Thanks to everybody. Let me summarize.
The starting point was whether some kind of leather could have been used with the cheek pieces in the Assyrian reliefs in the BM and the many finds of real antler cheek pieces. Helen Holderness knew about leather bits being used now when horses’ mouths needed hardening, and Chloe had another practical case. David Anthony has apparently successfully used wood, but owing to library disorder I have not been able to read his paper. I don’t see how a wooden bit could be attached to an antler cheek piece - in fact I don’t know how Anthony’s bridles were arranged at all or whether leather leaves the same wear as wood, but obviously it is an important piece of research. Wear on antler cheek pieces I have actually handled suggested leather to me. Linda pointed out that there are ways of exerting your authority over a horse without using a bit at all, and knew actual finds of Roman hackamores. Amerindians also rode without bits, but we were given no details. All in all a tremendous variety of arrangements are possible.
As for stirrups it seemed to me that the hobbled and saddled mare on the Chertomlyk vase had a hanging end of the girth, not a stirrup. There are several more or less contemporary works showing men astride ponies definitely without stirrups. However I am sure you are right Linda and I only need to find the right goldfoils, for I am not in doubt about the Sanchi stone medallion, though it would be rash to say what material the stirrups were supposed to be made of. It could be the metal ones are all post-Roman.
The overall picture is that wheels and cart/chariot representations start before 3000 B.C., but antler cheek pieces do not turn up until ca. 2000 B.C. They were still used in Denmark anyway in the Roman Iron Age. There is status bronze harness with the cheek pieces having attachments in the same place as on the antler pieces in the LBA. Oddly there is no evidence of riding until the 1st millennium B.C., but only of traction. This is very funny, because you can’t imagine the guys not hopping up if they had tame horses. I think it is a question of the notorious incompleteness of the archaeological record. Riding was simply too vulgar to be interesting.
Then along comes David Anthony and thinks he spots tooth wear indicating bits before 4000 B.C.. At this stage there was no evidence of carts (archaeological evidence anyway), so presumably this shows the primacy of riding after all. Also the difficulty with horseshoes shows how different archaeological evidence is to work with.
David Liversage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|