This thesis (https://www.academia.edu/765506/THE_ORIGIN_AND_SPREAD_OF_THE_WAR_CHARIOT) may be of interest to lovers of wheeled fighting vehicles. Covers India and China among others.
Despite being a Portugese thesis, it is in English.
I'm curious about the Sumerian 4-wheeled vehicle. How exactly was it meant to be used?
| The first military vehicle used in west Asia consisted of slow-moving, four wheeled wagons, as shown on the famous Standard of Ur. The earliest of these vehiclesdate to the earlier third millennium B.C. (ED period), and remained in active use until c.2300 B.C. after which were relegated to a ceremonial function. These vehiclessuffered from severe limitations, derived from their design. The narrowness of the floor(avg. 0.5m) made it an awkward fire platform, considering that the javelin throwerwould travel behind the driver. The axles, much larger than the platform (avg. 0.7 -1.0m), and fixed to the cart with the wheels revolving on them, show no evidence of horizontal articulation, which would have a considerable detrimental effect on themanoeuvrability of the vehicle. |
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 08, 2018, 12:29:55 PM
I'm curious about the Sumerian 4-wheeled vehicle. How exactly was it meant to be used?
| The first military vehicle used in west Asia consisted of slow-moving, four wheeled wagons, as shown on the famous Standard of Ur. The earliest of these vehiclesdate to the earlier third millennium B.C. (ED period), and remained in active use until c.2300 B.C. after which were relegated to a ceremonial function. These vehiclessuffered from severe limitations, derived from their design. The narrowness of the floor(avg. 0.5m) made it an awkward fire platform, considering that the javelin throwerwould travel behind the driver. The axles, much larger than the platform (avg. 0.7 -1.0m), and fixed to the cart with the wheels revolving on them, show no evidence of horizontal articulation, which would have a considerable detrimental effect on themanoeuvrability of the vehicle. |
There is some considerable discussion ;D
Some people think they could only go in straight lines, others think differently. Some consider a steady trundle about as fast as it got. Again there are arguments.
Hasn't somebody built a replica?
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 08, 2018, 01:18:48 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 08, 2018, 12:29:55 PM
I'm curious about the Sumerian 4-wheeled vehicle. How exactly was it meant to be used?
| The first military vehicle used in west Asia consisted of slow-moving, four wheeled wagons, as shown on the famous Standard of Ur. The earliest of these vehiclesdate to the earlier third millennium B.C. (ED period), and remained in active use until c.2300 B.C. after which were relegated to a ceremonial function. These vehiclessuffered from severe limitations, derived from their design. The narrowness of the floor(avg. 0.5m) made it an awkward fire platform, considering that the javelin throwerwould travel behind the driver. The axles, much larger than the platform (avg. 0.7 -1.0m), and fixed to the cart with the wheels revolving on them, show no evidence of horizontal articulation, which would have a considerable detrimental effect on themanoeuvrability of the vehicle. |
There is some considerable discussion ;D
Of course! They functioned just like the Macedonian cavalry wedge, pushing between the infantry files whilst the javelin man (actually a spearman) jabbed at the disorientated infantrymen on either side of him. Should have worked it out right from the start... ::)
Duncan Noble, author of Dawn of the Horse Warriors: Chariot and Cavalry Warfare, 3000-600BC , is said by the publisher to have built a replica for the BBC.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 08, 2018, 01:28:28 PM
Of course! They functioned just like the Macedonian cavalry wedge, pushing between the infantry files whilst the javelin man (actually a spearman) jabbed at the disorientated infantrymen on either side of him. Should have worked it out right from the start... ::)
The fact they were pulled by unicorns should have been a dead give away :)
Not sure about Sumerian chariots, but certainly there has been an attempt at building an Egyptian chariot. Not only that, but you can watch the movie (https://usa.newonnetflix.info/info/80004279/s).
Also, forget the muscle cars, I really want to try this (http://www.mikeloades.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/chariot-london.jpg). No Congestion Charge either.... 8)
Quote from: Erpingham on May 08, 2018, 01:32:45 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 08, 2018, 01:28:28 PM
Of course! They functioned just like the Macedonian cavalry wedge, pushing between the infantry files whilst the javelin man (actually a spearman) jabbed at the disorientated infantrymen on either side of him. Should have worked it out right from the start... ::)
The fact they were pulled by unicorns should have been a dead give away :)
Yep.
(https://i.imgur.com/N5lyHUZ.jpg)
Nice one ;D
Quote from: Erpingham on May 08, 2018, 06:45:51 PM
Nice one ;D
There are times which call out for a 'like' button :-)
Quote from: Erpingham on May 08, 2018, 01:29:05 PM
Duncan Noble, author of Dawn of the Horse Warriors: Chariot and Cavalry Warfare, 3000-600BC , is said by the publisher to have built a replica for the BBC.
Yep - he devotes an appendix of the book to his experiments with said replica.
That appendix is the best part of the book, which is otherwise decidedly lackluster*. It's a while since I read it, but he finds that the thing was capable of significant speed and perfectly capable of manoeuvre, but also prone to tipping over.
* I'll just quote my review from LibraryThing:
QuoteMy most disappointing read yet of 2016, and I'm typing this on the last of November.
Nominally, a popular history book about chariot and cavalry warfare, but despite the subtitle, cavalry receives little attention. That could have been lived with, particularly as I came to it primarily out of an interest in chariotry. What makes the book such a disappointment is that the bits I do know something about have so many errors that I can hardly trust it about subjects I'm not already knowledgeable about. Ancillary annoyances include a chaotic disposition, frequent ambiguity, intermittent illogic, and occasional contradictions. The maps are unusually useless even by the relaxed standards of niche publishing and typographical errors abound (which last is something of a specialty of the publisher, Pen & Sword).
Consistency of terminology isn't Noble's strong point either: a particularly bad example is "Central Asia", by which he sometimes seem to understand the steppe belt from the Ukraine to Manchuria, sometimes the area south of the steppe between the Caspian and China; and at one point explicitly takes to include Armenia (which is said to border China). At yet other times it's anyone's guess what he means.
The perhaps best part of the book - recalling that "best" is a relative term - is the appendix about Noble's own experiments with a replica of a Sumerian battle-cart. It's considerably better written than the main text, and while I won't vouch for the accuracy one can reasonably hope he knows what he's talking about here.
It's your review I remember. A good review is one that sticks in mind. I knew I'd read about somebody doing trials on one of these things 8)
The difficulty wth all such trials is that the ancient machines were generally arrived at by an iterative process. People would build say a chariot with a particular objective in mind, then use and improve it. When modern reconstructors build a machine from the past it is normally constructed, tried, worked on and then fixed perhaps once more. So the reconstruction might tend to turn iver when manoeuvering at speed, but maybe the originals were one directional weapons, point and run, maybe they had a fix for the problem( perhaps moving to the back, tilting the cab abd turning on two wheels).
Quote from: aligern on May 24, 2018, 11:32:43 AM
The difficulty wth all such trials is that the ancient machines were generally arrived at by an iterative process. People would build say a chariot with a particular objective in mind, then use and improve it. When modern reconstructors build a machine from the past it is normally constructed, tried, worked on and then fixed perhaps once more. So the reconstruction might tend to turn iver when manoeuvering at speed, but maybe the originals were one directional weapons, point and run, maybe they had a fix for the problem( perhaps moving to the back, tilting the cab abd turning on two wheels).
I don't think we're licensed to assume there was a need for a fix. As I said, Noble found it was perfectly capable of manoeuvre. Doing so might have been dangerous, but doing dangerous things is part of the job description of a soldier.
I
do think we're licensed to assume that they were
not one-directional weapons. The idea is intrinsically unlikely and nobody has yet suggested any flaw in the reconstruction that would cast doubt on Noble's conclusion in that regard.
Doing dangerous things is part of a soldier's job def.? Well I am not so sure, if you are putting princes in the cab I'd suggest that you would work a bit on making it rather less likely that members of the royal family are tipped out in front of an advancing enemy. Of course we are not licensed to assume that the length/ width ratio is as depicted in the illustration, ir even that the crew are one behind the other.
Roy
Plenty of royals have gotten themselves killed in battle across the ages, so I'm dubious to accept that being used by royalty implies safety.
More to the point, though, rather less likely than what? We don't know either how safe the replica was - Noble gives no quantification of the propensity to tip over* - nor what degree of safety the Sumerians would have considered acceptable.
I quite agree that the replica's proportions may be off, but unless we've got some principled reasons to prefer another configuration that what Noble used, I don't see that that gets us far.
* He does, however, say one got better at avoiding it with practice. One suspects men who drove the things in battle had more practice than Noble got around to getting.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 24, 2018, 12:52:13 PMI do think we're licensed to assume that they were not one-directional weapons. The idea is intrinsically unlikely and nobody has yet suggested any flaw in the reconstruction that would cast doubt on Noble's conclusion in that regard.
The question then is how would they turn? AFAIK a 4-wheeled vehicle needs to have the two front wheels articulated to be able to move right or left more than a few degrees - or is that not a universal rule? The Romans (http://www.humanist.de/rome/rts/wagon.html) did it that way.
The difficulty with the turning solution is that I am not sure whether Alastair originated this idea or simply passed it on. The tactic adopted for turning could be to lean backwards until the chariot is on the back two wheels and then make a two wheel turn. I recall that there were details of the harnessing that made it easier to lift the front two wheels. Anyway it was a really cool sounding way to do a turn. I imagine the crew hanging off the rear whilst she spins on the spot, giving the finger to the approaching enemy.
Andreas we will just agree to disagree about nobles, heirs to the throne etc. They might be put in positions of danger for leadership and morale reasons, but they are given kit that works, indeed the best kit. Edward III did not expect the boy to win his spurs with a sword that would not pass the Forged in Fire judges. Come to that, a chariot that could only go forward would be a sign of huge confidence , or alternatively of suicidally wasteful use of the state's best men. The nobility need mobility!
Roy
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 24, 2018, 04:06:04 PM
The question then is how would they turn?
I'll try and remember digging the book out tomorrow and refresh my memory exactly what Noble said about it.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 08, 2018, 01:29:05 PM
Duncan Noble, author of Dawn of the Horse Warriors: Chariot and Cavalry Warfare, 3000-600BC , is said by the publisher to have built a replica for the BBC.
I remember seeing that. The vehicle (driven by an attractive young lady) was able to manoeuvre at speed while the crew flung javelins. It certainly turned well. Unfortunately I can't remember any other details.
How do they reconstruct the shape? the front looks to me as though we could be being shown front and side at the same time. The rein guide rings are shown in plan and the javelin case ought to be down the side of the vehicle otherwise they would be very hard to reach!
Roy
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 25, 2018, 07:04:06 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 24, 2018, 04:06:04 PM
The question then is how would they turn?
I'll try and remember digging the book out tomorrow and refresh my memory exactly what Noble said about it.
He doesn't discuss turning technique in any depth, but does mention that, contrary to theoretical expectation, it made no practical difference to turning radius whether the axles were rotating or not*, because the donkeys were strong enough to simply drag the vehicle sideways.
Speaking of donkeys, the original was drawn by onagers (which Noble understandably couldn't get hold of) with nose-rings (which Noble couldn't use out of animal-welfare concerns). He also had a mechanism to release the animals in case they bolted out of control - the original likely did not.
Relevant to another of our recurrent discussions, he notes that while javelins could be thrown with reasonable accuracy, using a stabbing spear while the vehicle was in motion was out of the question.
* In theory, a rotating axle, which forces the wheels it joins to revolve at the same angular speed, should make for a larger turning radius than a fixed axle, which allows the outer wheel to rotate faster.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 26, 2018, 08:40:51 PM
He doesn't discuss turning technique in any depth, but does mention that, contrary to theoretical expectation, it made no practical difference to turning radius whether the axles were rotating or not*, because the donkeys were strong enough to simply drag the vehicle sideways.
Does this indicate that his reconstructed vehicle was too light? Directional dragging seems to me a somewhat suspect method of battlefield manoeuvre. Does he give any figures for the turning circle thus obtained? (Apologies for the barrage of questions, but this is my one chance to find out without spending $27 plus postage).
QuoteSpeaking of donkeys, the original was drawn by onagers (which Noble understandably couldn't get hold of) with nose-rings (which Noble couldn't use out of animal-welfare concerns). He also had a mechanism to release the animals in case they bolted out of control - the original likely did not.
Nose-rings would presumably give the driver considerably more influence over the animals' directional choices.
QuoteRelevant to another of our recurrent discussions, he notes that while javelins could be thrown with reasonable accuracy, using a stabbing spear while the vehicle was in motion was out of the question.
Interesting in view of the original apparently carrying only javelins.
Does Noble attempt to explain the positioning of the warrior at the rear of the vehicle?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 27, 2018, 06:18:17 AM
Does this indicate that his reconstructed vehicle was too light?
I doubt it: it weighed 342 lbs / 155 kg empty, about twice that with crew.
QuoteDirectional dragging seems to me a somewhat suspect method of battlefield manoeuvre. Does he give any figures for the turning circle thus obtained? (Apologies for the barrage of questions, but this is my one chance to find out without spending $27 plus postage).
He quotes a turning radius of 13 m at a canter; presumably you could turn more tightly at lower speed.
(I don't much mind the barrage, considering I don't particularly think the book deserves more sales. The appendix we're discussing is the best part, and even it is annoyingly vague at some points. It reads more like an elderly gentleman recounting his adventures than a systematic writeup of an experiment.)
Quote
Nose-rings would presumably give the driver considerably more influence over the animals' directional choices.
Yup: Noble remarks as much.
Quote
Does Noble attempt to explain the positioning of the warrior at the rear of the vehicle?
Not re-reading the entire appendix again, but I don't think so.
Thank you, Andreas.
That is quite a large turn radius; interestingly a poster on this forum (https://www.engineersedge.com/engineering-forum/showthread.php/5186-Chariot-turning-circle-axle-placement) remarks that "The turning circle is governed by the horses ability to turn and nothing more," which makes me wonder a) if this remark is correct, and b) if it is, then given earlier discussions on equine turning circles, b) is the Noble chariot and its method of directional change really adding c.10 metres to the turning circle?
The tactical implications are this: the narrower their turning circle, the closer to each other chariots can operate and hence the more solid-appearing their line and the more imposing the threat of their impetus and shock effect. Chariots with a poor turning circle (or radius) would have to operate in dispersed formations. Chariots with a good turning radius could operate more closely. The Ur Standard appears to show chariots quite close together.
Just musing ...
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 27, 2018, 08:10:12 PM
That is quite a large turn radius;
Not the same period, I understand.
But might hippodromes provide some guidance for turning circles at speed?
Centripetal acceleration means that speed and turning circle is always a trade off.
True; I suppose the question is how much speed is represented by four asses at the canter.
I wondered about hippodromes, but having looked at a few measurements came to the conclusion they would not be particularly helpful; hppodromes seem to have been designed for turns at speeds as high as the charioteer dared to go as opposed to tactical battlefield turns. This is turn (sorry) raises the question: would a chariot on the battlefield want to make a low-speed turn, a high-speed turn or somewhere in between?
One constraint would be tactical circumstances: if attempting to execute a turn when skirmishing or having attempted a feint charge, a chariot would wish to get through 180 degrees or so fairly smartly, whether at speed or otherwise. If a chariot line had ploughed through an opposing formation, the emphasis might be on turning together in order to maintain unit cohesion, so the smaller the individual turn radius the better, and hence the turn would be executed at low speed.
In a chariot-chariot clash, one side might suddenly decide upon discretion as the better part of valour. The resultant attempt to turn hard at high speed could be severely detrimental to one's own formation. Risk of tipping/upsetting a chariot was generally minimal: most if not all were designed with a wide axle base for stability, and it usually took something like a boulder or heap of corpses under one wheel at speed to tip a chariot over.
If one were part of the assembled chariotry of Syria and Asia Minor, and a single Egyptian chariot were coming from the opposite direction at speed, one might wish to haul round and go after it in pursuit. This might however disrupt one's own formation as one slowed, swerved and then attempted to pick up speed going in the new direction, having quite possibly already lost the target in the swarm of friendly vehicles. And so Ramses II escapes from Kadesh ...
All in all, I would think that turns in formation would be at low speed with individual vehicles turning with tight circles. Anything else makes a mess of the formation or requires a looser formation. One reason the Egyptians may have hung on to the 2-horse chariot for so long is that it does seem to have been very handy compared to the Assyrian and Achaemenid 4-horse formation-breakers. This allowed the Egyptian chariotry to form tight lines and presumably manoeuvre with them, whereas 4-horse chariotry would be inclined to operate at greater frontal dispersal.
Getting back to the original subject, I would suggest, maybe even conclude, that chariot formations make desirable either a vehicle with a narrow turn radius, even if this has to be at slow-ish speed, or a vehicle which, through applied technique (such as Roy describes for the Sumerian four-wheel chariot), allows an otherwise ungainly vehicle to be put temporarily into a configuration which makes it easy to turn.
I think the issue is that in the manual there would be recommended turning distances but in combat people would just have to try things.
Think of it in terms of the planes of WW2, where you knew the specs of the plane but every so often people would have to exceed those specs, and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't and the wings fell off
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 28, 2018, 07:29:07 AM
I think the issue is that in the manual there would be recommended turning distances but in combat people would just have to try things.
Think of it in terms of the planes of WW2, where you knew the specs of the plane but every so often people would have to exceed those specs, and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't and the wings fell off
If we were to pursue this parallel, we could suggest that how tight a chariot turned was less a function of design and more of the skill and nerve of the operator. Who would push it to the design limit and who would keep a margin of error?
Quote from: Erpingham on May 28, 2018, 09:19:50 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 28, 2018, 07:29:07 AM
I think the issue is that in the manual there would be recommended turning distances but in combat people would just have to try things.
Think of it in terms of the planes of WW2, where you knew the specs of the plane but every so often people would have to exceed those specs, and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't and the wings fell off
If we were to pursue this parallel, we could suggest that how tight a chariot turned was less a function of design and more of the skill and nerve of the operator. Who would push it to the design limit and who would keep a margin of error?
I think that in reality a lot of machinery handling is up to the skill and nerve (and experience) of the operator :-[
I would suggest that rather than turning away, you are looking at threading.
It is certainly the experience if formed cavalry through history, and efforts to force the opponent to run rather than thread seem to be the basis of all heavy cavalry tactics as they attempt to prevent the horse's (and rider's) natural inclination to head for a gap between rather than crash head on .
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 28, 2018, 07:21:03 AM
True; I suppose the question is how much speed is represented by four asses at the canter.
Noble doesn't say, but one may infer that it was less than 15 mph (24 km/h) because he later says that the vibrations during a run at that speed were too terrifying to the crew to repeat.
(This is frankly unimpressive. I ran the 100 m sprint with a higher average speed than that in high school, and I was in the middle third of boys in my class.)
He also mentions another turn at with a 11 m radius, which I missed the other day; speed and gait not stated, but context suggest less than a canter.
His reference to vibrations is interesting; most if not all two-wheel chariots seem tohave been designed to limit or eliminate vibration experienced by the crew. Vibration is decidenly undesirable when aiming a missile weapon.
Which leads me to wonder: the first Sumerian chariot inventor presumably encountered the problem; what did he do about it? Egyptian chariots had a sprung floor. Yet if the floor of the Sumerian four-wheel chariot were sprung, then what supports the warriors on the Ur Standard standing right at the back of their chariots? They would be tipping the front of the floor up as far as it could go, which would be somewhat inconvenient for the driver.
For this reason, I cannot see the Sumerian chariot being anything other than a solid box, but if it is limited to c.15 mph and vibrates furiously at that speed it is not going to be much of a missile platform. It can also be outrun by an infantry target should the latter choose to evade. I think there must be some sort of vibration damper provision in the design which Noble understandably missed but which would be needed to turn the Sumerian four-wheel chariot into an effective fighting vehicle.
Quote from: Mark G on May 28, 2018, 07:09:46 PM
I would suggest that rather than turning away, you are looking at threading.
It is certainly the experience if formed cavalry through history, and efforts to force the opponent to run rather than thread seem to be the basis of all heavy cavalry tactics as they attempt to prevent the horse's (and rider's) natural inclination to head for a gap between rather than crash head on .
I would tend to agree in chariot-chariot clashes and for chariot penetration of infantry formations. However there appear to have been occasions when chariots did not want to try conclusions with close-packed infantry and in such circumstances the chariots would have two basic choices: stand off and shoot or trundle up and shoot, then haul off and bear away.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 28, 2018, 08:45:58 PM
Vibration is decidenly undesirable when aiming a missile weapon.
Not my period or geography, so possibly a dumb question...
But do we have good evidence to suggest whether chariot-born archers fired on the move, or after the chariot paused?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 28, 2018, 08:45:58 PM
For this reason, I cannot see the Sumerian chariot being anything other than a solid box.... I think there must be some sort of vibration damper provision in the design which Noble understandably missed but which would be needed to turn the Sumerian four-wheel chariot into an effective fighting vehicle.
Maybe it wasn't meant to be a fighting vehicle.
Maybe it was meant to be, "a solid box"?
If you were sick of having your infantry run off by chariots, maybe a few immobile boxes would prevent chariots charging infantry?
Obviously, no evidence to offer here :)
Quote from: Dangun on May 29, 2018, 01:37:21 AM
But do we have good evidence to suggest whether chariot-born archers fired on the move, or after the chariot paused?
Egyptian reliefs certainly seem to show archers shooting from moving chariots. This is however of dubious relevance to Sumerian battle carts 1000+ years earlier whose crews are depicted without bows.
Noble did find that javelins could be thrown from the cart with reasonable accuracy while moving; but the speed of movement was evidently modest. Though as Patrick says, the Sumerians may have found a way of limiting the vibrations (they surely had more time to perfect the design than Noble did).
Quote
Maybe it wasn't meant to be a fighting vehicle.
Maybe it was meant to be, "a solid box"?
If you were sick of having your infantry run off by chariots, maybe a few immobile boxes would prevent chariots charging infantry?
Obviously, no evidence to offer here :)
As far as we know, Sumerian battle carts of the type reconstructed by Noble predates "proper" chariots by the better part of a millennium.
Perhaps we should spend a bit more time on looking at the context within which the Sumerian chariots were used. Were they facing massed archery ? or large swarms of skirmishers? It looks from contemporary illustration as though there were very dense blocks of spearmen, some operating from behind a wall of pavises How do we envisage the chariots operating against bodies of protected spearmen? Could they survive against tribesmen with throw sticks and javelins?
Using a quiver full of javelins and having the high frontal structure on the cab suggests that this vehicle expected to come in close to the opponent? Were they expecting to meet mainly other chariots and to operate on the flanks against them, turning the battle by winning the chariot encounter and then cutting off the opposing spearmen?
Roy
.
It has struck me that it has been written variously, that Onagers were "notoriously untamable"
Was the battle cart a delivery vehicle to keep four Onagers on track and aimed at the enemy. 8)
Where's Nigel Tallis on this thread? He's built more replica chariots than anyone else I can think of.
And published frustratingly little about them.
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 29, 2018, 01:17:47 PM
And published frustratingly little about them.
he keeps telling me he's busy... I think he was trying to organise a kickstarter to do some large scale chariots last I heard...
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 29, 2018, 10:12:24 AM
It has struck me that it has been written variously, that Onagers were "notoriously untamable"
Noble appears to be of the view that that description applies only to the Persian subspecies, not to the (extinct) Mesopotamian one.
Mind, it's been disputed that the animals depicted on the Standard were onagers at all. WP suggests they were "possibly onagers or domestic asses"*, and I believe I've seen onager-donkey hybrids suggested somewhere.
* citation: Clutton-Brock, Juliet (1992).
Horse Power: A History of the Horse and the Donkey in Human Societies. U.S.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-40646-9.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 29, 2018, 01:45:26 PMMind, it's been disputed that the animals depicted on the Standard were onagers at all. WP suggests they were "possibly onagers or domestic asses"*, and I believe I've seen onager-donkey hybrids suggested somewhere.
Quote from: https://spiritedhorse.wordpress.com/2017/12/23/the-standard-of-ur/I keep calling these animals 'equids'. What kind of equids are they, exactly? This question is another reason why I like this object. It is a great example of the discussion of equid species in the ancient Near East. The equids on the standard have been called onagers, donkeys, wild donkeys and mules/hybrids. One thing is clear: they are not horses. Beyond that, it is difficult from the iconography alone to establish with certainty what they are. There are such great variety in the sizes and shapes of equids that features like the length of the ears or the gracility of the body can only be suggestive. Donkeys might be a good candidate since they are by far the most commonly attested equid at this period, but it is also around this time that a hybrid (the kunga) is first mentioned. It is not known exactly what it is a cross between, but the domestic donkey is almost certainly one of the parents.
See here (http://www.archaeopress.com/public/download.asp?id=%7B0313313D-66E0-43C6-886B-E5EBC21F830C%7D) p.41 (p.49 of the pdf) for the
kunga, identifying the Standard's equids as such.
I wonder if this is the animal Ishtar refers to when attempting to woo Gilgamesh (these Sumerian goddesses could be rather forward at times):
Be you my husband, and I will be your wife.
I will have harnessed for you a chariot of lapis lazuli and gold,
with wheels of gold and 'horns' of electrum(?).
It will be harnessed with great storming mountain mules! - Epic of Gilgamesh Tablet VI