Did Uruk soldiers kill their own people? 5,500 year old fratricide at Hamoukar Syria
Five years ago an archaeological team broke news of a major find that forever changed our views about the history of the Middle East.
Researchers from the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, and the Department of Antiquities in Syria, announced in a press release that they had found the “earliest evidence for large scale organized warfare in the Mesopotamian world.”
They had discovered that a city in Syria, named Hamoukar, had been destroyed in a battle that took place ca. 3500 BC by a hostile force. Using slings and clay bullets these troops took over the city, burning it in the process. Their motive may have been to gain control over trade in the area – particularly that of copper coming from Southern Turkey.
The likeliest culprit for this act is a city named Uruk – located to the south in modern day Iraq. The artifacts found at Hamoukar which postdate the battle, were created in the same style as those discovered at Uruk.
"If the Uruk people weren't the ones firing the sling bullets, they certainly benefited from it. They took over this place right after its destruction," site excavator Dr. Clemens Reichel told the New York Times, back in 2005.
But now archaeologists have made a new discovery that sheds more light on this battle. They have found evidence that an Uruk colony near Hamoukar was also destroyed in this conflict.
So, if the invading army was from Uruk, did they kill their own people? If so why?
The information was first released in the 2008-2009 annual report on the Oriental Institute’s website. Before now it has not appeared in popular media.
This story is a long one so bear with me....
Hamoukar
Hamoukar is a city that flourished in northern Syria since at least 4000 BC. It was an “ancient Pittsburgh,” said Dr. Clemens Reichel, who, in addition to leading work at Hamoukar, is now also a professor at the University of Toronto and curator at the Royal Ontario Museum.
The city’s industry and access to material made people come together.
The people obtained obsidian, a valuable substance in the ancient world, from volcanoes in modern day Turkey. To the south of Hamoukar archaeologists have found obsidian workshops spread across 280 hectares. These workshops were in use as early as 4500 BC.
In later times copper working became important to the city’s economy, as the metal became increasingly popular in the Middle East.
The wealth of Hamoukar is reflected in its crafts. Numerous stamp seals of great artistry were found, one showing a lioness killing a calf or gazelle, another one a reclining leopard, and one showing a lively scene of two bears “kissing” each other.
Archaeologists have found thousands of clay sealings – once used to lock doors or containers and impressed with stamp seals. They tell of a bureaucratic system that was almost as complex as our own.
The Uruk Colony
Uruk was a massive city in southern Mesopotamia, and one of the first 10 cities of the world. By 3500 BC it was spread over 260 hectares making it “probably the largest settlement on the planet at that point,” said Professor Reichel. Unlike Hamoukar it was lacking in natural resources such as timber and metal.
Yet, despite this lack of resources, its people were on the move. “This Uruk culture from the south started expanding all over the Middle East,” said Reichel.
The settlements it created were urban and had architectural features similar to Uruk itself.
This might explain why Uruk was such a rich city. Its expansion and military power may have intimidated its neighbours, including Hamoukar, into giving its people the resources that they needed. “Maybe the Uruk culture put a little bit of pressure, maybe a lot of pressure, on these people to send them the materials that they required,” said Reichel.
One of these colonies was located just outside Hamoukar. It’s a small site, probably occupied by no more than a few hundred people. Its pottery remains were scattered over a hectare. Due to heavy modern agricultural work in this area few architectural remains of the settlement have survived.
When researchers analyzed the pottery they found that much of it consisted of Uruk pottery. “It’s the same stuff that you would find in Southern Mesopotamia, almost 700 km to the south,” said Reichel.
Researchers believe that this colony was there to facilitate trade, but was probably not controlled by Uruk’s rulers. “I’m tending more to them being sub-state entities,” said Reichel, private entrepreneurs, perhaps like the British East India Company of more recent colonial times.
This focus on trade would explain some of the goods seen in Hamoukar. One discovery the team made was the impression of a cylinder seal that “shows a motif that is unknown in Syria.” It showed a woman with a “pig-tailed” hair style, and a harp. Virtual counterparts to this seal motive are known from 4th millennium BC sites in southwestern Iran, which at that time formed a cultural unity with southern Mesopotamia.
“If you have an Uruk colony somewhere out there that’s probably the way the commodity would have gone (in).”
The people of the colony were clearly profiting from this trade.
Dr. Carrie Hritz of Penn State University led the excavation work at the colony. She is conducting fieldwork right now and could not be reached for comment.
The Battle of Hamoukar
In 3500 BC Hamoukar was destroyed by a violent attack. Slings and clay bullets were the force’s primary weapons.
While incredibly crude, by today’s standards, these weapons could do a lot of damage. The archaeologists tested the slings' effectiveness by creating their own bullets and attacking their own dig house.
“The impact is quite remarkable,” said Reichel. At one point he was accidently hit in the head by a colleague who was practicing. “He wasn’t very good at that point, but by god I felt it,” he said. “Once he got really good, the speed, the velocity, that those guys get, is amazing... I’m virtually certain it can be fatal.”
While Professor Reichel survived his encounter, many people at Hamoukar did not. The attackers broke inside the city’s three meter thick city wall, the fighting continued and buildings were set on fire.
A siege may have preceded this.
At some point the attackers seem to have run low on ammunition. The archaeologists found examples of sling bullets that had been badly squished. “We found some very curious evidence that they weren’t actually slinging dry sling bullets,” said Reichel. “They weren’t even fire hardened, they were actually wet.”
Clay can take up to 24 hours to dry. If you’re in the middle of battle, and you need to make more ammo from clay, you may not have that time. “In the end a wet sling bullet is still better than no sling bullet.”
Regardless of the ammo shortage, the intruders won. They appear to have occupied the city for a time.
Destruction of the colony
It appears that the Uruk colony was destroyed as well. “We found evidence of burning, we found sling bullets... and we found some remains of human bodies,” said Professor Reichel.
“A least one body appears to have been unburied,” he said. “It looks as if the colony also found a violent end.”
He added, “this is highly preliminary, and more work needs to be done on that. But the fact that we have dead bodies, some destruction and sling bullets, suggests that these guys put up some resistance,” said Reichel.
The pottery remains discovered at the settlement suggest that the colony was destroyed at the same time as the city.
Which brings us to the big question – if Uruk troops destroyed Hamoukar why would they have gone after their own people living in the nearby colony?
One possibility is that the soldiers were not aware that they were attacking their own people, a sort of “shoot first ask second” action.
Another possibility is that that the Uruk colonists tried to stay out of the conflict but were regarded as “traitors” by the invading army. “Maybe they did stay out – maybe the attacking army said, well, look at those traitors – those bastards – let’s get even with them,” said Reichel.
A third possibility, and the most tantalizing, is that the people of the colony sided with Hamoukar against the intruders – a dicey situation if indeed the invading army came from Uruk.
"Just because you speak the same language and come up from the south doesn’t mean that you’re my friend."
It's not such as far-fetched an idea as it seems. As mentioned earlier the colonists appear to have been profiting from their trade.
“If Hamoukar was taken over by anyone, who is going to stand to lose from that?” Asked Reichel, “They were the intermediaries between goods from foreign lands and the mothership back south, and they profited from that position.”
As such, “it would have been advantageous for these guys, of the Uruk colony, to side with the locals, to maintain the status quo, and not support a takeover of the site by anyone. Certainly not by their own people if that’s what happened.”
It must have been a challenging decision. A small group of people (no more than a few hundred) had a choice. Do they fight for their livelihoods? If so, do they turn against their own culture, their own people?
“Then and now it might have been the same story – just because you speak the same language and come up from the south doesn’t mean that you’re my friend,” said Reichel. “You may be my brother but not necessarily my friend.”
In the end, regardless of what decision the colony made, it seems to have paid the same price as the city of Hamoukar. “It got burned as well. But more work will be need to figure out the nuts and bolts of how it happened.”
Read 10 comments, or leave your own
Latest
Get Real About Advertising Fakes ASA Tells Semmel Concerts King Tut Tour- Unique Iron Age Hoard goes on display at Ipswich Museum
- Missing the revolution but making the party!
- Royal Artefacts - Including King Tut's Golden Trumpet - Returned to Egyptian Museum Cairo
SCA releases full list of treasures missing from the Cairo Museum- Petrie Museum celebrates the extraordinary life of Amelia Edwards
- New Face for 5,300-year-old Otzi the Iceman
- New Clues to Welsh Origins of Stonehenge Bluestones
- Read latest articles, blogs & reviews
Most Popular
- New Pyramid Theory: Khufu's Great Pyramid, its Building Grid, the Number 7 and the 'Diamond Matrix'
- Top 10 Animal Gods and Goddesses in Ancient Egypt
- Treasures of King Tut - Tutankhamun's Jewellery and the Love of a Queen
- 19th Century Manuscript and Drawings by Egypt Explorer Frédéric Caillaud Discovered
History Library
HK Editor's Picks
latest hkvideos
videosLatest Comments
hello this is a real interesting article on forgeries
excellent article !
Museum looks really great.
ediscovery
There are really lots of secrets in Egypt. I'm sure this is going to cost millions in auction.
e-discovery tools to help your business grow efficiently.
That's one scary mummy. Thanks for letting us know this. I find it really informational.
e-discovery tools to help your business grow effiiently.
Focus on
King Tut –
Stonehenge
Terracotta Warriors
Pyramids –
Archaeology
Britain –
China –
Egypt
Greece –
Rome
Heritage Key Words
ancient london, british museum, roman, art, zahi hawass, london, ancient egypt, religion, burial, valley of the kings
Next major 'ancient' exhibition in London:
Journey Through the Afterlife: The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead
at the British Museum
November 2010 - March 2011
(learn more)
Comments
There is one possibilty not concidered here. Perhaps Hamoukar attacked Uruk's colony and Hamoukar was attacked by Uruk in retaliation?
Thank you, you raise an excellent point, there are some problems with this idea though:
-the weapons used to attack the colony were the same as those used by those who attacked Uruk (slings and clay bullets)
-It seems as if the colonists put up a fight. Hamoukar is a huge city located just meters away from this small colony. Resistance by the colonists against Hamoukar would have been foolhardy to say the least. It would make more sense for them to simply flee.
-From a military standpoint it seems foolish for Hamoukar to so blatently incur the wrath of Uruk. That city had colonies all throughout the Middle East. Hamoukars leaders would have to be willing to commit themselves to a real david-goliath war.
Of course as some modern military analysts say - wars are rarely started through logical analysis - perhaps this idea should be considered further.
There is an assumption, throughout this piece and your comment above, that the attackers were clearly from Uruk but there is no statement of the evidence to demonstrate that Uruk was, without doubt, the origin of the victorious force. What evidence is there? Slings and sling bullets were ubiquitous weapons in this period. Perhaps petrographic or isotopic/trace-element analyses of the fired clay balls could give some sense of their origin, but that can be dicey for alluvial sediments.
There is also a striking lack of agreement whether Uruk period settlements represent an expansive "empire" or similarly integrated political system or whether Uruk cities and colonies were more independent, in a city-state model or perhaps a series of regional polities with common origins but forming a complex political landscape of shifting alliances, enmities, etc. Given the lack of consensus that the Uruk cultural phenomenon represents a past political unity, it is just as possible that an "Uruk" emporium or colonial settlement outside Hamoukar could have been an off-shoot from some "Uruk period" city other than Uruk itself, and that the hostilities seen at Hamoukar might reflect warfare and conflict between different cities during the Uruk period, rather than an invasion from Uruk itself.
The most interesting thing is that the site demonstrates the degree of conflict among communities or polities at this early time, but the subtleties of who attacked whom and for what reasons remain to be demonstrated by a clearer examination of whatever data actually exists to trace the origin of the force who made and launched clay missles and sling balls at the walls and people of Hamoukar.
Thank you KSmith you make a good point.
-it's true archaeologists are not agreed on Uruk being a unified "empire" of sorts with Uruk as a sort of capital. But the material culture of Uruk and the other settlements are quite similar. So even if Uruk didn't always politically control these settlements - they did share a strong cultural affinity.
-It can't be ruled out that the force that attacked Hamoukar was from some alliance of sorts between these "Uruk" style settlements. But if it was it was certainly a powerful alliance!
Consider this - the force that attacked at Hamoukar had to be large enough to take the city, it had to be trained in slingshot use (not as easy as it seems) and it had to know how to attack a walled city. This force had to be fed and the land of its soldiers back home cared for. It also had to have a support unit to create new sling bullets as the attack proceeding.
Aggravating this logistic nightmare is the fact that Hamoukar appears to have been occupied for sometime afterwards. Also a siege may have preceded an actual assault, aggravating it further. This is not the kind of thing that can be pulled off by a weak power entity controlling one or two small sites. This requires immense organization, food surpluses and a capability of whipping the population into serving in the army and supporting the war.
It should also be noted that this is the first time in Mesopotamian history that such a highly organized war is seen. So even if Uruk itself was not involved (and that seems unlikely) - there had to be a strong entity - with Uruk style culture - willing to engage in this operation.
Maybe we should consider some of what Zacherias Sitchin has said about the war between gods and humans and maybe there we will find the how, why s and who s.
My point exactly.
My own solution would be that there was a colony from Uruk next to Hamoukar, designed to control this city. Not a colony of 'unrelated citizens' as the researchers want to see, which seems odd: you want Uruk to control Hamoukar, but a colony next to the city is then 'unrelated'? They applied pressure from 700 km to the south? More likely, this was the Uruk pressure group, designed to ensure the continued flow of goods from Hamoukar to Uruk.
Then the colony is destroyed - when? During the attack on Hamoukar, before or after that? Is it not MUCH moe likely that Hamoukar tried to shake off the Uruk pressure, and attacked the colony first, killing the Uruk colonists? After which the Uruk army came North to avenge this act, destroying Hamoukar and taking over the business?
Why would slings only be used by the attackers from Uruk? Sling bullets don't have a stamp on them, and I think anyone would be hard pressed to judge from a bullet from which direction it was fired. Assuming that the Hamoukar citizens had not just a thick wall but warriors to defend it, I assume that they used weapons to ensure that, and slings would be a fairly common weapon.
This would make much more sense that 'kiliing by mistake' (come ON - who thought of that one; killing by mistake in heavy street warfare with slings??? - this is the Bronze Age, not modern warfare), or strained theories about 'not associated' people being traitors or 'pacifists' (if so, why did they stick around, or why did they fight anyway - the colony resisted its attackers).
I know it's only my assumption, but I don't see why, on the available evidence, one should want to make things more difficult than necessary.
Way too much pure speculation by Reichel. WAAAY too much. Apllying modern reasoning to ancient situations is a very sketchy proposition.
And is someone here "protecting the children" or what? Bears "kissing" each other..what kind of crap is that?
That said, a very interesting read, thank you Owen Jarus. I'll bet if one looked hard enough, somewhere there is a record of this city and it's demise.
Nice information, i think it's very useful to read this. i agree with you.
<p>Fascinating information! I agree that there was a lot of speculation and this shall be an interesting story to follow up on once the archieologists get more information.</p>
Nice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful!I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post thanks.
Søk person