Urban Squares in Late Bronze Age Ugarit: a Street View on Ancient Near Eastern Governance

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeForumUrban Squares in Late Bronze Age Ugarit: a Street View on Ancient Near Eastern GovernanceAlessandra GilibertAlessandra GilibertUniversità Ca’ Foscari Venezia* Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreIntroductionThis article deals with the socio-political dimension of public space in 13th-century bc Ugarit, with a particular focus on the city’s squares. Ugarit, located on the Syrian seacoast immediately north of modern Lattakia, is one of the best-documented towns in the ancient Levant and a touchstone case-study for urban design. In the following, I explore how urban space intersects with the events of the 13th century, when Ugarit was a thriving capital governed by a monarch who was a vassal to the Hittite Empire.Today, the correlation between urban design and governance in ancient cities is increasingly investigated using an “archaeopolitical” approach.1 According to this perspective, political authority is always performative, people-oriented, and negotiated in public. In archaeological terms, an archaeopolitical perspective focuses on public space to apprehend the negotiation of power between rulers and other civic community members.2 In ancient Near Eastern studies, text-oriented scholars are currently rediscovering a similar interest in non-royal institutions and the politics of consensus.3 Archaeological research, however, has only modestly responded to the new paradigm. Adelheid Otto’s studies on the Late Bronze Age Middle Euphrates4 and other studies on urban space in Iron Age Syro-Anatolia5 are relevant exceptions. These studies identify squares as an essential feature of Levantine cities between the 13th and the 9th century, finding that squares were used either as marketplaces (particularly in Late Bronze Age cities)6 or as ceremonial spaces (particularly in Iron Age cities).7 Market squares and ceremonial squares have been studied separately, mainly because the known examples date to different periods. In both cases, however, the form and function of squares are entangled with and reflect the city’s political situation. The case of Ugarit stands out as perhaps the only one in which fieldwork has recorded both a market square and ceremonial squares, and thus fills a gap in our understanding of the evolution of public space between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age.In the Late Bronze Age, Ugarit extended over 28 hectares. In nearly a century of excavations, a Syro-French team investigated an extraordinary 25% of the site’s area (Fig. 1).8 Most architectural features date to a short period of intense building activity sandwiched between a catastrophic event (probably an earthquake) around 12509 and the city’s abandonment around 1190.10 In this 60-year period, at least five urban squares existed: a market square downtown (the “Central Square”), two squares around the Royal Palace, and two squares near the Temple of Baal, the city’s main temple. The form and urban qualities of these squares reflect political decisions made in the aftermath of the earthquake.11 Marguerite Yon has argued that in this period the urban population increased, and domestic units became more densely agglomerated. In her view, urban squares were built “to free up space within a city on the verge of suffocation.”12 The present analysis proposes a different view, that the proliferation of urban squares was connected to the need to shape a civic identity and raise support for the monarchy.Figure 1. Topographic overview of Ugarit in the 13th century, with partial reconstruction of the street network and location of the main urban features discussed. The schematic relief lines are traced after Yon, Arts et industries de la pierre (Paris 1991), 6.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointThe argument is based on the combined analysis of three main aspects of urban space: its configuration in terms of access and visibility,13 its symbolic connotations and affective properties,14 and the way urban space was used. From the point of view of methodology, each line of inquiry has been pursued with different analytical techniques: the overall degree of access and visibility has been studied using the toolbox of Space Syntax Analysis, the affective and sensory properties of space have been derived by the analysis of urban design, and use patterns have been studied through the distribution of small finds and semi-fixed installations.15 While a step-by-step description of the methodological protocol is beyond the scope of this paper,16 the basic principles and results are introduced in the course of the case-study and then reflected upon in the conclusions.This contribution begins by discussing the number and living conditions of the city’s inhabitants. My analysis will show that Ugarit’s population, while overall remarkably affluent and influential, was divided in competing segments and groups, and this contributed to a socially tense atmosphere. The second part of the contribution looks at each of the city’s squares in detail, proposing that the market square was a free and unpredictable space of encounter, while the ceremonial squares were conceived as a spatial system for large-scale public rituals and feasting under the aegis of the king. The ruling class used these events to promote a specific construction of cultural unity, cement hierarchies, and legitimize a political course striving for more independence from Hatti. In the concluding remarks, I discuss the case of Ugarit in a broader perspective, discussing how the framework proposed in this paper may contribute to “archaeopolitical” studies and urban studies in general.Households, Residential Patterns, and Wealth Distribution at UgaritAlthough population-size estimates for ancient settlement are notoriously imprecise, different back-of-the-envelope calculations for Ugarit—based on combinations of epigraphic, archaeological, and ethnographic evidence—allow for the estimation of the number of people living in Ugarit at around 6,000–8,000 individuals,17 probably corresponding to about a quarter of the total population of the kingdom.18 This figure would imply a population density within the city walls of 214–286 persons per hectare, or six to eight individuals per urban household (whereas a rural household would count four to five inhabitants19). When population density is so significant, built space becomes a battleground for conflicting interests, “from the top-down planning of ruling elites through the bottom-up actions of households.”20 To infer the interplay between top-down and bottom-up processes from the archaeological record, the approach adopted here looks at Ugarit’s urban remains “from the outside in,” adopting a view from the street.Ugarit’s urban fabric consisted of a compact and nearly continuous agglomeration of multi-storied stone buildings. Most houses were flat-roofed stone-and-timber buildings, internally arranged around small enclosed courtyards functioning as air shafts and light wells.21 Houses clustered in irregular house blocks, with great variation in individual house size. Leaving aside the 10,000 m2 royal compound, most inhabitants lived in houses with a ground-floor area of 130–140 m2.22 However, there were also free-standing grand mansions five times as large or larger (the Maison aux Albâtres, for example, had a ground-floor area of over 1,000 m2) as well as relatively modest homes of 50–90 m2 ground floor. Large houses coexisted with smaller ones, often sharing the same house block. Each house could be further fractioned or enlarged, and this resulted in intricate solutions. This architectural jigsaw necessarily fostered cooperation and familiarity among people living in different houses. At the same time, it implied selective control over limited architectural resources, and thus potential conflict. For example, most water wells were privately owned, and not every house had one.23 The unequal distribution of space in general and in particular the unequal access to infrastructure indicates that asymmetrical power relationships were deeply ingrained in Ugarit’s urban fabric, and a critical constituent of its social life.David Schloen has convincingly argued that Ugaritic houses, or “residential units,” were typically inhabited by multi-generation patrilocal joint families.24 To explain inequality, Schloen has proposed that house blocks were owned by “urban clans,” i.e., “extended, composite households whose members understand their physical proximity and economic cooperation in terms of common ancestry.”25 In his view, asymmetry in household space related to the “unequal household relationship between fathers and sons,”26 with male relatives living with their wives and families under the leadership of the oldest among them, the patriarch, who occupied the most extensive residential unit.Schloen’s view, however, does not sufficiently consider the role of public space in structuring social interactions. While “urban clans” may have occasionally been coterminous with a house block, neither archaeological nor textual evidence indicates that this was the rule, nor the preeminent organizing principle of social interactions. In some cases, people might have engaged more with neighbors across the street than with people living in an unconnected unit of the same house block.27 This possibility is reinforced by the frequent location of house entrances in dead-end lanes or on small squares with a semi-private character,28 which points to small-scale, informal neighborhoods going beyond or cutting across the individual house block.29 Furthermore, most streets were significantly narrower than the average room,30 and passageways might have occasionally connected properties across house blocks, creating complex spaces.31 Conversely, non-residential spaces such as magazines or gardens were sometimes built into house blocks but remained independent from adjacent households.32In sum, at the household level, social life and civic interactions seem to have been influenced more by the agglomerated, labyrinthine, and “networked” nature of the urban fabric than structured around the isolated house block. In this perspective, the unequal distribution of domestic space is more likely to reflect individual power and wealth than patriarchal kinship ties and points to a tense admixture of competition and cooperation among Ugarit’s inhabitants.A further point concerns the distribution of wealth and status. At Ugarit, the overall quality of life was extraordinarily high. As pointed out by Marguerite Yon, “even the houses identified as ‘modest’ by the original excavators are well built and on average bigger than houses classified as ‘important’ at other sites, Emar for example.”33 Monumental funerary crypts, cuneiform archives, and many refined objects, including luxury imports, were excavated in small houses as well as vast mansions.34 Cuneiform archives attest that the business of most private households included trade, administration, and scribal or cultic offices, with a high degree of interconnectedness among different spheres.35 Peasants, craftsmen, and small traders seems to have lived mostly outside the city walls. Artisan workshops, industrial production, or large-scale storage facilities could not be identified anywhere in the city36 (whereas they were found at Minet el-Beida, Ugarit’s port). Ugaritic households had strong ties to the rural world and owned farmland,37 but the absence of significant stables or private silos indicate that, within the city, agricultural produce was processed as an integrative activity among others, such as weaving and spinning,38 or (in the case of the grand mansions) as part of a medium-scale business.39This situation created a double standard. Inside the city, among the generally well-off, wealth, power, and status disparities entangled the citizens in a web of unequal relationships and competitions. Conversely, among the rural population, where the affluence enjoyed by the urban dwellers must have been mostly unattainable, the wealth and power divide between and within rural households is likely to have been significantly less marked than among urban dwellers. This disparity created two independent sets of political interlocutors: the rural population, flattened into dispossession and without political leverage, and the urban population, wealthy, influential, and fragmented. Against this social backdrop, consensus-seeking politics were geared to address city dwellers. The political inclinations of the city dwellers mattered, because their wealth made them influential, while their social divide made them factious and inclined to dissent.Street Network and Street LifeThe exceptional extent to which Ugarit’s street network is known gives us an opportunity to ponder aspects of street life that are otherwise seldom accessible archaeologically. At Ugarit, the street network was laid out according to a radio-concentric pattern, resembling a spider-web (Fig. 1, 3).40 In this “rhizomatic” design, most points were mutually invisible in space but at the same time well connected.41 Barriers were insignificant, centralized surveillance was difficult, and people were free to choose among multiple, meandering alternative paths. The urban rhythm was measured on a small scale: if we assume unimpeded traffic and a relaxed walking speed of ∼1.4 m/second (∼5 km/hr or 3 miles/hr),42 the average inhabitant could reach any location from any point in town within fifteen minutes at most.With few exceptions, streets were narrow, contorted, and designed for pedestrian use. The winding layout generated continuous shade and created a favorable atmosphere for street life.43 Most streets were between 1.5 and 3 meters wide.44 They were wide enough for a bi-directional flow of pedestrians and loaded donkeys,45 but left little space for anonymity, forcing passers-by into touching distance, where details of complexion, grooming, and body odors were inevitably detected. In this perspective, walking in the street was an intrinsically social activity.46 Specifically, encounters between acquaintances and close contacts with strangers must have been constant and unpredictable, exposing passers-by to opportunities, risks, and public perception.47Conversely, spaces for public conviviality and congregation were few. At crossroads or cul-de-sacs, small open spaces facilitated everyday activities48 but clearly addressed only the immediate neighbourhood. In five cases, however, the dense urban fabric opened into larger public squares, ranging approximately from 500 to 800 m2 in extent. Compared to grand esplanades known elsewhere, these squares had a rather intimate scale,49 yet they were the only public spaces inside the city walls where the population of Ugarit could meet at the scale needed to develop a sense of civic community. Their nodal locations reflect their social importance and their different functions. In a succinct analysis of public space at Ugarit, Olivier Callot and Yves Calvet remark that the city’s squares are “each very different from the other,”50 without elaborating further. The following sections are an attempt to qualify precisely this point.The Central SquareWithin the city of Ugarit, an ample public space—here designated as “Central Square”—stood at the heart of the “Ville Sud,” Ugarit’s topographic center (see Fig. 1). The Central Square was an unpaved esplanade of approximately 800 m2, about three-quarters of which was excavated in 1959 and 1960 (see Fig. 2).51 Excavations revealed that the square was a centuries-old urban feature, as the 13th-century surface rested upon a 1.5–2m thick deposit of (organic?) debris with no built structures.52 The area was preserved as a public space throughout the city’s history. At some point around or after 1250, the southern frontage was reconstructed according to an orthogonal plan.53 This intervention shows a perduring commitment to the open space and underscores the long-term vitality of this square, which appears to be among Ugarit’s longest-lived urban features. I follow Callot in interpreting it as a market square.54Figure 2. The Central Square and its surroundings, modified after Callot, La tranchée “Ville Sud”, pl. X. Roman numbers identify Callot’s îlots, or house blocks.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointThe interpretation as a market square is based on the combination of five elements, with parallels in other Levantine cities, Tall Bazi in particular. These elements are the square’s location, its long depositional history, the fact that small objects used for trade were found on its surface, the presence around it of notable buildings connected with trade and exchange, and the presence of a stela of a “market god.” This evidence corresponds with five of the six archaeological features listed by Lorenz Rahmstorf as indicators for market places worldwide: large open areas, massive layers of trampled organic debris, “light” archaeological features such as benches, postholes, and stalls (see below on the presence at the Central Square of a porch and a public trough), evidence of production (so far missing at Ugarit), weights and scales as typical finds, and traces of cultic practices.55The Central Square was the point of arrival of the Grand Rue and the most accessible spot in town from the countryside.56 The Grand Rue (the north-south oriented, straight and wide avenue entering the Central Square in its south-eastern corner: see Fig. 2) connected Ugarit’s main city gate directly to the Central Square.57 This route and the square itself stood out in the dense network of streets as unusually broad and open to the public eye. According to empirical studies, visibility is the strongest known correlate of pedestrian movement. Specifically, movement is directed by lines of sight, or isovists: people generally converge where more lines of sight meet.58 A map of isovists at Ugarit shows that the Grand Rue and the Central Square were the spaces most exposed to public view in town (see Fig. 3). Here, according to perceptual studies of lines of sight, individuals must have experienced a “rush of information” and a “dilation of view and exposure”59 conducive to swift movement and effective navigation, particularly helpful for visitors less familiar with the city plan and for people transporting goods.60 This observation correlates well with the scarcity of larger-scale production facilities or storerooms,61 suggesting that traded products reached the Central Square mainly from outside the city.Figure 3. Visibility graph quantifying global inter-visibility measure within Ugarit’s partially reconstructed urban network. Colour values range from indigo for low visibility values to magenta for high visibility values. The graph has been generated using the software depthMapX.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointSmall weights and stone cylinder seals found abandoned or lost on the surface substantiate the hypothesis that the Central Square was used as a marketplace.62 As observed by Otto, these small finds, also recorded at the market square of Tall Bazi, are consistent with payments in silver and the recording of transactions.63 Furthermore, at least three non-domestic buildings lining the square link directly to commercial transactions. They are the so-called “Boutique” Sud, the “secteur sud” of Îlot VII, and the Îlot VIII (see Fig. 2 a–c). The “Boutique” Sud (a) is interpreted by Callot as a shop or a small tavern.64 Opposite, the “secteur sud” of Îlot VII (b)—a vast hall with multiple entrances—might have been a trading place for valuable items.65 Îlot VIII (c) is an edifice with a front porch66 dominating the eastern end of the square.67 The prominent urban position, its plan, its architectural qualities and its inventory68 suggest a use connected to elite trade.69A small limestone stela was found not far from the porch of Îlot VIII (see Fig. 4). The stele bears the image of the god Resheph as a short-skirted archer god.70 Resheph, a popular Late Bronze Age deity with several local hypostases, was worshipped at Ugarit as a sort of “divine guard.”71 At Emar and in Hurrian ritual texts from Hattusa, he is specifically attested as “Lord of the Market” (Akkadian bēl maḫīri).72 If the interpretation of the Central Square as a marketplace is correct, the stele in front of Îlot VIII may represent Resheph in his identity of “Resheph of the Market.”73Figure 4. Line drawing of the stele RS 4.546. From Yon, Arts et industries de la pierre … , 347, fig. 1a.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointThe collected evidence points to the Central Square as a hub for trade. Significantly, both the royal compound and known points of collection for centrally-administered deliveries74 are located elsewhere. Assessments of trade at Ugarit increasingly support the idea that the local economy included a substantial part that was not under the direct control of the royal Palace.75 If this understanding is correct, we may view the Central Square as a hub for private business. This interpretation is reinforced by the possible presence of informal facilities for traveling merchants76 and a general city-wide distribution of artefacts suggestive of independent household provisioning.77 The houses lining the Central Square avoid opening directly on the square. This detail, also found in the market square of Tall Bazi,78 indicate that people wanted to keep their domestic sphere apart from the square’s business, which, as we shall return to further on, may have been perceived as potentially unsafe and unpredictable.79The Palace SquaresUgarit’s western sector was dominated by the royal palace compound. The architectural complex took on its truly spectacular dimensions relatively late in the city’s history, as a result of a mid-13th century redesign. The new building compound came to cover over a hectare and consisted, beyond the Palace itself, of several annexes, including a small temple and a vast banquet hall (the Bâtiment aux Piliers, or “Pillared Building”).80 The Royal Palace and its annexes were arranged around a 500 m2 open-air space, conventionally called the “Royal Plaza.”81 Despite the label, this space was a ceremonial courtyard segregated from the rest of the town and guarded by military checkpoints.82 Two large public squares, which we may provisionally call the “Square with the Basin” and the “Square with the Vase,” were built outside the royal compound. These squares were exclusively pedestrian spaces, lined by grand mansions, buildings with special functions, and the palace compound itself. Excavations were carried out here in 1937 and 1973 respectively.83 They revealed that, in both cases, the squares were built by demolishing pre-existing edifices, including private houses.84 The squares were irregular spaces of at least c. 750 m2 each (the Square with the Vase perhaps considerably more).85 Applying an average crowd density coefficient of 2.5 to 3.5 persons per square meter,86 we can calculate that each square would have hypothetically allowed gatherings of 1,800–2,600 individuals, i.e., a sizable slice of the civic community, at the heart of Ugarit’s elite neighbourhood, in immediate proximity of the palace compound. The street configuration allowed pedestrian movement of a significant number of people through multiple points for egress from and ingress to the squares, with full integration into the street network and a specific circuit-like connection between the two squares. Such a configuration is effective when people assemble for a particular purpose and behave in conventional ways, as in religious celebrations.87 As we shall see in more detail, the careful deployment of urban devices such as vistas on focal points, elevated platforms, and ritual installations suggest that the Palace Squares were planned for events in which royalty, aristocracy, and the civic community interacted according to well-defined scripts.The Square with the BasinThe Square with the Basin (see Fig. 5), named here after a large basin built in its pavement, was lined by the royal compound walls, to which it gave no direct access. Specifically, it was dominated by the Pillared Building’s back façade. The Pillared Building, a vast hall erected inside the Royal Compound, was reconstructed by Callot as a single-story edifice with a grand central stairway leading to a roof terrace.88 According to this reconstruction, the rooftop terrace created a visual point of contact between the public space and the secluded spaces within the royal compound, looking out on the square with a well-calibrated effect. I assume that the possibility of using the roof space as a stage for formal celebrations in front of a public audience was not lost on Ugarit’s palace elite. Rooftop rituals are well known from the Late Bronze Levant, including at Ugarit and Emar,89 and the use of a rooftop terrace as a public stage is explicitly attested in contemporary Hittite festivals.90 The abundant Hittite evidence is particularly significant because Hittite and Ugaritic festivals sometimes shared origins and followed similar blueprints. An example of this is the Hittite ḫišuwa-festival, a traditional celebration imported to the Hittite capital from Kizzuwatna (Classical Cilicia), a region with close cultural ties to Ugarit. During this festival, a mock-battle dance was acted out on a roof terrace. The performance took place in front of the king, who appeared on stage as the personification of the Storm God. The rooftop overlooked an open space where participants gathered, closely replicating the urban configuration at the Square with the Basin.91 Identical protocols in Hittite and Ugaritic festivals give further evidence of the use of a rooftop as a ritual platform. For example, during the Hittite “Festival of the Month,” on the day of the new moon, the Hittite king would present offerings and make libations on the roof of a building.92 Similarly, at Ugarit, during the Festival of the First Wine, on the day of the new moon, the king sacrificed a ram “on the roof” of a building and gave a speech “according to what [was] in his heart.”93 On this occasion, seven bulls and seven rams were sacrificed. Scholars usually assume that these events took place at the Temple of Baal, but its tower-like architecture would have made its roof ill-fitting for animal sacrifices and virtually invisible from street level.94 In the light of the architectural data, the Pillared Building is a better candidate. Here, the sacrifice of several animals and the ensuing banquet might have taken place in the grand hall, for selected acolytes,95 while the king could eventually climb a flight of stairs to the terrace and perform in front of a broader public audience.Figure 5. The Square with the Basin, with location of the buildings discussed. Modified after Callot, La région nord … , 753, fig. 8.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointThe conspicuous 24 m2 stone-lined “basin” built into the pavement at the center of the square may also have played a part during celebrations.96 Its specific function is unclear, but comparable installations (e.g., a large monolithic basin outside the Great Temple of Hattusa97) consistently point to a ritual function.The Square with the Basin appears to have been connected to another square further east.98 This area, only partially published, was an open space with two public wells and a building in which over 350 standard bowls were found, some of them piled in a stone sink.99 This evidence may point to the collective distribution of staple food among common citizens, taking place aside from what seems to have been the focal point of events.The Square with the VaseThe construction of the Square with the Vase (see Fig. 6) involved the demolition of houses, the enlargement of streets, and the opening of deep direct vistas on the gates of three buildings. The first and most symbolically charged of these gates is the 2.75m-wide main gate to the palace compound, located at the end of the unusually rectilinear, 90m-long “palace street.” The other gates are the 1.80m-wide secondary entrance to the Palace, located at the center of the square’s southern limit, and the likewise 1.80m-wide entrance of the so-called Bâtiment au vase de pierre. This relatively accurate perspectival planning conjured a formal sense of space, further increased by the official nature of the buildings surrounding the space.100 The Bâtiment au vase de pierre, a pre-existing edifice that lends its name to the square and whose urban visibility increased significantly following the square’s enlargement, was a tall building with a grand façade built of the same masonry employed at the Royal Palace.101 The street opened directly into a lofty 64 m2 hall, where two enormous monolithic stone vases were installed. One of them was found in situ, in a commanding position which, if the doors were open, would have also made it visible from outside (see Fig. 7). The two vases are extraordinary features, with unusual shapes recalling Aegean-style kraters.102 Their size and sheer weight are testimony to the remarkable effort that must have gone into their production.103 They each had a capacity of c. 880 liters, corresponding to about eighty Ugaritic 11-liter jars (Ug. kd).104 A shallow cavity carved in the inner bottom of each vase for the settling of sediments suggests that they contained wine, or mixed alcoholic beverages. This is further confirmed by the retrieval of high-quality, Aegean-style kraters from the main hall and of a large quantity of stored or discarded pottery, including Aegean-style drinking sets, from a southern annex. At Ugarit, Aegean-style kraters were employed by the mercantile elite105 as fine tableware