6.Sacred Landscape Libre
12
]OURNAL OF ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN RELIGIONS VOLUME4 BRILL LEIDEN· BOSTON 2004
description
Many studies on ancient cults focus on individual sites, deities or cult places, but they often ignore the wider environment. Why did people choose a particular geographical location? What makes a geographical feature ‘sacred’ and how was this sacred space demarcated from the profane? The sacred landscape is not simply what we see, but a way of seeing: we see it with our eyes but interpret it with our mind. Landscape is therefore a cultural construct which gives meaning to places and reflect human memory.Religious signs, rituals, aetiological myths, theonyms and epithets, as well as human constructions (e.g. architecture) together create a web of ciphers and symbols that make up the sacred landscape of a region, creating a text or narrative of a sacred landscape invested with meaning.Here we also need to consider how the landscape might have been manipulated: this is most notable when contrasting the sacred rivers, springs and hills in the Iron Age with the subsequent monumentalisation beyond recognition of the same sites in the Roman period; human manipulation is a process we can recognise in many periods, like Delphi’s gradual transformation from a natural sanctuary to an architectural sanctuary. Topographically conspicuous sites were often considered ‘sacred’ over many centuries despite changing religious understandings, necessitating adaptations to the cult, and finally leading to the Christianisation of the sacred landscape.This is only one small aspect relating to the sacred landscape’s transformation which might have been triggered by changing societal, cultural and political structures. For example, the municipalisation and urbanisation of the Roman provinces led to a profound re-organisation of the sacred landscape, creating a network of cult places in any one community: (1) the towns develop into religious centres, surrounded by countless suburban cult places, often in conspicuous locations (e.g., overlooking the town); (2) focus points for rural communities were created, both for vici and dispersed settlements, by the civitas / colonia / municipium and/or by rural inhabitants, both of elite and sub-elite status, (3) frontier sanctuaries marked the boundaries of the new Roman-style territories, (4) some of the pre-existing sanctuaries were monumentalised if they could be instrumentalised to assist the coherence of the newly founded civitates; (5) we also need to consider more individualistic countertrends, opposing the official ‘civic’ or ‘polis’ narrative, for example when individuals worshipped new sacred sites and monumentalised them. In addition, there is an imperial discourse: in the Roman empire many pre-Roman sites became associated with Roman deities (e.g. Jupiter and the Alps, replacing ‘indigenous’ deities like Poeninus) and the imperial cult. We also find this in a Greek context when a Greek mythical, religious narrative was used to legitimise military and cultural expansion. Furthermore, the increasing ‘globalisation’ in the Mediterranean world led to the introduction of new deities and cults that might profoundly affect the nature of the sacred landscape: for the goddess Isis, for example, we often find sanctuaries in conspicuous topographical locations, dominating the urban and rural landscape.We also have to investigate how entire landscapes were invested with meaning. Mountains, rivers and springs were ‘sacralised’, for example by being associated with particular myths, heroes and deities; very often there are only hints to suggest these ‘sacralisations’, like the choice of epithets in votive inscriptions. In the Greek East, for example, we can recognise in our literary, epigraphic and archaeological sources how essential natural features, like rivers and mountains, were for people’s identity; as anthropomorphic deities they were worshipped because they protected the inhabitants of a polis and generated prosperity; rivers and mountains became a fictional space in which important or
Transcript of 6.Sacred Landscape Libre
]OURNAL OF ANCIENTNEAR EASTERN RELIGIONS
VOLUME4
BRILLLEIDEN· BOSTON
2004
THE SACRED LAl"JDSCAPEOF THE KINGDOMOF UGARIT
JORDI VIDAL
l. lntroduction
Thc sacred landscape of Indo-European Hispania was analysed byF. Marco Simón (Marco Simón 1999)in a recent paper. Beyond thespecific traits of that particular geocultural setting, the author notedthe existence of certain common attitudes towards landscape presentin a great number of traditional societies. This shows, as Frazer orEliade had already pointed out, the existence of anthrapologicalstructures of the imaginary common to a certain extent among dif-ferent cultures. Along this same line, the perception of landscape, itsshapes, and its various elements as supernatural ones is a recurrentpattern. Certain realities were deemed worthy of expressing divinepresence, were perceived as alive, animated, and often grantedanthrapomorphic traits.
This paper aims at analyzing how this sacred conception of land-scape was expressed in the Ugaritic world. Our main sources for thisstudy are the literary and ritual texts recoveredfram various ar-chives of the city. However it is toponomy which will allow us toobserve a set of attitudes and beliefs concerning landscape whichhave left no trace in the 'official' literature, and which evoke adeeper level of Ugaritic religion.
2. Sacred landscape
Our review begins with the forest, a space tradtionally perceived assacred, whose mystery either hid the invisiblepresence of the divineor was identified with it. A passagefram the myth of Baal confirmsthis perception of the forest as the favoured abode of divine charac-ters in Ugarit:
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004Also available online - www.brill.nl
JANER 4
144 JORDI VIDAL
"The enemies of Baa1 grasp hold of (the trees of) the forest."¡
Sacralization of the forest also focuscd on trees, probably as signs ofboth fertility and protection. We find the best example of it in anincantation against snakes and scorpions recently found in U garito2
In this incantation, the practitioner of therapeutic magic states '1 willshake pieces of sacred tree'(amrmrn '5 qdS) in order to avoid the at-tack of snakes and scorpions, in what we regard as a clear referenceto the protecting and healing character attributed to the sacred tree.In fact, certain trees such as tamarisk were repeatedly used in U gariticmagical practice.In one of the paramythological texts, the attributesof tamarisk are referred to as determinant elements invoked to fightthe poisonous bite of the serpent.3 Another extremely interesting caseis recorded in a reference to a child's healing:
"Take (a bunch of) tamarisk(?) and put it in the child's house and itwill bring his illness to a head."4
The translation ofbntas tamarisk,fram the Akkadian bznu,poses certainproblems in this contextoIn ritual and magical texts, the word usedfor tamarisk is'r'r. It is possible, then, that the actual meaning ofbnt
here is 'figurine' (Sanmartín 1978). Del Olmo Lete (Del Olmo Lete1992: 210 n. 63) has combined both possibilities bringing attentionto the habit of burying figurines made precisely of tamarisk in thepalace: a well attested pracedure of apotrapaic magic (Beaulieu 1990:121). This reconstruction certainly reaffirms the importance grantedto sacred trees, and particularly tamarisks, in certain rituals of whitemagic, as the previous example shows.
The existencc of a cult dedicated to trees is well attested in the
Canaanite sphere, thanks to the Hebrew Bible" and to various clas-sical sources related to the Phoenician world.6 Such cults are some-
times linked to goddess Aserah. There are some data beyond the
1 RS 2.08+ (=KTU l.+):vn 35f2 RS 92.2014 (=RSO 1452, p. 387).3 RS 24.244 (=KTC 1.100):64.+ RS 24.272 (=KTU 1.124):8ff." Deuteronorny 16:21: Joshua 24:26s: Judges 6:25: Isaiah 1:29; Hosea 4:13,
etc.6 Achilles Tatius, The Adi'entllres of Lellcippe and Clitophon2:14; HerodotusHistou
2:56.
THE SACRED LANDSCAPE OF THE Kl;\lGDOM OF UGARIT 145
biblical text' confrrming that the tree was the symbol of the goddess;the physical reality manifesting her presence. This can be observedin various figurines found in Ugarit representing Aserah with abranch or tree situated between the navel and the pubic region(Negbi 1976: 96ff).8
It may now be asked if the cults dedicated to trees were such thatthey were regarded as the physical manifestations of Aserah, or ifthey themselves were somehow sacralized.In our opinion, two traitsidentified in Ugaritic literature favour the latter possibility. The factthat in certain passages an obvious anthropomorphization of treestakes place, with no reference to Aserah,9 and trees' connection tostones which are worshipped in the Near East to this day (Kriss-Kriss-Heinrich 1960-1962), point to their sacralization independent of theirassociation with a particular deity:
"A matter of wood (shaft) and a chatter of stone (tip)."10
"Trees that do not emit (a sound), stones (that) do not whisper."ll
"The mother of the stallion, the mare, the daughter of the spring,the daughter of stone, the daughter of the heavens and the abyss."12
T o condude with the refercnces to this first sphere it is necessary toobserve the great number ofUgaritic place names related to the forestor certain types of tree:gpn ("trees"), dprnm ('junipers"), zl dprn
("Shadow of the juniper"), y'rt ("Wood, Forest"), n1;l ("Date-palm"),sfy ("Tree?"), 'rgz ("(Wal)nut"), slrby ("(Place of the) MedIar"), tmrm
("Date-palm(s)"), tpb ("Apple- or Apricot-tree"), tr;;y ("Hardwood-tree"),lrmn ("Cypress") (Bordreuil 1996: 63ff; Watson 2001). This samplecan be better understood when one bears in mind the richness of a
landscape less degraded than our own, as well as the deep religioussignificance attributed to this kind of vegetation.
The mountain was another element of the landscape traditionally
See Binger 1997: llOff.; Smith 2002: 108ff.8 Wiggins differs: "the 'tree' here is so highly stylized that its identification as
a plant hardly seems secure" (Wiggins 2001: 183).9 As vViggins points out: "nowhere in the extant Ugaritic texts does Asherah
appear to have been particularly associated with trees" (Wiggins 2001: 180).10 RS 2.14+ (=KTU 1.3):IlI 22f.11 RS 15.134 (=KTU 1.82):43.12 RS 24.244 (=KTU 1.100):1.
146 JORDI VIDAL
granted a religious significance as a suitable setting for the gods' abodeand as a place of the union of sky and earth. Due to its very physicalfeatures the mountain offered a perfect symbolic expression for rep-resenting the connection with the transcendental at a higher spiri-tu al level.
The sacred mountain in U garit par excellence was Saphon, knowntodayas Gabal al-Aqra'. Significantly, a Ugaritic text groups togethera list of divinities under the heading of the 'gods of Saphon'(il $pn).13However, it is Ba'al who on various occasions was granted the title'the Lord of Saphon' (b'l $pn)14as the god who had a special rela-tionship with that mountain.
In fact, mount Saphon itself was deified (Koch 1993) and as suchappears in some passages of epic literature,15 and in various god lists16and rituals as rcceiving offerings of ewes, 17rams, 18birds 19andcows.20
It also has its own sacrificial pit(¡j;b $pn).21
However, the perception of the mountain as a sacred place wasnot limited to mount Saphon. Mountains play an important role inthe geographical configuration of the Netherworld.In a passage ofthe myth recounting the construction ofBa'al's palace, the route fol-lowed by the messengers of the storm god, Gupan and Ugar, to getto the abode of Mot, the god of Death, is described.In this passagewe find the most accurate description of the geography of theNetherworld in Ugaritic literature. According to this description, theentrance to the Netherworld was marked by two mountains, Targuzizaand Tarrummagi, 'the nvo heights of the confines of the earth'(tlm
13 RS 1.17(= KTU 1.47).14 RS 1.01(= KTU 1.39):10;RS 1.09(= KTU 1.46):12, 14; RS 1.17(= KTU
1.47):5; RS 4.474(= KTU 1.65):10; RS 20.24(= Ug 5 18):4;RS 24.253(= KTU1.109):5,9,29, 32s; RS 24.256(= KTU 1.112):22s;RS 24.264+(= KTU 1.118):4;RS 24.284(= KTU 1.130):2, 7,9; RS 24.643(= KTU 1.148):10,27; RS 92.2004(= RSO 1422):7, etc. See a1soRS 3.325+(= KTU 1.16):16...
15 RS 3.322+(= KTU 1.19):II 35.16 RS 20.24(= Ug 5 18):14; RS 24.264+(= KTU 1.118):14; RS 24.643(=
KTU 1.148):6, RS 92.2004(= RSO 1422):10.17 RS 1.03+(= KTU 1.41):34,42; RS 1.09(= KTU 1.46):4,6; RS 18.56(=
KTU 1.87):37,46; RS 24.253(= KTU 1.109):10, 34.18 RS 24.643(= KTU 1.148):6, 29.19 RS 1.03(= KTU 1.41):24;RS 18.56(= KTU 1.87):27;RS 24.249(= KTU
1.105): 24'; RS 24.284(= KTU 1.130):8, 10.20 RS Varia 20(= KTU 1.162):19.21 RS 24.249(= KTU 1.105):21'.22 RS 2.08+ (= KTU 1.4):VIII 1-20.
THE SACRED LAJ'\'DSCAPE OF THE KINGDOM OF UGARIT 147
g$t ar$).22 The name of these mountains cou1d be of Hurrian origin,re1ated to the deities Tarbu and Sarruma. Due to thc northern ori-gin of these deities, some scho1ars place such mountains in the northofCanaan, in Hurrian territory (Gaster 1961: 197; Astour 1980: 229).23Others, presuming a clear parallelism with the two twin mountains(Masu) mentioned in the Baby10nian Gilgames epic, maintain thatTarguziza y Iarrummagi were the mountains of the West behindwhich Sapas, the sun goddess, hid every day (Tsevat 1974; Marga1it1980: 75). Finally, a third option identifies them with mount Saphon(Wyatt 1998: 112 n. 175).
Pardee (Pardee 1997: 263 n. 195) has recently put forward a revi-sion of the physica1 traits ofboth mountains.In his opinion it is possib1ethat the Ugaritic word tl, rather than referring to a natural moun-tain, refers to the concept of ruin. If this is so, Targuziza andIarrummagi cou1d have been imagined as two ruins mounds; twogreat mounts of rubb1e signa1ing access to the 1and of the dead.It isnecessary, then, to abandon any attempt to identify these p1ace-nameswith any concrete physica1 rea1ity, and to definitively conceptua1izethem as two mythica1 mountains a1ien to the geography of Canaanand its surroundings.
An apparently contradictory version of this geography of theNetherwor1d may be found in another passage from the myth ofBa'ap4 There, an unknown deity, probab1y Sapas or Mot himself,instructs Ba'a1 on how to reach the kingdom ofthe dead. Accordingto this passage it was on1y mount Kankanay, not mounts Targuzizaand Iarrummagi, that signalled the entry to the Netherworld. Theexistence of contradictory versions about this matter is not unusualin the Mcsopotamian sphere, due to the absence of any official doc-trine unifying the various traditions (Bottéro 1980). The Ugaritic case,however, is rather more problematic because the two versions donot appear, as could happen in Mesopotamian tradition, in variousliterary passages produced at different times and in different intel-lectual spheres. Rather, both figure in the mythological cycle ofBa'al,thus making it difficult to explain the apparent lack of harmony.
The solution to this problem necessitates that one understandsKankanay not as a place-name but as a common name (Xella 1987:131). As Pardee (Pardee 1997: 267 n. 229) pointed out, the presence
23 Tsevat (Tsevat 1974), however, interprets these as the mountains ofthe horizon;the sun rises and/or sets between them.
24 RS 2.22+ (= KTU l.S):Y 6-17.
148 JORDI VIDAL
of the sufEx-y confirms this possibi1ity. In fact the termknkn comesfrom the root knn (Arabic: 'to cover, cover up, hide'). So, the correcttrans1ation of the expressiongr knkny wou1d not be "the mountainKankanay" but "the mountains of my covert", i.e., Targuziza andTarrummagi25. In this way, in addition to reso1ving the relationshipbetween Kankanay and Targuziza-Iarrummagi, the idea ofthe twomountains as a point of access to the Netherworld is maintained, anidea, as we have seen, also present in Mesopotamian mythology (Vidal2004b).
Taking up again the theme of the mountain as the gods' favouredabode, it should be noted that according to the myth of the battlebetween Bacal and Yam, El's abode was placed at the top ofmountKas,26 the assembly of gods was placed on mount Lalu27 (Smith 1994:225ff.),28 and Anat's home29 (a goddess particularly associated withmount Saphon),30 on mount Inbub, literally 'the god (ofthe) Moun-tain'.31 Finally, a divinity known as 'J\1ountains and Waters of theAbyss' (grm w thmt),32 who receives sacrificial offerings,33 is also foundin god lists.
In fact, another of the fundamental elements of sacred landscape,namely water, appears in the name of this last divinity associatedwith the mountain. Its importance as such lies in the perception ofwater as a source of life, purification and regeneration. It is not sur-prising that in Ugarit, where agriculture, particularly dry farming,depended to a great extent on rain, a deity such as Bacal, the god of
25 Wyatt (Wyatt 1998: 124 n. 43), e.g., differs: 'Mountain ofmy gullet'. In hisopinion this alludes to some natural cave on J\ft. Saphon which was understood tobe an entrance to the Netherworld.
26 RS 3.361(= KTU 1.1):III 12.27 RS 3.367+(= KTU 1.2):120 and par.28 Del Olmo Lete (del Olmo Lete 1998: 61 n. 55), e.g., differs; for him Ijursanu,
Kas and Lalu were in fact different names all referring to the 'Canaanite 01ympus',the location of the assemb1yof gods and home of El.
2g RS 24.244(= KTU 1.100):20.30 RS 1.09(= KTU 1.46):17; RS 24.253(= KTU 1.109):13-14, 17,36; RS
24.284(= KTU 1.130):26.31 DULAT p. 78; vVatson 2001: 112.32 RS 20.24(= Ug 5 18):18; RS 24.264+(= KTU 1.118):18; RS 24.643(=
KTU 1.148):41;RS 92.2004(= RSO 1422):29. See Pardee 2000 and Pardee 2002.33 RS 24.643(= KTU 1.148):6,41.34 RS 1.03(= KTU 1.41):34f;RS 4.474(= KTU 1.65):lOf;RS 18.56(= KTU
1.87):36f; RS 24.249(= KTU 1.105):6'; RS 24.253(= KTU 1.109):11, 16, 34,
THE SACRED LANDSCAPE OF THE KINGDOM OF UGARIT 149
the storm and ferti1ityofthe fields, was p1aced at the top ofthe Ugariticpantheon, crowned as the 'Lord ofUgarit'(b'l ugrt)34 and celebratedas 'Mighty Ba'a1'(aliJn b'0,35 'mightiest of the heroes'(aliJ qrdm)36
and 'The Powerfu1'(dmrn),37 patron and protector of the city andthe kingdom (Wyatt 1999: 544f; Herrmann 1999: 132ft).
The importance of water for Ugarit's population is well attestedin the plethora of place-names related to springs, rivers, marshes,etc.38 A pattern, not only in U garit but practically in all traditionalsocieties, is the conception of wells and springs as abodes and mani-festations of divinities, for they high1ight such a valuable commodityas water. In fact, an Ugaritic incantation against a snake bite locatesEl's abode at 'the springs of the Two- Rivers'(mbk nhrm).39
In relation to this concept, I wou1d 1ike to underscore two U gariticplace-names: 'Source of Mky'Cnmk(y)) and 'source of Qpat'Cnqpat),
that cou1d refer precisely to two deities connected to springs. It iscertainly possible that both Mky and Qpat were really two propernames and if this were so, the place names wou1d not contain anyreligious or divine reference. However, neither ofthese proper namesare attested in Ugaritic texts.40 They do not appear in the ritual textseither. In any case, this wou1d only underline the fact that we mightbe dealing with two divinities or rural genies associated with a veryspecific and restricted geographica1 reality, with no impact upon theurban pantheon we are familiar with, something that wou1d easilyexplain their absence in such a sphcrc.
As for the perception of water as a destructive force, which is awell attested aspect in Ugaritic sources,4! we find the god Yam. Yamwhose divine profile is well developed in Ugaritic mythology, is, ashis name shows, the Sea-God, but he is also a god related to rivers.
35[; RS 24.256(= KTU 1.112):23; RS 24.266(= KTU 1.119):3,9[,12,21'[; RS24.284 (= KTU 1.130):11,23.
35 E.g., RS 2.22+(= KTU 1.5):VI 9.3(i E.g., RS 2.14+(= KTU 1.3):III 14.37 E.g., RS 2.08(= KTU 1.4):VII 39.38 agm ('Swamp'),bir ('Well'), nb/pk ('\Vell', 'Spring'), nbkm (Two springs'),nlpy
('Riverine'), slb ('Watered fields'),sql ('Marsh'?),f;y(n)dr ('River o[ (Mount) Ndr'?) ....See Bordreuil 1996:61ss; Watson 2001.
39 RS 24.244(= KTU 1.100):3.40 In Mari (ARM IX 294 1. 7, ARM XXII !O, MARI 5 p. 598 no. 4) (Millet,
personal communication) and in the Phoenician world (Benz 1972: 138) the namemky is attested.
11 See, [or example, the shipwrcck in RS 18.31(= KTU 2.38).
150 JORDI VIDAL
This is clearly expressed in his titles 'Prince Sea'(bht ym) and 'Ru1erRiver' (IN nhr). In such contexts, rivers are construed as destructivepowers. Yam personifies the chaotic side of water. This image isreinforced by assocÍations with monsters such as Lotan, the sevenheaded serpent, Tunnan, the primordial dragon, Aris, the Demander,and 'Atik, the Binder described as I1u's ca1f.42Yam, in sum, repre-sents the power of chaos assocÍated with rivers and the sea (Sto1z1999: 739ft).
The last great space within U garitic sacred 1andscape is the desert,a biotope a1ien to the ecological reality of the kingdom of U garit,but which was, however, represented in 1iterary and cultic texts. Inone instance the desert Say is recognized as adivine desert,43 theplace where of E1's concubines will go to in order to give birth tothose creatures known as the 'Voracious Ones'(aklm), 'DestructiveOnes' ('qqm) and 'Thirsty Ones'(gllm). In another text, probab1y re-cording a ritual re1ated to the question of fertility (Del Olmo Lete1981: 437ff; De Moor 1987: 117f),44 the concept of a holy desertinhabited by the Voracious Ones ready to devour any element oflife, reappears.45
The images reflected in these texts translate a clearly negativeconception of this space, one common to all AncÍent Near Easternurban civilizations. Such a conception may be found in Mesopotamianliterature in works such as the poem of Atrabasis, the epic of Erra,the epic of Gilgame?3 and, particularly, in magical literature. In thelatter, the desert and the steppe are often represented as place s ofbarbarity, destruction and death, populated by demons, bandits andwild beasts (Lackenbacher 1989).
In addition to these four great elements oflandscape (forest, moun-tain, water, desert) Ugaritic toponomy has left us evidence of par-ticular spaces to which other sacred traits are also attached. Someplace names attest to the preferential protection of certain divinitiesin whose care such sites were placed:ilftm' ('The (place of) the'l ofListening', gb'ly ('Site ofBa'al), lbil ('May El Return'), mril (uncertainmeaning, but containsi0. Others remind us of the manifestation of
42 RS 2.14(= KTU 1.3):III 44.43 RS 2.12(= KTU 1.12):122.44 Far Dietrich and Loretz (Dietrich-Loretz 1988: 350ft) it is an incantation
against ma1ign farces of nature.45 RS 2.02(= KTU 1.23).
THE SACRED LANDSCAPE OF THE KINGDOM OF UGARIT 151
divinity that occurred in a given moment in the past:lq ('(Place of)Thunder (?)),rrl$ bt ('Memorial'). Finally, the names of some sites containa more generic reference relating them to the sacred sphere:ubre('Placeof Ascent'(?)), dmt qdf ('Sacred Tower'), ndb ('(Place of) Offering')(Watson 2001).
3. Conclusions
The conception of landscape reflected by the quoted evidence al-lows for a clear appreciation of the sacralization of four great spheres(forest, mountain, water, desert), which a poetic view of the worldassociated with the sphere of the supernatural. The sum of these fourgreat elements, or their constitutive parts, acquired an essential re-ligious significance through a series of repeated processes: anthropo-morphization (mountain, sea/river, tree, stone), their association withdivine characters (mountain, tree, springs) and their conception asspace populated by supernatural creatures (sea, desert, wood). Thoseelements of landscape were 'trans-figured', thus acquiring a mean-ing beyond their primary or natural one. U garitic landscape appearsin the sources as a reality rich with symbols but not with signs, inwhich each of the mentioned elements was attributed a meaningrelated to it (e.g. desert-desolation; water-fertility/purification), whilelacking any arbitrariness. What the interest raised by landscape,perceived as a reality capable of representing the divine, denotes is,in short, the close connection that the U garitic individual, as a memberof an agricultural and herding society,46 kept with nature; a naturehe barely controlled and which conditioned, to a great extent, thecourse of his life.
Bibliography
AstoUf, M.C. 1980. 'The Nether vVorld and its Denizens at Ugarit", in: B. AIster(ed.): Death in Mesopotamia. Copenhagen, pp. 227-242.
Beaulieu, P.A. 1990. "Lion-Man: uridimmu or urdimmu?", ,NABU 1990: n°. 121.
46 It should be remembered that more than three quarters of the populationof the kingdom of Ugarit were concentrated in about 200 villages spread aroundthe territory. International commerce, speeialized craftsmanship and other elementstypical of the capital's truly urban economy were located at some distance fromthis majority (Heltzer 1976; Liverani 1983; Vidal 2004a).
152 JORDI VIDAL
Benz, F.L. 1972.Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions.Rome.Binger, T. 1997.Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament.Sheffield.Bordreuil, P. 1996. "Sources et forets:apropos de la géographie physique et humaine
de l'Ougarit", in: A. Sérandour (ed.):Des Sumériens aux Romains d'Orient. La per-
ception géographique du monde.Paris, pp. 59-66.Dietrich, M.-Loretz, O. 1988. "Ugaritische Rituale und Beschwbrungen",Texte
aus der Umwelt des Alten Testamentsn/3, pp. 299-357.Gaster, T .H. 1961.Thespis: Ritual, ¡tlyth and Drama in the Ancient Near East.N ew York.Heltzer, M. 1976. The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit.Wiesbaden.Herrmann, ',IV. 1999. "Baal", in: K. van del' Toorn-B. Becking-P.W. van del' Horst
(eds.): Dictionary rif Deities and Demons in the Bible.Leiden-Boston-Kbln, pp. 132-139.
Hestrin, R. 1988. "The Lachish Ewer and the 'Asherah",lE] 37: 212-223.Hübner, U. 1992. "Del' Tanz um die Ascheren",UF 24: 127.Koch, K. 1993. "~azzi- af6n-Kasion: Die Geschichte eines Berges und seiner
Gottheiten", in: B. janowski-K. Koch-G. Wilhelm (eds.):Religionsgeschichtliche
Beziehungen zwischen Kieinasien, Nordspien und dem Alten Testament.Freiburg-Gbttingen,pp. 171-223.
Kriss, R.- Kriss- Heinrich, H. 1960-1962.Volksglauben im Bereich des Islam.Wiesbaden.Lackenbacher, S. 1989. "L'image du désert d'apres les textes littéraires assyro-
babyloniens", in:Le désert. Image et réalité.Leuven, pp. 67-79.Liverani, M. 1983. "Communautés rurales dans la Syrie dune millénaire a.C.",
in: Les communautés rurales/ Rural communities. Paris, pp. 147-185.1V1arcoSimón F. 1999. "El paisaje sagrado en la Hispania indoeuropea", in:J.1Vf.
Blázquez Martínez - R. Ramos Fernández (eds.):Religióny 111agiaen la Antigüedad.
Valencia del 16 al18 de abril de 1997. Valencia, pp. 147-165.Margalit, B. 1980.A lHatter rif'Life' and 'Death'. Neukirchen-Vluyn.de Moor, J.C. 1987.An AntllOlogy rif Religious Texts .ji-om Ugarit.Leiden.Negbi, O. 1976. Canaanite Gods in Metal. Tel Aviv.del Olmo Lete, G. 1981.lvfitos y leyendas de Canaán según la tradición de Ugarit.Madrid.del Olmo Lete, G. 1992.La religión cananea según la liturgia de Ugarit.Sabadell.del Olmo Lete, G. 1998.111itos, lC)'endas)' rituales de los semitas occidentales.Barcelona-
Madrid.
Pardee, D. 1997. "The Ba'lu Myth", in: W.W. Hallo (ed.):The Context rif Scripture
(Vol. I). Leiden-New York-Kbln, pp. 241-274.Pardee, D. 2000.Les textes rituels.Paris.Pardee, D. 2002.Ritual and Cult in Ugarit. Leiden-Boston-Kbln.Sanmartín, J. 1978. "Zum Begriff 'Struktur'(bnt) im Ugaritischen", UF 10: 349-
356.
Smith, M.S. 1994. TIze Ugaritic Baal Cycle.Leiden-New York-Kbln.Smith, ]\;-f.S.2002. The Earo' Histol)' rif God. Grand Rapids.Stolz, F. 1999. "Sea", in: K. van del' Toorn-B. Becking-P.\V. van del' Horst (eds.):
Dictionary rif Deities and Demons in the Bible.Leiden-Boston-Kbln, pp. 737-742.Tsevat, M. 1974. "Sun IVlountains at Ugarit",]NSL 3: 71-75.Vidal, J. 2004a. Las aldeas de Ugarit según los archil'Os del Bronce Reciente.Barcelona
(unpublishcd PhD dissertation).Vidal,J. 2004b. "Geografia del Infierno ugarítico según el ciclo mitológico de Ba'al,"
Historiae 1: 107-114.
Watson, W.G.E. 2001. "The Lexical Aspect ofUgaritic Toponyms",AuOr 19: 109-123.
Wiggins, S.A. 2001. "Of Asherahs and Trees: Some l\Iethodological Questions",]ANER 1: 158-187.
THE SACRED LANDSCAPE OF THE KINGDOM OF UGARIT 153
Wyatt, N. 1998. Religious Texts from Ugarit.Sheffield.Wyatt, N. 1999. "The Religion of Ugarit: an Overview", in: W.G.E. Watson-N.
Wyatt (eds.):Handbook of Ugaritic Studies.Leiden-Boston-Kb1n, pp. 529-585.Xella, P. 1987."Imago mortisnella Siria antica", in: P. Xella (ed.):Archeologia dell'Infirno.
Verona, pp. 117-145.
