The site of Ugarit is thought to have been inhabited earlier, Neolithic Ugarit was already important enough to be fortified with a wall early on, perhaps by 6000 BCE. The first written evidence mentioning the city comes from the nearby city of Ebla, c. 1800 BCE. Ugarit passed into the sphere of influence of Egypt, which deeply influenced its art. The earliest Ugaritic contact with Egypt (and the first exact dating of Ugaritic civilization) comes from a carnelian bead identified with the Middle Kingdom pharaoh Senusret I (Sesostris I), 1971–1926 BCE. A stela and a statuette from the Egyptian pharaohs Senusret III and Amenemhet III have also been found. However, it is unclear at what time these monuments got to Ugarit. Regarding Amarna letters, Ugarit of 1350 BCE records one letter each from Ammittamru I, Niqmaddu II, and his queen. During its high culture, from the 16th to the 13th century BCE, Ugarit remained in constant touch with Egypt, Cyprus (named Alashiya), Hitties and other Anatolian neighbors.
The last Bronze Age king of Ugarit, Ammurapi, was a contemporary of the Hittite king Suppiluliuma II. The exact dates of his reign are unknown. However, a letter by the king is preserved. Ammurapi stresses the seriousness of the crisis faced by many of the Near Eastern states from invasion by the advancing Sea Peoples when he wrote several letters pleading for assistance from Eshuwara, the king of Alasiya. Amurapi highlights the desperate situation facing Ugarit in letter RS 18.147:
My father [Eshuwara], behold, the enemy’s ships came (here); my cities(?) were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots(?) are in the Land of Hatti, and all my ships are in the Land of Lukka?…Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us 
Unfortunately for Ugarit, no help arrived and Ugarit was burned to the ground at the end of the Bronze Age. Its destruction levels contained Late Helladic IIIB (1300-1190 BCE) ware, but no LH IIIC (see Mycenaean period). Therefore, the date of the destruction is important for the dating of the LH IIIC (1190-1130 BCE) phase. Since an Egyptian sword bearing the name of pharaoh Merneptah was found in the destruction levels, 1190 BCE was taken as the date for the beginning of the LH IIIC. A cuneiform tablet found in 1986 CE shows that Ugarit was destroyed after the death of Merneptah (1203 BCE). It is generally agreed that Ugarit had already been destroyed by the 8th year of Ramesses III–ie.1178 BCE.
Whether Ugarit was destroyed before or after Hattusa, the Hittite capital, is debated (from our point of view Hattusa was deserted c. 1170 BCE). The destruction is followed by a settlement hiatus. Many other Mediterranean cultures were deeply disordered just at the same time, apparently by invasions of the mysterious “Sea Peoples“.
The Archeological Site of Ugarit (Ras Shamra)
The excavations of Claude Schaeffer uncovered a royal palace of 90 rooms laid out around eight enclosed courtyards, many ambitious private dwellings, including two private libraries (one belonging to a diplomat named Rapanu) that contained diplomatic, legal, economic, administrative, scholastic, literary and religious texts. Crowning the hill where the city was built were two main temples: one to Ba’al the “king”, son of ?l, and one to Dagon, the chthonic god of fertility and wheat.
On excavation of the site, several deposits of cuneiform clay tablets were found, constituting a palace library, a temple library and — apparently unique in the world at the time — two private libraries; all dating from the last phase of Ugarit, around 1250 – 1200 BCE. The tablets found at this cosmopolitan center are written in four languages: Sumerian, Hurrian, Akkadian (the language of diplomacy in the ancient Near East), and Ugaritic (of which nothing had been known before). No less than seven different scripts were in use at Ugarit: Egyptian and Luwian hieroglyphics, and Cypro-Minoan, Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, and Ugaritic cuneiform.
During excavations in 1958, yet another library of tablets was uncovered. These were, however, sold on the black market (see above) and not immediately recovered. The “Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets” are now housed at the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, California. They were edited by Loren R. Fisher in 1971. In 1973, an archive containing around 120 tablets was discovered during rescue excavations; in 1994 more than 300 further tablets were discovered on this site in a large ashlar building, covering the final years of the Bronze Age city’s existence.
The most important piece of literature recovered from Ugarit is arguably the Ba’al cycle, describing the basis for the religion and cult of the Canaanite Ba’al.
The Tablets from Ugarit
It was on May 14, 1929, as the dirt was being cleared from the floor of what had once been a building (a library, as they were later to determine), that the first clay tablets were found. The tablets were provisionally dated on the basis of other objects found in the surrounding excavations. The texts, together with their written substance, appeared to come from the 14th to 13th centuries BCE.
No doubt Schaeffer was thrilled to have discovered ancient texts as well as artifacts. Yet the real significance of the texts did not become evident until the writing was examined in detail. Schaeffer himself was an archaeologist, not a linguist; he entrusted the examination of the texts to Charles Virolleaud, the local director of the Bureau of Antiquities, who was skilled in the ancient languages and scripts of the area. As Virolleaud examined the tablets, he recognized immediately that he was faced with a significant discovery. The tablets contained cuneiform writing, which was known well enough from the multitude of texts recovered from other excavations. But the writing on these texts from Ras Shamra was entirely different from any of the other forms of cuneiform Virolleaud had ever seen. Instead of the several hundred different symbols typical of the normal syllabic cuneiform script, these newly discovered tablets contained fewer than 30 distinct symbols. It appeared, in other words, that the tablets contained writing in a kind of cuneiform alphabet.
After determining the apparently alphabetic character of the writing, Virolleaud then faced the daunting task of deciphering the script. He was able to make only a little progress in the first weeks, but as a service to scholars, he published the texts, providing photographs and copies of the inscriptions for examination by his colleagues. The most remarkable part in the story of the decipherment was played by Hans Bauer, who received a copy of Virolleaud’s photographs and transcriptions on April 22, 1930.
Bauer brought an extraordinary background to his role as decipherer. Then 51, he was Professor of Oriental Languages in the German University of Halle. He was multilingual, having mastered some East Asian languages in addition to the Semitic languages. But perhaps his most important skill had been honed during service in the German armed forces in World War I. He had been engaged in cryptanalysis, or code-breaking, for German intelligence. That experience had taught him the value of using a statistical method to crack codes. Five days after receiving copies of the texts, Bauer succeeded in assigning phonetic values to 20 of the cuneiform symbols, or about 80 percent of the signs used on the tablets. His work was refined and corrected in some details by others; Édouard Dhorme in Jerusalem and Virolleaud in Latakia put the finishing touches to Bauer’s decipherment. From the summer of 1930, the clay tablets recovered from Ras Shamra by Schaeffer’s team could be translated and read.
The excitement of the decipherment did not distract Schaeffer from pursuing his excavations; indeed, his enthusiasm only grew. Between 1929 and the outbreak of World War II, Schaeffer directed 11 campaigns at the cemetery and seaport (Mines el-Beida) and at the city (Ras Shamra/ancient Ugarit). The war disrupted the campaigns. But following the cessation of hostilities, Schaeffer renewed his work at the site. He began his 12th campaign in 1948, and he continued to be the director of the campaigns at Ras Shamra until the end of the 31st campaign in 1969. For four decades the name of Schaeffer was inextricably related to that of Ras Shamra/Ugarit. The leadership in the excavations passed to others after 1969, but Schaeffer continued to play a vital role in the study and publication of the finds from the ancient site.
Although it was the texts from Ras Shamra that caught most of the public attention, the excavations have also uncovered extensive remains of a city of the early Biblical period. Dominating the western section of the city was a massive palace whose ruins took several seasons to lay bare. It is the largest palace ever discovered in the Near East. Extending over an area of some two and a half acres, the palace served not only as a royal residence but also as an administrative complex. It had approximately 90 rooms, five large courtyards, a dozen staircases leading to upper floors, several archives, numerous wells, and an interior garden.
In the northern section of the city, there were two great temples, one devoted primarily to the worship of Ba’al and the other to Dagon. Between the two lay the high priest’s house, which also served as a scribal school. And south of the temple area, still on the high part of the tell, other religious buildings were found, in which priest-diviners plied their trade.
Other buildings that have been excavated range from the houses of senior civil servants to the humbler dwellings of ordinary artisans. In most of the homes, tombs were discovered under the floor of the house or the courtyard, indicative of a special concern for the dead.
In the nearby port town, excavated at Minet el-Beida, evidence has survived of religious activity not associated with the great temples. Enclosed shrines, near the tombs of the necropolis, were apparently used in fertility rites.
The sheer magnitude of the excavations at Ras Shamra is staggering. They have revealed the outline of an entire ancient city with its great buildings and its private homes, its narrow lanes and its broad thoroughfares, its ramparts and its entrances. From this vast accumulation of physical evidence, a reconstruction of city life in Biblical times is gradually being assembled.
Although ancient Ugarit and its archives have had an important impact on various disciplines, none has been so profoundly affected as Biblical studies.
The archives are written in half a dozen different languages and a variety of scripts. The texts that took the limelight, however, were those in the formerly unknown alphabetic cuneiform. The language underlying this script is called Ugaritic, after the ancient city in which it was used, although the script has now been found at a number of sites as far south as Tel Aphek near Tel Aviv. Ugaritic is a Northwest Semitic language and a close linguistic relative of Biblical Hebrew. The archives of Ras Shamra have yielded several thousand tablets, including 1,400 texts in the Ugaritic language and scripta; while many are fragmentary, others have been preserved in excellent condition. Larger archives have been found, such as the 12,000–15,000 tablets recently discovered at Ebla, but the Ugarit archives are nevertheless a very significant corpus of texts. The importance of the texts for Biblical studies emerges not only from the close relationship in language but also from the substance and the literary forms common to both bodies of literature.
The Ugaritic texts are unusually diverse. Many are typical of texts found in state archives—administrative texts, census lists, economic texts, and letters. Other tablets are even more interesting because they are poetic in form and literary in character. The splendid legends of Keret and of Aqhat reflect a panorama on life and religion in the ancient world of Syria. Mythological tablets concerning the god Ba’al provide new insight into the beliefs concerning this deity whose name occurs so frequently in the Hebrew Bible. There are other texts, of a more ritual character, which illuminate the daily practice of religion in ancient Ugarit.
As Schaeffer and Virolleaud began to publish more and more of the discoveries at Ras Shamra in the early 1930s, others began to draw out the significance of the discoveries for the study of the Bible. J. W. Jack read a paper to a meeting of the Society for Old Testament Studies in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1934. With due caution, he drew attention to the parallels in language and thought between the newly discovered Ugaritic texts and portions of the Hebrew Bible. René Dussaud published a monograph on the subject in 1937 in France  . Some of his observations on parallels with the Bible were hastily drawn and later rejected, but he was opening a door through which many of his successors were to pass. A new discipline had been born: Hebrew-Ugaritic Studies.
The foundational studies of the Ugaritic texts on which the new discipline developed were undertaken largely by two American scholars, Cyrus Gordon and H. L. Ginsberg. The latter produced some of the first extensive translations of the Ugaritic texts, upon which later scholars relied as they applied the new data to the study of the Bible. And Cyrus Gordon, in addition to translating the principal Ugaritic texts, provided a scientific basis for the study of Ugaritic grammar and lexicography (see his splendid Ugaritic Textbook [Rome, 1965]) . T. H. Gaster, in a provocative and wide-ranging book entitled Thespis  , drew heavily on both Ugaritic texts and the Hebrew Bible in his examination of myth and ritual in the ancient world. In Italy, Umberto Cassuto produced a series of detailed studies of the Ugaritic texts and their illumination of the Hebrew Bible, which to this day are a model of comparative scholarship. (His articles on Ugaritic and Hebrew Studies have been reprinted in two volumes, Biblical and Oriental Studies [Jerusalem, 1973 and 1975]. )
As the excavations continued from one year to the next, so too did the enthusiasm with which Biblical scholars applied these new resources—the Ugaritic texts—to the study of the Bible. Perhaps none was more enthusiastic in this task than the late Mitchell Dahood in Rome. His three-volume commentary on the Psalms (in the Anchor Bible, 1966–1970  ) is thoroughly penetrated by Ugaritic data. His translations of the texts differ from older translations of the Psalms; his interpretations and theological understanding depart radically from his predecessors’; and all this was a consequence of the impact of Ugaritic studies. Dahood’s more cautious colleagues complained of an outbreak of “pan-Ugaritism”; nevertheless, whether Dahood was right or wrong in his findings, the study of the Psalms can never again be the same. It is imperative to come to grips not only with Ugaritic but also with the often brilliant formulations of Mitchell Dahood in all current study of the Psalms.
But while Dahood captured attention in dramatic fashion because of his utilization of Ugaritic texts, numerous other Biblical scholars have been patiently pursuing the reexamination of the Biblical text in the light of Ugaritic.
The volume of material that has been devoted to this topic over half a century is immense. At Claremont, California, the “Ras Shamra Parallels Project” was established in 1965 to catalog and assess the vast production of comparative Hebrew-Ugaritic studies. So far, it has produced three large technical volumes entitled Ras Shamra Parallels  . And in Germany, a research group at the University of Munster produced a massive four-volume bibliography, listing studies from 1928 to 1966. Since 1966, the publication of Hebrew-Ugaritic studies has continued unabated.
This vast enterprise of Hebrew-Ugaritic scholarship has also had its impact on the lay reader of the Bible. Sometimes the impact is subtle and virtually unnoticed; sometimes it is dramatic, as in the debate evoked by the publication of Dahood’s commentary on the Psalms. The more subtle impact is to be seen (though frequently it passes unnoticed) in the plethora of modern translations of the Hebrew Bible.
There are many words employed in the Hebrew text whose meanings are unclear and, sometimes, unknown; translators prior to the 20th century surmised, by various means, their possible meaning. But when the same words occur in the Ugaritic texts, progress is possible. The meaning of words occurring only once in the Hebrew Bible (called by scholars hapax legomena ) but fairly frequently in Ugaritic can now be determined with reasonable certainty. The same may be true of rare grammatical forms or literary arrangements in the Hebrew texts; parallel forms and structures in the Ugaritic texts may illuminate what formerly was obscure.
In other cases, the light from the Ugaritic texts may be more pertinent to a general interpretation of the Biblical narrative. The god Ba’al is often referred to in the Bible; the Biblical writers were not objective historians of religion but were concerned more with the dangers of a foreign religion undermining the integrity of the Hebrew faith. And so, not unnaturally, the Biblical writers condemn the faith of Ba’al. But how did the Canaanites conceive Ba’al? What was the nature of their faith? How did they worship and integrate their faith into their daily existence? From the Ugaritic texts we understand Ba’al worship from the point of view of his own followers.
Six large tablets recovered in the ruins of the high priest’s house at Ras Shamra dramatically pull back the curtain on belief in Ba’al. From them we can grasp something of the faith of the followers of Ba’al and thus understand something of the seductive allure of false faith in ancient Israel.
The mythology concerning Ba’al was the substance of faith for many in ancient Ugarit; as one scholar has put it, the Ba’al tablets constitute the “Canaanite Bible.” Fundamental to this faith was Ba’al’s role in nature; through rain and storm, he made provision for fertile ground which produced the crops and fed the cattle upon which human life depended. But this faith also recognized the vulnerability of human life in a changing world. If the rains did not come, if the soils did not produce their crops, human life could fail. In mythological language, if the gods of chaos reasserted themselves and if the god Ba’al lost his preeminence, all human existence was threatened. And thus the goal of Ba’al’s religion was to secure his supremacy; only while he remained supreme, so his worshippers believed, would the crops and cattle so essential to human survival continue.
The first three chapters of the book of Hosea provide an example of the new light Ugarit sheds on the Bible. The book of Hosea begins by recounting the prophet’s marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The prophet’s tragic experience is an allegory telling of God’s relationship with Israel. Lying behind these chapters is the religion of Ba’al, to which many of Hosea’s contemporaries had turned. Though the interpretation of these chapters has not been the subject of serious doubt, the nature of Ba’al’s religion, to which these chapters are a reaction, has remained obscure. Why did people turn from the traditional faith to the practice of a foreign religion? Where did it find its appeal? The Ugaritic texts make it clear that the religion of Ba’al had to do with necessities of life, the crops and food on which survival depended. Moreover, that fundamental appeal may have been bolstered by a further attraction: There is debate among scholars as to the role of sexual activity in the Ugaritic worship of Ba’al; in the mythology, the appetites of Ba’al for sex and violence are considerable. Sexual activity in the worship of Ba’al may have been one of the cruder attractions in this alien faith, exemplified in Hosea by the apostate Israel in the form of Gomer, Hosea’s wife. What the Ugaritic texts provide, in this instance, is a fuller insight into the religion of Ba’al with which Israel had become entangled. And that insight, in turn, illuminates both the tragic allegory that was Hosea’s life and something of the foreign faith to which Israel had been drawn.
Another example: Amos is called a “shepherd” (Amos 1:1). But why is the Hebrew word noqed used, rather than the common Hebrew word ro’eh? Noqed is used in only one other text in the Hebrew Bible to describe Mesha, King of Moab (2 Kings 3:4). In the Ugaritic texts, the cognate word nqd is used approximately ten times. It designates not a simple shepherd but somebody in the sheep business; the nqd was responsible for vast herds of sheep; he was a significant person in society, a member of the business elite. Amos, then, was probably not a simple shepherd. We are told that he was also involved with cattle and fruit farming (Amos 7:14–15). In light of the insight derived from the Ugaritic word nqd, we can conclude that Amos was engaged in agribusiness on a fairly large scale. Perhaps his business, selling wool or mutton, took him from his native Tekoa, in Judah, to the northern market places of Israel where he became involved in his prophetic ministry. Amos thus becomes not only a more human figure but also a more challenging figure to us in the 20th century, in the light of Ugaritic.
Psalm 29 provides our final example of the potential of the Ugaritic texts for illuminating the Bible. The psalmist praises God in powerful language, evocative of a thunderstorm; thunder, described as God’s voice, is referred to seven times. In 1935, H. L. Ginsberg proposed that Psalm 29 was originally a Phoenician hymn which had found its way into the Psalter  . In support of his hypothesis, he noted several aspects of the psalm which suggested to him that it had been composed initially in honor of the storm god, Ba’al; he drew upon the Ugaritic texts to substantiate his hypothesis. Theodor Gaster took the hypothesis further in a study published in the Jewish Quarterly Review in 1947. Drawing again on the evidence of the Ugaritic texts, he proposed that the psalm was originally Canaanite; it had been modified for inclusion in Israel’s hymnbook simply by the replacement of the name Ba’al with the personal name of Israel’s God.
Today, although debate continues on the details of the hypothesis, almost all scholars agree that Psalm 29’s background is Ba’al worship, as portrayed in the tablets from Ugarit. The psalm in its present form has a powerful effect; the power of nature and of the storm are not exclusively the domain of Ba’al; all power, including that of storm and thunder, is the prerogative of Israel’s God. Yet the Ugaritic background of the psalm reveals its sources.
Though Schaeffer has died, the excavations continue. In 1978, Marguerite Yon of the University of Lyons, France, was appointed director. After almost 80 years of excavation, only a half of the ancient city has been uncovered. But today one can walk through the ruins, stand on the floors of once splendid palaces and temples, explore the streets of suburban Ugarit, and reflect on the glory of a city long since dead.
 Jean Nougaryol et. al. (1968) Ugaritica V: 87-90 no.24
 J. W. Jack. The Ras Shamra tablets and their bearing on the Old Testament, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1935)
 Dussaud,René. Les découvertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et l’ancien testament. Paris, 1937.
 Gordon, Cyrus H.,”Ugaritic Textbook”,,,”Analecta Orientalia”,38, 1965″ Pontifical Biblical Institute: Rome
 T. H. Gaster , Thespis. Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East by The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 72, (1952) and Thespis. Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East. Harper Paperback, 1961.
 Cassuto, Umberto. Biblical and oriental studies. Translated from the Hebrew and Italian by Israel Abrahams. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1973-1975
 M. Dahood., Psalms I (1-50), Psalms II (51-100), Psalms III (101-150) The Anchor Bible Commentaries 3 Vol
 Fisher, Loren R. (Ed), Ras Shamra Parallels, Vol. 2: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1975.
 pl. hapax legomena, (though sometimes called hapaxes for short) is a word which occurs only once in the written record of a language, in the works of an author, or in a single text. They often prove important for attributing authorship of a work; for example, each of Shakespeare’s plays contains a similar percentage of hapax legomena not found elsewhere in his work, something that would be difficult for a forger to duplicate. They also create difficulties in translation and decipherment: Many of the remaining undeciphered Mayan glyphs, for instance, are hapax legomena, and Biblical hapax legomena play a large role in disputes over Bible translation.
 Aloysius Fitzgerald . A Note on Psalm 29 Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 215 (Oct., 1974), pp. 61-63
 Gaster, Theodore., “Psalm 29,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 37:55-65. (1946-1947)