Science

null 16° London Hi 22°C / Lo 13°C

Chemical warfare – ancient Persian-style

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Persian siege tactics, depicted here at the Chehel Sotun Pavillion in Iran, overpowered the Romans at Dura-Europos

CORBIS

Persian siege tactics, depicted here at the Chehel Sotun Pavillion in Iran, overpowered the Romans at Dura-Europos

The earliest example of chemical warfare has been unearthed at an archaeological site in the Syrian desert, where soldiers of an ancient Persian empire gassed a platoon of Roman troops in about 256AD by asphyxiating them with the smoke from burning bitumen and sulphur.

A makeshift grave of 20 Roman soldiers in full battle armour was discovered at the site of the ancient city of Dura-Europos in the 1930s but it is only now that scientists have been able to figure out exactly how they died.

It was known that they were killed while defending the city against a Persian siege by digging tunnels to counter those being dug by the Sasanian Persian army under the walls of the city. New evidence suggests the Roman troops were deliberately gassed, said Simon James, an archaeologist at Leicester University.

There are no ancient texts that describe the siege of Dura-Europos, which was founded in 300BC by the Macedonian Greeks but its eventual fall to the Sasanians led to its complete abandonment and loss until its rediscovery in the 1920s when the first archaeological excavations began.

Dr James said the Persian siege involved digging mines under the city walls to undermine the fortifications, which would have led to mines being dug by the Roman defenders who would have tried to intercept the Sasanian soldiers in their tunnels.

"It is evident that when mine and counter-mine met, the Romans lost the ensuing struggle," said Dr James. "Careful analysis of the disposition of the corpses shows they had been stacked at the mouth of the counter-mine by the Persians, using their victims to create a wall of bodies and shields. This would have kept the Roman counter-attack at bay while they set fire to the counter-mine, collapsing it, allowing the Persians to resume sapping the walls. This explains whey the bodies were where they were found."

But the question remained: how did the 20 Roman troops die? It would have been difficult to kill too many well-trained and well-armed men in a space less than 6ft high or wide and 36ft long unless something more insidious than brute force was used, Dr James said.

Archaeologists found bitumen and sulphur crystals in the tunnels, which would have been used to get the tunnels burning. But it is also known that these materials give off a highly toxic cocktail of gases when burnt together.

"The Persians would have heard the Romans tunnelling and prepared a nasty surprise for them," said Dr James. "I think the Sasanians placed braziers and bellows in their gallery and when the Romans broke through added the chemicals and pumped choking clouds into the Roman tunnel.

"The Roman assault party were unconscious in seconds, dead in minutes. It is clear from the archaeological evidence at Dura that the Sasanian Persians were as knowledgeable in siege warfare as the Romans. They surely knew of this grim tactic."

The Persians also built a great siege ramp which may have been the deciding factor that led them to overwhelm the Romans and take the city, which was then abandoned, for good.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

chemical warfare incident is not the earliest
[info]willxt11 wrote:
Friday, 16 January 2009 at 02:05 am (UTC)
At the siege of Ambracia in 189 B.C. the same thing was done to the Romans, though that time it was burning bird feathers to create an Ammonia gas. Even earlier there is an instance of noxious fumes being used during the Peloponnesian War several centuries earlier. The Chinese are also recorded as using poison gas in the fourth century B.C.
Even Earlier ...
[info]eximdyne wrote:
Saturday, 17 January 2009 at 07:52 pm (UTC)
Thucydides describes in his history of the Peloponnesian War (431 - 404 BC) the use of burning sulphur and pitch in the seige of Delium and another community. Several Indian epics detail stories from perhaps C. 3,000 BC of the use of toxic smokes, incendiaries and poisoned arrows. It has also been conjectured that chemical warfare may have its prehistoric roots in the discovery of fire with the burning of green wood to smoke out a foe with its acrid smoke.

Nonetheless, this is an important archaeological event showing direct evidence that chemical warfare was probably more common-place than the sparse references surviving in ancient histories. Makes you wonder how WWI will be remembered in a thousand years.
Can't get one thing pass you, can we ?
[info]paymane wrote:
Thursday, 22 January 2009 at 05:33 am (UTC)
Ever since I have come to US, I have noticed this gigantic simmering bitterness towards Persians. The libraries are full of history of Greeks and Romans, not one from Persians. Even though the Persian Empire was larger, lasted longer and preceded Roman and Greeks.
The following comments are just two samples of this bitterness.

Get over it guys, It was a long time ago and plus, it really has nothing to do with you, Anglo-Saxon race was reviled and detested by Macedonians and Greeks, they used to look down on you.

Lebanese and Syrians are closer to the Meditranian culture that was the breathing ground for Greek and Macedonians.

So according to this article Persians invented chemical warfare, no? they didn't? okay we invented Algebra, no? Arabs? What arabs, Al-Khawrizmi was from Al-Khawrizm a region in north east of Iran in current Tajikistan, he wrote in arabic, because Arabs were rich, after stealing Iranian's money and they were sponsoring all sorts of scientists. Yes We Did.

But seriously guys, Get over it, it really was a long time ago.
It was War
[info]vimana5 wrote:
Monday, 2 February 2009 at 06:43 am (UTC)
Now, lets assume that this article and the findings are true. So what? It was an ancient WAR and it was not used against civilians but some advancing Roman soldiers (to smoke them out maybe). New reasearches needed?

These types of "weapons" had been used before that, so they can not accuse Persians of being the first to use them.

OR is it wicked propaganda to portray Iranians as vicious and savage people? (Am I too political).

It is past, over.
of course it was war
[info]torricelli wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 02:49 pm (UTC)
paymane & vimarana5, did you notice that Steve Connor is "Science Editor" and Simon James is an archaeologist? Get over it, they aren't talking politics. I read through that whole article without perceiving a single nanogramme of hatred against the Persians, or against either side for that. Anyway why should I sympathise with SPQR any more than with Kourosh and Dariush? I don't even vote for Mussolini!!!