 71

72

Steinkeller 2002, p. 110. Steinkeller 2002, p. 113.

74 75

Rowe 2002, p. 6. Klengel 1992, pp. 132-133. For a discussion of the specific texts, see Chapter Eight.

373

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

palace, and while the terminology used for these situations does not explicitly reflect taxation, the nature of the activity should be considered as such. Since there is very minimal archaeological evidence that has been recovered from Ugarit that points to taxation activities, this textual evidence is particularly important.

not) the values of non-elites to become consistent with the values of elites."? This theoretical perspective clarifies a certain observation about Ugaritic material culture. From a material culture perspective, Egyptian elite goods are found in great abundance at Ugarit. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that a culturally hegemonic relationship existed between the two regions. However, from a textual perspective it is very clear that Ugarit was incorporated into the Hittite empire and that the Hittites held political and military dominance. The interpretation suggested in Chapter Eight (based partially on Feldman's understanding of the cultural significance of these luxury goods) is that Egyptian elites did hold a certain degree of hegemonic authority over Ugaritians. Egyptian art and styles were the art and styles of elites. Leadership and authority were communicated through Egyptian media. So while Egypt had no political or military authority over Ugarit, the elites still relied on Egyptian modes of communicating status and subsequently relied on Egyptian commercial imports (or local imitations). The status and power of elite individuals at Ugarit (including the king) was communicated to other members of the community using Egyptian materials and symbols of power. Egyptian and Ugaritic relations are not the only example of hegemonic power situations at Ugarit; certainly local elites were brought under the hegemony of the palace. However, the Egyptian-Ugaritic example adequately demonstrates the way that this type of power was manifest at Ugarit.

372

Power Through Practice The utility of the theoretical perspectives of Bourdieu and Giddens for the study of Ugarit has been demonstrated throughout this work. Both scholars argue that the practice of everyday life reifies and strengthens pre-existing social and political conditions. 76 At a certain point, actions that are engaged in on an everyday scale are no longer questioned, no matter how arbitrary the structure of these activities may be.?7 Two manifestations of this at Ugarit are especially apparent (although this is not to say that these are the only two): palatial administration and domestic production. The palace administration has been discussed at length in this study, due to the wealth of information available on this topic. The production and circulation of goods, the flow of labor, and the distribution of equipment are all issues dealt with by the palace. The complexity and scale of economic administration engaged in by the palace suggest that these kinds of administration (discussed in detail in Chapter 4) worked on an everyday scale. The power of the palace to administer and regulate was likely not questioned, and the continued action of administration reaffirmed this power. This was likely one of the most effective means of control that the palace had available to it. Domestic production techniques and organization were likely equally unquestioned. Chapter Seven detailed the standardization of the domestic means of production at Ugarit (including agricultural equipment, textile production equipment, stone tools, weights, and moulds) as well as the relative standardization of the organization of space.?" Domestic production was manifest in practically the same manner in each lowerstatus block, with each block sharing similar resources. The production activities in which each household participated were likely not questioned (even to the extent of what tools were used); likely the organization of ownership of the means of production was similarly unquestioned. Power Through Hegemony Gramsci's elaboration of the concept of hegemony has been discussed in Chapter One. According to Gramsci, hegemonic power involves manipulating (consciously or See Bourdieu 1977 and Giddens 1984. Bourdieu 1977, p. 164. 78 To clarify, while each individual house has a unique layout, rhere is a general consistency in terms of certain types of room function and installations.

Power Through a Monopoly of Force For the most part, military and coercive authority has been neglected in this study. This oversight is justifiable based on Weber's argument that economic action is by definition peaceful action.f" However, it would be remiss to not mention one of the economic methods for controlling military power within the kingdom - the monopoly of military power through the control of the distribution of weapons and the demand for the provision of military forces from the villages and possibly occupational groups. By regulating military force in these two ways, the palace maintained a monopoly of force within the kingdom of Ugarit. This is essentially an economic type of control as it reflects a control over equipment (weapons) and labor (military service obligations). The palace's monopoly on force allowed it to engage in economic activities otherwise unavailable for other economic actors at Ugarit. For example, coercive force allowed the palace to guarantee land transfers. Likewise, the palace could support risky foreign ventures, otherwise too dangerous for the independent economic agent. From an economic perspective, the palace could maintain a military force because it was able to transfer resources derived from other networks into this particular arena.

76 77

79 80

Femia 1982, pp. 27-28. Weber 1978, p. 63.

374

375

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

Weapons are tracked in many texts found within the palace administration. These texts tend to take two forms: notations about chariots and their equipment (KTU 4.145, KTU 4.180, and KTU 4.392 for example) and notations about who has what weapons (KTU 4.624 for example). Perhaps the most interesting of these tablets is KTU 4.63 found outside of the palace, in an elite residence designated The House of the Military Governor (see Chapter Six). The relationship of this house to the palace is not clear, in spite of the name given to the house by the French team. The text itself is a detailed list of individuals organized by region of occupation that notes how many bows and shields each person has and gives a total amount of bows and shields for each region. This is a relatively detailed record of the military equipment throughout the kingdom - recorded at the level of the individual, attesting to a high degree of control over military equipment. Likewise, as discussed in Chapter Eight, villages were required to provide individuals for military service to the palace. Numbers of soldiers (brd) from particular regions and villages within the kingdom of Ugarit are listed in tablets like KTU 4.683. Similarly, KTU 4.179 lists quantities of the same type of soldier (brd), but in this text they seem to be supplied by occupational groups. The text may also record amounts of certain occupational specialists performing military service. Texts such as these demonstrate the palace's ability to mobilize troops from throughout the kingdom. While strengthening the king's own military, this kind of mobilization perpetuates the economic connection between the palace and non-royal groups.

The domestic scale of production is attested best archaeologically, especially through the relative uniformity of material culture related to production within the household. There is minimal evidence for production at the semi-institutional level.F The administrative apparatus from these houses center on trade, tribute, and debt. Likewise, the archaeology of the large houses has not revealed evidence for production equipment, like the non-elite houses. So it is safe to talk about palace level production and domestic production. As stated above, the evidence for palatial production (and circulation) is found in the textual record. To briefly reiterate the conclusions reached in Chapters Four and Five, the palace produced wine, oil, cereals, and probably textiles. Evidence for the distribution of these items to specific individuals is readily apparent in the palace archive. Archaeologically, a less complete picture of palatial economic activities emerges. Minimal evidence for production has been recovered, although this may reflect poor excavation strategy rather than a problem inherent in the evidence. Distribution may be reflected in the large pithoi and the identifiable access routes in the palace. Archaeological remnants of production are lacking, but this is consistent with the textual record. Palace-based production activities seem to have taken place at gis, discussed in the following subsection. Identifying non-elite production activity in the textual evidence is somewhat problematic since it involves making assumptions about which individuals mentioned in these texts were not elite. Generally though, it seems safe to say that non-elites engaged in production activities, both specialized, agricultural, and undefined labor (directly for the palace). Archaeologically, non-elite activity is quite easy to identify, Uniformly, these people engaged in subsistence agriculture and/or subsistence agro-pastoralism. Textile and secondary food production are amply attested in the archaeological record. Weights may indicate that non-elites engaged in trade or could hire labor (as do the presence of standardized stone tools and standardized house forms). Moulds likewise attest to the possibility that non-elites could hire specialist workers. However, it also suggests that some degree of specialist activity was engaged in by household members, along with subsistence agriculture, textile production, and secondary food production. Now that the scales of production at Ugarit have been identified, it is helpful to review what was actually produced at Ugarit. Agricultural production was the most substantive industry at Ugarit. The production of cereals is mostly attested indirectly, through texts recording the distribution of cereals, for example PRU 6 101 (RS 19.130).83 Cereal production is also identifiable archaeologically, especially through the ubiquitous presence of sickle blades in domestic settings. 84

7. Loci

OF PALATIAL ECONOMIC AUTHORITY AT UGARIT

Now that some of the mechanisms through which economic power was manifest at Ugarit have been identified, it is important to turn to some of the specific institutions through which the palace and others were able to gain, store, and transmit resources in its overall emergent strategy. The most important social and economic institutions and situations that facilitated the transmission of resources between networks were: areas of production at Ugarit; the institution of the gt; class and status; and occupational groups (perceived as guilds in prior works). Production at Ugarit Production at Ugarit seems to have occurred at two distinct levels, the state-level and the household level, with the possibility of a third level.81 Production at the state level is well attested by the administrative apparatus as manifest textually (see Chapter Four).

81 The possibility that occupational specialist collectives would have constituted a third level will be dealt with in the discussion of guilds at Ugarit.

82 Cultic elites, however, from the textual evidence, seem to have organized production to some degree. KTU 4.27 demonstrates that cultic elites had trade contacts throughout the kingdom. Cultic activities should also be considered a type of specialized labor, although the specifics of this are too broad to be discussed here. 83 More will be said about cereal production texts relating to the gt below. 84 See Coqueuniot 1991.

376

377

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

Cereals were not the only agricultural commodity produced at Ugarit. The production of wine is well known from Ugarit. 85 The best evidence for this is textual, once again mostly in texts recording the distribution of this good, except for texts detailing practices on the various gt.86 Olives were grown (see KTU 4.164, KTU 4.429, and KTU 4.764), and olive oil was produced from this crop. Once again, the textual evidence for the production of olive oil is mostly indirect, based on texts recording the distribution of this commodity (such as KTU 4.352).87 Archaeologically, there is excellent evidence for olive oil production. At least one olive oil press was found in most domestic blocks, indicating that oil was produced on a domestic scale." Texts discovered in the palace also indicate that the palace distributed (and likely produced) salt (see KTU 4.340 and KTU 4.344). A similar text (KTU 4.720) found outside of the palace may indicate that salt was produced outside of the palatial context as well. Textiles were also produced at Ugarit. The materials necessary for the secondary production of textiles have been discovered in the domestic zones at Ugarit (see Chapter Seven). Textile manufacture by the palace may be attested by the many distribution texts (see Chapter Four).89 Occupational specialists involved in textile production have been identified in the palace record (kbfm and ksdm), but the specific work done by these individuals is not clear. On a smaller scale, metallurgy, woodwork, and stonework all were in engaged in locally at Ugarit. Ugaritic words for metallurgical workers and craftsmen of various sorts are attested. Texts detailing the distribution of raw materials for these industries have been identified, for example the records of the circulation of wood in PRU 6 113 (RS 19.26) and PRU 6 114 (19.71). Likewise, production equipment for this kind of work has been discovered archaeologically, as has evidence for standardization of these industries (see Chapter Seven).

institution was exclusively royal, but since all evidence for this institution comes from palatial records, the following discussion certainly reflects a royal institution. Analogous non-royal institutions may have existed, but as there is no evidence for them, any suggestion could only be hypothetical. Since no gt has been identified archaeologically (and hence excavated), any reconstruction of the specific activities at a gt is based entirely on textual data. The palace administration tracked the labor resources at these estates, through census texts. KTU 4.122 lists individuals at a specific estate. KTU 4.297, KTU 4.307, and KTU 4.320 list individuals present at a number of gls. More specific labor resources (including draught animals) are also recorded, for example KTU 4.618. The names of commercial agents (bdl) at a specific gt are recorded in KTU 4.96. Labor resources are not the only interest that the palace administration had in the gls. KTU 4.636 records ration supplies (cereals) at gt's throughout the kingdom, noting to whom these resources were allocated as well. KTU 4.243 lists similar information but is not restricted to gls. Total amounts of grain at various gls are recorded in KTU 4.271, KTU 4.345, and KTU 4.397. Cereals as well as wine at different gls are the subjects of KTU 4.400. KTU 4.213 includes notations of amounts of wine at specified gls. Amounts of silver may be listed by gt in KTU 4.139. Animals taken from various locations, including gis, are recorded in KTU 4.296. KTU 4.25 records amounts of tools at certain locations, some of which are gls. Landholding and authority are complicated when it comes to this institution. KTU 4.110 records the Id ubdy ilJtm< dt bd skn "ubdy-fields of GN that are in the possession of the skn". What follows are a list of fields (identified as "field of the son of PN in gt GN"). This text demonstrates that a royal official (the skn, see Chapter Three) had authority over numerous fields located at a specified gt. Whether or not the personal names through which the fields are identified reflect ownership is unclear; that would certainly create a complex administrative situation. KTU 4.103, may indicate that the fields listed (following line 45) were becoming incorporated into the specified gt. None of these texts explicitly demonstrate what kinds of activities were participated in at gls. Given the preponderance of reference to fields, unspecialized laborers, draught animals, and cereals, farming seems the most likely candidate. Other activities may also have been present. Amounts of wine, for example, are listed according to gt. Perhaps this reflects the production of this resource at certain locations, as opposed to simply the distribution of wine to these locations. The strongest evidence that the palace administered these estates comes from the fact that these texts were found within the royal palace. The mention of the skn in KTU 4.110 also suggests direct palatial supervision. Given this evidence, the gt is the best candidate for the location of royal production, fitting the description suggested by Libolt."

The Institution of the gt

As mentioned above, there is minimal evidence for production within the confines of the palace at Ugarit, yet there is significant textual evidence detailing production. The most likely loci for royal production were the agricultural estates known as gt (Akkadian dimtu). This term and its interpretations have been discussed in Chapter Three. It is now possible to make some conclusions about the nature of the gt and what kinds of production activities took place on the gt's. There is no evidence that this See Zamora 2000. For more on rhe specific rypes of texts, see Chapter Four. In brief, the text rypes attesting to wine production include distribution lists (like KTU 4.230) and sales texts (like KTU 4.219). 87 See Chapter Four for a more specific discussion of these rypes of texts. 88 See Chapter Seven and Callot 1994, pp. 190-194. 89 Examples of these kinds of textile distribution texts include: KTU 4.131, KTU 4.144, and PRU 6 126 (RS 19.28). 85

86

90

Libolt 1985, p. 57.

378

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

Class and Status at Ugarit The study of both textual and archaeological data results in similar conclusions about class and status divisions at Ugarit. At the apex of Ugaritic society"! was the king and associated royal family. The Royal Palace at Ugarit is far and away the largest structure. Likewise, the textual evidence accords the king and the palace (as a unit) the highest position within the city. Beneath the palace were the elite non-royal members of the city. Here once again, texts and material culture allow strikingly similar conclusions. Elite residencies are materially evident. Typical elite features include: royal style architecture and construction techniques; luxury goods in non-funerary contexts; and archives of tablets. The study of textual evidence allows the investigator to recognize particularly elite members: individuals with close relationships to the palace; individuals involved in elite institutions including cultic; and individuals engaged in long distance trade and diplomacy are all examples of the types of elites identified through texts. The correlation between the textual evidence and the material culture is evident in these cases; the residences of these elite individuals have been recognized. Non-elite members of Ugaritic society are also evident in both the texts and material culture. The Mission de Ras Shamra while under Yon's directorship explored the homes of non-elite individuals, and their material culture has been discussed at length in Chapter Seven. Non-elites make up a substantial proportion of the subjects of administrative texts found in the palace, mostly in the form of name lists. Individuals are listed as performing various kinds of tasks, and the productive lives of these individuals-", as well as their subordinate status to the palace, is apparent. These non-elites should be further classified at Ugarit, based on the palace administrative perspective, as named and non-named individuals. This is not to suggest that there were people without names at Ugarit, but rather to suggest that there were people whose identities were not important enough from the palace's perspective to warrant being mentioned by name. This kind of distinction is not apparent in the material culture, an indicator that both datasets must be considered. The Question of Guilds The textual and the archaeological data about class/status are generally in agreement. The same cannot necessarily be said about the issue of craft specialization. Although the two data sets make sense in comparison, and are not necessarily contradictory, one

91 By apex, only material life at Ugarit is referred to. Certainly deities were at a higher level; however it is arguable whether divine beings should be considered in the classstructure of a society,when approached from an eric perspective (see Smith 2001b, pp. 54-66). 92 More will be said about craft specialization below.

379

could not predict the nature of one type of data based on the examination of only the other class of evidence. First, the conclusions derived from the textual evidence should be considered. fu has been mentioned frequently in this study (see Chapters Four and Five for the most thorough discussions) guilds had initially been posited as existing at Ugarit, based on the frequent appearance of occupational categories in administrative texts, as well as the seemingly corporate actions of these groups. While positing a situation akin to guilds overstates the evidence, without a doubt the tablets provide ample evidence for skilled craft specialists within Ugarit. From the palace's perspective, craft specialists were grouped according to specialization. Guilds had initially been identified within the textual corpus at Ugarit." Once distinct occupational based collectives had been identified, Schaeffer used the discovery of various specialized equipment as evidence for the presence of specialist quarters within the city of Ugarit. 94 The "discovery" of guild quarters in Ugarit reified the interpretation of the administrative use of occupational terminology as indicative of the presence of guilds. In fact, as has been discussed previously, there is minimal evidence for the existence of self-conscious groups that understood themselves as collectives, outside of a royal administrative framework. Likewise, the archaeological evidence for the existence of artisan's quarters is non-existent. The use of archaeological and textual evidence in tandem did not lead to the initial suggestion that guilds existed, but using one type of evidence to "check" another type of evidence led to the erroneous conclusion that the existence of guilds had been "proven". The material culture evidence about craft specialization is equally complicated, although in very different ways. At first glance, there is minimal evidence for craft specialization in the archaeology of Ugarit. No production zones have been firmly identified; it must be remembered that the initial accounts of the identification of particular craft zones at Ugarit has been abandoned. Likewise, the material culture that has been published from the homes at Ugarit is strikingly uniform. Each block of houses had access to oil and textile production facilities. Weights, agricultural implements, and moulds were found in roughly uniform amounts throughout the households as well. Indeed, from this evidence it would appear that all lower status households engaged in the same kinds of productive activities. However, closer analysis of the material remains demonstrates that there is in fact evidence for craft specialization. The numerous luxury goods at Ugarit hint at the existence of craft specialists, although most of these types of goods seem to have been acquired from elsewhere. Still, the ability to possess a luxury item implies that some degree of surplus must be produced in order to be able to gain access to the luxury goods. The highly standardized nature of the material culture also provides evidence

93

94

See Gray 1952, p. 50 and Rainey 1962, pp. 166-167. Schaeffer 1961-1962, pp. 190-191; Schaeffer 1963, p. 127.

380

381

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

CONCLUSIONS: A NETWORK-BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC MODALITIES

for a culture of craft specialization; stone tools, and house construction techniques are so uniform that these craftspeople had to have learned specialized skills. Reading the textual and archaeological evidence together, some conclusions can be made about craft specialization and the division of labor at Ugarit. Specialist production was a part-time activity. All households engaged in basic subsistence practices, textile manufacturing and food production, as well as some kind of agriculture or agro-pastoralism. Many individuals, however, likely participated in specialized production. The strongest evidence for this specialized production comes from the palatial administration. Some sort of affiliation with palace and specialists has to be posited; whether the specialists worked directly for the palace, or simply worked with the palace to acquire and distribute resources is unclear.

results is one that seeks to understand the social networks of exchange, how they were organized, and how they were maintained. There was no "economy" that was either purely market driven, purely redistributive, or purely reciprocal. It is equally unlikely that a non-industrial "economy" was so dominated by one mode that that mode determined the nature of all of that society's social and economic relationships. The Network-based approach allows scholars to investigate the economy without imposing a single, simple model. Yet at the same time, it simplifies data (possibly huge amounts of data) in such a way that it can still be understood and analyzed. The Network-based approach points to and identifies nodes of exchange relationships and allows economic activity to be viewed at the macro and micro levels. It allows scholars to approach the particularly laconic texts and ambiguous archaeological data without imposing an a priori notion of "economy" upon the data. As such, it should have great utility in the investigation of economic activity.

8. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDY OF ANCIENT ECONOMIC ACTIVITY As has been demonstrated, a Network-based model is useful for reconstructing ancient economic modalities, especially in a situation like Ugarit's, where the evidence is particularly diverse and complicated. Indeed, the utility of the Network-based model is that it organizes a significant amount of complex data into a form that is easily comprehended. At the same time, it does not limit the scholar's ability to recognize the significant role of human choice in economic activities; it emphasizes constraints and possibilities rather than merely listing examples of actions as the end product. The Network-based model does not overly simplify- the ancient economic reality but rather organizes that reality into a comprehensible form. Economic activity at Ugarit should not be viewed as a total system but as an effect of an emergent network of contingent exchange relationships. The palace, while not in control of the economy, is able to act as the most powerful economic actor through its unique position at the nodal point of several social and exchange relationships (see Figure 9.1). The palace was able to perpetuate this dominance not through top-down administration but through the haphazard arrangement of receiving and distributing goods, which allowed the palace to successfully transfer resources across networks. The emergent dominance of the palace facilitated the creation and articulation of various social relationships at Ugarit, as mediated through exchange relationships. Power at Ugarit seems to be derived, not from an overarching plan or imposition but from an emergent process based on smaller strategies of resource accumulation and transmission. Although the conclusions above are specific to Ugarit, they point to some important perspectives for the study of non-industrial economies in general, especially as manifest in the ancient Near East. First, in an investigation of non-industrial economy, seeking to study or identify- "the economy" is misguided. The investigator should not seek to identify- what kind of economy was present or to identify- which social formation was the dominant mode of exchange. An approach that will yield more positive

9.

AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This analysis leaves room for further study on the topic of Ugaritic economic modalities and the methodology for studying ancient economies in general. For the specific study of Ugarit, the continued excavations and publication efforts of the Mission de Ras Shamra will continue to provide new texts and new material culture that will undoubtedly affect the view of the Ugaritic economy presented above. As improved archaeological methods are utilized, the full value of archaeology as a means of studying the economy will be apparent. From a comparative perspective, the Network-based model should be useful for studying other ancient situations. Careful application of the model to other sites and regions will likely demonstrate its utility as a means of organizing diverse and complicated data. It will be very helpful to apply the model to a site where the material culture is better understood. Sites such as Nippur (which has been well excavated and has produced numerous texts) would be good case studies. Likewise, sites lacking significant textual data, such as those in Syro-Palestine, would be useful areas for testing the Network-based models and conclusions with only material culture as data. Successful efforts along these lines could lead to new approaches beyond the ancient Near East. A site like Teotihuacan, in Mesoamerica, could be productively analyzed using the Network-based approach. This study of the economic modalities at Ugarit opens up new possibilities for investigation of ancient Ugarit and the investigation of ancient economic activity in general.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

383

"La Lettre Hani 81/4 et l'Identification du Site de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie)". Syria 61: 15-23. 1996 "Etudes sur Alalah et Ougarit a l' age du Bronze Recent". Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolia 37: 47-65. 2000 "Scribes and Literature". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 199. ARTHUR et al. (eds.). 1997 The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley. AsTOUR, M. 1970 "Ma'hadu, the Harbor ofUgarit". Journal ofthe Economic and Social History of the Orient 13: 113-127. 1971 "A Letter and Two Economic Texts", in The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets, edited by 1. Fisher, pp. 23-29, Analecta Orientalia 48. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1972 "The Merchant Class of Ugarit", in Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebeiten, edited by D. O. Edzard, pp. 11-26. Munich: Beck. 1973 "Ugarit and the Aegean", in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H Gordon, edited by H. Hoffner, pp. 17-27. Kevelaer, Germany: Butzon & Bercker. 1979 "The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ushnatu". Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 13-28. 1981 "Les frontiers et les districts du royaume d'Ugarit (elements de topographie historique regionale)". Ugarit-Forschungen 13: 1-12. 1981 "Ugarit and the Great Powers", in Ugarit in Retrospect, edited by G. Young, pp. 3-29. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. 1995 "La topographie du royaume d'Ougarit", in Lepays d'Ougarit autourde 1200 avo 1984

BIBLIOGRAPHY R. McC. 1974 "Anthropological Perspectives on Ancient Trade". Current Anthropology 15/3: 239-258.

ADAMS,

1981

Heartland of Cities: Surveys ofAncient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain ofthe Euphrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1982

"Property Rights and Functional Tenure in Mesopotamian Rural Communities", in Societies and Languages ofthe Ancient Near East, edited by J. N. Postgate, pp. 1-14. Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd. AERTS, E. and KLENGEL, H. (ed.) 1990 The TOwn as Regional Economic Centre in theAncient Near East. Leuven: Leuven University Press. AHL, S.

1973

Epistolary Texts fom Ugarit: Structural and LexicalCorrespondences in Epistles in Akkadian and Ugaritic, PhD Dissertation, Brandeis University.

AKERMANS, P. and G. SCHWARTZ

2003

TheArchaeology ofSyria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16, 000-300 BC). Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. ALBRIGHT, W. 1931 "The Site of Tirzah and the Topography of Western Manasseh". Journal ofthe Palestine OrientalSociety 11: 241-251. ALT, A. 1954 "Bemerkungen zu den Verwaltungs- und Rechtsurkunden von Ugarit und Alalach". Die Welt des Orients II (1954-1959): 7-18. 1954-1966 "Bemerkungen zu den Verwaltungs- und Rechtsurkunden von Ugarit und Alalach". Die Welt des Orients 2/1 :7-18; 2/3:234-243; 2/4:338-342; 3/1 :3-18. 1959a "Hohe Beamte in Ugarit", in Kleine Schriften zur Geshichte des Volkes Israel, Volume 3, pp. 1186-1197. Munich: Beck. 1959b "Menschen ohne Name", in Kleine Schriften zur Geshichte des Volkes Israel, Volume 3, pp. 198-213. Munich: Beck.

P. 1992

AMIET,

Corpus des cylindres de RasShamra-Ougarit, Vol. 2: Sceaux-cylindres en hematite et pierres diverses. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilizations.

ANDRE-SALVINI, B. and SALVINI, M. 2000 "The Trilingual Vocabulary (RS 94.2939)." Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 198. AI'PADURAI, A. (ed.). 1986 The Social Life ofThings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ARCHI, A. "The 'Names and Professions List': More Fragments From Ebla." Revue d'Assyri1984 ologie et d'arcbeologie orientale 78: 171-174. ARCHI, A. (ed.). 1984 Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient Near East. Roma: Edizioni dell'Ateneo. AANAUD,D. 1983 Textes Syriens de l'Age du Bronze Recent. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA.

]-C Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 [uin-I" juillet 1993, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11, edited by M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 55-71. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. AUSTIN, M. and VIDAL-NAQUET, P.

1977

Economic and Social History ofAncientGreece: An Introduction. London: B.T. Bats-

ford. BACKHOUSE, R.

1985 A History ofModern Economic Analysis. New York: Basil Blackwell. BANNING, E. 2003 "Housing Neolithic Farmers". Near Eastern Archaeology 66: 4-21. BANNING, E. and BYRD, B. F. 1989 "Alternative Approaches for Exploring Levantine Neolithic Architecture". Paleorient 15: 154-160. BARBER, W. 1967 A History ofEconomic Thought. Gloucester, MA.: Hammondsworth Books. BARAHONA, F. 2001 "Sistemas de masas de Ugarit", Aula Orientalis 19 (1): 5-21. BARRET,]. 2001 "Agency and the Archaeological Record", in Archaeological Theory TOday, edited by I. Hodder, pp.141-164. Malden, MA.: Polity Press. BASS, G. 1998 "Sailing Between the Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium BC", in TheAegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, edited by E. Cline and D. Harris-Cline, pp. 183-192. Belgium: KLIEMO. BECKMAN, G. "Hittite Administration in Syria in the Light of the Texts from Hattusha, 1992 Ugarit, and Emar". Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25: 41-49. 1999 Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Second Edition. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

384

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

BENARTZI, S. and THALER, R. 2000 "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle", in Choices, Values, and Frames, edited by D. Kahneman and A Tversky, pp. 301-316. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BHATIA, H. 1980 History ofEconomic Thought. New York: Advent Books. BIENKOWSKI, P. 1987 "The Role of Hazar in the Late Bronze Age". Palestine Exploration Quarterly 119: 50-61. 1989 "Prosperity and Decline in LBA Canaan: A Reply to Liebowitz and Knapp". Bulletin ofthe American Schools ofOrientalResearch 275: 59-63. BLACK,]. A GEORGE, and N. POSTGATE. 2000 A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Second Corrected Printing. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. BLAu, ]. and GREENFIELD, ]. 1970 "Ugaritic Glosses". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 200: 11-17. BORDREUIL, P. 1984 "Arrou, Gourou, et Sapanou: Circonscriptions administratives et geographie mythique du Royaume d'Ougarit". Syria 61: 1-10. 1985 "KBD: 'Ensemble' dans les texts alphabetiques d'Ougarit". Studi Epigrafici Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 2: 89-92. 1988 "Nouvelles restitutions de Toponyms de l'Ougarit". Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 9-18. 1989 "A. propos de la topographie econornique de l'Ougarit: ]ardins du midi et paturages du Nord". Syria 66: 263-274. 2000a "An Efficiently Administered Kingdom". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 190-191. 2000b "The South-Arabian Abecedary". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 197. BORDREUIL, P. (ed.) Une bibliotheque au sud de la ville: Les Textes de la 34e campagne (1973). Ras 1991 Shamra-Ougarit 7. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. BORDREUIL, P. and CAQUOT, A 1980 "Les texts en cuneiformes alphabetiques decouvertes en 1978 aIbn Hani". Syria 57: 343-373. BORDREUIL, P., LAGARCE, ]., LAGARCE, E., BOUNNI, A and SALIBY, N. 1984 "Les decouvertes archeologiques et epigraphiques de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie) en 1983: Un lot d'archives administratives". Comptes Rendus des Seances Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 398-438. BORDREUIL, P. and MALBRAN-LABAT, F. 1995 "Les archives de la maison d'Ourtenou". Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 443-449. BORDREUIL, P. and PARDEE, D. 1984 "Le sceau nominal de'Ammiyidtamrou roi d'Ougarit". Syria 61: 11-14. 1993 "Textes ougaritiques oublies et 'trasfuges'". Semitica 41-42: 23-58. BORDREUIL, P. and PARDEE, D. (eds.). La trouvaille epigraphique de /'Ougarit, vol. 1 Concordance. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 1989 V. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1991-1992 "Textes ougaritiques oublies et 'transfuges"'. Semitica 41/42: 23-58. 1999-2000 "Catalogue raisonne des textes ougaritique de la Maison d'Outenou". Aula Orientalis 17-18: 23-38.

2001

BOSSUET, G. 1978

385

"Textes Alphabetiques", in Etudes Ougaritiques L Travaux 1985-1995, Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIV; edited by M. Yon and D. Arnaud, pp. 341-392. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. "Reconnaissance Archeologique du site de Ras Ibn Hani par Prospection Electrique", Syria 1955: 307-311.

BOUNNI, A 1979

"La Quatrierne campagne de fouille (1978) a Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie), Lumieres nouvelles sur la Royaume d'Ugarit, les Peoples de la Mer et la ville hellenistique". Comptes Rendus des Seances Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 277-295. BOUNNI, A, LAGARCE, ]., LAGARCE, E., and SALIBY, N. 1976 "Rapport preliminaire sur la Premiere campagne de fouilles (1975) a Ibn Hani (Syrie). Syria 53: 233-279. 1978 "Rapport preliminaire sur la Deuxieme campagne de fouilles (1975) a Ibn Hani (Syrie)". Syria 55: 233-301. BOUNNI, A, LAGARCE, ]., LAGARCE, E., SALIBY, N., and BADRE, L. 1979 "Rapport preliminaire sur la Troisierne campagne de fouilles (1975) a Ibn Hani (Syrie)". Syria 56: 217-234. BOUNNI, A, LAGARCE, ]., LAGARCE, E., SALIBY, N., BADRE, L., LERICHE, P. and TouMA, M. 1981 "Rapport preliminaire sur la Quatrieme campagne de fouilles (1975) a Ibn Hani (Syrie)". Syria 58: 215-299. BOURDIEU, P. 1977 Outline ofa Theory ofPractice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoYD, ]. 1975 A Collection and Examination ofthe Ugaritic vocabulary Contained in theAkkadian Texts from Ras Shamra. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago. BOYER, G. 1955 "La place des textes d'Ugarit dans l'histoire de l'ancien droit oriental", in Le

Palais Royald'Ugarit III (PRU): Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, ouest et centrals, edited by]. Nougayrol, pp. 281-308. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. BRANDFON, F. 1987 "The Limits of Evidence: Archaeology and Objectiviry". Maarav 4(1): 5-43. BREGSTEIN, L. 1993 Seal Use in Fifth Century B. C. Nippur, Iraq: A Study of Seal Selection and Sealing Practices in the Murasi; Archive, PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. BRODY, A 1998 "Each Man Cried Out TO His God": The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers. Atlanta: Scholars Press. BRON,F. 1980 "Notes de lexicographique ougaritique". Semitica 30: 13-15. BRUMFIEL, E. and T. EARLE (eds.) 1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BUDD,P. 1995a "Lead Isotope Analysis and Oxhide Ingots: A Final Comment". Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 70-75. 1995b "Oxhide Ingots, Recycling and the Mediterranean Metals Trade". Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 1-32.

386

387

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BUNIMOVITZ, S. "The Problem of Human Resources in Late Bronze Age Palestine and its 1994 Socioeconomic Implications." Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 1- 20. BURNS, D. "Contents, Texts, and Context: A Contextualist Approach to the Ugaritic Texts 2002 and Their Cultic Vocabulary", PhD Dissertation, University of Sheffield. BUTZER, K. 1976 Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt: A Study in Cultural Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CALLOT, O. 1983 Une Maison a Ougarit: Etudes d'architecture domestique. Ras Shamra Ougarit 1. Paris: Editions recherche sur les Civilisations. 1991 "Les Huileries du Bronze Recent a Ougarit", in Arts et Industries de fa Pierre, Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI, edited by M. Yon, pp. 197-212. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1994 La Trancbee ''ville sud": Etudes d'architecture domestique. Ras Shamra-Ougarit X. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. ''A Visit to a Home." Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 202-204. 2000 CALLOT, O. and CALVET, Y. 2001 "Le 'Batiment au Vase de Pierre'du 'Quartier Residentiel' d'Ougarit (fouille 1966)", in Etudes Ougaritiques: L Travaux 1985-1995, edited by M.Yon and D.Arnaud, pp. 65-82, Ras Shamra-OugaritXlV. Paris: Editions Recherche sur Les Civilisations. CALLOT, O. and YON, M. 1995 "Urbanisme et Architecture", in Le paysd'Ougarit autour de 1200 av.] -C Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 juin-1 er juillet 1993, Ras Sharnra-Ougarit 11, edited by M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 155-168. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. CALVET, Y. 1990 "Les Bassins du Palais Royal D'Ougarit". Syria 67: 31-42. 2000 "The House of Urtenu", Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 210-213. CALVET, Y. and GEYER, B. 1987 "Leau dans I'habitat", in La Centre du fa ville, 38-44e (1918-1984), Ras Shamra-Ougarit 3, edited by M. Yon pp. 129-156. Paris: Editions Recherche de la Civilisation. 1995 "Environment et Resources en Eau dans le Region d'Ougarit", in Lepays d'Ougarit autour de 1200 au ]-C Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 juin-T" juillet 1993, edited by M.Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 169-182 Ras ShamraOugarit 11. Paris: Editions Recherche de la Civilisation. CAQUOT, A. 2000 "At the Origins of the Bible". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 225-227. CASTEL, C. "Naissance et Development d'une Maison dans la 'ville Basse' Orientale d'Ougarit 2001 (fouille 936)", in Etudes Ougaritiques: L Travaux 1985-1995, Ras ShamraOugarit XiV, edited by M. Yon and D.Arnaud, pp. 41-64. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. CAUBET, A. 1991a "Objets et Instruments d'albatre", in Arts et Industries de fa Pierre, Ras ShamraOugarit Vi, edited by M. Yon, pp. 265-272. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

"Repertoire de la vaiselle de pierre, Ougarit 1929-1988", in Arts et industries de fa pierre, Ras Sharnra-Ougarit Vi, edited by M. Yon, pp. 205-264. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1992 "Reoccupation of the Syrian Coast After the Destruction of the 'Crisis Years"', in The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C, edited by W Ward and M. ]oukowsky, pp. 123-131. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishers. 1998 "The International Style: A Point of View from the Levant and Syria", in The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, edited by E. Cline and D. Harris-Cline, pp. 105-114. Belgium: KLIEMO. 2000 "Ugarit at the Louvre". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 216-219. CAUBET, A. and MATO'iAN, V. 1995 "Ougarit et l'Egee", in Lepays d'Ougarit autourde 1200 at: ]-C Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 juin-JeYjuillet 1993, Ras Shamra-Ou$arit 11, edited by M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 99-112. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. CHANUT, C. and DARDAILLON, E. 2000 "The Art of Metal Working". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 222-224. CHARPIN, D. 1980 Archives familiales et propriete privee en Babylonie ancienne: Etude des documents 'Tel Sift'. Geneva, Droz. CHAYANOV, A. V. 1965 [1925] The Theory ofPeasant Economy, edited by D. Thorner, B. Kerblay, and R.E.F. Smith. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. CIVIL, M. 1991 "Ur III Bureaucracy: Quantitative Aspects", in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. Second Edition with corrections, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46, edited by MeG. Gibson and R. Biggs, pp. 35-44, 114. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. CLEMENS, D. 2001 Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice. VOl. L Ugaritic and Ugarit Akkadian 'Texts. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 284/1. Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag. CLINE, E. 1994 Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late BronzeAge Aegean, BAR International Series 591. Oxford: TEMPVS REPARTVM. CODY, A. 1969 A History of Old 'Testament Priesthood, Analecta Bibliea 35. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. COHEN, P. 1967 "Economic Analysis and Economic Man", in Themes in Economic Anthropology, edited by R. Firth, pp. 91-118. London: Tavistak Publications. CONNAN, ]., O. DECHESNE, and D. DESSORT 1991 "L'origine des bitumes archeologiques", in Arts et industries de fa Pierre, Ras Shamra-Ougarit Vi, edited by M. Yon, pp. 101-126. Paris: Edtions Recherche sur les Civilisations. COOPER, ]. 1972-1975 "Heilige Hochzeit. B. Archaologisch", in Reallexicon de Assyriologie und lIorderasiatischen Arcbdologie, edited by D. Edzard, pp. 259-269. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1991b

388

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

COQUEUGNIOT, E. 1991 "Ouitillage de pierre taillee", in Arts et industries de la pierre, Ras ShamraOugarit VI, edited by M. Yon, pp. 127-204. Paris: Edtions Recherche sur les Civilisations. CORNELIUS, I. 1981 "A Bird's Eye View of Trade in Ancient Ugarit". Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages IX: 13-31. COURTOIS, ]. C. 1963 "Deux Villes du Royaume d'Ugarit dans la vallee du Nahr-el-Kebir en Syrie du Nord". Syria 40: 261-272. 1974 "Ugarit, Grid, Strata, and Find-Localizations: A Reassesment". Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins 90: 97-114. 1979a 'TArchitecture domestique a Ugarit au Bronze Recent". Ugarit Forschungen 11:105-134. 1979b "Archeologie", in Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, Vol. 9, edited by H. Cazelles and A. Feuillet, cols. 1126-1295. Paris: Letouzey & Ane, 1990 "Yabninu et Ie palais sud d'Ougarit". Syria 67: 103-142. CRAIGIE,P. 1982 "Amos the noqed in the Light of Ugaritic". Sciences Religieusesl Studies in Religion. 11: 29-33. 1984 The Twelve Prophets, Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. CROOK, ]. 1967 Law and Life in Rome. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. CRUMLEY, C. 1995 "Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies", in Heterarchy and theAnalysis of Complex Societies, edited by C. Crumley and]. Levy, pp. 1-4. Washington: American Anthropological Association. CUNCHILLOS, ]. 1999 "The Correspondence of Ugarit", in Handbook ofUgaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung 1, edited by W Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 359-389. Leiden: E. ]. Brill. CURTIS, A. 1985 Ugarit. Grand Rapids, MI: WB. Eerdmans. 1999 "Ras Shamra, Miner el-Beida and Ras ibn Hani: The Material Remains", in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung 1, edited by W Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 5-27. Leiden: E.]. Brill. CUTLER, B. and MACDONALD, ]. 1976 "Identification of the na'ar in the Ugaritic Texts". Ugarit Forschungen 8: 27-35. 1977 "The Unique Ugaritic Text UT 113 and the Question of 'Guilds"'. Ugarit Forschungen 9: 13-30. DAHOOD, M. ]. 1965 Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology: Marginal Notes on Recent Publications. Biblica et Orientalia 17. Rome: Pontificium Institutuum Biblicum. 1966 "The Phoenician Background of Qoheleth". Biblica 47: 264-282. 1968 "Hebrew - Ugaritic Lexicography. VI". Biblica 49: 355-369. 1971 ''An Economic Text", in The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets, Analecta Orientalia 48, edited by L. R. Fisher, pp. 31-35, and pls. VII-VIII Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. DALIX, A. 1997 Iloumilkou, scribe d'Ougarit au XII!' siecle avantJ Coo Faculte de Theologie et de Sciences Religieuses. Paris: Sorbonne. 2000 "The Art of Writing". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 196-197.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DALTON, G 1961 1978

DAVIES, ]. 1998 DEIMEL, A. 1931

389

"Economic Theory and Primitive Society". American Anthropologist 63: 1-25. "Karl Polanyi's Analysis of Long Distance Trade and His Wider Paradigm", in Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by]. Sabloff and c.c. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 63-132. Alberquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ''Ancient Economies: Models and Muddles", in Trade, Traders and the Ancient City, edited by H. Parkins and C. Smith, pp. 225-256. New York: Routledge. "Sumerische Tempelwirtschaft zur Zeit Urukaginas und seine Vorganger". Analecta

Orientalia 2. DE LANGHE, R.

1945

Les texts de RasShamra-Ugarit et leurs rapports avec le milieu biblique de l'Ancien Testament. 2 Vol. Gembloux: ]. Duculot.

DEL OLMO LETE, G. 1978 "The Ugaritic War Chariot: A New Translation ofKTU 4.392 (PRU V, 105)".

Ugarit Forschungen 10:47-51. "Quantity Precision in Ugaritic Administrative Texts". Ugarit Forschungen 11: 179-186. 1993 "Sheep and Goats in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts". Bulletin ofSumerian Agriculture 7: 183-197. 1995 "The Sacrificial Vocabulary of Ugarit". Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriento Antico 12: 37-49. 2004 Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, translated by W Watson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. DEL OLMO LETE, G. and SANMARTIN,]. 1996 Diccionario de la Lengua Ugaritica. Two volumes. Aula Orientalis-Supplementa. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA. 1998 "Kultisches in den keilalphabetischen Verwaltungs- und Wirtschaftstexten aus Ugarit", in UndMose schrieb dieses Liedauf, Altes Orient und Altes Testament 250, edited by M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper, pp. 175-197. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2004 A Dictionary ofthe Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Two volumes. Second Revised Edition, edited and translated by W Watson. Leiden: Brill. DE MITA, F. 1999 "The Burden of Being Mycenaean". Archaeological Dialogues 1999 (1): 24-26. DE MOOR, ]. C. 1979

1971 1972

The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba'lu According to the Version of Ilimilku. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 16. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. Part One: Description. Part Two: The Canaanite Sources. Kampen: ]. H. Holk. "Fishes in KTU 4.427:23-29". Ugarit Forschungen 28: 155-157.

1996 DERCKSEN, ]. (ed.)

1999

Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten.

DERRIDA, ]. 1978

Writing and Difference, translated by A. Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1981a Dissemination, translated by B. Johnson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1981b Positions, translated by A. Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DEVER, W 2001 What Did the Biblical writers Knowand When Did They Know It? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

390

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

DEVER, W. and GITIN, S. (eds.) 2003 Symbiosis, Symbolism, and Power. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. DHORME, E. 1935 "Petite Tablette Accadienne de Ras Shamra". Syria 16: 194-195. DIAKONOFF, I. 1956 "Mushkenum and the servicelandholding on royal lands at the Time of Chammurabi". Eos 48: 37-62. 1965 "Main Features of the Economy in the Monarchies of Ancient Western Asia", Ecole Practique des Hautes Etudes-Sorbonne, Congres at Colloques 10 (3): 13-32. 1969 Ancient Mesopotamia, Socio-Economic History: A Collection ofEssays by Soviet Scholars. Moscow: Nauka Publishing House. 1971 Hurrisch und Urartiiisch. yom Verfasser autorisierte Ubersetzungaus dem Russischen von Karl Sdrembek. Munchen: R. Kitzinger. 1972a "Die Arier im Vorderen Orient: Ende eines Mythos". Orientalia 41: 91-120. 1972b "Socio-Economic Classes in Babylonia and the Babylonian Concept of Social Stratification", in Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten (Comptes rendu, Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 18), edited by D. Edzard, pp. 41-52. Munich: Beck. 1974 StructureofSociety and State in EarlyDynasticSumer. Malibu: Undena Publications. 1982 "The Structure of Near Eastern Society before the Middle of the Second Millenium B.c.". Oikumene 3: 7-100. DIETRICH, M. and LORETZ, O. 1966a "Der Vertrag zwischen Shuppiluliuma und Niqmadu. Eine philologische und kulturhistorische Studie". Die Welt des Orients 3: 206-245. 1966b "Die soziale Struktur von Alalakh and Ugarit", Die Welt des Orients 3: 188-205. 1967 "Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (II)". Orientalische Literaturzeitung 62: 533-552. 1968 "Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (III)". Bibliotheca Orientalis 25: 100-101. 1969a "Die soziale Struktur von Alalakh and Ugarit (II)". Die Welt des Orients 5: 57-93. 1969b "Die soziale Struktur von Alalakh and Ugarit (V)". Ugarit Forschungen 1: 37-64. 1970 "Die soziale Struktur von Alalakh and Ugarit (IV)". Zeitschrift fUr Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archiieologie 60: 88-123. 1972a Konkordanz der ugaritischen Textzahlungen. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1972b "Pilku-llku 'Lehenspflich'''. Ugarit Forschungen 4: 166-167. "Die ugaritische Berufsgruppe der nqdm und das Amt des rb nqdm". Ugarit 1977 Forschungen 9 1977: 336-337. 1986 ''Akkadisch sipparu "Bronze", Ugartisch spr, gprt und Hebraisch spr, 'prt", Ugarit Forschungen 17: 401--402. 1990 "Die Ortsnarnen gt 'ttrt und 'ttrt II hdry". Ugarit Forschungen 22: 55-56. 1991 "Ugaritisch 'sr, asiruma und athiopisch 'assara", in Semitic Studies in Honor of WolfLeslau, Vol. 1, edited by A.S. Kaye, pp. 309-327. Wiesbaden: HarrassowitzVerlag. 1995 Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palastinas (ALASP) 7. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag. 1996 "Ugaritisch Ird'dienen', *trt und Irt'Sangerin'''. Ugarit Forschungen 28: 159-164. 2004 "Mariyannu, pferde und Esel in der Sammelliste KTU 4.377". Ugarit Forscbungen 35: 181-189. DIETRICH, M., LORETZ, O. and SANMARTfN,]. 1995 The CuneiformAlphabetic Texts From Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU). Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palastinas und Mesopotarniens, Bd. 8. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

391

DIETRICH, M. and W. MAYER 1999 "The Hurrian and Hittite Texts", in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung 1, edited by W. Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 58-75. Leiden: E. ]. Brill. DJIKSTRA, M. 1989 "Marginalia to the Ugaritic Letters in KTU (II)". Ugarit Forschungen 21: 141-152. 1994 "The Myth of Astarte, the Huntress (KTU 1.92)". Ugarit Forschungen 26: 113-126. 1999-2000 "The List of qdIm in KTU 4.412+ ii8ff". Aula Orientalis 17-18: 8189. DONHAM, D. 1980 "Beyond the Domestic Mode of Production". Man 16: 515-541. DOUGLAS, M. 1967 "Primitive Rationing", in Themes in Economic Anthropology, edited by R. Firth, pp. 119-147. London: Tavistak Publications. DROWER, M. "Ugarit", in The Cambridge Ancient History. VOl. 2, Part 2: History ofthe Middle 1968 East and the Aegean Region c. 1380-1000 B.C., edited by I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, C. ]. Gadd, N.G.L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger, pp. 130-60. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DUNN, S. 1982 The Fall and Rise of the Asiatic Mode of Production. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. DURKHEIM, E. 1984 The Division ofLabor in Society. New York: Free Press. DURRENBERGER, E. P. (ed.) 1984 "Introduction", in Chayanov, Peasants and Economic Anthropology, edited by E.P. Durrenberger, pp. 1-25. New York: Academic Press, Inc. DUSSAUD, R. "Breves remarques sur les tablettes de Ras Shamra", Syria 12: 67-77. 1931 "A propos de la table dite genealogique de Ras-Shamra (TG)". Syria 16: 1935 227-228. EICHLER, B. 1967 "Nuzi Personal Ditenn'utu Transactions and their Mesopotamian Analogues". PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. EISENSTADT, S. and RONIGER, L. 1980 "Patron-Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange". Comparative Studies in Society and History 22: 42-77. 1984 Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EISSFELDT, O. 1963 KleineSchriften. Vol 2, edited by R. Sellheim and F. Maass. Tubingen:]. C. B. Mohr. 1965 Neue keilalphabetische Texte aus Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. ELLIOT, C. 1991 "The Ground Stone Industry", in Arts et Industries de la Pierre, Ras ShamraOugarit VI, edited by M. Yon, pp. 9-99. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. ELLIS, M. DE]. 1976 Agriculture and the State in Ancient Mesopotamia. Philadelphia: Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund.

392

393

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FAHNESTOCK, ]. 1997 "Arguing in Different Forums: The Bering Crossover Controversy", in Landmark Essays on Rhetoric ofScience: Case Studies, edited by R. Harris, pp. 53-67. Mahwah: Hermagoras Press. FALES, F. 1984 "AnAkkadian Letter from Ugarit between Shaknus". Oriens Antiquus 23: 163-166. FALKENSTEIN, A. 1954 "La cite-temple sumerienne". Journal ofWorld History 1: 784-814. 1974 The Sumerian Temple City. Malibu: Undena Press. FAULKNER, H. and A. HILL 1997 "Forests, Soils and the Threat of Desertification", in The Mediterranean: Environment and Society, edited by R. King, L. Proudfoot, and B. Smith, pp. 252-271. New York: Arnold. FELDMAN, M. 1998 "Luxury Goods From Ras Shamra-Ugarit and Their Role in the International Relations of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East during the Late Bronze Age". Dissertation, Havard University. FEMIA, ]. 1981 Gramsci's Political Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press. FERNEA, R. Shaykh and Effendi. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1970 FINLEY, M. Economy and Society in Ancient Greece. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1983 [1973] The Ancient Economy. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1985 FIRTH, R. 1964 "Capital, Savings, and Credit in Peasant Societies: A Viewpoint from Economic Anthropology", in Capital Savings, and Credit in Peasant Societies, edited by R. Firth and B. Yarney, pp. 15-34. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. "Themes in Economic Anthropology: A General Comment", in Themes in Eco1967 nomicAnthropology, edited by R. Firth, pp. 1-28. London: Tavistak Publications. FLEMING, D. 2002 "Schloen's Patrimonial Pyramid: Explaining Bronze Age Society". Bulletin ofthe American Schools of OrientalResearch (BASOR) 328: 73-80. FONTANA, B. Hegemony and Power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1993 FORTIN, M. 1997 "Urbanisation et 'Redistribution' de Surplus Agricoles en Mesopotamie Sepentrionale (3000-2500 AD. ].-c.)", in Aspects of Urbanism in Antiquity, edited by N. Mireau, W Aufrecht, and S.Gauley, pp. 50-81. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press. FOSTER, B. 1977 "Commercial Activity in Sargonic Mesopotamia". Iraq 39: 31-50. 1981 ''A New Look at the Sumerian Temple State". Journal ofthe Economic and Social History ofthe Orient (jESHO) XXIV: 225-241. 1982a Administration and Use of Institutional Land in Sargonic Sumer. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. 1982b ''Administration of Land at Sargonic Gasur". Oriens Antiquus 21: 39-48. 1982c ''An Agricultural Archive from Sargonic Akkad". Acta Sumerologica 4: 7-51. 1982d ''Archives and Record-keeping in Sargonic Mesopotamia". ZeitschriftfUr Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archiieologie 72: 1-27. 1983 "Selected Business Documents from Sargonic Mesopotamia". JournalofCuneiform Studies 35: 147-175.

FOUCAULT, M. 1970 The OrderofThings : An Archaeology ofthe Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books. 1977 Discipline & Punish: The Birth ofthe Prison. New York: Vintage Books. FRANKENBERG, R. 1967 "Economic Anthropology: One Anthropologist's View", in Themes in Economic Anthropology, edited by R. Firth, pp. 47-90. London: Tavistak Publications. FRANKFORT, H. 1970 The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. New Haven: Yale University Press. FREEDMAN, L. R. 1977 Studies in Cuneiform Legal Terminology with Special Reference to west Semitic Parallels. PhD Dissertation, Columbia University. FRIEDLAND, R. and ROBERTSON, A. F. 1990 "Beyond the Marketplace", in Beyondthe Marketplace: RethinkingEconomy and Society, edited by R. Friedland and A.F. Robertson, pp. 3-49. New York: Walter de Gruyter Inc. FRIEDMAN, R. 1979-1980 "The MRZlfTablet From Ugarit". Maarav 2/2:187-206. FROST, H. 1991 ''Anchors Sacred and Profane", in Arts et Industries de la Pierre, Ras ShamraOugarit VI, edited by M.Yon, pp. 355-410. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. FUKUYAMA,F. 1999 The Great Disruption. New York: The Free Press. FUSTEL DE COULANGES, N. 1980 [1956] The Ancient City, A Study on the Religion, Laws and Institutions ofGreece and Rome. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. GACHET, ]. 1987 "Objets en os et en ivolre", in La Centre du la ville, 38-44e (1978-1984), Ras Shamra-Ougarit III, edited by M. Yon, p. 249-272. Paris: Editions Recherche de la Civilisation. 1995 "Les ivoires inscrits du Palais Royal", in Lepays d'Ougarit autour de 1200 avo ]-C Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 juin-L" juillet 1993, Ras ShamraOugarit XI edited by M.Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 245-254. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 2000 "The Divinatory Livers". Near Eastern Archaeology 63(4): 235. GACHET, ]. and PARDEE, D. 2001 "Les ivoires inscrits du Palais Royal (fouille 1955)", in Lepaysd'Ougarit autour de 1200 av.] -C Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 [uin-l" juillet 1993, Ras Shamra-Ougarit XI, edited by M.Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 191234. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. GADAMER, H. 1975 Truth and Method. Second Revised Edition, translated by]. Weinsheimer and D. Marshall. New York: Continuum Books. GALE, N. and STOS-GALE, Z. 1995 "Comments on 'Oxhide Ingots, Recycling, and the Mediterranean Metals Trade"'. Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 8(1): 33-41. GALLANT, T. Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Restructuring the Rural Domestic Economy. 1991 Stanford: Stanford University Press.

394

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

GALOR, K. 2003

"Domestic Architecture in Roman and Byzantine Galilee and Golan". Near Eastern Archaeology 66: 44-58.

GARELLI, P. 1977 "Marchands et Tamkaru Assyriens en Cappadoce". Iraq 39: 99-107. GARFINKLE, S.

2000 GARR, W

''A Population Estimate of Ancient Ugarit". Bulletin ofthe American Schools of

OrientalResearch (BASOR) 266: 31-43. GELB,1. 1965 1971 1972 1979 1980

"The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System". Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24: 230-243. "On the Alleged Temple and State Economies in Ancient Mesopotamia". Studi in Honore di E Volterra VI: 137-154. "The Arua Institution". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'arcbeologie orientale 66: 1-32. "Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia", in Stateand Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East, edited by E. Lipinski, pp 1-97. Leuven: Peeters. "Comparative Method in the Study of the Society and Economy of the Ancient Near East". Rocznik Orientalistyczny 41/2: 29-36.

GELB, 1. (ed.)

1976

Quantitative Evaluation of Slavery and Serfdom. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Kramer Anniversary Volume. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag. GENOUILLAC, H. 1909 La Societe Sumerienne. Paris: P. Guenther. GERNHOT, W 1989 The Hurrians. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. GIBSON, McG. 1974 "Violation of Fallow and Engineered Disaster in Mesopotamian Civilization", in Irrigation's Impact on Society, edited by T. E. Downing and MeG. Gibson, pp. 7-17. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. GIBSON, McG. and BIGGS, R. (eds.) 1991

The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. 2nd Edition with corrections, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation 46. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press.

GIDDENS, A. 1984 The Constitution ofSociety. Berkeley: University of California Press. GILTROW, ]. 2002 Academic writing. 3 rd Edition. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. GITIN, S. "Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.: The Impact of Economic Inno1995 vation and Foreign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City-State", in Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the west, edited by S. Gitin, pp. 61-80. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co. GLEDHILL,]. and lARsEN, M. 1982 "The Polanyi Paradigm and a Dynamic Analysis ofArchaic States", in Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew and B. Seagraves, pp. 197-229. New York: Academic Press. GODDEERIS, A.

2002

1963 GOOD, R. 1984

Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early old Babylonian Period (ca. 2000-1800 BC). Leuven: Peeters.

"Remarks on the Ration List From Alalakh". Journal of Cuneiform Studies 13: 34-38. "Shakkanakkus of the Ur III Empire". Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17: 1-31. "Some Ugaritic Terms Relating to Draught and Riding Animals". Ugarit For-

schungen16: 77-81.

Private Enterprise in Babylonia at the End ofthe Third Millenium Be. New York, Columbia University.

1987

GOETZE, A. 1959

395

GOODY, ]. 1986

The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. GOOSENS, G. "Introduction a l' archiveconomie de l' Asie anterieure". Revue d'Assyriologie et 1952 d'arcbeologie orientale 46: 98-107. GORDON, C. Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glos1965 sary, Indices. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum. Ugarit and Minoan Crete. New York: WW Norton & Company, Inc. 1966 GRAY, ]. "Feudalism in Ugarit and Early Israel". Zeitschriftfur die alttestamentliche Wissen1952 schaft 64: 49-55. The KRT Text in the Literature ofRas Shamra: A Social Myth ofAncient Canaan. 1955 Leiden: Brill. GREENE, K. 1986 TheArchaeology ofthe Roman Economy. Berkeley: University of California Press. GREENFIELD,]. C. 2001a "Ugaritic mdl and its Cognates", in 'AI Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies ofJonas Greenfield on Semitic Philology, edited by S. M. Paul, M. C. Stone, and A. Pinnick, pp. 847-854. Leiden: Brill. 2001b "Ugaritic Lexicographic Notes", in 'AI Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies ofJonas Greenfield on Semitic Philology, edited by S. M. Paul, M. C. Stone, and A. Pinnick, pp. 855-863. Leiden: Brill. GREENFIELD,]. AND BLAu,]. 2001 "Ugaritic Glosses", in 'AI Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies ofJonas Greenfield on Semitic Philology, edited by S. M. Paul, M. C. Stone, and A. Pinnick, pp. 885-892. Leiden: Brill. GRONDAHL, F. 1967 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Rome: Papstliches Bibelinstitut. GROSSI, P. 1981 An Alternative to Private Property, translated by 1. Cochrane. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. GDTERBOCK, H. 1957 "Review of Hehitisches Worterbuch by]. Friedric". Oriens 10: 350-362. HALL, M. "Comments on Oxhide Ingots, Recycling and the Mediterranean Metals Trade". 1995 Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 42-44. HALLO, Wand CURTIS, ]. 1959 "Money and Merchants in Ur III". Hebrew Union College Annual XXX: 103-139. HALPERN, B. 1979-1980 ''A Landlord-Tenant Dispute at Ugarit?" Maarav 2/1: 121-140. HEICHELHEIM, F. 1965 An Ancient Economic History. Leiden: A. W Sijthoff.

396

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

HEIDEGGER, M. 1962

On Time and Being, translated by J. Stambaugh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

HEINER, R. 1983 1985

"The Origin of Predictable Behavior". The American Economic Review 73: 560-595. "Origin of Predictable Behavior: Further Modeling and Applications". TheAmerican Economic Review 75(2): 391-396.

HELTZER, M. "Problems of the Social History of Syria in the Late Bronze Age", in La Syria nel 1969 tardo Bronzo, edited by M. Liverani, pp. 45-46. Rome: Centro per le antichita e la storia dell'arte del Vicino Oriente. 1976a "Mortgage of Land, Property and Freeing from it in Ugarit", Journal ofthe Economic and Social History ofthe Orient 19: 90-93. 1976b The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert. 1977 "The Metal Trade of Ugarit and the Problem of Transportation of Commercial Goods", Iraq 39: 203-211. Goods, Prices and the Organization of Trade in Ugarit: Marketingand Transporta1978

tion in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Half ofthe 11th Centum B.CE. 1979 1980 1981 1982 1984

1987a 1987b 1988

1989 1990 1996

1998 1999a 1999b

2001

Being and Time, translated by J. Macquerrie and E. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

1972

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert. "The Royal Economy in Ancient Ugarit". Orientalia LovaniensaAnalecta (OLA) 6: 459-496. "Der ugaritischeText KTU 4.751 und das Festmahl(?) der Dienstleute des Konigs", Ugarit Forschungen 12: 413-416. "On the Meaning of the Term ubditlupdt in Ugarit". Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 9: 71-74. The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit. Wiesbaden: DR. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. "Private Property in Ugarit", in Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient Near East, edited by A Archi, pp. 161-193. Roma: Edizioni dell'Ateneo. "Labour in Ugarit", in Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by M. Powell, pp. 237-250. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. "Olive Growing and Olive Oil in Ugarit", in Olive Oil in Antiquity, edited by M. Heltzer and D. Eitam, pp. 106-120. Haifa: Haifa University Press. "The Late Bronze Age Service System and Its Decline", Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1100 B.C), edited by M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski, pp. 7-18. Leuven: Peeters. "Some Questions of the Ugaritic Metrology and Its Parallels in Judah, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia and Greece". Ugarit Forschungen 21: 195-208. "Vineyards and Wine in Ugarit". Ugarit Forschungen 22: 119-135. "The Symbiosis of the Public and Private Sectors in Ugarit, Phoenicia, and Palestine", in Privatization in the Ancient Near East and Classical World, edited by M. Hudson. and B. Levine, pp 177-196. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. "The hr! qtn in Ugarit. The Meaning of the Term and the Function of These People". Ugarit Forschungen 29: 211-214. ''Again about the gt in Ugarit". Ugarit Forschungen 31: 193-197. "The Economy of Ugarit", in Handbook ofUgaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung 1, edited by W. Watson and N. Wyatt (eds.) pp. 423-454. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

2004

397

"The Political Institutions of Ancient Emar as Compared with Contemporary Ugarit". UgaritForschungen 33: 219-236. "New Evidence about Tribute from Ugarit to the Hittite King (KTU 4.610 and RS 92.2001+92.2002)". Ugarit Forschungen 35: 239-242.

HERDNER, A Corpus des tablettes en cuneiforms alpbabetiques decouvertes a Ras Shamra-Ugarit 1963 de 1929 a 1939. Mission de Ras Shamra 10. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. HESS, R. Amarna Personal Names. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 1993 "The Onomastics of Ugarit", in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der 1999 Orientalistik, Abteilung 1, edited by W. Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 499-528. Leiden: E.J. Brill. HIGGINBOTHAM, C. 1996 "Elite Emulation and Egyptian Governance in Ramesside Canaan". TeIAviv 23: 154-169. HILLIER, B. and HANSON, J. 1984 The SocialLogic ofSpace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HIRSCHFELD, N. 2000 "Introduction to the Catalogue", in Ceramiques myceniennes, Ras ShamraOugarit XIII, edited by M. Yon, V. Karageorghis, and N. Hirschfeld, pp. 67-74. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. HODGSON, G. 2001 How Economics Forgot History. New York: Routledge. HOFTIJZER, J. and VAN SOLDT, W. 1991 "Texts from Ugarit Concerning Security and Related Akkadian and West Semitic Material". Ugarit Forschungen 23: 189-216. 1998 ''Appendix: Texts from Ugarit Pertaining to Seafaring", in Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, edited by S. Wachsman, pp. 333-344. London: Chatham Publishing. HOLLADAY, J. 2001 "Toward a New Paradigmatic Understanding of Long-Distance Trade in the Ancient Near East: From the Middle Bronze II to Early Iron II - A Sketch," in The World oftheAramaeans II, edited by M. Daviau, W. Weavers, and M. Weigl. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. HOLLOWAY, S. 1998 "KTU 1.162 and the Offering of a Shield". Ugarit Forschungen 30: 353-361. HOLTON, R. 1992 Economy and Society. New York: Routledge. HOPKINS, D. 1985 The Highlands of Canaan: AgriculturalLife in the Early Iron Age. Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 3. Sheffield: Almond Press. HOPKINS, K. 1983 Sociological Studies in Roman History II: Death and Renewal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HOUWINK TEN CATE, P. 1995 "Ethnic Diversity and Population Movement in Anatolia", in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1, edited by J. Sasson, pp. 259-270. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. HUDSON, M. "The Dynamics of Privatization, From the Bronze Age to the Present", in Priva1996 tization in theAncientNear East, edited by M. Hudson and B. Levine, pp. 33-72. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

398

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

2002

"Reconstructing the Origins of Interest-Bearing Debt and the Logic of Clean Slates", in Debt and Renewal in the Ancient Near East, edited by M. Hudson and M. van de Mieroop, pp. 7-58. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. HUEHNERGARD, J. 1987 Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Harvard Semitic Series 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1989 The Akkadian of Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Studies 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press. HUMPHREYS, S. 1969 "History, Economics, and Anthropology". History and Theory 8: 165-212. 1978 History, Economics and Anthropology: The WOrk ofKarl Polanyi. London. HUNT, R. 1991 "The Role of Bureaucracy in the Provisioning of Cities: A Framework for Analysis of the Ancient Near East", in The Organization ofPower: Aspects ofBureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, Second Edition with Corrections, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46, edited by MeG. Gibson and R. Biggs, pp. 141-168. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. IZREEL, S. "When Was the General's Letter from Ugarit Written?" in Society and Economy 1988 in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1100 BC), edited by M. Heltzer and E. Lepin, pp. 160-176. Leuven, Peeters. JANKOWSKA, N. 1964-1965 "Communal Self-Government in Ugarit". SovietAnthropology and Archaeology 3 (3): 46-65. JONES, A. The Later Roman Empire, 294-602. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. 1964 JONES, T. "By the Rivers of Babylon Sat We Down". Agricultural History 25: 1-9. 1951 "Sumerian Administrative Documents: An Essay". Assyriological Studies 20: 41-61. 1974 JOY, L. "One Economist's View of the Relationship Between Economics and Anthro1967 pology", in Themes in Economic Anthropology, edited by R. Firth, pp. 29-46. London: Tavistak Publications. KAHNEMAN, D. 2000a "Preface", in Choices, Values, and Frames, edited by D. Kahneman, pp i-xi Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000b "New Challenges to the Rationality Assumption", in Choices, Values, and Frames, edited by D. Kahneman, pp. 758-774. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KAHNEMAN, D., KNETsCH, J. and THALER, R. 2000 "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking", in Choices, Values, and Frames, edited by D. Kahneman, pp. 317-334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KAHNEMAN, D. and A. TVERSKY 2000a "Choices, Values, and Frames", in Choices, Values, and Frames, edited by D. Kahneman, pp. 1-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000b "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk", in Choices, Values, and Frames, edited by D. Kahneman, pp. 17-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KAMMENHUBER, A. 1968 Die Arier im Vorderen Orient. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitats Verlag. "On Hittites, Mitanni-Hurrians, Indo-Aryans and Horse Tablets in the lInd 1988 Millennium B.C.", in Essays on Anatolian Studies in the Second Millennium B.C, edited by H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa, pp. 35-51. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

BIBLIOGRAPHY KARDULIAS,

1999

399

P., (ed.) WOrld-Systems Theory in Practice: Leadership, Production, and Exchange. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

KERBLAY, B. 1987

"Chayanov and the Theory of Peasant Economics", in Peasants and Peasant Societies, edited by T. Shanin, pp. 176-184. New York: Basil Blackwell. KESTEMONT, G. 1977 "Remarques sur les aspects juridiques du commerce dans le proche-orient du XfV" siecle avant notre ere". Iraq 39: 191-201. KIENAST, B. "Rechrsurkunden in Ugaritischen Sprache". Ugarit Forschungen 11: 431-452. 1979 KILMER, A. "Symbolic Gestures in Akkadian Contracts from Alalakh and Ugarit". Journal 1974 ofthe American OrientalSociety 94 (2): 177-183. KING, P. and STAGER, L. 2001 Life in BiblicalIsrael. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. KLEIN, N. 2000 No Logo. Toronto: Vintage Canada. KLENGEL, H. "Ugaritica V, Chaiptre IV Cl. EA. Schaeffer, Commentaires sur les letters et 1969 documents trouves dans les bibliotheques privees d'Ugarit". Ugarit Forschungen 1: 127-130. Syria 3000 to300 B.C: A Handbook ofPolitical History. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 1992 KNAPP, A. ''An Alashiyan Merchant at Ugarir", TeIAviv 10: 38-45. 1983 "Pots, PIXE, and Data Processing at Pella in Jordan". Bulletin ofthe American 1987 Schools ofOrientalResearch 266: 1-30. 1989 "Response: Independence, Imperialism, and the Egyptian Factor". Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalResearch 275 (64-68). 1992 Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998 "Mediterranean Bronze Age Trade: Distance, Power and Place", in The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, edited by E. Cline and D. HarrisCline, pp. 193-207. Belgium: KLIEMO. KNOPPERS, G. 1993 "Treaty, Tribute List, or Diplomatic Letter: KTU 3.1 Reexamined". Bulletin of the American Schools ofOrientalResearch 289: 81-93. 1996 "Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?" Journal ofthe American OrientalSociety 116 (4): 670-697. KOHL, P. 1978 "The Balance ofTrade in Southwestern Asia in the mid-third millennium B.C.". Current Anthropology 19: 463-492. KOMOROCZY, G. 1978 "Landed Property in Ancient Mesopotamia and the Theory of the So-Called Asiatic Mode of Production". Oikumene 2: 9-26. KOPYTOFF, I. 1986 "The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process", in The Social Life of Things, edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 64-91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KOSCHAKER, P. 1928 Neue Keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der EI-Amarna Zeit. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. KRAMER, S. 1977 "Commerce and Trade: Gleanings from Sumerian Literature". Iraq 39: 59-66.

400

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

KRAus, F. 1954

1966

1987 "Le Role des temples depuis la troisieme dynastie d'Ur jusqu'a la premiere dynastie de Babylone". Journal ofWorld History I: 518-545. Staatliche Viehhaltung im altbabylonischen Larsa. Leiden: Brill.

KRISTENSEN, A. 1977 "Ugaritic Epistolary Formulas: A Comparative Study of the Ugaritic Epistolary Formulas in the Context of the Contemporary Formulas in the Letters from Ugarit and Amarna". Ugarit Forschungen 9: 143-158. KUHN,T. 1971 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LACKENBACHER, S. 1995 "La correspondence internationale dans les archives d' Ugarit". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archaeologie Orientale 89: 67-76. 2000 "Ugarit Between Egypt and Hatti". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 194. LAGARCE, ]. 1984 "Rernarques sur des ouvrages de soutenment et de defense a Ras Shamra et a Ras Ibn Hani". Syria 61: 153-179. LAGARCE,]. and LAGARCE, E. 1978 "Decouvertes archeologiques aRas Ibn Hani, pres de Ras Shamra: Un Palais du Roi d'Ugarit, des tablettes inscrites en caracteres cuneiforms, un etablisement des peoples de la mer et une ville hellenistique." Comptes Rendus des Seances

Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 45-65. LAGARCE, ]., LAGARCE, E. and LERICHE P. 1980 "La cinquieme de fouilles (1979)

a Ras Ibn

Hani (Syrie)". Comptes Rendus des

Seances Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 10-34. LAGARCE, J., LAGARCE, E., BOUNNI, A. and SALIBY, N. 1983

"Les fouilles a Ras Ibn Hani en syrie (campagnes de 1980, 1981, et 1982) contribution de la civilization Ugaritique". Comptes Rendus des Seances Academie des

Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 249-290. 1987

"Les dixierne et onzierne de fouilles (1984 et 1986)

a Ras

Ibn Hani (Syrie)".

Comptes Rendus des Seances Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 274-301. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C. 1996 "The Archaeological Evidence for International Commerce: Public and/or Private Enterprise in Mesopotamia", in Privatization in the Ancient Near East, edited by M. Hudson and B. Levine, pp. 73-108. Cambridge: Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology. LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON, C. 1993 "Ugarit: A Late Bronze Age Thalassocracy? The Evidence of the Textual Sources". Orientalia 62: 163-170. LAMOTTA, V. and SCHIFFER, M. 2001 "Behavioral Archaeology: Toward a New Synthesis", in Archaeological Theory Today, edited by I. Hodder, pp.I4-63. Malden, MA: Polity Press. LANDSBERGER, B. 1965 "Tin and Lead: The Adventure of Two Vocables". Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24: 285-296. LARSEN, M. 1967 Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures. Leiden, E. ]. Brill. "Partnerships in the Old Assyrian Trade". Iraq 39: 119-145. 1977 1982 "Your Money or Your Life! A Portrait of an Assyrian Businessman", in Societies and Languages oftheAncientNearEast: Studies in Honour of1 M Diakonoff, edited by M. A. Dandamayev, pp. 214-245. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips.

401

"Commercial Networks in the Ancient Near East", in Centre and Periphery in the AncientWorld, edited by M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, pp. 47-56.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Laveleye, E. De fa propriete et de ses formes primitives. Paris: F. Alcan. 1874 LEEMANS, W. 1950a The Old Babylonian Merchant. Leiden: E. ]. Brill. 1950b "The Rate of Interest in Old Babylonian Times". Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquite 5: 7-34. Legal and Economic Records from the Kingdom ofLarsa. Leiden: E. ]. Brill. 1954 1960a Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period. Leiden: E. ]. Brill. 1960b Legal and Administrative Documents ofthe Time ofHammurabi and Samsuiluna (mainly from Lagaba). Leiden: E. ]. Brill. "Old Babylonian Letters and Economic History." Journal ofthe Economic and 1968 Social History ofthe Orient 11: 171-226. "The Importance of Trade." Iraq 39: 1-7. 1977 1986 "The Family in the Economic Life of the Old Babylonian Period." Oikumene 5: 15-22. LEMAIRE, A. "Ougarit, aura, et la Cilicie vers la fin du XIIIe s. avo ].-C." Ugarit Forschungen 25: 1993 227-236. LEONARD, A. "The Late Bronze Age." BiblicalArchaeologist 52 (1): 4-39. 1989 LESLAu, W. Comparative Dictionary ofGe'ez. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1987 LEWIS, T. 1989 Cults ofthe Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Atlanta: Scholars Press. LIBOLT, C. 1985 RoyalLand Grants from Ugarit. PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan. LINDER, E. ''A Seafaring Merchant-smith from Ugarit and the Cape Gelidonya Wreck." 1972 Journal ofNautical Archaeology 1: 163-164. 1981 "Ugarit: A Canaanite Thalassocracy", in Ugarit in Retrospect, edited by Gordon Young, pp. 31-42. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. LIPINSKI, E. "An Ugaritic Letter to Amenophis III Concerning Trade with Alashiya." Iraq 39: 1977 213-217. 1988 "The Socio-Economic Condition of the Clergy in the Kingdom of Ugarit", in Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1100 BC), edited by Michael Heltzer, pp. 125-150. Leuven: Peeters. LIVERANI, M. "KBD nei testi amministrativi ugaritici." Ugarit Forschungen 2: 89-108. 1970 1979a "Histoire", in Supplement au Dictionnaire de fa Bible, Vol. 9, edited by H. Cazelles and A. Feuillet, cols. 1298-1345. Paris: Letouzey & Ane, 1979b "Trrational' Elements in the Amarna Trade", in Three Amarna Essays, pp. 21-33. Malibu: Undena Publications. "Ville at campagne dans Ie royaume d'Ugarit. Essai d'analyse economique", in 1982 Societies and Languages oftheAncient Near East, edited by N. Postgate, pp. 250258. Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd. "Land Tenure and Inheritance in the Ancient Near East: The Interaction Between 1984 'Palace' and 'Family' Sectors", in Land Tenure and Social Transformation in theMiddle East, edited by T. Khalidi, pp. 3-44. Beirut: American University of Beirut.

402

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

1987

1989

1995

2001

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MARFOE, L. 1980

"The Collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the Bronze Age: The Case of Syria", in Centre and Periphery in theAncientWorld, edited by M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, pp. 66-73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. "Economy of Ugaritic Royal Farms", in Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East, edited by C. Zaccagnini, pp. 127-168. Budapest: University of Budapest. "Le Royaume d'Ougarit", in Le pays d'Ougarit autour de 1200 av.j-C Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 juin-I" juillet 1993, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11, edited by M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 47-54. Paris: Editions Recherche sur le Civilisations. International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600-1100 Be. New York: Palgrave.

LOMBARD, P. 1995 "Contexte Archeologique et Donees Epigraphiques: Quelques reflexions sur l'interpretarion du gisement de 1973-1992", in Le pays d'Ougarit autour de 1200 avo J-C Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 juin-I" juillet 1993, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11, edited by M.Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 227-237. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. LORETZ, O. 1996 ''A Hurrian Word (tkt) for the Chariot of the Cloud-Rider? (KTU 1.4 v 6-9)", in Ugarit, Religion, and Culture, Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur (UBL) 12, edited by N. Wyatt, W Watson, and J. Lloyd, pp. 167-178. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag. LOWRY, T. 1979 "Recent Literature on Ancient Greek Economic Thought". Journal ofEconomic Literature 17: 65-86. MAcDONALD, J. 1978 "The Unique Ugaritic Personnel Text KTU 4.102". Ugarit Forschungen 10: 161-173. MArNE, H. 1870 Ancient Law. New York: Dutton. MALBRAN-LABAT, F. 1995 "Le decouverte epigraphique de 1994 a Ougarit (les textes Akkadiens". Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolica 36: 103-111. 2000 "Commerce at Ugarir". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 195. MALLET, J. 1987 "Le Temple Rhytons", in La Centre du la ville, 38-44e (1978-1984), Ras Shamra-Ougarit III, edited by M. Yon, pp. 213-248. Paris: Editions Recherche de la Civilisation. MALLET, J. and MATOi'AN, V. 2001 "Une Maison au Sud du 'Temple aux Rhytons' (fouilles 1979-1999)." in Etudes Ougaritiques: I. Travaux 1985-1995, Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIV; edited by M. Yon and D. Arnaud, pp. 83-190. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. MALLOWAN, E. "The Mechanics of Trade in Western Asia". Iran 3: 1-7. 1965 MARCHEGAY, S. "The Tombs". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 208-209. 2000 MARcus, D. 1975 "The Term "Coffin" in Semitic Languages". Journal ofthe Ancient Near Eastern Society ofColumbia University 7: 85-94.

I

,

403

"The IntegrativeTransformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization in Southern Syria". Bulletin oftheAmerican Schools ofOriental Research (BASOR) 234: 1--42.

MARGUERON, J. 1983 "Quelques Reflexions sur Certaines Pratiques Funeraires d'Ugarit", Akkadica 32: 5-31. 1995 "Le palais royal d'Ougarit, premieres resultants d'une systematique", in Le pays d'Ougarit autourde 1200 avo J -C Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 juin1er juillet 1993, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11, edited by M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 183-202. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. ''A Stroll Through the Palace". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 205-207. 2000 MATOi'AN, V. "The Art of Glass Working". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 220-221. 2000 MAUSS, M. [1950] The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. New 1990 York: Norton. MCCONNELL, C. and BRUE, S. 1993 Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies. New York: McGraw-Hill. MCCORRISTON, J. 1997 "The Fiber Revolution: Textile Extensification, Alienation, and Social Straitification in Ancient Mesopotamia". CurrentAnthropology 38 (4): 517-549. MCGEOUGH, K. 2003 "Locating the Marzihu Archaeologically". Ugarit Forschungen 35: 407-420. Forthcoming Ugaritic Economic Tablets: Texts, Translations, and Notes, edited by Mark Smith, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series, series editor Anthony Sagona. Leuven: Peeters Press. MENDELSOHN, I. 1941 "The Canaanite Term For "Free Proletarian". Bulletin ofthe American Schools of OrientalResearch 83: 36-39. 1955 "New Light on the Hupsu". Bulletin ofthe AmericanSchools ofOrientalResearch 139: 9-11. MERILLEES, R. 1986 "Political Conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean During the Late Bronze Age". BiblicalArchaeologist 49: 42-50. MICHALOWSKI, P. 1985 "Third Millennium Contacts: Observations on the Relationships Between Mari and Ebla". Journal ofthe American OrientalSociety 105: 293-302. 1986 ''An Early Old Babylonian Loan Document". Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38: 167-171. 1991 "Charisma and Control: On Continuity and Change in Early Mesopotamian Bureaucratic Systems", in The Organization ofPower: Aspects ofBureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, Second Edition with Corrections, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46, edited by MeG. Gibson and R. Biggs, pp. 45-57. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 1993 Letters From Early Mesopotamia. Atlanta: Scholars Press. MICHAUX-COLOMBOT, D. 1997 "La gat de Gedeon, pressoir ou fief?". Ugarit Forschungen 29: 579-598. MILLARD, A. "The LastTablets ofUgarit", in Lepays d'Ougarit autourde 1200 avo J-C Actes du 1995 Colloque International Paris, 28 juin-I" juillet 1993, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11, edited by M.Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp.119-124. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

404

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

MILLER, P. J r. 1970 "Ugaritic gzr and Hebrew zr II". Ugarit Forschungen 2: 159-175. MILLER, G. 1980 "Studies in the Juridical Texts from Ugarit", PhD Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University. MILLIK, J. "Quelques tablettes cuneiformes alphabetiques d'Ugarit", in Ugaritica VII, Mission de Ras Shamra 18, pp. 135-146. Paris: Paul Geuthner. MONCHAMBERT, J.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1956

Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit IV (PRU): Textes accadiens des archives sud (Archives internationales). Paris: Klincksieck.

1968

"Textes sumero-accadiens des archives et bibliotheques privees d'Ugarit", in Ugaritica V, edited by J. Nougayrol, C. Virolleaud, and C. F. A. Schaeffer, 1-447. Paris: Geuthner.

1970

Le Palais Royald'Ugarit VI (PRU): Textes en cuneiformes babyloniens des archives du grandpalais et du palaissud d'Ugarit. Paris: Klincksieck.

1978

La ceramique d'Ougarit: Campagnes de fouilles 1975 et 1976, Ras Shamra-

Ougarit xv. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. MONROE, C. 2000 Scales ofFate: Trade, Tradition, and Transformation in the Eastern Mediterranean ca. 1350-1175 BCE, PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan. MORAN, w: 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. MORONY, M. 1991 "In a City Without Watchdogs the Fox is the Overseer": Issues and Problems in the Study of Bureaucracy", in The Organization ofPower: Aspects ofBureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, Second Edition with Corrections, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46, edited by McG. Gibson and R. Biggs, pp. 5-14. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. MORRISON, M. "Part 1. The Eastern Archives of Nuzi", in Studies on the Civilization and Culture ofNuzi and the Hurrians. Volume 4, pp. 3-132.Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

1993 MUFFS, Y. 1969 MUHLY,J. 1977 1995

Studies in the Aramaic LegalPapyri from Elephantine. Leiden: E. J. Brill. "The Copper Ox-Hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metals Trade". Iraq 39: 73-86. "Lead Isotope Analysis and the Archaeologist". journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 54-58.

NAAMAN, N. 1981

"Economic Aspects of Egyptian Occupation of Canaan". Israel Exploration jour-

na131: 172-185. 1986

"Habiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere".

journal ofNear Eastern Studies 45: 271-288. 1997

"The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod". Ugarit Forschungen 29: 599-625.

NEWMAN,].

1932

TheAgricultural Lifeofthejewsin Babylonia Between theYears 200 ·CEand 500 CE.

London: Oxford. NISSEN, H. and ENGLUND, R.

1993

Archaic Bookkeeping. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

NISSEN, H. 1986 NORTH, R. 1973

"The Archaic Texts from Uruk". World Archaeology 17: 317-334. "Ugarit, Grid, Strata, and Find-Localizations". Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstinaltereins 89: 113-160.

NOUGAYROL, ].

1955

Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit III (PRU) Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, ouest et centrales. Paris: Klincksieck.

405

O'LEARY, B.

1989

The Asiatic Mode ofProduction: OrientalDespotism, Historical Materialism and Indian History. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. OPPENHEIM, A. 1954 "The Seafaring Merchants of Ur". journal ofthe American OrientalSociety 74: 1957

1967 1977

6-17. "A Bird's Eye View of Mesopotamian Economic History", in Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory, edited by K. Polanyi, C.M. Arensberg, and H. Pearson, pp. 27-37. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.

Letters From Mesopotamia: Official, Business, and Private Letters On Clay Tablets From Two Millennia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait ofa Dead Civilization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

PARDEE, D. 1974 1975a 1975b

"The Ugaritic Text 147 (90)". Ugarit Forschungen 6: 275-282. "The Preposition in Ugaritic". Ugarit Forschungen 7: 329-378. "The Ugaritic Text 2106: 10-18: A Bottomry Loan?" journal of the American OrientalSociety 95: 612-619. "The Preposition in Ugaritic". Ugarit Forschungen 8: 215-322. 1976 "Ugaritic". Archivflir Orientforschung 28: 259-272. 1982 "Ugaritic Bibliography". Archivflir Orientforschung 34: 366-471. 1987 "Review of The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and 1997 Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition)", journal of Semitic Studies 42: 132-137. 1999 "Les hommes du roi proprieraires de champs les rextes ougaritiques RS 15.16 et RS 19.016". Semitica 49: 19-64. 2000a "Divinatory and Sacrificial Rites". Near Eastern Archaeology 63(4): 232-234. 2000b "Trois comptes ougaritiques RS 15.062, RS 18.024, RIH 78/02". Syria 77: 23-68. 2000c "Ugaritic Studies at the End of the 20th Century". Bulletin of the American Schools ofOrientalResearch 320: 49-86. 2001 "Epigraphic et structure dans les texts administratifs en langue ougaritique: les exemples de RS 6.216 et RS 19.017". Orientalia 70 (3): 235-281. 2002a Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2002b Les textes rituels, Ras Shamra-Ougarit XII. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 2002c "Ugaritic Letters", in The Context ofScripture, Vol. 3, edited by w: Hallo and K. L. Younger, pp. 87-116. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 2003-2004 "Rezension von]. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273), Ugarit-Verlag, Munster", Archiv fUr Orientforschung: http://www.univie.ac.at/orientalistiklAfo.html #pardee. 2004 Manuel d'Ougaritique, Vol. II. Paris: Guenther Manuals. PARDEE, D. and BORDREUIL, P. 1992 "Ugarit: Texts and Literature", in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. VI, edited by D. N. Freedman, pp. 706-721. New York: Doubleday. Parise, N.

406

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

1989

S. 1979 1997 2000 PARKINS, H. 1998

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"The Mina ofUgarit, The Mina of Karkemish,The Mina of Khatti," in Production and Consumption in theAncientNearEast, edited by C. Zaccagnini, pp. 330-340.

1984c

Budapest: University of Budapest.

1987

"Time for Change? Shaping the Future of the Ancient Economy", in Trade, Traders, and the Ancient City, edited by H. Parkins and C. Smith, pp. 1-15. New York: Routledge.

H.

PEARSON,

"The Secular Debate on Economic Primitivism", in Trade and Market in the Early Empires, edited by K Polanyi, C.M. Arensberg, and H. Pearson, pp. 3-10. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.

1957

O. 1998 Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500-300 B.C. CDL Press. PERNICKA, E. 1995 "Crisis or Catharsis in Lead Isotope Analysis?" Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 59-64.

1989

1992 M. 1977 1978

PETTINATO,

1981

G. The Archives ofEbla: An Empire Inscribed in Clay. Garden City, N.¥.: Double-

1981

1986 1990

1992 1995

day. PITARD,

W

1994

"The "Libation Installations" of the Tombs at Ugarit". BiblicalArchaeologist 57 (1): 20-37.

1996 1999

POHL, A.

1956 POLANYI,

"Bibliotheken und Archive im alten Orient". Orientalia 25: 105-109.

K

1957

1964 1968

"Marketless Trading in Hammurabi's Time", in Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory, edited by K Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg, and H. Pearson, pp. 12-26. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. The Great Transformation. New York: Rhineheart.

Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies: Essays ofKarl Polanyi. Garden City: Doubleday.

1977 POLLOCK, S.

1999

The Livelihood ofMan. New York: Academic Press.

Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J.N. 1971 "Land Tenure in the Middle Assyrian Period: A Reconstruction". Bulletin ofthe School ofOrientaland African Studies 34: 496-520. 1982 "Ilku and Land Tenure in the Middle Assyrian Kingdom - A Second Attempt", in Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East, edited by].N. Postgate, pp. 304-313. Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd. 1984a "Cuneiform Catalysis: The First Information Revolution". Archaeological Review from Cambridge 3: 4-18. 1984b "The Problem of Yields in Cuneiform Texts". Bulletin ofSumerian Agriculture I: 97-102.

POSTGATE,

Lake: Eisenbrauns. "The Ownership and Exploitation of Land in Assyriain the 1st Millennium B.C.", in Reflet: des deux fleuves: volume de melanges offerts a Andre Finet, Akkadica Supplement 6, edited by M. Lebeau and P. Talon, pp. 141-152. Leuven: Peeters. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn ofHistory. New York: Routledge.

POWELL,

PERRY,A.

"Mediterranean Climate", in The Mediterranean: Environmentand Society, edited by R. King, L. Proudfoot, and B. Smith, pp. 3-44. New York: Halsted Press.

"Employer, Employee, and Employment in the Neo-Assyrian Empire", in

Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by M. Powell, pp. 257-270. Winona

PEDERSEN,

1997

"Processing of Cereals in the Cuneiform Record". Bulletin ofSumerian Agricul-

ture I: 103-113.

PARKER,

"Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology". Maarav 2/1: 7-41. (ed.) Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta: Scholars Press. "Ugaritic Literature and the Bible". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 228-231.

407

POWELL,

M.

1987 PRYOR, F. 1977

"Sumerian Merchants and the Problem of Profit". Iraq 39: 23-29. "Corter, Konige, und 'Kapitalisten' im Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtausends v. u. z.". Oikumene 2: 127-144. "A Contribution to the History of Money in Mesopotamia Prior to the Invention of Coinage", in Festschrift LuborMatous, edited by G. Komoroczy and L. Marcus, pp. 211-243. "The Economy of the Extended Family According to Sumerian Sources". Oikumene 5: 9-14. "Identification and Interpretation of Long Term Price Fluctuations in Babylonia: More on the History of Money in Mesopotamia". Altorientalische Forschungen 17: 76-99. "Weights and Measures", in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. Vi, edited by D. Freedman, pp. 897-908. New York: Doubleday. "Metrology and Mathematics in Ancient Mesopotamia", in Civilizations ofthe Ancient Near East, Vol. III, edited by J. Sasson, pp. 1925-1940. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. "Money in Mesopotamia". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 39: 224-242. "Wir miissen unsere Niscbe nutzen: Monies, Motives, and Methods in Babylonian Economics", in Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia, MOS Studies 1, edited by J.G. Dercksen, pp. 5-24. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Institut te Istanbul. (ed.) Laborin the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

The Origins ofthe Economy. New York: Academic Press.

RAINEY, A.

"Administration in Ugarit and the Samaria Ostraca". Israel Exploration Journal 12: 62-63 1962b The Social Stratification of Ugarit, Dissertation, Brandeis University. 1963 "Business Agents at Ugarit". Israel Exploration Journal 13: 313-321. 1964 "Organized Religion at Ugarit". Christian Newsfrom Israel 15: 16-24. 1965a "Family Relationships at Ugarit". Orientalia 34: 10-22. 1965b "The Kingdom ofUgarit". BiblicalArchaeologist 28: 102-125. 1965c "The Military Personnel of Ugarit". Journal ofNear Eastern Studies 24: 17-27. 1966 'TO maskim at Ugarit". Orientalia 35: 426-428. 1967 "ashiru and asiru in Ugarit and the Land of Canaan". Journal ofNear Eastern Studies 26: 296-301. 1969 "Some Prepositional Nuances in Ugaritic Administrative Texts", in Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies, pp. 205-21. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1962a

408

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

1971 1973 1974 1975 1996

"Observations on Ugaritic Grammar". Ugarit Forschungen 3: 151-172. "Gleanings from Ugarit". Israel OrientalStudies 3: 34-62. "The Ugaritic Texts in Ugaritica 5". journal ofthe American OrientalSociety 94 (2): 184-194. "More Gleanings from Ugarir". Israel OrientalStudies 5: 18-31.

Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis ofthe Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. Volume III Morpho-syntactic Analysis ofthe Particles and Adverbs. Leiden: Brill.

REDFORD, D. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1992 RENFREW, C. "Symbol Before Concept: Material Engagement and the Early Development 2001 of Society", in Archaeological Theory Today, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 122-140. Malden, MA: Polity Press. RENGER, J. 1972-1975 "Heilige Hochzeit. A. Philologisch", in Reallexicon derAssyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archdologie. edited by D. Edzard, pp. 251-259. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1979 "Interaction ofTernple, Palace, and "Private Enterprise" in Old Babylonian Economy". Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5: 249-256. 1984 "Patterns of Non-Institutional Trade and Non-Commercial Exchange in Ancient Mesopotamia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.", in Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient Near East, edited by A. Archi, pp. 33-61. Roma: R. E. G. 1994 "On Economic Structures in Ancient Mesopotamia". Orientalia 63: 157-208. 1995 "Institutional, Communal, and Individual Ownership or Possession of Arable Land in Ancient Mesopotamia from the End of the Fourth to the End of the First Millennium Be". Chicago Kent Law Review 71/1: 269-319. REy-CoQuAIS, J. 1978 "Inscription Grecque Decouverte a Ras Ibn Hani: Stele de Mercenaires Lagides sur la Cote Syrienne". Syria 55: 313-325. RIBICHINI, S. and XELLA, P. 1985 La Terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit, Studi Fenici 20. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale della Ricerche. RICOEUR, P. 1992 OneselfasAnother, translated by K. Blamey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ROBERTSON, J. 1981 Redistributive Economies in Ancient Mesopotamian Society: A Case Study from Isin-Larsa Period Nippur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ROCHE, C. 2000 "The Lady ofUgarit". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 214-215. VON ROLLIG, W 1976 "Der altmesopotamische Markt". Die Welt des Orients 8: 286-295. ROSTOVTZEFF, M. 1963 [1957] Social and Economic History oftheRoman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ROTH, M. 1997 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Second Edition. Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ROUTLEDGE, B. 2004 Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ROWE,I. 1992

409

"Summaries of Ugaritic Texts and Some New Reading Suggestions". Ugarit

Forschungen 24: 259-262. 1993a

"Evidence of Trade Between Ugarit and Byblos. Once More on KTU 4.338: 10-18". Aula Orientalis XI: 101-106. 1993b "KTU 3.7 Reconsidered: On the ilku-Service in Ugarit", Aula Orientalis 11: 250-252. 1995 "More Evidence About the Grazing Tax in Ugarit", Ugarit Forschungen 27: 317-331. 1996 "Syllabic and Alphabetic Texts - A Further Note on Scribal Education at Ugarit". Ugarit Forschungen 28: 457-462. 1999a "The Legal Texts from Ugarit", in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung 1, edited by W Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 390-422. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1999b "Royal Land Grants and ilku-Service in Ugarit: The Legal Mechanism", in Landwirtschaft im Alten Orient, edited by H. Klengel and J. Renger, pp. 171178. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. 2002 "The King's Men in Ugarit and Society in Late Bronze Age Syria". journal ofthe Economic and Social History ofthe Orient 45 (1): 1-19. ROWLANDS, M. 1987 "Centre and Periphery: A Review of a Concept", in Centre and Periphery in the AncientWorld, edited by M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, pp. 1-11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SAADE, G. Ougarit: Metropole Cananeene. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique. 1979 "Note sur les Tell Archeologiques du Royaume Ougaritien". Syria 67: 1951990 199. "Le Port d'Ougarit." in Lepays d'Ougarit autourde 1200 av. J-C Actes du Colloque 1995 International Paris, 28 juin-I" juillet 1993, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11, edited by M.Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil, pp. 211-225. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. SAGGS, H. 1989 Civilization Before Greece and Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press. SAHLINS, M. 1972 Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine. SANLAVILLE, P. 1978 "Note sur la Geomorphologie de la Presqu'ile d'Ibn Hani". Syria 55: 303305. SANMARTIN, J. 1989 "Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexicon (VI)". Ugarit Forschungen 21: 335-348. 1990 "El ordo liturgica KTU 4.14". Aula Orientalis 8:89-99. 1995 "Das Handwerk in Ugarit: eine lexikalissche Studie". Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sui Vicino Oriente antico 12: 169-190. SASSON, J. 1966 "Canaanite Maritime Involvement in the Second Millennium B.C.". journal of the American OrientalSociety 86: 126-138. 1972 "Some Comments on Archive Keeping at Mari". Iraq 34: 21-34, 55-67. DE SAUSSURE, F. 1972 Course in General Linguistics. Chicago: Open Court Classics. SAYRE, E., YENER, K. and JOEL, E. 1995 "Comments on Oxhide Ingots, Recycling and the Mediterranean Metals Trade". journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 45-53.

410

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

SCHAEFFER(-FoRRER), C. 1929 "Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras Sharnra: campagne du printemps 1929". Syria 10: 285-303. 1931 "Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras Shamra: Deuxierne campagne printemps (1930) Rapport Sommaire". Syria 12: 1-14. 1932 "Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras Shamra: 'Iroisieme campagne printemps (1931) Rapport Sommaire". Syria 13: 1-29. 1933 "Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras Shamra: Quartieme campagne printemps (1932) Rapport Sommaire". Syria 14: 93-127. 1934 "Les fouilles de Ras Shamra: Cinqierne campagne printemps (1933)". Syria 15: 105-136. 1935 "Les fouilles de Ras Shamra - Ugarit: Sixierne campagne printemps (1934)". Syria 16: 141-176. 1936 "Les fouilles de Ras Shamra - Ugarit: Septieme campagne printemps (1935)". Syria 17: 105-149. 1937 "Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit: Huitierne campagne printemps (1936)". Syria 18: 125-154. 1938 "Les fouilles de Ras Shamra -Ugarit: Neuvieme campagne printemps (1937)". Syria 19: 313-334, 193-255. 1939 "Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit: Dixierne et onzieme campagnes (Atomne et Hiver 1938-1939)". Syria 20: 277-292. 1951a "Decouverte d'un sceau royal hittite a Ras Shamra-Ugarit". AnnalesArcheologiques de SyrieT.1 (2): 165-170. 1951b "Une industrie d'Ugarit la pourpre". Annales Archeologiques de Syrie 1(2): 188-192. 1951c "Premier rapport sur la reprise des fouilles de Ras Shamra en Syria". Annales Archeologiques de Syrie 1: 5-18. 1951d "Reprise de recherche archeologiques a Ras Shamra-Ugarit: Sondages de 1948 et 1949 et Campagne de 1950". Syria 28: 1-21. 1952 "Nouvelles fouilles et decouvertes de la mission archeologique de Ras-Shamra dans le Palais d'Ugarit (campagne 1951)". Annales Arcbeologiques de Syrie 2: 3-22. 1953 "La fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit: Dix-septieme campagne de fouilles (1)". Annales Archeologiques de Syrie 3: 117-144. 1954 "Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit Quinzierne, seizierne et dix-septieme campagnes (1951, 1952 et 1953)". Syria 31: 14-67. 1954-1955 "Resume des resultats de la XVIIIe Campagne de fouilles a Ras ShamraUgarit, 1954". AnnalesArcheologiques de Syrie 4-5: 149-162. 1955 "Expose prelirninaire". in Le Palais Royald'UgaritIII (PRU): Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, ouest et centrales, edited by ]. Nougayrol, pp. xi-xxx. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. 1957a "Expose preliminaire", Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit II. Mission de Ras Shamra 7. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. 1957b "Resume des resultats de la XIXe campagne de fouilles a Ras Shamra-Ugarit, 1955". Annales Archeologiques de Syrie 7: 35-66. 1958-1959 "Nouvelles decouvertes de Ras Shamra". Annales Archeologiques de Syrie 8: 133-178. 1960 "Resume des resultats de la XXiie campagne de fouilles a Ras Shamra-Ugarit, 1959". AnnalesArcheologiques de Syrie 10: 135-158. 1961-1962 Resume des resultats de la XXIIIe campagne de fouilles a Ras ShamraUgarit, 1960". AnnalesArcheologiques de Syrie 10-11: 188-205.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1962 1963 1968

1970 SCHLOEN, ].

1985 2001

411

"Fouilles et decouvertes des XVIIIe et XIXe campagnes, 1954-1955", pp. 1-150 in Ugaritica IV, Mission de Ras Shamra 15. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. "La XXIve Campagne de fouilles a Ras Shamra-Ugarit, 1961". AnnalesArcbeologiques de Syrie 13: 123-134. "Comrnentaires sur les lettres et documents trouves dans les bibliotheques privees d'Ugarit", in Ugaritica V, edited by J. Nougayrol, C. Virolleaud, and c.F.A. Schaeffer, pp. 607-708. Paris: Geuthner, "Recherches archeologiques nouvelles a Ras Shamra (Ugarit)". AnnalesArcbeologiques de Syrie 20: 7-11. D.

The Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom of Ugarit: A Weberian Analysis of Ancient Near Eastern Society, PhD Dissertation, Harvard University. The House ofthe Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East, Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 3. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

SCHMIDT, B. 2000 ''Afterlife Beliefs: Memory as Immortality". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 236-239. SCHNEIDER, A. 1920 DieAnfiinge derKulturwirtschaft, Die Sumerische Tempelstadt. Essen: G.D. Baedeker. SEGERT, S. 1987 "The Ugaritic nqdm After Twenty Years. A Note on the Function of the Ugaritic nqdm", Ugarit Forschungen 19: 409--410. SHAFIR, E., DIAMOND, P. and TVERSKY, A. 2000 "Money Illusion", in Choices, Values, and Frames, edited by D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, 335-355. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SHANKS,

H.

1999

SHAW,B. 1988

Ancient Israel, Revised and Expanded. Upper Saddle River, N.].: Prentice Hall.

"Roman Taxation", in Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome, edited by M. Grant and R. Kitzinger, pp. 809-828. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. SHERRAT, A. and SHERRAT, S. 1990 "From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems", in Bronze Age Trade in theMediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale, pp. 351-384. jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag. SILVER, M. 1983 Prophets and Markets: The Political Economy ofAncient Israel. Boston: KluwerNijhoff Publishing. 1985 Economic Structures ofthe Ancient Near East. Totowa: Barnes and Noble Books. SINGER, I. "Takuhlinu and Haya: Two Governors in the Ugaritic Letter from Tel Aphek". 1983 Tel Aviv 10: 3-25. "Merneptah's Campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian Occupation of the Southern 1988 Coastal Plain of Palestine in the Ramesside Period". Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalResearch 269: 1-10. ''A Concise History of Amurru", in AmurruAkkadian: A Linguistic Study, Volume II, 1991 Harvard SemiticStudies 41, edited by S. Izre'el, pp.134-195. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ''A Political History of Ugarit", in Handbook ofUgaritic Studies, Handbuch der 1999 Orientalistik, Abteilung 1, edited by W. Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 603-733. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

412

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

SIVAN, D. 1997 SKAIST,

A Grammar ofthe Ugaritic Language. Leiden: Brill.

A.

"A Unique Closing Formula in the Contracts of Ugarit", in Society and Economy in theEastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1100 BC), edited by M. Heltzer, pp. 160-176. Leuven: Peeters. SLOAN, H. and ZURCHER, A. 1957 A Dictionary ofEconomics, Third Edition Revised. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc. 1994 The Old Babylonian Loan Contract. Israel: Bar Han University. SMITH, A. 1991 An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes ofthe Wealth ofNations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SMITH, M. S. 1997 "The Baal Cycle", in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by S. Parker, pp. 81-180. Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2001a UntoldStories: The Bibleand Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. 2001b The Origins ofBiblicalMonotheism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SMITH, V. 2000 Bargaining and market behavior: essays in experimental economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SNELL, D. 1979 "The Activities of Some Merchants of Umma". Iraq 39: 45-50. 1982 Ledgers and Prices: Early Mesopotamian Merchant Accounts. New Haven: Yale University Press. "Marketless Trading in Our Time". journal ofthe Economic and Social History of 1991 the Orient 39/2: 129-141. 1997 Lifein theAncientNearEast, 3100-322 B.CE New Haven: YaleUniversity Press. SNYCZER, M. "Documents administratifs et economiques", in Supplement au Dictionnaire de 1979 fa Bible, Vol. 9, edited by H. Cazelles and A. Feuillet, cols. 1417-1425. Paris: Letouzey & Ane, ''Akkadian Documents from Ras Shamra". journal of the American Oriental 1955 Society 75: 154-165. STAGER, L. 1985 ''Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel". Bulletin ofthe American Schools ofOrientalResearch 260: 1-35. 2001 "Port Power: The Organization of Maritime Trade and Hinterland Production", in 1988

Studies in the Archaeology ofIsrael and Neighboring Lands: In Memory ofDouglas Esse, edited by S. Wolff, pp. 625-638. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press. STEELE, F. 1943 STEIN, G. 1996

STEINER, R. 2003

Nuzi RealEstate Transactions. New Haven: American Oriental Society. "Producers, Patrons, and Prestige: Craft Specialists and Emergent Elites in Mesopotamia from 5500-3100 b.c.", in Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory ofV. Gordon Childe, edited by B.Wailes, pp. 25-38. Philadelphia: The University Museum.

Stockmen from Tekoa, Sycamores from Sheba. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

413

STEINKELLER, P. 1981 "The Renting of Fields in Early Mesopotamia and the Development of the Concept of "interest" in Sumerian". journal ofthe Economic and Social History ofthe Orient 24: 113-145. 1987 "The Foresters ofUmma: Toward a Definition ofUr III Labour", in Laborin the AncientNear East, edited by M. Powell, pp. 73-115. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. "The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core 1991 and the Periphery", in The Organization ofPower: Aspects ofBureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, Second Edition with Corrections, edited by MeG. Gibson and R. Biggs, pp. 15-33. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2001 "Moneylending Practices in Ur III Babylonia: The Issue of Economic Motivation." in Debt and Renewal in the Ancient Near East, edited by M. Hudson and M. van de Mieroop, pp. 109-137. Baltimore: CDL Press. STIEGLITZ, R. "Ugaritic Commodity Prices". journal oftheAmerican Oriental Society 99: 15-23. 1979 1981 "A Physician's Equipment List from Ugarit".journal ofCuneiform Studies 33: 52-55. STONE, E. 2003 ''A Mesopotamian Perspective". Cambridge Archaeologicaljournal13 (1): 121-124. SWEET, R. 1958 On Prices, Moneys, and Money Uses in the Old Babylonian Period. Chicago: University of Chicago. TAMMUZ, O. 2001 "Canaan - A Land Without Limits". Ugarit Forschungen 33: 501-544. TANNENBAUM, N. 1984 "Chayanov and Economic Anthropology", in Chayanov, Peasants and Economic Anthropology, edited by E. P. Durrenberger, pp. 27-38. New York: Academic Press, Inc. TIGAY, J. 1996 TheJPS TOrah Commentary: Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. TROPPER, J. 1999 "Ugaritic Grammar", in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung 1, edited by W Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 91-121. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 2000 Ugaritische Grammatik, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273. MUnster: UgaritVerlag. TROPPER, J. and VITA, J. "Der Wettergott von Halab in Ugarit (KTU 4.728)". ArchivfUr Orientforschung 1999 26: 310-313. 2004 "Texte aus Ugarit", in Neue Folge Band 1. Texte zum Recbts- und Wirtschaftsleben, pp. 111-128. Satz: GUtersloher Verlagshaus. VAN DE MIEROOP, M. 1999 Cuneiform Texts and the WritingofHistory. New York: Routledge. 2001 "Credit as Facilitator of Exchange in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia", in Debt and Renewal in the Ancient Near East, edited by M. Hudson and M. van de Mieroop, pp. 163-173. Baltimore: CDL Press. VAN DRIEL, G. 1994 "Land in Ancient Mesopotamia: 'That what remains undocumented does not exist."', in Landless and Hungry? Access to Land in Early and Traditional Societies, edited by B. Haring and R. de Maaijer, pp. 19-49. Leiden: Research School CNWS.

414

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

1999

"Capital Formation and Investment in an Institutional Context in Ancient Mesopotamia", in Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia, MOS Studies 1, edited by]. G. Dercksen, pp. 25-42. Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Institut te Istanbul.

2002

Elusive Silver: In Search of a Role for a Market in an Agrarian Environment Aspects ofMesopotamia's Society. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije

Oosten. VAN SOLDT, W. 1986 "The Palace Archives at Ugarit", in Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, edited by K. Veenhof, pp. 196-204. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor hat Nabije Oosten. 1989a "Labels from Ugarit", Ugarit Forschungen 21: 375-388. 1989b "The Ugaritic Word for 'Fly' ". Ugarit Forschungen 21: 369-373. "Fabrics and Dyes at Ugarit". Ugarit Forschungen 22: 321-358. 1990 Studies in theAkkadian ofUgarit: Dating and Grammar, Alter Orient und Altes 1991 Testament 40. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1994 "The Topography and Geographical Horizon of the City-State of Ugarit", in

Ugarit and the Bible. Proceedings ofthe International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur (UBL) 11, edited by G. Brooke, A Curtis, and]. Healey, pp. 363-382. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag. "Babylonian Lexical, Religious, and Literary Texts and Scribal Education at Ugarit and its Implications for Alphabetic Literary Texts", in Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung I Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt, Alt-Syrien-Palastinas und Mesopotamiens (ALASP) 7, edited by M.Dietrich and O. Loretz, pp. 171-212. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag. 1995b "KTU 4.784:2". Ugarit Forschungen 27: 484-485. 1996 "Studies in the Topography ofUgarit (1): The Spelling of the Ugaritic Toponyms". Ugarit Forschungen 28: 653-692. 1997 "Studies in the Topography of Ugarit (2): The Borders of Ugarir". Ugarit Forschungen 29: 683-703. 1998 "Studies in the Topography of Ugarit (3): Groups ofTowns and Their Locations." Ugarit Forschungen 30: 703-743. 1999 "Studies in the Topography of Ugarit (4): Town Sizes and Districts". Ugarit Forschungen 31: 749-796. 2000 "Private Archives at Ugarit", in Interdependency ofInstitutions and Private Entrepreneurs, Mos Studies 2, edited by ACV.M. Bonegenaar, pp. 229-245. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut Te Istanbul. 2001 "Studies on the sakinu-Official (1): The spelling and office-holders at Ugarit". Ugarit Forschungen 33: 579-599. 2002 "Studies on the sakinu-Official (2): The Functions of the sdkinu of Ugarit". Ugarit Forschungen 34: 805-828. VARGYAS, P. "Le mudu a Ugarit. Ami du Rois?" Ugarit Forschungen 13: 165-179. 1981 "Stratification sociale a Ugarit", Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean 1988 (c. 1500-1100 BC), edited by M. Heltzer. Leuven: Peeters. VAUGHN, A "il gzr - An Explicit Epithet of El as a Hero/Warrior". Ugarit Forschungen 25: 1993 423-430. VEBLEN, T. [1899] The Theory ofthe Leisure Class. New York: Penguin. 1994 1995a

BIBLIOGRAPHY

415

VEENHOF, K. 1972 Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology. Leiden: E. ]. Brill. 1977 "Some Social Effects of Old Assyrian Trade". Iraq 39: 109-118. 1988 "Prices and Trade: The Old Assyrian Evidence". Altorientalische Forschungen 15: 243-263. 1999 "Silver and Credit in Old Assyrian Trade", in Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia, MOS Studies 1, edited by]. G. Dercksen, pp. 55-84. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut te Istanbul. 2000' "Kanesh: An Assyrian Colony in Anatolia", in Civilizations ofthe Ancient Near East, edited by]. Sasson, pp. 859-872. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. VEENHOF, K. (ed.) 1986 Cuneiform Archives and Libraries. Nederland: Nederlands Instituut Voor hat Nabije Oosten. VEYNE, P. 1987 "The Roman Empire", in A History ofPrivate Life. vol. 1. From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, edited by P. Veyne, translated by A. Goldhammer, pp. 5-233. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. VrRoLLEAuD, C. 1929 "Les inscriptions cuneiformes de Ras Shamra". Syria 10: 304-310. 1934a "Fragment nouveau du poeme de Mot et Aleyn-Baal (I AB)". Syria 15: 226243. 1934b "Table genealogique provenant de Ras-Shamra". Syria 15: 245-251. 1939 "Noms de metiers et de functions a Ras Shamra". Groupe Linguistique dEtudes Chamito-Semitiques 1939: 62-64. 1940 "Les villes et les corporations du royaume d'Ugarit". Syria 21: 123-151. 1940-1941 "Textes administratifs de Ras-Shamra en cuneiforme alphabetique", Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Arcbeologie Orientale 37: 11-44. 1954 "Les nouveaux textes alphabetiques de Ras Shamra (XVIle campagne, 1953)".

Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 255-259. Le Palais Royald'UgaritII (PRU): Textes en cuneiformes alphabetiques des archives est, ouest et centrales. Paris: Imprimiere Nationale. 1965 Le Palais Royald'UgaritV (PRU): Textes en cuneiformes alphabetiques des archives sud, sud-ouestet du petit palais. Paris: Klincksieck. VrRoLLEAUD, C. and LAMBERT, M. 1968 Tablettes economiques de Lagash (Epoque de la IIIe Dynastie d'Ur). Paris: Cahiers 1957

de la societe Asiatique 19. VrSKATOFF, A 2000 "Will Complexity Turn Economics Into Sociology?", in Complexity and the History of Thought, edited by D. Colander, pp. 129-154. New York: Routledge. VITA, ]. 1996 "Una nueva interpretacion del documento administrativo ugaritico 00-4.392". utarit Forschungen 28: 693-699. 1997 "Sipti-Ba'lu, un "egyptien" a Ougarit". Ugarit Forschungen 29: 709-713. 1999 "The Society of Ugarit" , in Handbook ofUgaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung 1, edited by W. Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 455-498. Leiden: E. ]. Brill. VON DASSOW, E. 1997 TheSocial Stratification ofAlalakh Under theMitannian Empire, PhD Dissertation, New York University.

416

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

WACHSMAN, S. 1998 Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. London: Chatham Publishing. WAETZOLDT, H. 1987 "Comparison of Craft Workers in the Ur III Period", in Labor In the Ancient Near East, edited by M. Powell, pp. 118-141.Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. WAILES, B. 1996 "v. Gordon Childe and the Relations of Production", in Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordon Childe, edited by B. Wailes, pp. 3-14. Philadelphia: The University Museum. WALDROP, M. 1994 Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster. WATSON, W ''An Allocation of Horses (PRU V Text 105)". Ugarit Forschungen 6: 497-498. 1974 1990a "Ugaritic Onomastics (1)". Aula Orientalis VIII (1): 113-127. 1990b "Ugaritic Onomastics (2)". Aula Orientalis VIII (2): 243-250. "Ugaritic Onomastics (3)". Aula Orientalis XI (2): 213-222. 1993 1995a "Non Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (1)". Ugarit Forschungen 27: 533558. 1995b "Ugaritic Onomastics (4)". Aula Orientalis XIII (2): 217-229. 1996a "Non Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (2)". Ugarit Forschungen 28: 701-

719. "Ugaritic Onomastics (5)". Aula Orientalis XIV (1): 93-106. "Non Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (3)". Ugarit Forschungen 30: 751760. 1999 "Non Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (4)". Ugarit Forschungen 31: 783799. 2000 "Non Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (5)". Ugarit Forschungen 32: 567576. 2001 "The Lexical Aspect ofUgaritic Toponyms". Aula Orientalis 19 (1): 109-123. 2002a "The Meaning of Ugaritic s/sgr". Journal of Semitic Studies 47(2): 203-207. 2002b "Tools of the Trade (KTU 4.127 and 4.385)". Ugarit Forschungen 34: 921-930. WATSON, Wand WYATf, N. (eds.) 1999 Handbook ofUgaritic Studies. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung 1. Leiden: E. ]. Brill. WEBER, M. 1976 The Agrarian Sociology ofAncient Civilizations, translated by R. Frank. Atlantic Highlands, N. ].: Humanities Press. 1978 Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, edited by G. Roth, and C. Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press. WEITMEYER, M. 1956 ''Archive and Library Technique in Ancient Mesopotamia". Libri 6: 217-238. WESTENHOLTZ, A. 1977 "Diplomatic and Commercial Aspects of Temple Offering". Iraq 39: 19-21. WHITf, W 1993 Archivesand Administration in the RoyalPalace ofUgarit, PhD Dissertation, Duke University. WIBLE, ]. "What is Complexity?", in Complexity and the History of Thought, edited by 2000 D. Colander, pp.15-30. New York: Routledge. 1996b 1998

BIBLIOGRAPHY

417

WIDBIN, R. 1985

The East Archives in "Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit": A Structural and Socio-Economic Analysis, PhD Dissertation, Brandeis University. VAN WIJNGAARDEN, G. 1999 ''An Archaeological Approach to the Concept of Value: Mycenaean Pottery at Ugarit (Syria)". Archaeological Dialogues 1999 (1): 2-23,38-46. 2002 Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (I600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. WILCKE, C. 1977 "From Trade to Murder". Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29: 185-186. WILHELM, G. 1980 Das Archiv des Silwa-tessup. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. WILSON, E. 1998 Consilience: The Unity ofKnowledge. New York: Random House. WINCKLER, H. 1910 "Die Arier in den Urkunden von Bogahz-koi". Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 13: 289-301. WINTER, I. 1991 "Legitimation ofAuthority Through Image and Legend: Seals Belonging to Officials in the Administrative Bureaucracy of the Ur III State", in The Organization ofPower:Aspects ofBureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, Second Edition with corrections, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46, edited by McG. Gibson and R. Biggs, pp. 59-99. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press. WISEMAN, D. J. 1953 The Alalakh Tablets. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. 1954 "Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets".journal ofCuneiform Studies 8: 1-30. 1959 "Ration Lists from Alalakh VII". Journal of Cuneiform Studies 13: 11-13. WITTFOGEL, K. 1957 Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study ofTOtal Power. New Haven: Yale University Press. WITTGENSTEIN, L. 1953 Philosophical Investigatons, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: The Macmillan Company. WOLFRAM, S. 2002 A New Kind ofScience. Champain, IL: Wolfram Media Inc. WOUDHUIZEN, F. 1994 "Tablet RS 20.25 from Ugarit: Evidence of Maritime Trade in the Final Years of the Bronze Age". Ugarit Forschungen 26: 509-538. WRIGHT, H. 1969 The Administration of Rural Production in an Early Mesopotamian TOwn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. WYATf, N., W WATSON, and]. LLOYD (eds.), 1996 Ugarit, religion and culture. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag. XELLA,

P.

1990 YADIN, Y. 1959 YAMADA, M. 1992

"'Arsenic et vielles dentelles': encore sur la terminologie des textiles Ugarit Forschungen 22: 467-474.

a Ugarit".

"Recipients or Owners". IsraelExploration Journal 9: 184-187. "Reconsidering the Letters from the "King" in the Ugarit Texts: Royal Correspondence of Carchemish?" Ugarit Forschungen 29: 431-446.

418

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

YOFFEE, N. 1977

The Economic Role ofthe Crown in the Old Babylonian Period. Malibu: Undena Publications.

YON,M. 1990 1991a 1991b

1992a 1992b 1992c

1994

1995a

"Ras Shamra-Ougarit 1988-1989 (48 e et 4g ecampagnes)". Syria 67: 442-449. "Les steles de pierre", in Arts et industries de la pierre, Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI, edited by M. Yon, pp. 273-344. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. "Note sur la sculpture de pierre", in Arts et industries de la pierre, Ras ShamraOugarit VI, edited by M. Yon, pp. 345-354. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. "Ugarir", in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. VI, edited by D. Freedman, pp. 695-721. New York: Doubleday. "Ugarit: The Urban Habitat, The Present State of the Archaeological Picture". Bulletin ofthe American Schools of OrientalResearch 286: 19-34. "The End of the Kingdom ofUgarit", in The Crisis Years: The 12h Century B.C, edited by W. Ward and M. ]oukowsky, pp. 111-122. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt Publishers. "Ougarit et ses relations avec les regions maritimes voisines (d' apres les travaux recents)", pp. 421-439 in Ugarit and Bible, edited G. Brooke, A. Curtis, and ]. Healey. Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 11. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994. "La Maison d'Ourtenu dans le Quartier sud d'Ougarit". Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 429-443.

1995b "LArcheologie d'Ougarit: Decouvertes recentes", in Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient, Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palastinas (ALASP) 7, edited by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, pp. 267-279. Munster: UgaritVerlag "The Temple of the Rhytons at Ugarit", in Ugarit, religion and culture, edited 1996 by N. Wyatt, W. Watson, and]. Lloyd, pp. 405-422. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag. 1997 La cite d'Ougarit sur le tell de Ras Shamra. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 2000a "Daily Life". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 200-201. 2000b "ATrading City: Ugarit and the West". NearEastern Archaeology 63 (4): 192-193. 2000c "Ugarit: 6,000 Years of History". Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 186-189. YON, M. (ed.) 1991 Arts et industries de la pierre, Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI. Paris: Edtions Recherche sur les Civilisations. YON, M. and ARNAUD, D. 2001 Etudes Ougaritiques t. Trauaux 1985-1995, Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIV Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. YON, M., KARAGEORGHIS, V. and HIRSCHFELD, N. 2000 Ceramiques myceniennes, Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIII. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. YON, M., LOMBARD, P. and RENISO, M. 1987 "Lorganisation de l'Habitat: Les Maisons A, B, et E", in La Centre du la ville, 38-44e 0978-1984), Ras Shamra-Ougarit III, edited by M. Yon, pp. 11-128. Paris: Editions Recherche de la Civilisation. YON, M., SZNYCER, M. AND BORDREUIL, P. (eds) 1995 Lepaysd'Ougaritautour de 1200 avo J -C Actes du Colloque International, Paris, 28 juin-I" juillet 1993, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11. Paris, Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. ZACCAGNINI, C. "Note sulla terminologica metallurgica di Ugarit". Oriens Antiquus 9: 315-324. 1970

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1975 1977 1981

1984

1987

1989 1994 ZADOK,

419

"The Yield of the Fields at Nuzi". Oriens Antiquus 14: 181-225. "The Merchant at Nuzi". Iraq 39: 171-189. "A Note on Nuzi Textiles", in Studies on the Civilization and Culture ofNuzi and the Hurrians, edited by M. Morrison and D. Owen, pp. 349-361. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. "Transfers of Movable Property in Nuzi: Private Transactions", in Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient Near East, edited by A. Archi, pp. 139-159. Roma: R. E. G. "Aspects of Ceremonial Exchange in the Near East During the Late Second Millennium B.C.", in Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, pp. 57-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East. Budapest: University of Budapest. "Feet of Clay at Emar and Elsewhere". Orientalia 63: 1-4.

R.

1996

"Notes on Syro-Palestinian History, Toponymy and Anthroponymy". Ugarit

Forschungen 28: 721-749. 2000

"On the Prosopography and Onomastics of Syria-Palestine and Adjacent Regions". Ugarit Forschungen 32: 599-674.

ZAMORA, ].

1997 2000 ZETTLER, R. 1991

1992

1996

ZISKIND, j. 1974 ZORN, ]. 1991

Sobre "ElModo Produccion Asidtico" en Ugarit. Madrid: Banco de Datos Filol6gicos Semfticos Noroccidentales. La Vidy el Vino en Ugarit. Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientfficas. ''Administration of the Temple of Inanna at Nippur under the Third Dynasty of Ur: Archaeological and Documentary Evidence", in The Organization ofPower: Aspects ofBureaucracy in theAncientNearEast, Second Edition with Corrections, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46, edited by McG. Gibson and R. Biggs, pp. 10 1-114. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

The Ur III Temple ofInanna at Nippur. The operation and organisation ofurban religious institutions in Mesopotamia in the late third millennium B. C Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. "Written Documents as Excavated Artifacts and the Holistic Interpretation of the Mesopotamian Archaeological Record", in The Study ofthe Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century, edited by]. Cooper and G. Schwartz, pp. 81-102. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. "Sea Loans at Ugarit". Journal of the American Oriental Society 94: 134-137. "LO. PA-MA- ljA-A in EA 162:74 and the Role of the MHR in Egypt and Ugarit". Journal ofNear Eastern Studies 50 (2): 129-138.

SUBJECT INDEX

SUBJECT INDEX administrative models, 3, 38, 65 Aegean, 60, 63, 76, 98,251, 254,258, 301 agriculture, equipment, 137, 161, 170, 171, 172,185,208,211,213,214,318,372 agriculture, yields, 180, 196 Alalakh, 43, 55, 58, 77, 99, 104, 105, 106, 127, 149, 204 Albright, WE, 39 Amarna letters, 76, 99 Amenhotep II, 104, Amenhotep III 238 Amenhotep IV; 223 Ammistamru, 125, 223, 247, 250 Ammistamru II, 125, 247, 250 Amorites, 53 Amurru, 76, 332, 334, 335 Anatolia, 24, 43 animal husbandry, 149,291,295,296,306 apprentices, 47, 141, 157, 188 Aqhat, 121 archerls), 101, 108, 151, 185, 195,212 architectural approach, 223 archival method, 62 archive(s), 39, 62, 63, 66, 68, 69, 70, 75, 76,77, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 153, 154, 158, 160, 162, 163, 165, 166, 169, 173, 178, 179, 182, 183, 187, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 199, 203, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 221, 222, 223, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 255, 256, 257, 259, 260, 262, 263, 265, 273, 290, 305, 311, 313, 314, 324, 330, 331, 335, 344, 348, 369, 375, 378 Aristotle, 270 armour, 226, 227, 238, 241 arrow(s), 149,212,227,233,236,238,241, 255,276,286,300 Ashdod, 209 Asherah, 169 Ashkelon, 108 ashlar masonry, 247, 252, 254, 256, 257, 258

Asiatic Mode of Production, 3, 38, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 8~ 193, 19~ 200, 343 Astarte, 276 Astour, M., 41, 60, 61, 62, 67, 101, 105, 107, 112, 113, 132, 146, 159, 204, 205, 206, 267, 302, 314, 315, 325, 328, 330 astragali, 238 Athart, 111 Athens, 69 Arhtart, 169 Baal, 39, 95,114,121,131,253,261,262, 272, 329 Baal, temple of, 39, 261, 262, 272 barley, 241, 294 bdtiment au trtme de Pierre, 257 batiment au vase de pierre, 252 bead(s), 234, 241, 255, 286 behavioralist models, 28, 29, 31, 34 bitumen, 270, 291 bureaucracy, 14,31,32,69, 70, 72, 79,83, 86, 140, 180, 348, 349, 350, 352 Cape Gelidonya, shipwreck, 323 capitalism, 1, 12, 13, 14, 334 Cappadocia, 38 Catholic Church, 82 cattle, 204, 295, 367 centre de fa ville, 246, 261, 274, 277, 279, 283,285,286,287,288,291 ceramics, Canaanite jars, 253 ceramics, Cypriote, 61, 166, 173,209,218, 236, 238, 301, 303, 305, 325, 330, 331, 362, 367 ceramics, kraters, 252, 254, 303, 304 ceramics, Mycenaean, 238, 252, 254, 302, 303,304,305,330,354,360 ceramics, pithoi, 244, 253, 375 ceramics, psi figurines, 304 ceramics, rhyta, 259, 261, 304 cesspools (see puisards), 252, 253, 254, 284 chaos theory, 34 chariot(s),43, 103, 104, 105, 114, 149, 173, 174, 183, 211, 212, 243, 258, 271, 300,305,326,335,374 cheese, 149,205 cisterns, 284

Citicorp, 33 comestibles, 122, 134, 137, 164, 165, 184, 200,206,207,216,221,248 communal sector, 52, 53, 54, 196 complexity theory, 3, 28, 33, 34, 74, 85, 86, 263,282,345,350,363,372 compost pits, 284, 291 conspicuous consumption, 16, 17, 18, 72, 298,302,369 core and periphery models, 6 core-periphery models, 6, 309, 310, 318 cost-benefit analysis, 65 craft specialization, 47, 67, 68, 86, 186,293, 378, 379, 380 Crete, 254, 330 cultic personnel, 122, 190, 213, 262 cylinder seal(s), 205, 275, 287, 299 cylinder seals, blank, 234, 238 Cypriotes, 98, 159,215,330,331,362 Cypro-Minoan signs, 254, 258 Cyprus, 42, 67, 108, 159, 205, 208, 248, 267,301,305,325,329,330,331 Cyprus, copper, 61 Dagan, temple of, 261 Daghara,49 debt, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 141, 149, 151, 183, 194, 199, 200, 208, 255, 322, 337, 342, 348, 349, 358, 360, 361, 366,368,369,370,371,375 decumates, 113 domestic architecture, Byzantine, 278 domestic architecture, modern Syria, 278 domestic architecture, Roman, 278 domestic architecture, Ugarit, 67, 246, 252, 254, 257, 259, 266, 274, 277, 279, 280,282,284,286,290,293,360,361 domestic mode of production, 19, 57 donkeys, 89,162,163,171,203,210,213, 232,248,262,312,317 draft animals, 148, 172, 232, 235 dramas, 278, 281 drudgery, 19,20, 122, 194, 198 dye, purple, 270 Early Dynastic Period, 66 eastern Mediterranean, 52, 64, 65, 67, 85, 208, 301 Ebla, 105, 107, 255 economy, general, 1, 3, 380 Egibi Family, 72 Egypt,49, 50, 55,61,76, 128, 132,209,233, 251,253,254,267,269,298,311,324, 325,327,328,329,330,332,362,373

421

EI, 59,131,261,274 El, House of(?), 262 Elephantine, 38 elite emulation, 17,329 Emar, 81, 184,280,335,367 emergent structures, 2 emmer, 209, 294 Enkomi,274 entrepreneurial models, 3, 38, 60, 64 environment, ancient Syria, 12, 52,60, 105, 154, 192, 266, 267, 268, 284, 291, 315 epistolary texts, 27,99,102,108,116,177, 179, 180, 206, 227, 229, 234, 238, 241, 242, 245, 248, 250, 260, 319, 320, 321, 333, 336, 344, 346, 348, 357,359,365,367 equilibrium models, 11, 28, 63 exports, 27, 122, 326 feudal models, 3, 38, 44, 45,338,339,341, 342,343,350 fictive adoption, 46, 49 field transfers, 129, 137, 175,312,346 figs, 269 findspots, tablets, 6, 68, 69, 222, 224, 226, 229,230,250,259 Finley-Jones model, 65 fish, 205, 276 fish-hooks, 276 flou~ 97,108,111,156,165,365 food rations, 93 formalists, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 27, 37, 60, 62,63,64,86,338,364 formalist-substantivist debate, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 27, 37, 338, 364 forms of integration, 21, 22, 25, 364, 365 formulation theory, 29 fortifications, 271 framing, 29, 31, 35, 36,132,136,351 free sector, 57 functionalism, 62 funerary activities, 225 gates, 271 geese-herders, 153 genre, 5, 6, 42,55, 127, 135, 136, 137, 160, 177, 223, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 239,241,242,255,333 gentilics, 84, 138, 142, 143, 144, 149, 153, 154, 159, 187, 188, 194, 200, 212, 215,247,251,255,347 geographic names, 120, 136, 137, 143, 145, 160,162,249,262,347

, 422

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

gold, 24, 25, 55, 132, 167, 204, 209, 325, 326, 332, 334 grain, 76, 202, 203, 216, 294, 296, 328, 331, 366, 377 grapes, 70, 207, 269, 294, 295 grid, site, 39, 224 grinders, 255, 289, 293, 306 guilds, 14, 43, 44, 47, 66, 86, 112, 158, 186, 187, 189, 190, 207, 342, 343, 374, 379 Hammurabi, 45, 106, 126 Hammurabi, Code of, 8, 15, 89, 126 Hathor, 276 Hattusilis III, 47, 186

218, 326,

150, 339,

hbtn, 119

Hebrew Bible, 121, 132 Hellenosemitica, 55, 60, 85 hepatoscopy, 233, 234, 235 Hittites, 46, 47, 48, 55, 59,61,63,83, 113, 118, 119, 123, 128, 130, 131, 185, 186, 194, 196, 267, 272, 299, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 343, 357, 371, 373 Hittites, law, 59 horses, 148, 170, 171, 172, 183,210,213, 304, 324, 330 House of Agapsarri, 154, 155, 189,259 House of Rap'anu, 247, 249 House of Rashapabu, 249, 250, 251 House of the High Priest, 39, 263 House of the Hurrian Priest, 139, 199,263, 304 House of the Lamashtu Priest, 263 House of the Military Governor, 212, 217, 256, 374 House of Urtenu, 77, 145, 152, 257, 258, 300, 358 household assemblage(s), 266 Hurrian, 98, 103, 106, 107, 116, 117, 127, 233,257,263 ideal types (Weberian), 13, 72, 78, 79, 82, 279, 290, 347 imports, 27, 76, 122, 267, 270, 283, 330, 333, 373 Indo-Aryans, 42, 43, 44, 53, 103 Indras,43 industrial revolution, 22, 23 infrastructure, 266, 271, 272, 308, 309, 313,321,354,371 ingots, 238, 257

Ini-Teshub, 326 insula, 251, 252, 273, 274, 278, 279, 285, 287,289,290,292,306 international koine, 65, 298, 299, 335 Iron Age, 78, 154,347 irrigation, 49, 50, 52, 66, 267, 268, 269, 270 Islamic city, 82 Israel, 78, 154 Italy, 56, 267 ivory, 233, 240, 261, 274, 330 Japan, 42 Jebel Ansariyah, 266, 267 Jurassic Park, 34

juridical relationships, 60, 92 juridical texts, 48 Kadesh, Battle of, 328 Karnak reliefs, 328 Kassite Babylonia, 43, 55, 267 Kfarie, 270 kilns, 42 Kirta, 43, 53, 99, 100 labels, 230, 231, 232, 236, 240, 241, 243, 258 Lachish, 274 land grant texts, 44, 47, 123, 124, 191, 193, 320, 341, 342 land tenure, 58, 86, 128, 129,231 leisure class, 16, 17, 246, 260 leitourgia, 72

liver models, 233 looms, 286 luxury, 16, 17,64,65, 196,224,233,236, 238, 241, 251, 260, 263, 276, 28~ 283, 290, 297, 298, 299, 302, 303, 307, 354, 355, 357, 360, 361, 366, 369, 373, 378, 379 luxury goods, 16, 17, 64, 65, 224, 233, 236, 238, 241, 251, 260, 263, 282, 283, 290, 297, 298, 299, 302, 30~ 35~ 355, 357, 360, 361, 366, 369, 373, 378, 379 Maison au Porche a Colonnes, 202 maison au portique, 251 Maison au sud du Temple aux Rhytons, 274 maison aux alabdtres, 251, 253 maison aux lingots de plomb, 257 maison de l'armurier, 249, 300 maison du lettre, 249, 250

marginal utility, 11, 28, 29, 30, 33, 63, 65, 132,367

L

SUBJECT INDEX

Mari, 55, 81 market trade, 22, 23, 24, 322 market-exchange, 21, 362, 366 Marxist models, 12, 19, 38, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 81, 90, 91, 92, 338, 343, 356, 368 measurementfs), 88, 167, 168, 200, 209, 224,226,240,255,305,307 medieval Europe, 42, 44, 48, 69, 70, 341, 343 medieval Feudalism, 70 Mediterranean, 25, 41, 56, 61, 63, 64, 70, 266, 267, 268, 269, 278, 294, 298, 308,315,316,323,331 Mediterranean climate, 267, 268, 269, 294 Mehri, 117 Memphis Stele, 104 merchants, 23, 24, 25, 47, 48, 56, 61, 62, 64, 75, 76, 77, 105, 107, 108, 113, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 186, 194, 205, 206, 207, 208, 214, 217, 251, 262, 276, 289, 308, 313, 317, 324, 331, 332, 334, 335, 341, 343, 360, 362, 363, 366 merchants, foreign, 47, 185, 186,331,362, 363 Merneptah, 249, 300, 329 Mesoamerica, 22, 381 Mesopotamia, 10, 24, 43, 49, 50, 55, 66, 73, 7~ 95, 183, 192, 251, 26~ 269, 270, 305, 323, 340, 348, 349 metal, precious, 55, 77, 137, 156, 157, 163, 167, 183, 185, 195, 196, 199, 206, 207,208,232,262,341 Middle Assyrian Period, 125 military, equipment, 103, 149, 173, 184, 185,208,212,214,299,300,374 milk, 183, 194 Minet el-Beida, 40, 41, 272, 281, 302, 303 mission de Ras Shamra, 41 Mitanni empire, 104 modalities, 1, 23, 277 moulds, 238, 241, 244, 245, 286, 288, 289, 290,294,297,330,366,372,379 Murasu family, 69, 72 murder, 186 murex shells, 270 Murshili I, 316, 325, 326, 327, 332 nahr Chbayyeb, 268 nahr ed-Delbe, 268 nahr ed-Delbe, dam, 268

423

nahr el-Khebir valley, 270 nautical transportation, 61, 76, 85, 96, 173, 183, 205, 211, 212, 218, 230, 248, 249, 255, 270, 313, 323, 324, 328, 332, 346 Neo-classical economics, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19,20,28,29,31,37,206,364 Neo-Weberians, 16, 78 network theory, 4, 31, 32 Network-based model, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 36, 37, 42, 86, 87, 338, 350, 352, 362, 363, 380, 381 New Economic Policy, 19 Nippur, 69, 74, 75, 106, 183, 207, 239, 349, 381 Niqmaddu, 39, 120, 325, 327, 342 Niqmeda III, 325 Northern Palace, 40, 41,42,256,257 Northwest, 144, 146, 147, 149, 151, 154, 155, 156, 161, 162, 165, 169, 188, 194, 195,204,208,315 Nuzi, 38,43, 46, 49, 55, 99, 125, 127, 130, 305 occupational categories, 46, 91, 93, 96, 97, 98, 107, 108, 111, 113, 118, 121, 124, 136, 137, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 182, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 195, 196, 203, 214, 247,259,313,347,379 occupational designations, 88, 101, 111, 118, 120, 128, 142, 143, 154, 159, 202,216 occupational group, 44, 88, 95, 101, 106, 107, 108, 111, 114, 118, 120, 126, 128, 131, 142, 143, 146, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 166, 177, 186, 187, 194, 202, 203, 207, 208, 209, 211, 216, 219, 221, 245, 306, 313, 365, 373, 374 occupational specialists, 86, 91, 115, 151, 153, 188, 189,342,374 oikos, 10, 13, 15, 72, 73, 78 oa 108, 137, 146, 163, 165, 166, 183, 19~ 200, 201, 204, 207, 209, 216, 221, 231, 232, 243, 244, 253, 260, 263, 273, 285, 288, 291, 292, 296, 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 313, 321, 329, 331,334,361,375,376,379 Old Assyrian trade, 20, 24, 25, 55 Old Babylonian Period, 38, 95, 106, 109, 123, 126, 130, 233

424

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

olivels), 129, 137, 162, 163, 166, 183,200, 207, 209, 253, 259, 269, 285, 288, 291,292,296,321,333,361,376 optimizing theories, 32 Oriental Despot, 46, 49, 51 palatial mode of production, 51 pastoralism, 81, 375, 380 pater familias, 72, 83, 85, 193 patrimonial household model, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 101, 102, 144, 193, 339, 345, 346, 347, 349, 350, 352, 361, 363 patrimonial models, 3, 38, 84, 92, 338, 347 patronyms, 84, 93, 95, 138, 144, 150, 151, 154, 195,251 patterns of integration, 21, 23, 26, 78, 368, 369 personal names, 43,95,96,107,108,111, 114, 115, 128, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 171, 176, 177, 194, 213, 229, 247, 248, 250, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 312, 347, 377 phallus shaped stone, 236 philosophical hermeneutics, 2 pines), 276, 286 Pliny, 270 pgt,97 port-power model, 4 practice theory, 318, 351 precipitation, 267, 268, 295 prepositions, 88, 105, 140, 146, 149, 164, 170, 175,203 prices, 11, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 55, 56, 62, 63,72, 166, 168,204,206,218, 322, 359, 362, 366, 367 price-setting mechanisms, 11, 22, 24, 206, 322, 362, 367 primitivist/modernist debate, 10 private enterprise, 47, 63 private property, 147, 199, 200, 208, 229, 281,282,306 profit, 12, 13, 14, 24, 33, 60, 63, 64, 72, 106,217,330,338,359,364,365,367 prosopography, 113, 138, 239, 256, 360 prospect theory, 29 prostitution, sacred, 121 puisards (see cesspools), 274, 284 puits,274

pyxis, 261, 274 quartier residentiel, 246 Queen Mother, 257 rainfall, 294 Ramses II, 253, 328 Ras ibn-Hani, 40, 270, 330 Rasapabu, 78, 151, 167, 189, 199 rations, 47, 66, 91, 95, 111, 149, 165, 174, 201,202,203,205,209,252,365,366 real estate, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 92, 102, 122, 130, 174, 176, 178, 191, 192, 193,200,232,332,362 reciprocity, 18, 21, 26, 27, 35, 78, 84, 85, 310,337,351,359,362,364,365,368 redistribution, 21, 22, 26, 27, 66, 78, 84, 85,158,164,191,202,203,210,217, 308,310,322,337,365,366,368 Reshef, 259 residence de la Reine-Mere, 257 roads, 246, 271, 272, 273, 275, 290, 308 Rome, ancient, 10, 12, 17,72,215,278, 285,299,341 Royal Palace, 7, 39, 40, 68, 75, 91, 184, 195,211, 217, 223, 224, 226, 229, 233, 235, 236, 239, 243, 244, 246, 254, 255, 256, 257, 286, 301, 303, 314,352,355,356,357,371,378 Royal Palace, Central Archive, 229, 230, 231,232,234,235,239,241 Royal Palace, Court I, 225, 226, 229, 240, 244 Royal Palace, Court II, 225, 240, 244 Royal Palace, Court III, 240, 244 Royal Palace, Court IV; 229 Royal Palace, Court V, 168,230,233,235, 236,237,238,244 Royal Palace, Court VI, 230 Royal Palace, Eastern Archive, 62, 170, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 239, 241, 242, 243,245 Royal Palace, fire, 223, 239, 259, 328 Royal Palace, garden, 240, 278 Royal Palace, Room 3, 225, 227, 230 Royal Palace, Room 31, 230 Royal Palace, Room 38, 225 Royal Palace, Room 4, 240, 248 Royal Palace, Room 45, 240 Royal Palace, Room 5, 225, 242, 248, 253, 288 Royal Palace, Room 53, 242 Royal Palace, Room 62, 230

SUBJECT INDEX

Royal Palace, Room 64, 230 Royal Palace, Room 68, 236 Royal Palace, Room 69, 236 Royal Palace, Room 71, 212, 226, 243 Royal Palace, Room 73, 243, 245 Royal Palace, Room 81, 233, 234 Royal Palace, Room 84, 225, 233 Royal Palace, Room 86, 240 Royal Palace, Room 89, 244 Royal Palace, Room 90, 244 Royal Palace, Southern Archive, 232, 235, 236,238,239 Royal Palace, Southwestern Archive, 233, 234,235,245 Royal Palace, Western Archive, 226, 227, 232,234,239,245 Royal Palace, Western Entrance, 225, 226, 229, 271, 272 Royal Service System, 52, 54, 55, 59, 196, 203 salt, 137, 163, 168, 207, 210, 376 Santa Fe Institute, 33 sbrdnm, 158, 188 scarabs, 254 !d, 129, 192,377 seals and sealings, 205, 275, 287, 299 seals and sealings, practices, 193 sheep, 108, 111, 148, 149, 152, 156, 213, 231,260,295 shekels, 62, 128, 146, 151, 161, 162, 165, 167,168,169,204,206,241,251,259, 308,314,321,325,329,332,334,367 shepherdls), 117, 147, 154, 156, 158, 187, 194, 195,214,259,313,365 Shipti-Baal, 324, 335 shipwreck(s), 323 Shuppiluliuma, 238, 325 silo(s), 283, 291, 296 silver, 24, 25, 53, 55, 91, 108, 111, 112, 124, 128, 134, 146, 151, 152, 156, 158, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 173, 176, 183, 187, 188, 189, 194, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 206, 208, 209, 211, 218, 247, 250, 251, 254, 259, 260, 321, 325, 326, 335, 366, 367, 369, 370, 371, 377 Sitz im Leben, 135 Sivan, D., 105, 140 Siyannu, 143,314,316,325,326,332 slavery, 48, 89, 94, 95, 99, 106, 141,231, 367

425

so-called oven, 70, 168,225,234,235,236, 237,238,239,253,289 social designations, 88, 89, 90, 98, 99, 344 Sondage H, 40 Southern Palace, 40, 41, 75, 76, 139, 143, 151,183,236,254,349 Soviet Union, 12, 19 statues, 120, 238, 261 statuettes, 238, 290 stone tools, 163, ·262, 288, 289, 291, 294, 297, 306, 307, 372, 375, 380 stone tools, flint, 270, 291, 293 stone tools, grinders, 255, 289, 293, 306 stone tools, ground, 285 stone tools, industry, 285, 293, 297 stone tools, pounders, 288, 289 stone tools, sickles, 289, 293, 296, 375 structuration theory, 351 styli, 227 substantivists, 3, 8, 9, 23, 24, 27, 28, 86, 364, 368 summer, 268, 294, 295 supply and demand, 11,24,322 Susa, 38, 123 Swiss guards, 153 sword, bronze, 238, 249, 300 system of total service, 18 Tablet House, 139, 208, 259, 260 Talmiyanu,319 Tannenbaum, N., 19, 122 tax farming, 14,371 taxation, 10, 14,45,53,56,57,64,71,80, 91, 99, 102, 108, 109, 110, 124, 159, 161, 162, 194, 195, 196, 197, 212, 219, 221, 244, 250, 312, 313, 314, 318,319,322,371,372 Temple of Damal, 319 Temple of Inanna (Nippur), 74, 106, 239, 349 Temple of the Rhytons, 261 textiles, 24, 93, 116, 119, 134, 137, 146, 147, 152, 156, 159, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, 184, 188, 194, 195, 198, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 210, 211, 218, 243, 249, 259, 260, 262, 263, 286, 307, 313, 327, 328, 332, 335,341,356,365,367,375,376 thalassocracy, 60 Thutmosis IV; 328 Tigris River, 50 tin, 24, 76, 156, 183, 194,203

426

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

tombls), 39, 41, 225, 247, 249, 252, 254, 257, 258, 259, 277, 278, 279, 281, 282,283,287,301,302,303,306,307 tranchee sud, 275 transportation, equipment, 137, 148, 172,

173,208,269 transportation, nautical, 61, 76, 85, 96, 148,

173, 183, 205, 211, 212, 218, 230, 248, 249, 255, 270, 313, 323, 324, 328, 331, 332, 346 treaties, 185,311,314,315,325,371 tributary economy, 67, 340 tributary relationships, 50, 51, 196, 197, 198,326,343,354,371 tribute, 26, 95, 108, 119, 131, 166, 183, 187, 188, 189, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 235, 313, 317, 318, 325, 326, 327,342,354,365,371,375 Tudhaliya IV; 238, 332 Tutankhamun, Tomb of, 258, 300 Two-sector models, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 59, 81,197,338,339,343,344,345,346, 350 Ugaritic kings, 45, 64, 326 Ulu Burun, shipwreck, 323 Ur III Period, 74, 75, 106, 207, 239, 349 Ura, 331, 362, 363 Ura, merchants of, 186, 332, 360, 363 urban revolution, 68 Urtenu, 69, 77, 78, 139, 182, 184, 217, 220, 257, 258, 259, 300, 330, 333, 335,345,349,359,367 Uzzinu, 321 village mode of production, 51 Ville Basse, 139, 173, 176,202,212 vineyard(s), 70, 71, 116, 161, 192, 244, 317,332 viticulture, 71, 296

waqf, 74 Weber, M., 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 31, 32, 69, 72, 78, 79, 82, 83, 100, 101,122,312,348,351,364,369,373 weight standards, 62, 327 weights, bronze, 225 weights, stone, 241, 289 wells, 284, 306, 307, 361 wine, 70, 104, 118, 130, 137, 146, 147, 152, 156, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 184, 185, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 209, 210, 221, 228, 232, 241, 244, 258, 260, 295, 301, 313, 317, 321, 329, 335, 366, 367, 375, 376, 377 winter, 47, 154, 186, 268, 295 wood, 76, 169, 202, 269, 270, 293, 313, 376 wool, 119, 146, 149, 158, 167, 168, 195, 201,203,205,211,218,285,335,365 World Systems Theory, 309 Yabninu, 75, 76, 78, 128, 139, 143, 144, 145, 151, 166, 173, 182, 183, 184, 189, 194, 199, 212, 217, 220, 254, 255, 257, 303, 304, 332, 333, 334, 335,345,349,359,371 Yamm, 95, 121, 131 Yon, Mo, 39, 40, 77, 223, 225, 226, 228, 229, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 240, 243, 244, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 277, 278, 279, 280, 283, 287, 290, 292, 293,300,302,303,304,308,378 Zimri-Lim, 81 zoning, 271, 273, 277

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Akkermans, P., 266, 267, 269, 270, 276,

280,286,297 Archi, A, 107 Banning, Eo, 292 Benarrzi, 5., 30 Bentham, ]., 30 Bordreuil, P., 7, 42, 77, 122, 135, 139, 145, 153, 154, 155, 163,311,315,330 Bourdieu, P., 36, 132, 133, 355, 361, 369, 372 Boyer, G., 44, 45, 86, 191, 193, 341, 342 Biicher, K, 10, 13 Burns, D., 222, 223, 265 Callot, 0., 40, 230, 252, 268, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283,287,288,289,291,292,293,376 Calvet, Y., 40, 237, 252, 258, 266, 268, 284 Chayanov, A, 18, 19, 122, 155, 194, 198 Childe, Y:Go, 67, 68 Clemens, D., 110, 120, 121, 122, 154, 169, 198, 201 Cline, Eo, 323, 324, 330, 331 Cooper, ]., 121 Coqueugniot, E., 269, 293 Cornelius, I., 186, 205, 206 Courtois, ]., 39, 40, 75, 76, 183,227, 234, 235, 237, 238, 241, 244, 245, 251, 254,255,286,333,334,349 Craigie, P., 157, 158, 187 Cunchillos, ]., 70 Cutler, B., 97, 101, 112, 113, 150, 187 de Contenson, H., 40 de Moor, ]., 172, 267, 268, 270, 294, 295 Dahood, M., 97 Deimel, A, 66 Derrida, j., 88 Diakonoff, I., 49, 50, 52,66, 103, 127, 197, 343 Dietrich, M., 7, 77, 113, 114, 115, 123, 139, 174 Dijkstra, M., 189, 190 Drower, Mo, 311, 328 Durkheim, Eo, 9, 101, 182, 189,298,351 Eichler,B., 127 Ellis, M de long, 109, 125, 126

Falkenstein, A, 66 Feldman, Mo, 64, 65, 85, 298, 299, 335,

355,357,373 Finley, M., 65, 72 Fleming, D., 81 Foster, B., 66, 215, 340 Foucault, M., 36, 37, 82, 133, 181, 215,

277, 307 Frankfort, H., 66, 340 Friedland, R., 11, 12, 32 Fukuyama, E, 4, 31, 32 Fustel de Coulanges, No, 192,281,282 Galor, K, 278 Gelb, I., 66, 73, 215, 340, 349 Giddens, A, 36, 133, 181,355,372 Gledhill, ]., 22 Gordon, c., 38, 45, 60, 61, 62, 67, 131,

265 Gramsci, A, 36, 369, 372 Gray, ]., 42, 43, 44, 52, 53, 86, 110, 113,

114, 120, 122, 150, 155, 157, 186, 341,342,343,379 Greenfield, ]., 94, 95 Giiterbock, H., 128 Hanson, ]0' 279, 280 Heidegger, M., 88 Heiner, R., 32 Helrzer, M., 5, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 83, 86, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 177, 196, 197, 203, 205,206,209,343,344,345 Higginbotham, c, 329 Hillier, B., 279, 280 Hirschfeld, N., 302, 303, 304, 305 Hopkins, D., 48, 65, 154 Huehnergard, ]., 89, 95, 101, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 123, 124, 127, 134 Kahneman, Do, 28, 29, 30, 35, 132, 136, 351,364 Kienast, B., 58, 123, 124, 127 Kilmer, A, 106

428

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

Klengel, n., 311, 316, 325, 326, 327, 328, 331, 332, 371 Knapp, B., 298, 331 Knoppers, Go, 131, 191,326 Lackenbacher, S., 334 Lambrou-Phillipson, c, 323 Larsen, M., 22, 24 Libolt, c. 44, 45, 46, 58, 59, 86, 110, 111, 127,130,175,191,193,203,341,377 Linder, Eo, 60, 61, 185, 186,205, 212, 323 Lipinski, Eo, 190, 191,331,340 Liverani, M., 25, 26, 27, 35, 36, 56, 57, 58, 80,81,85,90,91,94, 130, 149, 162, 163, 164, 165, 204, 310, 322, 330, 343,344,345,351,365,368 Lombard, P., 222, 251, 258, 278 Loretz, 0., 7, 77, 113, 114, 115, 123, 139, 174 MacDonald, ].,97, 101, 112, 113, 150, 187 Malbran-Labat, E, 77, 122, 183 Marchegay, So, 281, 282 Margueron, ]0,40,223,225,226,237,238, 240 Marx, K, 49, 337 Master, D., 82 Mauss, M., 16, 18, 21, 34 Mendelsohn, I., 99 Meyer, E., 10, 13 Millard, A., 237 Miller, G., 46, 48, 49, 58, 86, 100, 112, 191, 193, 320 Monroe, c., 46, 63, 64, 79, 80, 81, 102, 110, 113, 138, 139, 299, 320, 323, 324,327,334,335,354,359,365 Muffs, Y., 38 Nougayrol, ].,7, 123,251 Oppenheim, A., 23 Pardee, Do, 7, 77, 96, 97, 105, 106, 107, 110, 116, 135, 139, 142, 145, 153, 154, 155, 163, 233, 237, 319, 326, 327,332,334,335 Pitard, W, 281, 283 Polanyi, K, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 37, 66, 78, 206, 310, 338,351,364,365,366,367,368,369 Pollock, S., 67, 340 Postgate, ]., 125 Rainey, A., 45, 46, 47, 48, 67, 86, 97, 98, 100, 103, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 121, 150, 156, 157, 159, 178, 179, 186,196,205,206,341,342,343,379

Renger, ]., 9, 10,20, 72, 73, 121, 192,200, 201,368,369 Ricoeur, P., 345 Robertson, A., 11, 12, 32 Rodbertus, K, 9, 10, 18 Rostovtzeff M., 12, 20 Routledge, B., 81, 82, 346, 347 Rowe, I., 58, 59, 60, 83, 92, 93, 94, 106, 127, 128, 344, 348, 349, 358, 369, 370, 371 Rowlands, M., 309, 310, 333 Sasson, ]., 132, 323 Saussere, E, 88 Schaeffe~ C., 39, 40, 41, 63, 70, 144,217, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 249, 251, 254, 255, 256, 257, 261, 264, 265, 275, 277, 281, 283, 288, 290, 302, 339, 379 Schloen, J.D., 44, 46, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 69, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 123, 124, 129, 130, 137, 144, 147, 155, 180, 183, 187, 193, 197, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 287, 288, 289, 291, 296, 306, 341, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 351, 357, 361, 363 Schneider, A., 66 Schwartz, G., 266, 267, 269, 270, 276, 280, 283,286,297 Singer, I., 101, 182, 237, 311, 324, 325, 326, 32~ 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335 Smith, Mo, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 52, 56, 60, 62, 70, 77, 261, 378 Smith, v., 30, 137, 190 Speiser, E., 123 Stager, 1., 4, 78, 82, 351 Steiner, R., 154 Steinkeller, P., 74, 370 Stieglitz, R., 62, 166, 204 Stone, E., 81, 82, 84 Tams, c., 295 Thaler, R., 30 Tigay, ]., 121 Tropper, ].,98, 140 Tversky, A., 28, 29, 35, 132, 136,351,364 van de Mieroop, M., 9, 10 van Driel, Go, 73, 74, 183, 198

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

van Soldt, W, 101, 102, 113, 115, 131, 177, 222, 223, 224, 226, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 248, 250, 251, 255, 259, 263, 265, 270, 311, 312, 314, 316,317,318,348 van Wijngaarden, G., 302, 303, 304 Vargyas, P., 188, 189 Vaughn, A., 100 Veblen, T., 16, 17, 18, 88, 246, 260, 369 Veenhof, K., 9, 24, 25 Virolleaud, c., 39, 97, 145,316 Vita, ]., 77, 78, 86, 101, 104, 109, 118, 174,335 von Dassow, E., 99, 102, 103, 104, 127

116, 227, 236, 243, 260, 315,

298,

110, 105,

429

von Rollig, W, 23, 24 Waldrop, M., 33 Wallerstein, E., 309 Whitt, W, 39, 68, 69, 70, 86, 140, 178, 179, 180, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 240,241,242,243 Widbin, R.B., 62, 63, 68, 94, 101, 105, 107, 109, 112, 119, 120, 168, 169, 179,180,201,242,265 Winckler, H., 103 Wittfogel, K, 49, 52, 343 Wolfram, S., 4, 31,34 Zaccagnini, C; 26, 27,50,51,52,197,200 Zamora, ]., 58, 70, 71,91, 376 Zettler, R., 6, 66, 74, 75, 106, 183, 207, 339, 340, 349

INDEX OF ANCIENT TERMS

INDEX OF ANCIENT TERMS 'sr, 113, 114 'aliara, 113

'alur, 113 'bd, 94, 95, 150, 156, 188 'prm, 113, 153, 247 'Ir, 114, 155, 188 adrt, 98, 347 tikil ekalli, 47 albn, 114, 115 altiku, 127 alit, 98 ana, 203 apn, 171, 172,211 arad lar ugarit, 48 ardelarri, 54 ardl"fES larri, 90, 94 ardu (see wardum), 90, 94 argmn, 130, 131, 188, 194,270 arkamme, 130 awtium, 54, 89, 90, 94, 95, 106 b, 53, 91, 99,105,124,143,145,152,162, 169, 170, 202, 203, 204, 210, 216, 255,313,324,355,358,367,378 btibi,23 bad(d)ala, 105 ban bttdti, 292 bd, 93, 105, 131, 149, 153, 162, 164, 170, 172, 175, 177, 179, 184, 212, 216, 247, 377 bdl,47, 105, 106, 107, 150, 152, 154, 156, 205,367,377 bdlm, 47, 106, 107,367 betu 'abi, 79 biddallenni, 106, 107 bitum, 73 blblm, 152,218,313 bnl, 54, 58, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 145, 152, 153, 157, 159, 171, 182, 195, 202, 203, 209, 210, 211, 213, 216, 247,255,313,369,370 bns mlk, 54, 58, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 152, 202,203,210,216,369,370 st, 95, 96, 212 b'l att, 96 dd, 149,202,204,209,259

decumates, 113 dimtu, 130, 332, 376 dkr, 90 e,73 gt, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 90, 107, 130, 143, 161, 162, 164, 165, 170, 178, 192, 196, 215, 216, 235, 292, 344, 374, 375, 376, 377 -h, 84 idu, 109, 110 dku,48,53,54,59,91, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 195, 196, 197,313,344 ina, 123, 148, 167,204 inlt, 155, 188 irwisse, 127 kbf, 156, 188,376 kbd, 162 kd 152, 164, 166, 167,200,209,258,260 khn, 83,111,121,122,151,152,155,156, 188, 189, 255, 258, 347 kkr, 156, 168, 199, 200, 204, 207, 210 krm, 116, 129, 192,312 ksd, 151, 188 kzy, 188 I, 13,35,39,86, 105, 108, 131, 146, 152, 162, 170, 175, 188, 202, 203, 210, 228,237,242,256,313,347,351,354 Imd 84,141,157,182,188,189,211,216 LUGAL,103 luqutum,25 mb!, 96, 120, 121, 188 mbr, 206 mabiru, 23 mtibi!u, 120 mdkisu, 108, 109 mandattu, 27, 119 mdr ugarit, 48 mdrgl, 101, 107, 111, 154, 156, 157, 188, 195,247,313 mdrya,103 maryannu, 43, 44, 61, 62, 97, 102, 103, 104, 105, 124, 150, 151, 155, 156, 188, 189, 190,258,300,347,348 marzibu,252

md, 64, 77,109, 110, 111, 150, 170, 172, 188 mdr', 116 mbr, 152, 153 mk~47, 107, 108, 118, 151, 188,262,367 mkrm,47, 108, 118, 151,262,367 mlbi, 119, 120 mlk, 59, 74, 83, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 110, 111, 119, 142, 154, 159, 168, 201, 202, 203, 207, 210, 211, 212, 216, 344, 348, 358, 370 mnb, 131, 194 mrkbt, 114, 174 mrkbt (see chariots), 114, 174 mr', 102, 111, 112, 113 mru, 112, 113, 124, 155 mru ibm, 112, 113, 156 mru skn, 112, 113 muikenu, 89, 95 nbl, 140, 141, 189 nasdru (Hurrian), 116

nadtinu, 203 n'r, 97, 98, 99 n'rt, 97 nN, 147, 156,214 nqd, 155, 156, 188,214 ntbt, 132, 152 ntn, 203, 367 gzr,97, 100 pilku, 53, 54, 91, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 123,124,125,127,128,129,130,344 psI, 188 qdJ, 121, 122, 155, 188, 189, 190 rb, 83,114,152,153,170,189,220,247, 331 r', 141

431

sHgr, 117, 141 suqu, 23 stibiru,23 sakinu, 83 simum,25 sipdru, 110 skn, 101, 102, 112, 113, 141, 147, 152, 161, 179, 180, 191, 192, 214, 218, 227,229,348,357,365,377 sgr. 141 sp, 165 Ips, 83, 131 Ir, 62, 122, 169, 188 tht, 142 tamktiru,47, 108 tnn, 95, 101, 151, 155, 188 trmn, 119 trr, 188 ubdit, 128, 129 ubdy, 53,104,111,115,124,128,129,130, 137, 154, 161, 166, 176, 177, 187, 191, 192,215,248,312,377 uliIptiru, 119 unt 53,124,127,128,129,137,177,344 unusse, 127, 128 unussuhuli, 127 updy, 129 wardum, 90, 95 warum,112 y!b, 115, 129, 151, 152, 157, 177, 188, 189, 192,248 y!r, 101, 188 yd, 105, 147 y'Ir, 114 yqs, 188 zikaru (see dkr), 90

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS Alalakh

AT 52, 204 AT 131,104 Arnarna

EA 151, 328 EA 40,330 EA 45,328 EA 46,328 EA 47,328 EA 49,328 EA 89,328 Hebrew Bible

Judges 5 6,132 2 Kings 23 7, 169 Proverbs 8 2,132 Nuzi

HSS 9 102, 130 HSS 9 109, 130 Ugaritic - Alphabetic

KTU 1.16, 150 KTU 1.17, 96 KTU 1.19, 121 KTU 1.2, 116, 121, 131 KTU 1.3, 114 KTU 1.4, 116, 169 KTU 1.5,95 KTU 1.6, 120 KTU 1.78, 227 KTU 2.11, 116 KTU 2.13, 326 KTU 2.17,99 KTU 2.26,319,357 KTU 2.30, 326 KTU 2.36, 132, 324, 327

KTU 2.38, 170, 323, 328, 332 KTU 2.4,83, 191,323,331 KTU 2.42,331 KTU 2.43, 331 KTU 2.47, 323 KTU 2.70,292,321 KTU 2.71,319 KTU 3.1, 131,227,326 KTU 3.2, 93, 128 KTU 3.5,127 KTU 4.2, 139, 262 KTU 4.5,160 KTU 4.7, 129, 176 KTU 4.13, 262 KTU 4.14, 262 KTU 4.15,213,262 KTU 4.16,262 KTU 4.17, 262 KTU 4.25, 377 KTU 4.27, 108,317 KTU 4.29, 213, 262, 340 KTU 4.35, 151 KTU 4.37, 139 KTU 4.38, 156 KTU 4.40, 212 KTU 4.43, 205, 208 KTU 4.45, 144 KTU 4.46, 147,202,211 KTU 4.48,317 KTU 4.49, 162, 185 KTU 4.51, 144 KTU 4.52, 147 KTU 4.54, 111, 154 KTU 4.55, 202 KTU 4.63,212,214,317,374 KTU 4.65, 151 KTU 4.66, 151 KTU 4.67, 211 KTU 4.68, 195 KTU 4.69, 85, 208, 347 KTU 4.71, 156 KTU 4.72, 167 KTU 4.80, 229 KTU 4.81, 323 KTU 4.83, 209

KTU 4.84, 138 KTU 4.85, 107, 143 KTU 4.86, 128, 154,214 KTU 4.87, 155 KTU 4.88, 171, 172 KTU 4.89, 170, 172, 185 KTU 4.90, 146 KTU 4.91, 166, 183, 194,334,354 KTU 4.92, 147 KTU 4.93, 147,209,228 KTU 4.94, 160 KTU 4.95, 161, 185, 195, 314 KTU 4.96, 107, 154,214,377 KTU 4.97,138 KTU 4.98, 208 KTU 4.99, 111, 115, 120, 155 KTU 4.100, 160 KTU 4.101, 169,204,211 KTU 4.102, 97, 98, 100, 115, 159, 229, 331, 347, 362 KTU 4.103,104,111,120,129,154,176, 191,377 KTU 4.104, 145 KTU 4.105, 112 KTU 4.106, 145 KTU 4.107, 147,213,228 KTU 4.108, 143 KTU 4.109, 145 KTU 4.110, 129, 161, 192,377 KTU 4.111, 146 KTU 4.112, 139 KTU 4.113, 161, 185 KTU 4.114, 138 KTU 4.115, 138 KTU 4.116, 145 KTU 4.118,216 KTU 4.119, 160 KTU 4.122, 143,355,377 KTU 4.123, 200 KTU 4.124, 120 KTU 4.125, 90, 120 KTU 4.126, 95, 97, 103, 108, 111, 112, 114, 115, 150 KTU 4.128, 120,202 KTU 4.129, 153 KTU 4.130, 138 KTU 4.131, 146, 168,210,365,376 KTU 4.175, 202 KTU 4.176,218 KTU 4.177, 167, 168,203,367

433

KTU 4.178, 142 KTU 4.179, 150 KTU 4.180, 199,369 KTU 4.181, 172 KTU 4.182, 104, 113, 118, 119, 157, 195 KTU 4.183, 157, 188,216 KTU 4.184, 161, 208, 377 KTU 4.186,93, 116, 179,216,348 KTU 4.187,204,367 KTU 4.188, 162, 166,209 KTU 4.189, 91, 93, 168, 210, 270, 356, 376 KTU 4.190,173,211,243,374 KTU 4.191, 168,367 KTU 4.192, 115, 138 KTU 4.193, 138 KTU 4.194, 104, 165,209,365 KTU 4.195,204,209 KTU 4.196, 115, 152 KTU 4.197, 168,210 KTU 4.198, 96, 195 KTU 4.199, 157 KTU 4.200, 150 KTU 4.201, 168, 203 KTU 4.203, 183,334,354 KTU 4.204, 138 KTU 4.207, 118 KTU 4.208, 104, 108, 113, 118, 119, 195 KTU 4.209, 129, 166,209,376 KTU 4.210, 146 KTU 4.211, 218 KTU 4.212, 211 KTU 4.213, 120, 122, 169, 211 KTU 4.214, 173,212 KTU 4.216, 209 KTU 4.217,205,232,367 KTU 4.218, 103, 104, 108, 113, 118, 119 KTU 4.219, 103, 104, 108, 113, 118, 119 KTU 4.220, 165,201 KTU 4.221, 165, 201 KTU 4.266,204,218,232,367,369 KTU 4.267, 160 KTU 4.268, 203 KTU 4.269, 149,201, 209, 365 KTU 4.270, 168 KTU 4.271, 164, 216, 377 KTU 4.272, 183, 194 KTU 4.274,203,204,210,367 KTU 4.276, 146,208 KTU 4.277, 151 KTU 4.279,201

434

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

KTU 4.280, 167,208 KTU 4.281, 145 KTU 4.282, 174 KTU 4.283, 200 KTU 4.285, 210 KTU 4.286, 151 KTU 4.288, 152,218 KTU 4.289, 138 KTU 4.290, 203, 216 KTU 4.295, 159,215,347 KTU 4.296, 194, 216, 377 KTU 4.297,251,377 KTU 4.298, 174, 192 KTU 4.301,317 KTU 4.302, 170, 172,213,317 KTU 4.303, 160 KTU 4.306, 170, 172,213 KTU 4.307,215,377 KTU 4.308, 162 KTU 4.309, 176,215 KTU 4.311, 140 KTU 4.313,200 KTU 4.315, 140 KTU 4.316, 168, 198,201 KTU 4.320, 95, 150, 377 KTU 4.321, 138 KTU 4.322, 150 KTU 4.325, 174 KTU 4.328, 165,209 KTU 4.331, 145 KTU 4.332, 120, 152,216 KTU 4.333, 204 KTU 4.334, 138 KTU 4.335, 143,216 KTU 4.336, 132,205,218,237,367 KTU 4.337, 115, 158, 188,211 KTU 4.338, 173,218 KTU 4.339, 159,215 KTU 4.340, 168,210,376 KTU 4.341, 204 KTU 4.344, 168,210,376 KTU 4.345, 164, 216, 377 KTU 4.346, 160 KTU 4.347, 199,200,370 KTU 4.350, 145 KTU 4.351,99 KTU 4.352, 166,209,329,331,376 KTU 4.354, 139 KTU 4.355, 159,216,317 KTU 4.356, 192 KTU 4.357, 175, 192 KTU 4.358, 89

KTU 4.360,99, 159,215,331 KTU 4.361, 165, 209, 365 KTU 4.362, 165, 209, 365 KTU 4.363,211 KTU 4.364, 139 KTU 4.365, 160 KTU 4.366, 148, 173,211,323 KTU 4.367, 93, 97, 159, 216 KTU 4.368,171, 172,213 KTU 4.369, 108, 131, 194 KTU 4.370,93, 142,207,216 KTU 4.371, 143 KTU 4.372, 139 KTU 4.373, 167 KTU 4.374, 154 KTU 4.375, 161 KTU 4.377, 104, 171, 172,213 KTU 4.378, 158,211,365 KTU 4.380, 89, 162, 213, 355 KTU 4.381,200,244 KTU 4.383, 143 KTU 4.384, 170, 171,213 KTU 4.385,214 KTU 4.386, 200 KTU 4.387,111,202 KTU 4.388, 132, 205 KTU 4.389, 129, 176 KTU 4.390, 173,205,218 KTU 4.391, 141 KTU 4.392,114,115,173,211,374 KTU 4.394, 173, 205 KTU 4.395, 159,211 KTU 4.396, 156 KTU 4.397, 166, 377 KTU 4.398, 199, 369 KTU 4.399, 174,346 KTU 4.400, 164, 216, 377 KTU 4.403, 175 KTU 4.406, 139 KTU 4.412, 114, 151 KTU 4.413, 140 KTU 4.414, 160 KTU 4.415,237 KTU 4.416,103,111,113,114,154, 155 KTU 4.417,84, 159,215 KTU 4.420, 159 KTU 4.421, 173,211,323 KTU 4.422, 148, 171, 172,213 KTU 4.423, 192 KTU 4.424, 174, 192 KTU 4.425, 175, 192 KTU 4.427, 148,213

KTU 4.429, 166, 209, 376 KTU 4.430, 99 KTU 4.432, 145 KTU 4.433, 145 KTU 4.435, 139, 145 KTU 4.439, 199 KTU 4.440, 141 KTU 4.445, 138 KTU 4.448, 138 KTU 4.449, 138 KTU 4.452, 138 KTU 4.453, 138 KTU 4.455, 138 KTU 4.458, 138 KTU 4.466, 199 KTU 4.470, 170, 172 KTU 4.485, 151 KTU 4.495, 139 KTU 4.496, 139 KTU 4.500, 174 KTU 4.504, 139 KTU 4.506, 139 KTU 4.514, 139 KTU 4.520, 138 KTU 4.524, 138 KTU 4.527, 174 KTU 4.535, 170, 172 KTU 4.536, 175 KTU 4.537, 138 KTU 4.539, 138 KTU 4.542, 150 KTU 4.543, 138, 139 KTU 4.545, 151 KTU 4.548, 194 KTU 4.551, 174 KTU 4.553, 160 KTU 4.557, 143 KTU 4.558, 165 KTU 4.561, 150 KTU 4.571, 140 KTU 4.576, 170, 172 KTU 4.577, 167 KTU 4.581, 140 KTU 4.582, 171, 172 KTU 4.585, 170, 172 KTU 4.586, 171, 172 KTU 4.588, 145 KTU 4.598, 167 KTU 4.600, 174 KTU 4.602, 174 KTU 4.605, 140 KTU 4.607,139

435

KTU 4.609,91,93,96, 115, 116,201,202, 365 KTU 4.610, 112, 113, 131, 194,317,318, 371 KTU 4.616, 148, 213 KTU 4.617, 145,255 KTU 4.618, 116, 162,213, 377 KTU 4.619, 144, 183,255 KTU 4.621, 160 KTU 4.622, 160 KTU 4.623, 151 KTU 4.624, 147, 155,214,374 KTU 4.625, 162, 163,206 KTU 4.626, 115, 157,207,355 KTU 4.627, 147, 214 KTU 4.629, 160 KTU 4.630, 158, 202 KTU 4.631, 129, 177, 192 KTU 4.632, 200 KTU 4.633, 151, 183, 189,255 KTU 4.634, 183, 199,255,371 KTU 4.635, 139, 141 KTU 4.636,95, 163,210, 356, 377 KTU 4.637, 177 KTU 4.638, 128, 175 KTU 4.641, 174 KTU 4.643, 143, 183,255 KTU 4.644,215 KTU 4.647,96, 173, 183,212,255 KTU 4.648, 143, 183,255 KTU 4.649, 139, 183, 255 KTU 4.650, 183, 255 KTU 4.651, 139, 183,255 KTU 4.653, 139, 183,255 KTU 4.658, 146, 188 KTU 4.659, 203, 204, 367 KTU 4.661, 160 KTU 4.662, 138 KTU 4.665, 200 KTU 4.667,200,370 KTU 4.670, 173 KTU 4.672, 138 KTU 4.676, 160 KTU 4.677, 165 KTU 4.678, 138 KTU 4.679, 138 KTU 4.682, 146 KTU 4.683, 118, 153, 184,212,317,357, 374 KTU 4.684, 160 KTU 4.685, 160 KTU 4.686, 160

436

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

KTU 4.687, 139 KTU 4.688, 202, 252, 366 KTU 4.689, 173,212,248 KTU 4.690,111,151,189,199,251 KTU 4.691, 248 KTU 4.692, 115, 129, 151, 177, 189, 192, 248 KTU 4.693, 249 KTU 4.694, 248 KTU 4.695, 248 KTU 4.696, 247 KTU 4.697, 145,248,317 KTU 4.698, 163, 248 KTU 4.699, 199,250,371 KTU 4.700, 139, 249 KTU 4.701, 248 KTU 4.702, 177 KTU 4.703, 248 KTU 4.704, 141, 212, 248 KTU 4.705, 169, 211, 249 KTU 4.706,249 KTU 4.707, 165, 204, 367 KTU 4.711, 145 KTU 4.712, 114 KTU 4.713, 145 KTU 4.714, 152 KTU 4.715,260 KTU 4.716, 260 KTU 4.717,208,260 KTU 4.719, 260 KTU 4.720, 168, 210, 376 KTU 4.721, 208, 260 KTU 4.723,139 KTU 4.724, 139, 260 KTU 4.725,260 KTU 4.727,263 KTU 4.728, 199,263,360 KTU 4.729, 154, 189, 259 KTU 4.730, 139, 263 KTU 4.731, 139,263 KTU 4.737, 139, 263 KTU 4.740, 141 KTU 4.745,97,108,111,155,259 KTU 4.746,202,209 KTU 4.747, 200 KTU 4.749, 209 KTU 4.750, 174, 192,247,317 KTU 4.751, 157,247 KTU 4.752, 89, 112, 113, 153, 247 KTU 4.753,247 KTU 4.759, 146, 259

KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU KTU

4.760, 139, 258 4.761, 152,258 4.762, 259 4.763, 145,259 4.764, 166, 259, 376 4.768,200 4.777, 118 4.784, 118, 153, 184,317 4.785, 145 4.787,139 4.788, 259, 360 4.789, 259 4.790, 210 5.10, 321, 365 5.11, 321 5.5, 227 5.6, 227 5.7, 227

COS 3.45LL (RS 94.2284), 335 COS 3.450 (RS 94.5015), 327 COS 3.45Z (RS 94.2479), 333 RSO RSO RSO RSO RSO RSO

14 1 (RS 88.2158), 328 14 1 (RS 88.2158), 362 7 30 (RS [varia 26]), 335 7 33 (RS 34.173), 324 7 35 (RS 34.153), 330 7 88 (RS 34.124), 332, 334

Ugaritic - Syllabic PRU 3 (Fr.), 125 PRU 3 (RS 16.138), 125 PRU 3 19 (RS 15.011), 329 PRU 365 (RS 16.247), 114 PRU 3 77ff (RS 16.142), 124 PRU 3 78ff (15 Y), 124 PRU 3 78ff (15Y), 125 PRU 3 79ff (RS 16.239), 103, 111 PRU 3 81ff (RS 16.143), 111 PRU 3 83ff (RS 16.157), 111 PRU 3 85ff (RS 16.250), 111 PRU 389-101,325 PRU 3 89ff (RS 15.123), 125 PRU 3 113ff (RS 16.353), 111 PRU 3 115ff(RSI6.148 + 254B), 111 PRU 3 117ff(RS 15.143), 123 PRU 3 118ff (RS 15.155), 123 PRU 3 126 (16.162), 125 PRU 3 131ff (RS 15.122, 125

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

PRU 3 133 (RS 15.127), 114 PRU 3 134ff (RS 15.137), 111, 114, 125 PRU 3 135ff (RS 15.140),123 PRU 3 140ff (RS 16.132), 103, 104, 105, 189,300 PRU 3 145ff (RS 16.139), 112, 123 PRU 3 149 (RS 16.136),329 PRU 3 154 (RS 16.242), 114 PRU 3 154 ff (RS 16.242), 124 PRU 3 15ff (RS 15.33), 108 PRU 3 162ff (RS 16.348), 111, 112, 113, 124 PRU 3 171ff (16.173), 125 PRU 3 181ff(RS 11.732), 119 PRU 3 182ff (RS 16.146+161),333 PRU 3 187 (RS 15.43),201 PRU 3 187 (RS 16.125), 166 PRU 3 188 (RS 16.126A), 141 PRU 3 188 (RS 16.151), 164 PRU 3 188ff (RS 16.290), 148 PRU 3 189ff (RS 11.790), 160 PRU 3190 (RS 11.800), 160 PRU 3 190ff (RS 11.830), 154 PRU 3 191 (RS 11.841), 160 PRU 3 192 (RS 16.313), 160 PRU 3 192ff (RS 12.34 +12.43), 103, 104 PRU 3 192ff (RS 15.183), 154 PRU 3 194 (RS 11.787), 167 PRU 3 194ff(RS 11.839), 167 PRU 3 196 (RS 15.42 + 110), 139 PRU 3 197 (RS 16.181),201 PRU 3 198 (RS 16.291), 167 PRU 3 198 (RS 16.359B), 166 PRU 3 199ff (RS 16.257 + 16.258 + 16.126),111 PRU 3 199ff (RS 16.257+), 166 PRU 3 206ff(RS 15.135), 168 PRU 3 206ff (RS 16.294), 148 PRU 4 54ff (RS 17.344), 325 PRU 4 80 ff (RS 17.382+380), 357 PRU 4 80ff (RS 17.382 + RS 17.380), 325 PRU 4 82 (RS 17.382+380), 326 PRU 491 (RS 17.247),326 PRU 4 102ff (RS 18.03), 332 PRU 4 103ff (RS 17.130), 185, 332, 354, 363 PRU 4 103ff (RS 17.461),332 PRU 4 150ff (RS 17.059), 326 PRU 4 161 (RS 17.341),332 PRU 4 17ff (RS 16.238+254), 324

437

PRU 4 189 (RS 17.314), 108 PRU 4 196ff (RS 17.78), 108 PRU 4219 (RS 17.424),332 PRU 4 219ff (RS 17.424 C +397B), 205 PRU 4 239 (RS 17.232), 108 PRU 4 291(RS 19.81),332 PRU 6 3 (RS 17.455), 250 PRU 6 12 (RS 17.451), 250 PRU 6 14 (RS 19.050),324,328 PRU 6 16 (RS 22.006), 324 PRU 6 31 (RS 19.985), 124 PRU 670 (RS 17.50), 115 PRU 671 (RS 17.432), 154 PRU 6 73 (RS 19.107A), 173 PRU 6 75 (RS 19.121), 151 PRU 677 (RS 19.32), 123, 195 PRU 6 78 (RS 19.41), 143 PRU 679 (RS 19.42), 143 PRU 680 (RS 19.111), 143 PRU 681 (RS 19.182), 143 PRU 6 82 (RS 17.242), 139 PRU 6 83 (RS 17.430), 139 PRU 6 84 (RS 19.30), 139 PRU 685 (RS 19.79), 139 PRU 686 (RS 19.82), 139 PRU 6 88 (RS 19.94), 139 PRU 6 89 (RS 19.110), 139 PRU 690 (RS 19.114), 139 PRU 691 (RS 19.132), 139 PRU 6 92 (RS 19.173A), 139 PRU 6 93,103, 111, 114,155 PRU 6 93 (RS 17.131), 103, 155 PRU 6 93ff (RS 19.131), 111 PRU 695 (RS 19.74), 154 PRU 6 96 (RS 19.91), 160 PRU 6 97 (RS 19.118), 160 PRU 6 99 (RS 19.09), 164 PRU 6 100 (RS 19.51), 164 PRU 6 101 (RS 19.130), 164,375 PRU 6 102 (RS 19.12), 164 PRU 6 104 (RS 19.43), 164 PRU 6 105 (RS 19.117), 164 PRU 6 107 (19.25), 164 PRU 6 109 (RS 19.131), 164 PRU 6 110 (RS 19.88), 164 PRU 6 111 (RS 19.129), 165 PRU 6 112 (RS 17.99),166 PRU 6 113 (RS 19.26), 169, 376 PRU 6 114 (19.71), 376 PRU 6 115 (RS 17.37), 148

438

KEVIN M. MCGEOUGH

PRU 6 116 (RS 17.64), 112,328 PRU 6 116 (RS 17.64)., 112 PRU 6 117 (RS 17.136), 148 PRU 6 118 (RS 18.116), 148 PRU 6 119 (RS 19.69), 148 PRU 6 121 (RS 19.141), 148 PRU 6 123 (RS 17.328), 168 PRU 6 126 (RS 19.28), 168, 376 PRU 6 127 (RS 19.57), 168 PRU 6 128 (RS 19.104), 168 PRU 6 129 (RS 19.133A), 168 PRU 6 130 (RS 19X), 168 PRU6131 (RS 19.35A), Ill, 173 PRU 6 133 (RS 19.152), 173 PRU 6136 (RS 17.240), 111, 120, 156 PRU 6 138 (RS 19.46), 173 PRU 6 139 (RS 19.139), 167 PRU 6 140 (RS 19.92), 167 PRU 6 141 (RS 19.112), 147 PRU 6 144 (RS 19.38), 166

PRU 6 PRU 6 PRU 6 PRU 6 PRU 6 PRU 6 PRU 6

152 (RS 18.270), 202 155 (RS 19.07), 167 156 (RS 19.20),205 166 (RS 19.99), 167 168 (RS 21.199), 147 172 (RS.19.140A), 168 179 (RSL. 2), 324

Ug.5 13 (RS 17.465), 167 Ug.5 14 (RS 17.332), 148,250 Ug. 521 (RS 20.168), 325, 331 Ug. 5 30 (RS 20.255A), 326 Ug. 5 33 (RS 20.212), 123,327,331 Ug. 5 97 (RS 20.20), 139 Ug. 5 98 (RS 20.07), 139 Ug.5 99 (RS 20.425), 166 Ug.5 102 (RS 20.207A), 160 Ug. 5 126ff (RS 20.021), 329 Ug. 7 pi13 (RS 34.131), 160

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (FORMERLY ABR-NAHRAIN) Supplement Series Series Editors: Claudia & Antonio Sagona

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

Mayer L.A., Bibliography ofthe Samaritans, 1964,50 p. Bunnens G., Tell Ahmar, 1988 Season, 1990, 151 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Qumran Aramaic, 1992, 167 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, 1995, VIII - 107 p. Bunnens G., CulturalInteraction in the Ancient Near East. Papers Read at a Symposium Held at the University ofMelbourne, Department of Classics and Archaeology (29-30 September 1994), 1996, VIII-ISS p. Muraoka T., Semantics ofAncient Hebrew, 1998, 151 p. Bunnens G., Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, 2000, X - 557 p. Adamthwaite M.R., Late Hittite Emar. The Chronology, Synchronisms and Socio-Political Aspects ofa LateBronze AgeFortress Town, 2001, XXiV - 294 p. Sagona c., The Archaeology ofPunic Malta, 2002, XIV - 1165 p. Sagona c., Punic Antiquities ofMalta and Other Ancient Artefacts Held in Ecclesiastic and Private Collections, 2003, XXiI - 374 p. Hopkins L., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, VI An Ethnoarchaeological Study ofSos Hoyiik and Yigittasi Village, 2003, XXVII - 184 p. Sagona A., A Viewfrom the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, 2004, XX - 743 p. McConchie M., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, V. Iron Technology and Iron-making Communities ofthe First Millennium Be, 2004, XXiV - 393 p. Sagona A., Sagona c., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, I An Historical Geography and a Field Survey of the Bayburt Province, 2004, XXiV-600 p. Cilingiroglu A., Derin Z., Abay E., Saglamtimur H., Kayan i., Ulucak Hoyiik. Excavations Conducted between 1995 and 2002,2004, XII - 162 p. Payne M., Urartian Measures ofVolume, 2005, XX - 387 p. Stoop-van Paridon P.W:T., The Song ofSongs. A Philological Analysis ofthe the Hebrew Book C"'lVil "lV, 2005, XVI - 540 p.

30 38 45 35

EURG EURG EURG EURG

40 EURG 35 EURG 105 EURG 70 EURG 160 EURG 105 EURG 90 EURG 120 EURG

90 EURG

110 EURG 60 EURG 95 EURG 90 EURG