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 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.
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.
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)
Enlarge 