CHAPTER TWO: Situating the Pazyryk Burials: The Physical and Archaeological Context

Asian Archaeology is a new archaeological journal published yearly by Research Center for Chinese Frontier Archaeology (RCCFA) of Jilin University. This volume contains eleven research papers and field archaeological reports. The subjects covered by these papers include archaeological theory and method, Chinese archaeology, the archaeology of the Eurasian steppe and preliminary reports on new archaeological discoveries and researches in 2012.

Historical archaeology, 2024

One of the most crucial issues in the study of human-animal relations is the power of humans over animal death and how it has been processed culturally by the ways animal carcasses have been treated. In this article, the post-domestic phase in human-animal relations is entered by investigating the burial of working horses in the Finnish countryside during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Toward that end, 115 horse burials, 134 cemeteries, and 61 death places or kill sites were examined through interviews with local people, and a search of literature and place names. Six burial sites were excavated and several sites surveyed in the field. The locations of all sites were analyzed with historical maps. As a result, we consider that animal graves form a significant group of historical monuments that show great variability and are associated with past land use and human-animal relations.

The authors examine the role of horses as expressed in assemblages from settlement sites and cemeteries between the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age in Kazakhstan. In this land, known for its rich association with horses, the skeletal evidence appears to indicate a fading of ritual interest. But that's not the whole story, and once again micro-archaeology reveals the true balance. The horses are present at the funeral, but now as meat for the pot, detected in bone fragments and lipids in the pot walls.

It is difficult to determine what the K. Karahöyük’s ‘antler object’ defined as ‘cheek piece’ of horse bit system. It is still under debate whether these sorts of early finds (4000–3500 BC) whose identification arise contradictions in many occasions even in a context were a part of a bridle bit system that were used for the control of horses, and the fact that they are found in a limited area makes their identifications even more contradicting. However, the researches that are developed on the samples of second half of 2000 BC [Smirnov, 1961] look as though they have convinced the researchers to the idea that they belong to a horse bit system. Besides, late samples can be found in a wide area all around the world. According to wild ass / onager type of animals on seal impressions dated to the early phase of Assyrian Trade Colonial Period (c 2000–1750 BC), it is possible to decide that domesticated real horses (Equs caballus) were not yet widespread in Anatolia at that time. However, the horse ryhton from Çomaklı Höyük reflecting a real horse model that was equipped with ‘harnesses’ can provide us a starting point here: If we look from the viewpoint of Çomaklı Höyük horse ryhton, the earliest date of harnessed horse in Central Anatolia is not earlier than 1750 BC, and this time span is also in accordance with the date of ‘cheek piece’ of K. Karahöyük. However, the fact that it is represented by just one piece at K. Karahöyük (concurrently at Alaca Höyük, Troia and Beycesultan) materials that are consisted of thousands of stratigraphic archeological finds, in addition lack of horse bone assemblage20 raise my suspicion. Nonetheless, the fact that we exactly know that the late samples were used in bridle bit and that their dates are closer to ours are clear barriers for us to think that K. Karahöyük ‘cheek piece’ was a part of a horse bit system. Current archeological data tells us that horses were tamed in Anatolia before Hittites, and this date is the first quarter of second millennium BC. On the other hand, it seems that the horse have been domesticated and also ridden in steppe cultures since the Late Neolithic Period. This is possible. However, it is another fact that horse remained for a long time in the list of hunting animals of the earliest communities over the vast area [Drews, 2004, p. 8]. For instance, while only a small proportion of the bones of horses found at Deriyvka culture complexes are known to be belonged to domesticated horses, it is also clearly understood that a large proportion of them from to wild population. In ancient culture deposites, there can be remains belonging to both domesticated and wild animals. In fact, in my point of view real problem lies here: We need concrete indisputable evidence to believe that the horse was used as a riding animal: 1) A horse bit system that reflects convincing features; 2) Wear traces caused by horse bit system on the premolar teeth of the horse. Some researchers wanted to explain the idea that horses were tamed based up on the intensive existence21 of horse bone assemblage that were found in complexes at Deriyvka (4000 – 3500 BC) late phase of Sredniy Stog culture and Botay (3500–3000 BC), rather than explicative archeological documents. V.I. Bibikova, a zooarchaologist as a member of excavations, defined some of the horse skulls some twenty skulls that she examined here as domesticated due to their features such as wide and light structured head, lengthily nasal system, short teeth line and wide occupit [Bibikova, 1967]. In the beginning of the 1990s, the results [Anthony, Brown 1991; Anthony, Brown, 2000] taken from the analyses of the ‘teeth wear’ caused friction, which thought to support V.I. Bibikova’s idea, brought new dimensions to the discussion22. By taking attention on the premolar teeth wear of a group of stallions at Deriyvka, the idea that the wear was caused by the chewing of a bit was put forward [Anthony, Brown, 1991]. As a response to this, M.A. Levine pointed out that this wear could not be accepted as a proof for the horse to be a riding or domesticated animal [Levine, 1999a], and she also emphasized that many of the bones that were found at Deryvka complex belonged to wild population. While some researchers23 claim that it is not an easy task to distinguish wild animal bones from the domesticated ones in the equus caballus type of bones group, M.A. Levine tried to demonstrate that this process was not as difficult as it seemed after his elaborate studies. During the excavations at Deriyvka, which had been a significant centre for horse burial, hundreds of animal bones were discovered in six different areas and most of them belonged to horses. Hundreds of bones belonging to some fifty horses were studied by V.I. Bibikova, while the rest was discarded due to lack of space and storing area, before creating a complete record [Drews, 2004, p. 13]. In the 1980s, these horse bone remains were studied by M. A. Levine twenty years later than they had been first found [Levine, 1990]. As a response to the view that a part of the bones assemblage found in Deriyvka belonged to domesticated horses, M.A. Levine made a list of the requirements to confirm a horse as ‘domesticated’ as: 1) The horse skeletons should be found completely among the horse remains that were revealed during excavation; 2) Old animals should not be found among them; 3) A vast majority should be consisted of mares. On the other hand, if remains belonging to old animals are found and if the data made a determination as equal existing of stallions and mares, there must be talking about the ‘wild population’. At every turn, M.A. Levine put forward that the teeth wear was the natural eroding occured through pathological malocclusion based on diet [Levine, 1990, p. 728], and accordingy she pointed out that these wears can be accepted as evidence to neither bit system nor the riding of these animals [Levine, 1999b, p. 11; Drews, 2004, p. 20]. However, though a very low possibility that is, she considers a few of the Deriyvka and Botay horses might have been domesticated, and she adds that, this ‘small proportion’ has no relation to the horses whose teeth wears were determined [Levine, 1999a, p. 29,74]. The earliest date of riding horse and when the horse was domesticated are intertwined, and it is almost impossible to evaluate them seperately. The fact that lack of the evidence of the bit system used to control the horse may demonstrate that the horse was not ridden. Nonetheless, within the same context, the identification of, for instance, remains of horse milk or kumys24 at the bottom of ware might make that horse a domesticated animal; besides despite the intensive existence of horse remains we couldn’t assert that horse were never domesticated and ridden there. That an archaeological site has a series of clear evidence concerning horse remains and horse breeding shows that the horse is theorically domesticated and ridden there. Interesting thing is, to keep horse requires inevitably riding horse. Because horse is fast, power and also timid animal and as a result the control of it requires mastery: It is a difficult task to catch a horse and gather them together just by foot. Accordingly it is possible for the horse breeder to domesticate a horse only if he could ride an animal as fast as a horse. Therefore, some of clear determinations of V.I. Bibikova concerning Sredniy Stog culture, the fact that horse milk or kumys as a milk product remains were found in the chemical analysis of residue from a ware belonging to North Kazakstan’s Botay culture, results of metacarpal metric analysis and the fact that numerous horse bones were found in both cultural deposites tell us that in both cultural regions horse was domesticated as livestock which stands as a solid evidence that horses were alredy used as riding animal. But still to claim that the horse was transportation animal, requires clear archaeological evidence belonging to the bridle system such as more persuasive results of teeth wear analysis. However we could not state that the all sort of antler ‘cheek pieces’ were related to domesticated horse; I must emphasize that most of them were more likely not the part of horse bridle bit system. And finally I would like to express that first domestication of the horse is not directly connected with any certain ethnic group. As I mentioned above that there is not clear archaeological evidence which help us to establish a direct relation between Hittites and horse or horse drawn chariot.

Archaeological Research in Asia, 2026

The roots of Mongolia's horse culture are usually located in the Late Bronze Age and associated with the appearance of horse-drawn wheeled vehicles from regions to the west. The earliest evidence in Mongolia for both horse and vehicle is not material but rather pictorial: it is detailed in hundreds of images pecked into the boulders and bedrock of the Altai Mountains. The second indication of an emerging horse culture is offered by ritual horsehead burials associated with Late Bronze Age khirgisuur, as well as with the related deer stones. Within that same period appears the earliest material evidence of the equestrianism that became the Mongolian engine of conquest over the following millennia. In all three cases, the horses in question were domesticated, Equus caballus, rather than one of the Asian wild horses, Equus przewalski and Equus ovodovi. From that has followed the assumption that Mongolia's horse culture is predicated upon the appearance of the domesticated horse in the Late Bronze Age. This paper interrogates these assumptions regarding the roots of equine significance within Mongolian prehistory. Using the pictorial documentation available in Altai Mountain rock art, it locates the roots of Mongolia's horse culture in a much earlier period and associated not with E. caballus but rather with the wild Przewalski's horse.