IranicaAntiqua, vol. LII, 2017 doi: 10.2143/IA.52.0.3269017 THE ANCIENT IRANIAN HORSE BRIDLE: QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY, ORIGINS, AND DEVELOPMENT1 BY Inna N. MEDVEDSKAYA (Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia) Abstract: This article presents information questioning whether the development of horse bridles on the territory of Iran and Transcaucasia in the late second to early first millennium BC took shape independently of the similar processes in the Eura- sian Steppe and in the North Caucasus, whilst being influenced to some extent by developments in the European region. Some elements of horse bridles from the Iran-Transcaucasian region, such as bits with wrapped and twisted mouthpieces, fittings with plain buttons for cross-straps, and cheekpieces of carved antler, reveal a link with Central and Southern Europe but are not found in harnesses further east (in the North Caucasus and in the Eurasian Steppe). On the other hand, character- istic elements of the kind of horse harness found in the North Caucasus and in the Eurasian Steppe (mono-ring and double-ring-bits, stirrup-bits, three-muff cheekpieces, cross-shaped and helmet-shaped fittings for cross-straps) are not found in Iran and Transcaucasia. Some of the elements of these bridles appear later in the Near East, during the period of Cimmerian and Scythian invasions. Keywords: Ancient Iran, Transcaucasia, Eurasian Steppe, bits, cheekpieces, fit- tings for cross-straps In many works focusing on the origins, development and chronology of the horse bridle in Eurasian and Middle Eastern regions, the Caucasus is often treated as a contact zone. There one can supposedly find mutual influ- ence on the development of the horse harness that had already happened in pre-Scythian time in both regions. Thus, the appearance of mono-ring bits with separate cheekpieces in the Middle Eastern region is usually explained by the spreading of this bridle type from the European areal (where it was originally the only bridle type) through the Caucasian territories, though the 1 I would like to express my gratitude to Nathan F. Thomas for proofreading and edit- ing the English version of the article. 160 I.N. MEDVEDSKAYA alternative route from Europe and the Mediterranean through Asia Minor was not impossible (Medvedskaya 1983: 68). On the other hand, some articles deal with “Sialk” type three-hole cheekpieces, which formed, according to the authors, on the territory to the north of the Caucasus Mountains under the influence of cheekpieces common for the bridle of the Central Iran (Sialk B cemetery, Erlich 1994: 32, 66-68; Erlich 2007: 131; Pogrebova 2011: 185-187). The unique Transcaucasian cheekpiece, with a round-blade ending from Kalakent, ostensibly testifies its adoption from the north as well (Ivantchik 2001: 178). To solve the question of when the contact between the two regions with originally different bridle construction began, one should reconsider the questions of chronology, origins, and development of horse bridle in the Ancient Iran and Transcaucasia. Among the Iranian sites, the horse harnesses were fully represented at the Sialk B cemetery and Tepe Hasanlu IVB. Both bridle construction types were found there, which are fundamentally different in the way the bit and cheekpieces are joined. They represent two traditions that origi- nated from and existed in different territories. The first one has a bit with jointed canons passing through the cheekpieces; the second one has a bit with jointed canons and separate cheekpieces. I. The bit with jointed canons passing through the cheekpieces. The construction of the bit, which was characterized by the permanent join of bit and cheekpieces, was already widespread in the Ancient Near East in the 2nd mill. B.C., and is stated for typologically different bits — the ones with two canons and earlier rigid cast-bar ones (Potratz 1966: 103 ff.). The northern border of their spreading is Transcaucasia (Pl. 1; 2). In Sialk B cemetery, the bridle of this construction is represented by two bronze bits with jointed canons passing through the cheekpieces from the tomb № 74 (Ghirshman 1939: pl. XXV: 1; LXXB: S. 924). The distin- guishing feature of the Sialk B bits is rein rings passing freely through a loop cast as a human hand in the end of each canon. Each cheekpiece is placed between a “hand” and a central linked joint of mouthpiece. The cheekpieces have large loops near their ends, the loops lie in the same plane with the central cheekpiece hole (Pl. 1: 1)2. 2 The cheekpiece loops are rather large on the photograph (Ghirshman 1939: pl. XXV: 1), unlike the drawing. THE ANCIENT IRANIAN HORSE BRIDLE 161 In Hasanlu IVB, three bits with the cheekpieces moving freely on the canons and one bit cast in one with its cheekpieces were found (Schauensee & Dyson 1983: 68-69, fig. 14-15) (Pl. 1: 2; 2: 2). This bit structure with different modifications is represented in Iran by the Luristan finds (includ- ing one with a “hand” and large similar loops for attachment of bridle cheekstraps: Potratz 1966: 135-137, Taf. LIV-LV; Moorey 1971a: 111-112) (Pl. 1: 3). A similar bit is known from Marlik cemetery (grave 49)3, dated to the end of the 2nd — beginning of the 1st mill. B.C., or according to 14C data — between the 14th-10th cent. B.C. (Negahban 1998: 46, 55). All of them (except the ones from Luristan and Sialk B, both with a “hand”) feature immovable rein rings (Pl. 1). This difference is obviously con- nected to the fact that both canons of the Sialk B bits are cast together, and central join mouthpiece is a single-piece. In this case, the cheekpieces were put on through the outer terminals of hand-shaped canons, and after that each “hand” was bent clamping the rein ring. The bent “hand” (loop) did not interfere with the ring motion. Despite the different ways of lapping cheekpieces over bits canons, two large loops on the terminals of the cheekpiece make bits from Sialk B, Luristan (Waele 1982, fig. 51), and Hasanlu IVB typologically similar. In Hasanlu IVB, judging by the elements of the horse harness found insitu, such bits could be used for driven horses (Schauensee 1989: 43; idem 2006: 126)4. Transcaucasian bits, as well as bits from Hasanlu IVB and Marlik, are characterized by the fixed fastening of rein rings, cast together with can- ons, that join the two bits’ parts by forging after canons were passed through the cheekpieces, and other cheekpieces details. Finds in eastern Transcaucasia can serve an example of the early use of such bridle con- struction. In Karabach (Azerbaijan) the remains of several bridled horses (including separate horse skulls) were found in a looted burial mound 3 In previous publications, the right fragment of the bit was pictured incorrectly: the closed ring is an outer element (rein ring) and the loop is an inner element of the mouth- piece. Cf. corrected drawing (Negahban 1996: fig. 941, pl. 14.A) (Pl. 1: 5). 4 In Hasanlu IVB, where over 40 horse bits were found, such abundance can be explained by the storm and following destruction of the city. Remarkably, most of the bridles were found in stables where they were stored on the shelves, hung on the poles, or on the premises. Accordingly, they were found next to human remains or buried under fallen walls and ceilings. Despite 9 horse skeletons having been found in the citadel, none had bridles on, which testifies to the suddenness of the city being stormed (Schauensee 1989: 37 ff.). 162 I.N. MEDVEDSKAYA next to Sarychoban village. Those bridles consisted of a bit, fittings for cross-straps, and buttons for headstall decoration. There are four bits out of seven (including one canon with a rein ring) with jointed canons pass- ing through the cheekpieces published at the moment. Six out of seven bits have straight bar cheekpieces with round holes near the ends of bars. Two terminal holes lie perpendicularly to the central cheekpiece hole (Pl. 1: 8). In one case, slightly curved lamellar cheekpieces end with images of horse heads; the horse “mane” has rectangular holes, which lie in the same plane with the central hole unlike other cheekpieces (Dzhafarov 1993: fig. 6: 1, 9; 7: 1, 1a) (Pl. 1: 6). These cheekpieces are structurally close to ones on the bi-metal bit from the Trely II cemetery (tomb 16, Tbilisi), dated to the very end of 9th – beginning of 8th cent. B.C. (Ivantchik 2001: 190, fig. 92: 51-55). The bits from Sarychoban, with rod-shaped cheekpieces, are similar to those from Iran (Marlik) and Transcaucasia (Dimaz - Armenia, Archad- zor and Mingechaur - Azerbaijan), dating to the 11th-10th cent. B.C. (Pl. 1: 9-11). One of the dating signs of these bits are the cheekpieces with round holes on terminals lying perpendicularly to the central cheekpiece hole. Bits with curved cheekpieces with zoomorphic terminals (type III according to Potratz) are well known in Luristan and make a part of the so-called “Luristan Bronzes”. Found outside of the archaeological sites, they lack independent datings and instead were dated by either their stylis- tic attributes — cheekpieces on the similar bits with lion-head terminals date to 9th-8th cent. B.C. (Vanden Berghe 1982: № 222) — or by the approximate analogues. For instance, the bits with a “hand” and cheek- pieces with lion-head terminals were synchronized by P. Moorey with the bits from Sialk B (tomb 74) on the basis of the “hand” presence only (Moorey 1971b: 122, fig. 5). However, the accuracy of such dating is highly unlike due to the very different shape of the cheekpiece (see below).