University of Chicago
Architectural remains in Syria from the fourth millennium B.C. Those at lower left were excavated in 2001,
and those at top center this year. The location is said to be the oldest known excavated site of a large battle.
Posted on 12/16/2005 2:51:40 AM PST by Pharmboy
University of Chicago
Architectural remains in Syria from the fourth millennium B.C. Those at lower left were excavated in 2001,
and those at top center this year. The location is said to be the oldest known excavated site of a large battle.
In the ruins of an ancient city in northeastern Syria, archaeologists have uncovered what they say is substantial evidence of a fierce battle fought there in about 3500 B.C.
The archaeologists, who announced the find yesterday, described it as the oldest known excavated site of large-scale organized warfare. It was a clash of northern and southern cultures in ancient Mesopotamia, the land where urban civilization began, in a region that includes Iraq and parts of Syria.
snip... The ruins are in the upper fringes of the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, near the Iraq border and within sight of the Taurus Mountains of southern Turkey.
"The whole area of our most recent excavation was a war zone," Dr. Reichel said in the announcement, made jointly by the University of Chicago and the Department of Antiquities in Syria.
snip...
It was previously thought that the culture had spread north through colonization, trade or conquest.
The new research revealed that relations between north and south were not without major conflict.
The archaeologists reported finding collapsed mud-brick walls that had undergone heavy bombardment and ensuing fire. All around, they collected more than 1,200 oval-shaped "bullets" used with slings and some 120 larger round clay balls. The layer of ruins from that time also held vast amounts of pottery from the Uruk culture of southern Mesopotamia.
"The picture is compelling," Dr. Reichel said. "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
PING for later
Kill everyone.
Fertile crescent would be the area in the right of the map.. ( Hamoukar noted in red )
In my comment #16, make that maybe about the year -2000 (minus 2000) for Abraham.
Who said that?
Never mind - should have read a little further . . . .
"Do humans go to war for any other reasons?"
Two: Satanic evil, and resisting same.
I am afraid we may have to get into definitions of war here.
Clearly humans go to war to defend themselves (or their resources).
Can you provide an example of an organized group the represents a tribe, city-state or nation that have gone to war for, how did you put it, "satantic evil". In which the acquisition of resources was not the primary motivating factor?
For me the only two instances where there is even a semblance of an argument that religion was the reason were the Muslims in the 700s and then the crusades. But those were just about power, plunder and control of resources as well.
Lets send in the UN and set up an International War Crimes Tribunal, it's never to late for justice!
Other animals go to war only over access to resources. Do humans go to war for any other reasons?
Which resources were Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler after? Sometimes war is driven solely by colossal egos.
"Can you provide an example of an organized group the represents a tribe, city-state or nation that have gone to war for, how did you put it, "satantic evil". In which the acquisition of resources was not the primary motivating factor?"
I can give examples, and you can say no, those were about resources. That's a problem with history.
Your argument seems to be overlooking at least one thing: is the aggressor seeking to avoid his imminent demise (or grinding poverty) due to lack of resources, or is he greedily seeking to increase his wealth? The latter case is entirely congruent with my position.
In addition, the motivation of a leader or ruling elite may be quite different from the motivation they offer the great mass of people. Hitler had all kinds of justifications for going to war, but all the same he did it because Satan was whispering in his ear.
Ditto Tojo, Mao, Ho, Pol, Castro, etc.
"For me the only two instances where there is even a semblance of an argument that religion was the reason were the Muslims in the 700s and then the crusades. But those were just about power, plunder and control of resources as well."
Disagree. A hundred years after mohammed's death, the mooselimbs had conquered everything from Afghanistan to Greece. They didn't need to conquer that much to ensure plentiful resources. They did it because they were in Satan's vest pocket, and Satan loves pain and death.
The Crusades were the first wars on terrorism. Included in the lands reduced under mooselimb tyranny were vast areas that had been Christian for hundreds of years. Christian pilgrims seeking to visit holy sites were murdered, raped, and enslaved (just like today).
Of course one can point to human failings and wail, but the major problem with the Crusades was that their supply line didn't allow them to put paid to the mooselimbs once and for all -- leaving it for us to do.
Those crudbuckets have been attacking Christendom at every opportunity since mohammed was still raping little girls, and they don't do it for resources. They do it because they are still in Satan's vest pocket, and always have been.
Hitler was after numerous natural resources such as petroleum, chromium, and iron. He was also after "living space".
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
"Which resources were Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler after?"
Alexander was looking for the source of cotton, steel, and black pepper (India). Hitler was in the Caucasus mainly for the oil.
Great generals never fight a war for merely egostical reasons....history has some examples of exceptions but these military leaders have never been considered truly great.
Good morning, Friends....have a great Friday
So much for the evolution of man!
Hitler was not a great general. In fact, had it not been for how bad a general he was, the germans probably would have won.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.