Chemical warfare at Dura-Europus

Yet another fascinating report in Science News from the Archaeological Institute of America's annual meeting (previous post here), this time on the Sassanid/Roman battle in front of Dura-Europus in the mid-third century:

French investigators at the site have suggested that when the Romans reached the subterranean Sasanians, the mouth of the Roman tunnel collapsed. Trapped Romans were then killed and fell on top of one another.

Although debris indeed blocked the entrance to the Roman tunnel, James doubted that explanation. First, he analyzed the positions of Roman soldiers’ bodies in the tunnel and determined that they had been deliberately stacked into a pile, either when they were mortally wounded or after they had died. The Sasanians apparently wanted to create a human wall between themselves and approaching Romans.

To obstruct advancing Romans, the Sasanians blocked the tunnel entrance with stones before stacking up the Roman victims. The Sasanians then threw a cloak and some straw on the Romans and set them on fire using a mix of pitch and sulfur. Signs of severe burning appear on the pile of skeletons and military equipment. Remains of pitch and sulfur crystals were found near the bodies, which had not been observed in earlier research, James reports.

Toxic fumes from the fire would have driven off any further Roman soldiers hoping to enter the tunnel, James said. One skeleton in the tunnel, lying by itself on the Sasanian side of the pile of bodies, is that of a helmeted Sasanian soldier carrying a sword. He apparently had set the fire and failed to flee before succumbing to the fumes, James suggests.

Research above ground at Dura-Europos indicates that, rather than surrendering, residents of the garrison engaged in street fighting as the city fell to the Persians. But then everyone, even the conquering Sasanians, abandoned the isolated site. The garrison sat in a desolate no-man’s-land that made it unappealing to the conquerors once the Romans had been vanquished. As a result, material evidence of the siege stayed in place, including a massive assault ramp built up to the garrison’s wall.

Full story here.

Comments

[Adrienne Mayor]

James' paper is said to be "new findings" of the earliest archaeological evidence of chemical warfare.
According to the account in Science News of his paper,"Remains of pitch and sulfur crystals were found near the bodies, which had not been observed in earlier research, James reports."
Yet these "new findings" were discussed by J. R. Partington in "A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder" (1960, 1999), p 171 and n 154, citing the French publications of "Excavations at Dura-Europos" of 1935, p 188-205 and plate XVIII (also cited in A. Mayor, "Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs" (2003), p 224-25. In 1935, the French archaeologists published the same findings of burnt residue of pitch and yellow sulphur crystals.
What is new about James' findings?
Moreover, the earliest archaeological evidence of chemical warfare was published here: Taj Ali et al, "Southern Asia's Oldest Incendiary Missile?" Arcaeometry 48 (2006):641-55, chemical analysis of a fireball hurled at Alexander's army by defenders of a fort in Pakistan in 327 BC. The fire ball contained burnt residue of flammable plant fiber, resin, charcoal, zinc, and red arsenic and lead powder (cited in Mayor, Greek Fire, p 232-33.

[adrianmurdoch]

I was vaguely dubious that this was the earliest, but hadn't appreciated that the "new details" had been discussed in so much detail previously. Thanks for the clarification.

[judith weingarten]

I am somewhat puzzled by the whole scenario, but that might be due to my lack of experience in siege-warfare.

Why would the Romans have dug the tunnel (which might have risked collapsing the wall above)? If they wanted to sally out, they had gates and postern gates to go through. I always assumed that the Persians dug the tunnel -- a pretty standard move for besiegers -- to get under the wall and into the city. Isn't that what, in fact, seems to have happened?

I'm not quite sure what evidence there was to show the Roman bodies stacked up in the way suggested. It's been many years since I read the excavation reports, but would the excavators have missed such an unusual feature?

[Carl Sommer]

Judith, My guess is that the Persians were attempting to dig a tunnel under the wall. it was one of the oldest techniques in siege warfare. You dig a tunnel directly under the wall, propped up with timbers. Then you set the timbers on fire, after, of course, getting your own people out of the tunnel. When the timbers burnt down, the unsupported wall would collapse, leaving a gap in the enemy's defense. The Romans probably dug a tunnel of their owm, in order to destroy the Persians before they could carry out their plan. The fact that the Persians had pitch and suphur readily available supports this theory.

BTW, Adrian, this is my first visit. Excellent site!

Carl Sommer

[Adrienne Mayor]

Reading James' report again, I think his breakthrough is that he may be proposing more details of the scenario.
Perhaps the French excavators had not realized that the fire using sulphur and pitch created toxic fumes, therefore constituting chemical warfare.
I expect to have further comments on this story on the Discovery channel.

[Adrienne Mayor]

The tunnels (mines and countermines common in siegecraft) were dug by the Persian defenders and the Roman attackers--they intersected and as often occurred, a battle was fought underground.

In reading over the report, I think James' does make new contributions to the earlier reports:
he suggests the bodies were stacked deliberately by the Persians
he suggests the fire was deliberately enhanced with chemicals to create toxic fumes
he identifies the skeleton of the Persian who set the fire, but succumbed to the smoke before he could escape
he presents what may be the earliest archaeological evidence for a deliberate chemical weapon, although there is another possible contender.
I hope to make further comments on the Discover Channel website

[adrianmurdoch]

Thanks for the comments. A fascinating discussion.