The Great Fatted Bull
Introduction
Tablet #36
Translation
Annotations
Transliteration
Sumerian Images
Sumerian History
The Royal Tombs of Ur
The "Standard" of Ur?
Standard of Ur:  Narrative
Eannatum
Vulture Stele Translation
Sumerian War Chariots
War Chariot Deconstructed
Sumerian Chariot  Model
Gudea Translation
The Face of Gudea
Unknown Portrait of Gudea
The Face of Ur-Ningirsu
The Face of Lugal-agrig-zi
Ur-Namma Translation
The Face of Ur-Namma
Face of Ur-Namma, part II
I am Ur-Namma
Shulgi
The Face of Shulgi
Who Were the Sumerians?
Other Sumerian Kings
The Princess Wife
Princess Wife sequel
Princess Wife whole story
The Great Fatted Jackass
Mesopotamian Prostitutes
Sumerian Queens
Unknown Sumerian Queen
Another Sumerian Queen
Pu-abi, the Queen?
A Sumerian Princess
Sumerian Lukurs
The Divine Right to Rule
Sargon's Victory Stele
Helmet: the King of Kish
The Standard of Mari?
The Battles of Ishqi-Mari
Miscellaneous
The Invention of Writing
Adventures in Cuneiform
The Sumerian Scribe
A Masterpiece
Links
FAQs, Copyrights, etc
Contact
Site Map
   
 


 Enlarge.


A Model of a Sumerian War Chariot

by Stefan Rosell


On the War side of the Standard of Ur, circa 2500 BC, there are a number of four-wheeled vehicles engaged in battle.


The purpose of this article is to explore how such a vehicle may have been constructed.
The battle scene on the lower register of the Standard is believed to represent Sumerian
troops using these vehicles to pursue and run down the fleeing enemies. This raises
a number of questions: Is this a representation of an actual event? If so, what properties
would the vehicles need to be used in this way? Is it correct to call these vehicles chariots?

The common definition of a chariot is a light, two-wheeled vehicle with spoked wheels. It is manned with a crew of two, one driver and one warrior, often an archer. Most scholars have therefore dismissed the four-wheel vehicles as chariots. They refer to them as battle wagons that were used to transport noblemen and high-ranking officers to the battlefield. It has also been suggested that the vehicles were mobile arsenals (or firing platforms) from which javelins could be thrown at the enemy. The vehicles were assumed to be too heavy and slow,
and too clumsy to maneuver, to be used as an active element in the battle.

The ground for this assumption is the way these vehicles have been imagined. There are
very few archaeological findings related to this type of vehicle. The closest examples are
the ox-wagons from the King´s Grave in Ur and the remains of a four-wheeled vehicle found
at Kish. These examples are very rudimentary and they tell us nothing about the construction of the chariots depicted on the Standard of Ur.


The remains of the four-wheel vehicle in Kish.


Another source of confusion is the way the chariots are illustrated on the Standard. Although the chariots are shown from the side, some details (such as the front shield and the
rein rings) are turned toward the viewer to show their appearance when seen from the front.


This has led to some unusual interpretations of the vehicles.


Other interpretations are more realistic.

They show a box-like vehicle, open at the rear, with a double-arched front shield, and heavy disc wheels. They also have javelins stored in an outboard quiver slanted forward.

These images may well have been inspired by a number of metal wagon models found at various sites in Syria and Anatolia.


The models all have a raised, double-arched front panel that in some cases is slanted slightly forward. An interesting thing is that whenever draft animals are included with the models, they are always oxen.


Teams of oxen seem to be the draft animals used in funerary and other rituals, so it is reasonable to assume that the models are as cult objects or grave gifts. Ox-wagons are designed to carry some kind of load. Therefore, the wagons had a sturdy frame built on two lengthwise beams, with a flooring of cross-laid boards on top of them. The sides and the front panel may have been made of wooden struts and railings that supported wicker panels.

A wagon of this configuration would be too heavy to be used as a true chariot in combat.
If we are to believe that the vehicles on the Standard were used in battle, they may have looked like this but they were constructed differently.

The distinguished Sumerologist Mr. Jerald J. Starr, expert on Sumerian culture in general
and on the Standard of Ur in particular, has made an excellent deconstruction of the chariots depicted on the Standard (see www.sumerianshakespeare.com). In the section titled “Sumerian War Chariots Deconstructed” he clearly shows what the chariot would look like when the image of the front shield is removed.


First of all, it shows the javelins are stored onboard, resting against the slanted front shield.
The idea of a quiver mounted on the outside and slanted forward is totally impractical. The vehicle is too narrow to allow the driver and the warrior to stand abreast, and it is difficult
to imagine the warrior reaching past the driver – who is fully occupied with controlling
four animals - and then trying to pull a javelin from a quiver that is tilted away from him.
The battle will long be over before he succeeds in doing this. The picture also shows
that narrow side panels are attached to the top of the front panel.

However, this picture doesn' tell us much about the construction of the chariot. It also leaves some questions about the curved part of the front, and how the front panel is attached to it.
I have built a scale model of the chariot to explore the possibilities of building a functional chariot using the materials and technologies known to the Sumerians. The key property of a chariot is that it must be possible to drive it at a considerable speed. To achieve this, it must be lightweight but sturdy enough to resist the strain caused by the speed.

When looking at the artifacts found in the Royal Tombs of Ur, it is obvious that Sumer had some extraordinarily skilled craftsmen. When a Sumerian king decided to build chariots to help him win an important battle, he would engage the best engineers and craftsmen that he could find. Together they may have come up with something like this:


1. The frame

The frame must be a lighter construction than the ox-wagon described above. Some ideas may be found in the drawing of the wagon found at Kish:


The semi-circle detail of the frame has always been assumed to be a rear platform on the wagon. However, when you look at the wheels, you can see the wheels are studded with hobnails and that these nails are driven into the rim at an angle. The purpose of this is to prevent the nails from working themselves loose when the wheel is rolling over the ground.
The idea is that the friction to the ground will press the nails into the wood, but this
only works if the wagon is moving from the left to the right. If the vehicle is instead moving
from right to left, the effect will be quite the opposite: the friction will tend to draw the nails
out of the wood. This leads to the conclusion that the curved part of the wagon is in fact
the front of the vehicle.

This opens the possibility that the frame is made of bent wood. A bent frame will be very light but quite sturdy. This construction may also add some explanation to the somewhat mysterious curved part in the front of the chariot in Starr´s picture. However, the question is: did the Sumerians know how to bend wood?


Looking at the sledge from Queen Pu-abi´s tomb gives us a straight answer. The runners
of the sledge are clearly made of bent wood.


An indication of a bent frame construction can also be found in a terracotta wagon model from Tulul el-Khattab. This model seems to have a textured floor of some kind.


For the model of the vehicle depicted on the Standard of Ur, I have made a frame that looks like this. The frame is for a narrow body with a rounded front and a platform at the rear.


2. The floor

Standing on a wooden floor of a vehicle without shock absorption is very difficult. Doing it on a vehicle driven at speed is impossible. A floor made of woven leather thongs will offer some spring but add very little weight to the chariot.


This mode of construction will result in a lightweight but sturdy frame.


3. The wheels

In the modern pictures of chariots, the wheels have a very primitive look.


This does not do justice to the wheels. Instead, they were in fact a sophisticated version
of the tripartite disc wheel. Looking at the metal wagon models gives a better understanding
of how the wheels may have looked. They are thin wheels with a protruding nave:


A long nave is essential to prevent the wheel from wobbling on the axle, but the rest of the wheel doesn’t need to be overly thick.

We also have to consider how the wheels evolved over time. The first wheels were made of
a single piece of wood, which limited the size of the wheels. Later, larger wheels were made
by joining two or three pieces.


The early wheels all had square axle holes. As a consequence, it was the axle that rotated in crude bearings on the wagon. Later wheels had round holes in a protruding nave that allowed the wheel to rotate on the axle without wobbling.


The pieces of the wheel were joined with internal dowels and held together with wooden strips inserted into dovetailed grooves.


The wheels of the chariots on the Standard of Ur are a development of this kind of wheel.
Each wheel is made of three pieces. The center piece, instead of being straight, has a
lentoid shape. This construction has a couple of advantages:  First, a curved joint has
better integral strength than a straight one. Second, the number of joints in contact with
the ground is reduced from four to two.

These joints are the vulnerable parts of the wheel because dirt and gravel can be pressed into the joints and eventually force them apart.

Another difference is that the wooden strips are replaced with bindings of rawhide threaded through holes in the wheel-parts.

Besides making a model of the chariot, I also made a wheel in a larger scale. The wheels
on the standard chariots are assumed to be around 90 cm in diameter. I made a wheel
in 1/2 scale so it is 45 cm high.


The wheel is made of three pieces of wood, one thicker than the others.


The thicker piece is shaped to a lentoid shape and the sidepieces are shaped accordingly.


The pieces are joined with dowels inserted in mortices. It´s not unreasonable to believe that the Sumerians knew about glue; for instance, glue made from fish, bone, or hide. If so, the joint may in addition have been glued. The Sumerians often used bitumen (asphalt) as glue. This would also waterproof the joints.


The nave is carved out of the centerpiece.

  Enlarge.

The parts are bound together with rawhide. There is also a rawhide “tire” applied. Wet rawhide is very flexible and also kind of “sticky.” It adheres to itself and can be applied in multiple layers. When it dries, it shrinks and gets hard. The tire protects the rim and it also helps to hold the pieces together.


For additional protection, the rim is studded with hobnails. The wheel is secured to the axle with a lynchpin. The nave is lined with leather and greased with animal fat.


This picture proves that my reconstruction of the wheel is historically accurate. It shows
a Sumerian tripartite chariot wheel. The three parts are lashed together with rawhide.
The wheel has a leather tire.


4. The axles

When configuring the axles of a four-wheeled vehicle, one big question immediately
comes to mind: Did the vehicle have a steerable front axle?

Of course a steerable front axle would be very desirable for this type of vehicle. Without it,
the maneuverability would be very limited. The problem is finding any evidence for this feature on four-wheeled vehicles of the third millennium BC. On the few existing examples, there are no indications of how the axles were arranged. All we have to rely on are pictures and the metal (and terracotta) models. The pictures offer no explanation. As for the models, it is difficult to determine how far the model-makers simplified their works.

One disadvantage of a swiveling front axle is the risk that the front wheels will rub against
the sides of the wagon during turns. This problem may be addressed in three ways: 
1) a device that limits the degree of turning;  2) the body could be raised on some kind of undercarriage, or 3) the front wheels could have smaller diameters than the rear ones.
There is no indication that any of these features existed on the wagons. The draft pole
would need to be attached to a steerable axle, and not to the body of the wagon, and there is no evidence of that either.

The metal models are of course simplified, but on some of them the attachment of the axles
is quite detailed.


On the models, both front and rear axles have their ends fastened with lashings over hooks
on the wagon body. On the right one, the draft pole is attached to the body. With this degree
of detail, it wouldn´t be difficult for the model-maker to fasten the front axle with a central bolt through the axle and the floor to make it swivel, if that was the case on the original.


On this model, both axles are fastened with a central bolt but it still has the hooks on the
body (the wire lashings are missing). The draft pole is attached to the body, not to the axle.
To illustrate a swiveling axle, all the model-maker needed to do is to remove the front hooks and attach the draft pole to the axle instead. If this feature was on the original, why not illustrate it on the model?


None of the models have the draft pole attached to the axle. The draft pole is always fastened to the body.


What would be the purpose of the lugs on the front shield, except as fasteners for
the draft pole?


On this model, it is obvious that with a swiveling front axle, the front wheels would rub on the wagon body at the slightest turn.

In fact, the earliest evidence of a steerable front axle dates from the first half of the first millennium BC. That means this feature didn´t occur until two thousand years after the chariots that are depicted on the Standard of Ur.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that Sumerian four-wheeled chariots had fixed axles. There are two factors to consider when configuring a vehicle with two fixed axles. The first is the wheelbase; i.e., the distance between the axles. To improve the maneuverability of the vehicle, the wheelbase has to be as short as possible. This is especially important for a vehicle with a fixed front axle.

The other factor is the wheel track; i.e., the length of the axles. A narrow wheel track will increase the risk of tipping over during turns, so in general a wide track is better, but too wide will be unpractical. A compromise is necessary.


The axles are fixed to the frame. They have a square cross-section and round axle ends.




5. The draft pole

A four-wheeled vehicle cannot have a fixed draft pole. On uneven terrain, one pair of wheels
will be lifted from the ground and thus put a lot of strain on the draft animals. To avoid that,
the draft pole needs to articulate up and down. At the same time, the pole has to resist
the sideward strain caused when turning a four-wheeled vehicle with fixed axles. One way
to achieve this is to make the rear end of the pole into a Y- or fork-shape.


Seal impression from Urkesh showing a four-wheeled vehicle with a fork-shaped draft pole.


The ends of the pole are attached to a bar through the frame.


 6. The front shield and the side panels

The front shield may have served two purposes. First, protection from enemy weapons. Second, and just as important, is to protect the driver from dirt and gravel thrown up from the animals' hooves. With four animals running at full speed this could cause serious problems for the driver.

A shield made of wood would serve both of these purposes but it will add too much weight
to the chariot. Another option is to use hardened leather. This material has been used for
body armor, among other things. There are several methods of hardening leather. One
method is called “cuir boulli” (French for “boiled leather”). Whether the Sumerians knew about this or any other method is difficult to know. A simple method, however, is to use rawhide or semi-tanned leather (tanned leather with a raw inner core). When wet, these materials can be stretched over a form. When they dry, they keep the shape and become quite hard. A shield made in this way will offer some protection from enemy weapons. It will also be an effective dirt-guard and it adds little weight to the vehicle.

 Enlarge.

The side panels could be made of wicker. This is a well-known construction method and it is easier to make.  


7. The draft animals


The horse-like animals depicted on the Standard are not actually horses. The domesticated horse wasn’t available in Mesopotamia at this time. The animals are too big to be donkeys,
so they must be some other species of equids. They are sometimes referred to as onagers.
The onager, or Asian wild-ass (Equus hemionus), is an animal inhabiting the deserts of the
Middle East. They are larger and heavier than donkeys and they are very fast. They can
reach speeds of 70 km/h (faster than a modern racehorse) and maintain a speed of 50 km/h
for several hours. They would be perfect as chariot draft animals − except for one thing:
They are notoriously untamable. They are stubborn, foul-tempered, and they can be
aggressive to humans.

However, recent archeozoological studies have opened the possibility that some of the
animal remains found in the Royal Tombs of Ur (and other sites) are hybrids of donkey and
onager. This hybrid can be produced by mating a female donkey with a male wild onager.
The resulting offspring is generally larger and stronger than its parents, and more
manageable than its father. The offspring is also fertile, which enables further breeding.

The city of Nagar in Syria appears to have been a center for breeding equids, including a donkey-onager hybrid which they called “kunga.” The animals were highly prized and were elevated to the status of prestige animals. The monarchy and the elites of the city of Ebla purchased a large number of kungas from Nagar to use as an expression of their wealth
and power. Ebla also used kungas as luxury gifts to allied cities all over Mesopotamia,
including Sumer. Another center for crossbreeding donkeys and onagers has been identified
at Abu Salabikh.

All together this leads to the conclusion that the draft animals depicted on the Standard of Ur may have been donkey-onager hybrids.

8. The harnessing of the animals

The method of harnessing draft animals four-abreast is well illustrated on a copper model of a two-wheeled vehicle (a so-called straddle car) from Tell Agrab.


The draft is a pole-and-yoke system that is derived from the method of harnessing oxen.
This system is not well suited for use with equids because they have a different anatomy
than oxen, but it remained in practice for a long time, even after horses came into use.

Only the two inner animals carry the yoke and it´s fastened to thick, padded collars. The
outer animals also wear collars, but they are connected to the yoke by only a short strap. Therefore the outer animals provide very little pulling power. So the question is:  What is the purpose of having four animals?

One purpose could be to increase the speed of the team. The outer animals could more
easily set a faster speed, and since equids are competitive in racing, the yoked animals
will tend to follow.

Another purpose could be for the use of reserve animals. If one of the outer animals is
injured, it can easily be unharnessed and the chariot would still be functional. If only two
animals were used, the loss of one would totally disable the chariot.

Finally, the purpose could also be to intimidate the enemy. The sight of four animals abreast charging against you must have been terrifying.


On the Standard of Ur, the animals have their noses depicted from above so you can
clearly see the nostrils and the nose-rings. At this time, the bit had not yet been invented
(or at least not introduced into Mesopotamia) so the same method of controlling oxen with nose-rings was applied. The animals were controlled by single reins (or more correctly,
“lines”) to the nose rings. The lines of the inner animals passed through rein rings mounted
on the draft pole. The lines of the outer animals were fastened to the yoke.


Rein rings found in the Royal Tombs of Ur.

This arrangement did not allow for any directional control of the animals, only braking. However, it is reasonable to assume that the animals were well trained. Voice commands must have been used, probably in combination with whips and goads. On the Standard,
some of the charioteers hold an object in their right hand that might be a whip or a goad. Driving the chariot was an extremely difficult task that required the full attention of the driver.
I find it very unlikely that the charioteers would be able to use any weapons when driving,
unless of course the chariot is caught up in close combat and the charioteers had to use
their weapons in self-defense.




Muzzles


Modern-day donkey muzzle.

The animals also wear what looks like a headstall. When using nose-rings, a headstall is not necessary so this is probably a muzzle. The animals on the Standard are ungelded males,
so the muzzles would prevent them from bickering with each other. This may also be an indication that the animals were not being fully cooperative when handled.

Caparisons


The king’s chariot.

The collars have strips hanging down. This is called a caparison. The caparisons may have been used for decorations or identification emblems. For example, the animals pulling the king´s chariot have strips of different colors. If they are made of thick leather, they could also offer some protection to the animals.


9. Chariots as weapon systems

During this time, a wheeled vehicle was a status symbol. The owner of a vehicle may be compared to the owner of a private airplane today. Ceremonial vehicles also played an important role in religion.

As for military chariots, they were the state-of-the-art war machines of the time. They were part of an extensive organization, ranging from stable hands, grooms, animal trainers,
stable master, chariot warriors, charioteers, and the captain of the charioteers.
An administrative unit was probably also included. The chariot warriors and the charioteers held privileged positions, and like modern professional soldiers, they spent their days
with training. The chariots were costly to build and they were pulled by expensive animals,
so chariot warfare was probably the exclusive domain of wealthy noblemen.


Result and conclusions

Some scholars assert that the chariot scene on the Standard is more of a symbolic
narration than a description of an actual event. I believe my model shows the Sumerians
could build chariots that were used in the way described on the Standard of Ur. The chariots
clearly had some severe limitations, primarily when it comes to maneuverability, but they
were lightweight and fast. They were not well suited for attacking infantrymen who were
willing to stand their ground, but instead they were used to run down fleeing enemies
and turn a retreat into a rout.

How is it then that this type of chariots did not survive for very long? The main reason
is the arrival of a new type of vehicle:  the two-wheeled chariot with spoked wheels,
pulled by horses controlled by bits. The origin of the two-wheeled chariot is debated,
but from 2000 BC they rapidly spread over the ancient Near East and Europe. By the
early first millennium BC, they had reached into the darkest corners of Northern Europe.
The two-wheel chariot came to dominate the battlefields for a very long time. The first
known use of chariots in large numbers was the battle of Megiddo (1457 BC) where
over 2,000 chariots participated.

For its time, the Sumerian four-wheel chariot was a state-of-the-art military machine.
Although it was later superseded by the two-wheel chariot, it helped the Sumerians
to maintain their battlefield superiority for more than a hundred years.


 Enlarge.


 Enlarge front and back.



Length 22 cm (draft pole not included). Height 22 cm. Width 10 cm. Wheel diameter 10 cm.


Author and model-maker:  Stefan Rosell

Age:  Born in 1951

Occupation:  Self-employed carpenter

Location:  Small village in northern Sweden

Interests:  History, horse-drawn carriages, all kinds of woodworking - from timber framing
to furniture and model making. His interest in Sumerian war chariots began when he was studying and building replicas of different kinds of ancient wheels.

Contact:  stefanrosell51@gmail.com



References:

M.A. Littauer / J.H. Crouwel: Selected Writings on Chariots, other Early Vehicles,
        Riding and Harness.                                                                                        

N. Fields: Bronze Age War Chariots

BAR International Series 2923: Equids and Wheeled Vehicles in the Ancient World.

S. Burmeister: Early Wagons in Eurasia: Disentangling an Enigmatic Innovation

E.M.M. Pinheiro: The Origin and Spread of the War Chariot

R. Dolce: Equids as Luxury Gifts at the Centre of Interregional Economic Dynamics in the
         Archaic Urban Cultures of the Ancient Near East.

L.I. Avilova / A.N. Gey: On the Construction Features of Wheeled Vehicles in Iran and
          Mesopotamia (Third to First Millennia BC)

M. Uckelmann: Land Transport in the Bronze Age




March 14, 2021