723
paràsu), and in RS 17.67, the sàkinuseems to act as a substitute for
the king in his function as judge. Women, like men, appear as liti-
gants. The disputes concern landed property and the manumission
of a male slave.3.2 In three texts, the final verdict is said to have been reached
on the basis (ana pì) of the available evidence, namely witnesses or
documents. Witnesses had priority: some of the international letters
actually mention that the plaintifftogether with his witnesses are on
the way to the court.^10 Documents could be less decisive: as attested
in RS 16.249, even royal documents, with the impression of the
dynastic seal, could be forgeries.3.3 Conclusive evidence was provided by the declaratory oath the
court could impose on the defendant and his or her witnesses. This
is clear from statements in various letters: “May they enter the
temple!” (RS 20.239), or “May PN, together with his witnesses,
swear!” (RS 20.22). The former example makes it clear that in some
cases at least, the oath was taken in the name of the city god.- PS
4.1 Citizenship
The subjects of our corpus of domestic legal texts presumably belonged
to the category of free citizens. They were designated by the gen-
eral expression “sons of Ugarit.”
Resident aliens were members of the community. Although they
possibly were not considered to be “sons of Ugarit,” they did enjoy
most of the rights and obligations of citizenship, such as owning land
(in RS 16.136, an Egyptian is the beneficiary of a royal land grant)
and being liable to the pilku service (again Egyptians in RS 18.118 =
KTU 3.7).^11 Foreign visiting agents (ubru) and ¢apiru’s also enjoyed
a protected status, namely, the hospitality of the king,^12 but were
hardly subject to domestic law.(^10) E.g., RS 20.21, 20.22.
(^11) See the interpretation of this text in Márquez Rowe, “KTU 3.7 Reconsidered.. .”
(^12) As deduced from the obligation clauses in royal deeds such as RS 15.109+,
WESTBROOK_f18–718-735 8/27/03 12:30 PM Page 723