|
Domestication, Breed Diversification and Early History of
the Horse
Marsha
A Levine
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
Cambridge, UK Ml12@cam.ac.uk
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 in the undeveloped and developing world,
including Eastern Europe, has scarcely diminished and even in the
developed world 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 and evolution of
horse husbandry.
The Origins of Horse Domestication
Throughout
the course of the 20th 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:
·
during the Neolithic, Eneolithic or Early Bronze Age;
·
for meat, riding or traction;
·
in the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Eastern Europe, Western Europe or the
Near East;
·
at a single locus or at a number of different loci, more or less
simultaneously.
In
some situations it is, of course, very easy to show how horses had been
used in ancient times. For
example, the horses found in some of the south Siberian Iron Age kurgans -
such as Pazyryk, Bashadar and Ak-Alakha - were accompanied by
well-preserved equipment such as bridles, saddles and harnessing (Polos'mak,
1994; Rudenko, 1970). However,
at most sites, especially those dating from the period when horses were
first domesticated for riding and traction, the situation is more
complicated. Organic
materials such as leather and wood are only very rarely recoverable from
the archaeological record. In
unfavourable soil conditions even bone is eventually destroyed.
Moreover, not only is it possible to ride a horse without the use
of a saddle or bridle, but also, during the early stages of horse
domestication, it is likely that they were usually ridden that way.
Types of Evidence for the Origins of Horse
Domestication
There
are two kinds of evidence for early horse husbandry: direct and indirect.
Direct evidence relates to artistic, textual and funerary evidence
(burials where horses were interred with riding tack, harnessing, wagons
or chariots), in which there is virtually no doubt both that the horses
were caballine and that they were ridden or used for traction.
That is, the possibility that a wild horse would be buried with a
chariot is almost certainly low enough to be dismissed as insignificant
(but, of course, not impossible).
Indirect
evidence is inferred from characteristics of bones and artifacts.
It includes evidence derived from analytical methods such as
population structure profiling, osteometrical analysis, biogeographical
distribution, relative proportions in archaeological deposits, bit wear
analysis, palaeopathology, and artifact analysis.
It is invariably the case that any one pattern manifested by these
types of data could have more than one explanation.
There
is no direct evidence for the origins of horse domestication and it is
doubtful that there ever will be. Moreover,
on its own no one type of indirect data can provide satisfactory evidence
of horse domestication. Indirect
evidence must have corroboration from as many directions as possible.
The confusing of direct and indirect evidence has resulted in
mistaken interpretations of the archaeological data.
These issues have been discussed in detail elsewhere (Levine,
1999b), so they will only be briefly mentioned here.
Some types of indirect and unsatisfactory evidence often used as
proof of horse domestication are:
·
The presence of so-called horse-head sceptres and other ritual
objects apparently associated with horses at Eneolithic sites.
·
The presence of horse burials not associated with tack.
·
The presence of objects described as cheekpieces or hobbles.
·
Beveling of the lower 2nd premolar, described as bit wear.
·
Confusing the intensification of horse exploitation with
domestication.
·
Size change.
·
Morphological variability.
·
The discovery of horses outside their apparent geographical
distribution.
·
Misinterpretations of population structure.
·
A relatively high percentage of horse bones and teeth in a deposit.
·
The apparent increase in the proportion of horses at a site or
group of sites by comparison with earlier periods.
·
The association of horses with other apparently domesticated taxa.
Dereivka,
a Ukrainian settlement site (circa 4500-3500 BC), has been central to the
problem of the origins of horse domestication, because for the past three
decades it has been regarded as the site with the earliest evidence of
horse husbandry (e.g. Anthony and Brown, 1991; Bibikova, 1986; Bökönyi,
1978; Gimbutas, 1991; Mallory, 1989; Telegin, 1986).
More recently another Eneolithic settlement site, Botai, from
Kazakhstan has also been associated with the origins of horse
domestication (Brown and Anthony, 1998). However, upon further
examination, it is clear that the evidence backing these claims is deeply
flawed. Careful consideration
of the data from both Botai and Dereivka strongly suggests that the vast
majority, if not the totality, of the horses from both of those sites were
wild (Levine, 1999a; Levine, 1999b).
Because of the relatively high proportions of horses dying during
their most productive years, their mortality distributions, based upon
tooth ageing, are characteristic of hunted animals.
Investigations
of bone pathology have also been very informative about this question
(Levine, 1999b; Levine et al, 2000).
Comparisons of Early Iron Age, Scytho-Siberian horses from burials
in the Ukraine and the Altai (1st millennium BC), free-living
modern Exmoor Ponies and Medieval Turkic horses from the Altai strongly
suggest that certain abnormalities of the caudal thoracic vertebrae are
associated with the use of pad saddles and, most probably, with riding
bareback. These abnormalities
are entirely absent from Botai, where the preservation of vertebrae is
very good. Unfortunately the
vertebrae from Dereivka had all been discarded before they could be
studied.
The Earliest direct Evidence for Horse
Domestication
The
earliest unambiguous dateable textual and artistic evidence for horse
domestication probably only dates back to the end of the third millennium
BC. Evidence of horses in
graves, accompanied by artifacts unambiguously associated with riding or
traction is even more recent, dating, so far, only to the beginning of the
2nd millennium BC (Kuz'mina, 1994; Littauer and Crouwel, 1996; Piggott,
1992; Postgate, 1986; Renfrew, 1987; Zarins, 1986).
The horses from the Sintashta chariot burials (on the south Ural
steppe), dated to circa 2000 BC, are the earliest known domestic horses (Zdanovich
and Zdanovich in press). However,
shortly thereafter the expansion of the domestic horse throughout Europe
was little short of explosive. By
the middle of the 2nd millennium BC horses were being used to pull
chariots from as far afield as Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia,
the Eurasian steppe; and in China by the 14th century BC (Linduff in
press; Littauer and Crouwel, 1996; Piggott, 1992; Shaw, 2001).
There
is apparently no reliable textual or artistic evidence for horse riding
earlier than the end of the 2nd millennium BC (Levine, 1999b; Piggott,
1992; Renfrew, 1987). There are earlier representations of people riding
equids in the Near East. However, because of the extreme difficulty of
distinguishing artistic representations of Equus
caballus from those of other Near Eastern equids, it is impossible to
identify the earliest evidence for horse riding itself (Postgate, 1992).
That
horses were buried in considerable numbers in elaborate, high prestige
graves at Sintashta (Gening, Zdanovich, and Gening, 1992) suggests that by
this period (the Middle Bronze Age) they played an important role in
society and, almost certainly had been domesticated for a considerable
period of time. Currently we lack the evidence to say what that period of
time actually was. Nevertheless,
ethnographic and ethological data allow us to put forward a hypothesis to
explain how the earliest domestication might have come about.
Taming
and Domesticating Horses
According
to J. Clutton-Brock, "A tame animal differs from a wild one in that
it is dependent on man and will stay close to him of its own free
will" (Clutton-Brock, 1987, p.12)).
Aboriginal hunter-gatherers and horticulturists throughout the
world are known to tame all kinds of wild animals to keep as pets.
There is no reason to think that this would not have been the case
at least from time of the earliest anatomically modern Homo
sapiens and, when the need arose, taming would probably have been the
first step towards domestication (Clutton-Brock, 1987; Galton 1883;
Serpell, 1989). Wild horses,
particularly as foals, can be captured and tamed and, as such, ridden or
harnessed and, at the end of their lives, if necessary, slaughtered and
eaten. During historical
times both the North American Plains tribes and the Mongols used the arkan,
lasso or herd drive to capture wild or feral horses to eat or to tame them
(Levine, 1999a). Horses
taming was regarded as a skill most successfully carried out by
specialists, whose most important tool was their intimate knowledge of
horse behaviour. On this basis I would like to propose a possible scenario
for the development of horse husbandry.
As
a working hypothesis, I would like to suggest that horse taming probably
first arose as a bi-product of horse hunting for meat.
Orphaned foals, captured between the ages of perhaps 2 months and 1
year, or possibly somewhat later, would sometimes have been adopted and
raised as pets. Eventually,
and perhaps repeatedly, the discovery was made that these pets could be
put to work. This knowledge
could have been acquired and lost many times from the Pleistocene onwards.
But it was, apparently, only during the Holocene - possibly between
the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age - that it began to influence human
social developments.
Initially
the difficulties involved in keeping captured wild horses alive would have
set limits to their impact - as work animals - on human society.
Furthermore, considering the problems encountered by modern
collectors trying to breed Przewalskis horses, it seems likely that
horse-keeping would have had to have been relatively advanced before
controlled breeding, and thus domestication, would have been possible:
Failure to consider the typical social organization of the species can
result in problems such as pacing, excessive rates of aggression,
impotence and infanticide (Boyd and Houpt, 1994, p. 222).
In order to breed wild horses successfully in captivity, their
environmental, nutritional and social requirements must be met:
...In
zoos, juvenile male Przewalskis horses should be left in their natal
bands for at least a year so that they can observe mating behaviour.
They should be placed in bachelor herds when removed from the
natural band, and not given harems until they are at least four or five
years of age. The first mares
placed with the stallion should be younger than he and the harem size
should be kept small until the stallion gains age and experience. (Boyd
and Houpt, 1994, p 226)
That capturing wild horses and stealing tamed or domesticated ones
was regarded by the Plains tribes as preferable to breeding them supports
the scenario proposed here. If
it is correct, it seems likely that there would have been a relatively
long period of time when new horses would have been recruited from wild
populations. This could have
been carried out by trapping, driving and chasing, as documented for the
Mongols and North American Plains tribes (Levine, 1999a).
Table 1 - A
Rough Chronology of the Pontic Steppe
|
Approximate
Dates
(BC)
|
Period
|
|
900
- 300
|
Iron
Age
|
|
1500
- 900
|
Late
Bronze Age
|
|
2000
- 1500
|
Middle
Bronze Age
|
|
3000
- 2000
|
Early
Bronze Age
|
|
4500/4000
- 3000
|
Eneolithic
|
|
6000
- 4500/4000
|
Neolithic
|
This
leads me to hypothesise that horse domestication would have taken a
relatively long time to develop and might well have depended upon chance
genetic changes that would have predisposed some horses to breed in
captivity. Horse
domestication could thus, in a sense, have been initiated by the horses
themselves. Another
possibility is that the human understanding of horse behaviour might have
developed to such a degree that horses finally would have been able to
reproduce in captivity. Perhaps
the most likely scenario is that the human and equine parts of the
equation would have evolved together.
Acknowledgements
The
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, the Natural Environmental
Research Council, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, the British Academy and the
Leakey Foundation provided funding for this research.
The University of Cambridge and the British Academy provided travel
support.
References
Anthony
DW, Brown DR (1991) The origins of horseback riding. Antiquity
246: 22-38.
Bibikova
VI (1986) A study of the earliest domestic horses of Eastern Europe. In
Telegrin DY (Ed), Dereivka
settlement and cemetery of Copper Age horse keepers on the Middle Dnieper.
BAR International Series 287.
Bökönyi
S (1978) The earliest waves of domestic horses in East Europe. J
Indo-Europ Stud (1-2): 17-73.
Boyd
L, Houpt KA (1994) Activity patterns. In Boyd L, Houpt KA (Eds), Przewalski's
Horse, the History and Biology of an Endangered Species. State
University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Brown
D, Anthony D (1998) Bit wear horseback riding and the Botai site in
Kazakstan. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 331-347.
Clutton-Brock
J (1987) A Natural History of
Domesticated Mammals. British Museum of Natural History, London.
Galton
F (1883) Inquiries into Human
Faculty and its Development. Macmillan, New York.
Gening
VF, Zdanovich GB, Gening VV (1992) Sintashta.
Vol. 1South-Ural Book Publisher, Cheliabinsk.
Gimbutas
M (1991) The Civilization of the
Goddess: Harper, SanFrancisco.
Kuz'mina
EE (1994) From where did the
Indo-Aryans come Otkuda prishli indoarii. Russian Academy of Sciences,
Moscow.
Levine
MA (1999a) Botai and the origins of horse domestication. J
Anthropol Arch 18: 29-78.
Levine
MA (1999b) The origins of horse husbandry on the Eurasian Steppe. In
Levine MA, Rassamakin Y, Kislenko AM, Tatarintseva NS (Eds), Late
Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe. McDonald Institute,
Cambridge.
Levine
MA, Bailey GN, Whitwell KE, Jeffcott LB (2000) Palaeopathology and horse
domestication. In Bailey G, Charles R, Winder N (Eds), Human
Ecodynamics and Environmental Archaeology.
Oxbow, Oxford.
Linduff
KM (in press) A walk on the wild side: late Shang appropriation of horses
in China. In Levine M, Renfrew C, Boyle K (Eds), Prehistoric
Steppe Adaptation and the Horse. McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, Cambridge.
Littauer
MA, Crouwel JH (1996) The origin of the true chariot. Antiquity:
934-939.
Mallory
JP (1989) In Search of the
Indo-Europeans. Thames and Hudson, London.
Piggott
S (1992) Wagon, Chariot and Carriage.
Thames and Hudson, London.
Polos'mak
NV (1994) Griffins watching over
gold, the Ak-Alakha kurgans [Steregyshchie zoloto grify, ak-alakhinskie
kurgany]. Hauka, Novosibirsk.
Postgate
JN (1986) The equids of Sumer, again. In Meadow RH, Uerpmann H-P (Eds), Equids in the Ancient World. Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Weisbaden.
Postgate
JN (1992) Early Mesopotamia. Society
and Economy at the Dawn of History. Routledge, London.
Renfrew
C (1987) Archaeology and Language:
the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Jonathan Cape, London.
Rudenko
SI (1970) The Frozen Tombs of
Siberia. JM Dent, London.
Serpell
J (1989) Pet-keeping and animal domestication: a reappraisal. In Clutton-Brock
J (Ed), The Walking Larder: Patterns
of Domestication, Pastorialism and Predation . Unwin Hyman, London.
Shaw
I (2001) Egyptians, Hyksos and military technology: Causes, effects or
catalysts? In Shortland AJ (Ed), The
Social Context of Technological Change, Egypt and the Near East, 1650-1550
BC. Oxbow, Oxford, UK.
Telegin
DY (1986) Dereivka, a settlement and
cemetery of Copper Age horse keepers on the Middle Dnieper. Vol. 287, BAR
International Series.
Zarins
J (1986) Equids associated with human burials in third millennium BC
Mesopotamia: two complementary facets. In Meadow RH, Uerpmann H-P (Eds), Equids in the Ancient World. Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Weisbaden.
Zdanovich GD
(in press) The 'Country of Towns' of southern Trans-Urals and some aspects
of steppe assimilation in the Bronze Age. In Boyle K, Renfrew C, Levine M
(Eds), Interaction: East and West in
Eurasia. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
|