Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Before the development of firearms, the horse was
crucial to warfare and before the invention of the
steam engine, it was the fastest and most reliable form
of land transport. Today its importance has scarcely
diminished in parts of South America, Asia, Africa
and Eastern Europe, and even elsewhere it is of great
economic importance to sport and leisure industries.
Nevertheless, in spite of intensive investigations over
many years, researchers know very little about the
origins of horse domestication and the evolution of
horse husbandry.
The origins of horse domestication
Throughout the course of the twentieth century a
variety of theories have been developed purporting
to explain where, when and for what purposes the
horse was first domesticated. The basic positions can
be summarized as, that it was first domesticated:
r during the Neolithic, Eneolithic or Early Bronze Age
(Table 1.1);
Europe;
The Domestic Horse: The Origins, Development, and Management of its Behaviour, ed. D. S. Mills & S. M. McDonnell.
C Cambridge University Press 2005.
Cambridge University Press.
M. A. Levine
Period
900300
1000900
1800/17001200/1000
2000/1900?1800/1700
3000/2900 (2750?)2300/1900?
3500/34003000/2900 (2750?)
4800/4700?3500/3400
60004800/4000
M. A. Levine
Hausler,
1994a). These sculptures are conventionally
regarded as symbols of the power wielded by the male
occupants of the graves in which they were found
(Anthony, 1991, p. 267). It was, however, the archaeologists not the Eneolithic people who described them
as maces or sceptres. Their association with power
is largely based upon the fact that they are made of
exotic stone such as porphyry. The markings carved
on some of the sculptures, which have been described
as depictions of harnessing, are too schematic to be
used as evidence of such (Anthony, 1991). The sculptures are not, in fact, found with any direct or even
indirect evidence of horse husbandry.
Horse bones in human burials
Mallory (1981) and Anthony and Brown (2000),
describe cemeteries from the Pontic-Caspian region in
which horse bones are associated with human burials from Eneolithic (Khvalynsk) and Early Bronze
Age (Yamnaya and Catacomb) cultures (Chernykh,
1992; Mallory, 1981, 1989; Y. Y. Rassamakin, pers.
comm.). Domestic animal bones are relatively rare
in graves from these periods and both ovicaprids
and cattle are much more frequently found than
horses (Mallory, 1981). Cattle skulls from these cultures are found in human burials with wagons, but
horses are not. Neither are they associated with riding tack or harnessing (Mallory, 1981; Piggott, 1992;
Renfrew, 1998). Complete horse skeletons are very
rarely found in these burials. Often only a few or even
only one horse bone will be included (Mallory, 1981;
Anthony & Brown, 2000). The skull, teeth or jaw
are the most frequently represented anatomical elements, followed by foot bones. However, skull and
foot bones are rarely found together. According to
Mallory (1981), there is no correlation between horse
bones and other symbols of wealth or ranking in these
graves.
That Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age peoples went
to the trouble of burying horses attests to their symbolic significance, but it cannot be taken as evidence
of domestication. Hares were also found in Yamnaya
and Catacomb culture graves, but no one claims,
on that basis, that they were domesticated (Mallory,
1981).
Bok
(1968) and Clutton-Brock (1974), its use
to investigate the origins of horse riding, has been
pioneered by Anthony and Brown (1991; Brown &
Anthony, 1998). They define bit wear as: the damage
that occurs on the occlusal . . . surfaces of the second
premolar teeth . . . , particularly the lower second premolars . . . , when a horse chews the bit (Brown &
Anthony, 1998, p. 331). They state that the pattern
of wear that they define as bit wear is direct evidence
for horse riding or traction.
Useful though it certainly is, their approach has a
number of problems and limitations which they have
glossed over:
r Brown and Anthony (1998) describe two types of
10
M. A. Levine
3
4
7
Figure 1.3. Cheekpieces: (1)(5) Dereivka; (6) Mayaki;
(7) Vulkaneshty (from Rassamakin, 1999, Figure 3.55;
c McDonald Institute).
11
cation;
in the deposit.
These are not good criteria for horse domestication. In fact, on the basis of archaeological, ethnographic and ethological comparisons, the absence of
old individuals is much more likely to indicate hunting
than herding. Males would outnumber females either
if bachelor groups or stallions protecting their harems
were targeted in the hunt. Morphological studies have
involved very small and disparate samples and produced contradictory results. The association of horses
with other assumed domesticates is not evidence of
horse domestication. In any case, they were also associated with wild animals. In fact, the most important
criterion used was the relatively high proportion of
onyi,
12
35 N and from 130 E to 10 W (Eisenmann, 1996).
During the following Holocene period the archaeological evidence for horses, particularly in Western
and central Europe, is much sparser fewer remains
were found at fewer sites (Clutton-Brock, 1992). This
has been interpreted as meaning that the horse had
become extinct throughout large parts of its original
range. The natural Holocene range of the horse was
thus taken to comprise Eastern Europe and central
Asia.
However, horse numbers in western and central
Europe during this period are greatly underestimated
for a variety of reasons. For one thing, relatively few
faunal assemblages, dating to this period, have been
submitted to detailed analysis. Additionally, when
horse remains are identified outside their expected
geographical range, it is frequently assumed that they
must have been either domesticated or intrusive from
later levels (e.g. Grigson, 1993; Curci & Tagliacozzo,
1995). Such material is frequently excluded from faunal reports (K. Boyle, pers. comm.).
Recent research suggests that the natural distribution of the Holocene horse was much wider than had
formerly been believed. Neolithic remains from putatively wild horses have, for example, been found in
Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Spain,
Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary and Serbia
in addition to Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan
(Azzaroli, 1985; Groves, 1986; Zarins, 1986; Cabard,
1987; Clason, 1988; Schibler & Steppan, 1999).
Because the origins of the earliest domestic horses
are not known, it is not certain that all these horses
were, in fact, wild (Uerpmann, 1990; Benecke, 1999).
Moreover, it should not be assumed that the absence
of horses from archaeological assemblages is evidence
that they were not present. They might well have been
available, but not hunted for either logistic or cultural
reasons.
The belief that the horse became extinct in western
Europe and relatively rare in central Europe underlies
the assumption that its earliest domestication must
have taken place in eastern Europe or central Asia.
However, the fact that wild horses were more common in those regions does not prove that they were
first domesticated there.
M. A. Levine
offer useful insights into the nature of ancient relationships between people and animals. Each pattern
of behaviour or method of exploitation is characterized by its own typical, though not necessarily unique,
population structure. These structures can be used as
models to which the archaeological data can be compared. The raw material for this analytical method is
the aged teeth from archaeological deposits. Determination of an individuals age at death is based upon
measurements of crown height and assessments of
eruption and wear (Levine, 1982, 1999b).
Population structure of wild horses The anchor for
this method is the population structure of the wild
horse. The natural reproductive unit of the horse is
the family group, composed of a stallion, his mares
and their young up to the age of about two to four
years (Klingel, 1969, 1974; Berger, 1986; Boyd and
Keiper Chapter 4). It may comprise from 2 to 17 individuals. The average number of mares is around two
to four. The stallion normally starts his own family
group at the age of five or six years, although he might
not be successful at holding one against attacks from
other males until he is older. The second natural horse
social unit is the bachelor group, composed entirely
of males, too young or too old to belong to a family
group. Its average size is typically two to four horses.
The Attritional Assemblage Model (Figure 1.4a) The
mortality distributions for natural attrition, scavenging, coursing on foot and livestock husbandry, where
meat production is of secondary importance, are all
similar to the Attritional Model. Mortality is low for
adults during their reproductive years, and high for
juveniles and senescent individuals (Caughley, 1966).
The Carnivorous Husbandry Model (Figure 1.4b) A
mortality curve resembling the Carnivorous Husbandry Model might be generated if the slaughter of
individuals at around the age of two to four years
were superimposed upon the pastoral nomadic attritional pattern (Levine, 1999a). A very similar age
distribution was produced from data provided by
Yuri Shavardak, a semi-traditional horse herder from
northern Kazakhstan.
13
14
M. A. Levine
either of a living population, a catastrophe assemblage, or an assemblage in which all age classes are
represented as they would be in the living population because of completely random sampling (Levine,
1983). Herd driving, or any other non-selective hunting technique, should produce this mortality pattern
or that of the Family Group Variant.
Social group models (variants of the Life Assemblage Model) The main difference between the Life
Assemblage Model and the Family Group Model
(Figure 1.4d) is the relatively low proportion in the latter of individuals three to six years of age, marking the
absence of bachelor males (Levine, 1983). This is the
kind of pattern produced by the Western European,
Upper Pleistocene material previously studied
particularly when adjusted to compensate for the
probable under-representation of immature animals1
Figure 1.5a.
Figure 1.4e illustrates a hypothetical Bachelor
Group age distribution. Its most archaeologically visible characteristic would be the absence of any individuals younger than about two years of age. Bachelorgroup hunting might, in the archaeological context,
be indistinguishable from the stalking of prime adults
(Levine, 1983).
The Stalking Model (Figure 1.4f) Stalking is a
selective hunting technique in which the prey is
approached by stealth and killed. Hunting mainly
15
16
M. A. Levine
17
1
16+
Male
18
T11 to 18
2
1015
Male
19
Increasing from T11
to T14 (11 & 12
caudal; 13 & 14
caudal + cranial)
3
101/2
Male
18
T14, 17, 18 strongly
developed; T15
weakly developed
4
710
Male (possible gelding)
18
T13 to 15 most strongly
developed, but extends
to T17
T1618 (possibly
T15 also)
T13 and 15,
caudal
Unclear because of
poor preservation
T14, caudal; T18,
cranial
T1012 probably
T1617 small
exostoses
T1415 probably;
T1519 possibly
T13 and 14, (most
developed on
T14), caudal
T1518 small
exostoses
T17, 18 small
exostoses
a At T16T17 and, to a lesser extent at T15T16, these changes were pronounced and extended dorsally to involve the adjacent
vertebral arches and lower regions of the spinous processes. This had not, however, resulted in the fusion of the vertebrae.
97/2
12
Female
18
97/7
27
Female
18
Not present
Sightly developed,
T1214
Not present
Not present
Not present
Not present
Not present
T1118 small
exostoses
18
M. A. Levine
1
11 years
male
18
T14, small ventral spondylotic spur
2
10.5 years
male
18
Not present
Not present
Not present
Some fairly insignificant bony
thickening on the processes
between T13 & T14, T14 &
T15
19
20
References
Anthony, D. W. (1986). The Kurgan Culture, Indo-European
origins and the domestication of the horse: a
reconsideration. Current Anthropology, 27(4): 291313.
(1991). The domestication of the horse. In Equids in the
Ancient World, ed. R. H. Meadow and H.-P. Uerpmann.
Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, pp. 25077.
(1995). Horse, wagon and chariot: Indo-European
languages and archaeology. Antiquity, 69(264): 554565.
Anthony, D. W. & Brown, D. R. (1991). The origins of
horseback riding. Antiquity, 65: 2238.
(2000). Eneolithic horse exploitation in the Eurasian
steppes: diet, ritual and riding. Antiquity, 74: 7586.
Azzaroli, A. (1985). An Early History of Horsemanship.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Benecke, N. (1999). The domestication of the horse. In
Domestication of Animals: Interactions between
Deutschen Veterinarmedizinischen
Gesellschaft, pp. 922.
Berger, J. (1986). Wild Horses of the Great Basin, Social
Competition and Population Size. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bibikova, V. I. (1986a). On the history of horse domestication
in south-east Europe. In Dereivka a Settlement and
Cemetery of Copper Age Horse Keepers on the Middle
Dnieper, ed. D. Y. Telegin BAR International Series, 287:
16382.
(1986b). A study of the earliest domestic horses of Eastern
Europe. In Dereivka Settlement and Cemetery of Copper
Age Horse keepers on the Middle Dnieper, ed. D. Y.
Telegin. BAR International Series, 287: 13562.
onyi,
Bok
S. (1968). Mecklenburg Collection. Part I: Data on
Iron Age horses of Central and Eastern Europe, American
School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum,
Harvard University, Bulletin, 25: 371.
(1978). The earliest waves of domestic horses in East
Europe. Journal of Indo-European Studies, 12: 1773.
(1984). Horse. In Evolution of Domesticated Animals, ed.
I. L. Mason. London: Longman, pp. 16273.
Boyd, L. & Houpt, K. A. (1994). Activity patterns. In
Przewalskis Horse, the History and Biology of an
Endangered Species, ed. L. Boyd & K. A. Houpt. Albany:
State University of New York Press, pp. 195228.
Brown, D. & Anthony, D. (1998). Bit wear horseback riding
and the Botai site in Kazakstan. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 25: 331347.
Cabard, P. (1987). La faune Neolithique de la region
dAverdon Vallee de la Cisse (Loir-et-Cher). Paper read at
14e Colloque Interregional sur le Neolithique, at Blois,
France.
Cahen-Delhaye, A. (Ed.) (1991). LOr des Scythes, Tresors de
lErmitage, Leningrad. Brussels: Musees royaux dArt et
dHistoire.
Caughley, G. (1966). Mortality patterns in mammals.
Ecology, 47: 90618.
Chernykh, E. N. (1992). Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: the
Early Metal Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
M. A. Levine
Clason, A. T. (1988). The equids of Gomolava. In Gomolava,
Cronologie und Stratigraphie der Vorgeschichtlichen
und Antiken, Kulturen der Donauniderung und
Sudosteruopas,
ed. N. Tasic & J. Petrovic. Belgrade:
Novi Sad.
Clutton-Brock, J. (1974). The Buhen horse. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 1: 89100.
(1987). A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals.
London: British Museum of Natural History.
(1992). Horse Power: a History of the Horse and the
Donkey in Human Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Curci, A. & Tagliacozzo, A. (1995). Il pozzetto rituale con
scheletro di cavallo dellabitato, Eneolitico di le
Cerquete-Fianello, Maccaresse -RM. Origini, 18:
297350.
Dergachev, V. (1989). Neolithic and Bronze Age cultural
communities of the steppe zone of the USSR. Antiquity,
241: 793802.
Dietz, U. L. (1992). Zur Frage vorbronzezeitlicher
Trensenbelege in Europa. Germania, 70(1): 1736.
Eisenmann, V. (1996). Quaternary horses: possible
candidates to domestication. In Proceedings of the XIII
Congress Forl, Italy 814 September 1996, vol. 6, no. 1.
Workshop 3 The Horse: Its Domestication, Diffussion
and Role in Past Communities. Forl: International
Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences,
pp. 2736.
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into Human Faculty and its
Development. New York: Macmillan.
Gimbutas, M. (1970). Proto-Indo-European culture: the
Kurgan Culture during the fifth, fourth and third
millennia B.C. In Indo-European and Indo-Europeans,
ed. B. Cordona, H. M. Hoenigswald and A. Senn:
University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 15597.
(1988). Review of archaeology and language by C. Renfrew.
Current Anthropology, 3: 4536.
(1991). The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco:
Harper.
Grigson, C. (1993). The earliest domestic horses in the
Levant? New finds from the fourth millennium of the
Negev. Journal of Archaeological Science, 20:
64555.
Groves, C. P. (1986). The taxonomy, distribution and
adaptations of recent equids. In Equids in the Ancient
World, ed. R. H. Meadows and H.-P. Uerpmann.
Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag,
pp. 1165.
Pferd und
Hausler,
A. (1994a). Archaologische
Zeugnisse fur
Wagen in Ost- und Mitteleuropa. In Die Indogermanen
21
Levine, M. A., Whitwell, K. E. & Jeffcott, L. B. (2002). A
Romano-British horse burial from Icklingham, Suffolk.
Archaeofauna, 11: 63102.
(in press). Abnormal thoracic vertebrae and the evolution of
horse husbandry. Archaeofauna.
Lister, A. M., Kadwell, N., Kaagan, L. M., Jordan, W. C.,
Richards, M. B. & Stanley, H. F. (1998). Ancient and
modern DNA in a study of horse domestication. Ancient
Biomolecules, 2: 26780.
Littauer, M. A. & Crouwel, J. H. (1996). The origin of the
true chariot. Antiquity, 70: 9349.
Makarova, L. A. & Nurumov, T. N. (1989). The problem of
horse breeding in NeolithicEneolithic Kazakhstan [K
probleme konevodstva v Neolit Eneolite Kazakhstana].
In Interactions between Nomadic Cultures And Ancient
Civilisations [Vzaimodeistvie Kochevikh Kultur I
Drevnikh Tsivilizatsii]. Alma-Ata: Nauka, pp.
122131.
Mallory, J. P. (1981). The ritual treatment of the horse in the
early Kurgan tradition. The Journal of Indo-European
Studies, 9(34): 205226.
(1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Matyushin, G. (1986). The Mesolithic and Neolithic in the
southern Urals and Central Asia. In Hunters in
Transition, ed. M. Zwelebil. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 13350.
Otte, M. (1996). Le paleolithique inferieur et moyen en
Europe. Paris: Masson & Armand Colin.
Petrenko, A. G. (1984). Ancient and Medieval Animal
Husbandry in the Volga and Ural regions [Drevnee i
Spednevekoboe Zhivotnobodstvo Srednevo Povolzhia i
Preduralia]. Moscow: Academy of Sciences.
Piggott, S. (1992). Wagon, Chariot and Carriage. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Polosmak, N. V. (1994). Griffins watching over gold, the
Ak-Alakha kurgans [Steregyshchie zoloto grify,
ak-alakhinskie kurgany]. Novosibirsk: Hauka.
Postgate, J. N. (1986). The equids of Sumer, again. In Equids
in the Ancient World, ed. R. H. Meadow and H.-P.
Uerpmann. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag,
pp. 194206.
Rassamakin, Y. Y. (1999). The Eneolithic of the Black Sea
steppe: dynamics of cultural and economic development
45002300 bc. In Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the
Eurasian Steppe, ed. M. A. Levine, Y. Y. Rassamakin,
A. M. Kislenko and N. S. Tatarintseva. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute, pp. 59182.
Renfrew, C. (1987). Archaeology and Language: the
Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan
Cape.
(1998). All the kings horses: assessing cognitive maps in
later European prehistory. In Creativity in Human
Evolution and Prehistory, ed. S. Mithen. London:
Routledge, pp. 260284.
Rudenko, S. I. (1970). The Frozen Tombs of Siberia. London:
J. M. Dent and Sons.
22
Schibler, J. & Steppan, K. (1999). Human impact on the
habitat of large herbivores in eastern Switzerland and
southwest Germany in the Neolithic. Archaeofauna,
8: 8799.
Serpell, J. (1989). Pet-keeping and animal domestication:
a reappraisal. In The Walking Larder: Patterns of
Domestication, Pastorialism and Predation, edited by
J. Clutton-Brock. London: Unwin Hyman,
pp. 1021.
Telegin, D. Y. (1986). Dereivka, a settlement and cemetery of
Copper Age horse keepers on the Middle Dnieper. BAR
International Series, 287.
M. A. Levine
Uerpmann, H.-P. (1990). Die Domestikation des Pferdes im
Chalkolithikum West-und Mitteleuropas. Madrider
Mitteilungen, 31: 109153.
` E., Leonard, J. A., Gotherstr
Vila,
om,
A., Marklund, S.,
Sandberg, K., Liden, K., Wayne, R. K. & Ellegren, H.
(2001). Widespread origins of domestic horse lineages.
Science, 291: 47477.
Zarins, J. (1986). Equids associated with human burials in
third millennium bc Mesopotamia: two complementary
facets. In Equids in the Ancient World, ed. R. H. Meadow
and H.-P. Uerpmann. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert
Verlag, pp. 164193.