This article was downloaded by: [Argent, Gala] On: 5 May 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription

number 921567758] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

World Archaeology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699333

Do the clothes make the horse? Relationality, roles and statuses in Iron Age Inner Asia
Gala Argent

Online publication date: 23 April 2010

To cite this Article Argent, Gala(2010) 'Do the clothes make the horse? Relationality, roles and statuses in Iron Age Inner

Asia', World Archaeology, 42: 2, 157 174 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00438241003672633 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438241003672633

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Do the clothes make the horse?1 Relationality, roles and statuses in Iron Age Inner Asia
Gala Argent

Abstract
Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Despite recent calls to view nonhuman animals as more than objects within archaeological studies, traditional interpretations of horses in Iron Age Inner Asian communities continue to consider them as relevant only through their functional or symbolic signicance to humans. This article argues for a relational rather than domination model of human-horse interactions, and that a necessary step toward this is a clearer understanding of horses, themselves, as social beings. This is brought to light through ethological studies and the understandings of working riders, including the author. Using a case study of the Iron Age Pazyryk human-horse burials, it is then proposed that through this lens the outts of the horses in the Pazyryk kurgans might be seen to reect roles and statuses of the horses, rather than of the humans.

Keywords
Iron Age; Pazyryk; human-horse relationality.

In dangers, the rider entrusts his own body to his horse. (Xenophon)2

Introduction Archaeology is by denition the study of human animals and their material culture. Here, we discuss borders and boundaries real and imagined between cultural and natural space and being. Here, other animals conventionally are considered as kinds, calories or constructs. In the stories we tell of past societies, they are objects set pieces or blurred backdrops of scenery, at the least parts of the human-created soundstage, at the most

World Archaeology Vol. 42(2): 157174 Humans and Animals 2010 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online DOI: 10.1080/00438241003672633

158

Gala Argent

faintly visible walk-on extras. They are certainly not actors; they are inuential to the plotline only insofar as humans use them. It is humans who act upon them. Such considerations are rooted in what post-humanist scholar Donna Haraway describes as the culturally normal fantasy of human exceptionalism . . . the premise that humanity alone is not a spatial and temporal web of interspecies dependencies (2008: 11). There is a growing recognition that social animals share a set of characteristics with humans, including intelligence, emotions, morality and agency (e.g. Beko 2007; Kelch 2007: 239; de Waal 1996). These points, combined with the postmodern demand for contextualization, have funded suggestions that traditional anthropological and archaeological paradigms for viewing human-nonhuman animal relationships could be expanded (e.g. Cassidy and Mullin 2007; Jones and Richards 2003; Knight 2005; Ray and Thomas 2003; Shapiro 2008). For instance, the recent anthropological volume, Animals in Person, was conceived with an interest in animals as subjects rather than objects, in animals as parts of human society rather than just symbols of it, and in human interactions and relationships with animals rather than simply human representations of animals (Knight 2005: 1, emphasis in original). This attempt succeeds in that it challenges human-generated cultural conceptions of animals as all that they are. But it falls short in that in every chapter we are still presented with ways in which particular societies perceive specic groups of animals. Animals are still, here, for the most part kinds. This leaves out of the equation the consideration of an essential element the animals themselves (see Shapiro 2008). I suggest that recent calls to explore nonhuman animals as more than calories or constructs fall short not because of lack of desire, but because we have not explored how to view them as subjects. In what follows, I propose that the rst step toward doing so is an understanding of the animals, themselves in this case horses. I approach this from several angles. First, anthropologist Tim Ingold suggests that those who are with animals in their day-to-day lives . . . can oer us some of the best possible indications of how we might proceed (2000: 72) to write about animals. In keeping with this, I bring in critical observations from those I will term working riders those who live with and school horses to be ridden in a variety of situations myself included. Additionally, I use ndings from quantitative, scientic ethological studies of horses, and present historical and ethnographic examples of how they have been dierently understood. I then explore these ideas through a case study of the Iron Age Inner Asian Pazyryk human-horse burials with the following questions in mind: what can a deeper understanding of horses lend to interpretations of the Pazyryk material? And, from the opposite angle, what can we infer from the funerary material about the nature of the relationships between the people and horses of Pazyryk?

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

The traditional perspective It is clear that Western academic perceptions of nonhuman animals are ltered through intellectual dogma, and situated within the broader embedded philosophical, sociocultural, religious and social-scientic meta-narratives concerning the distinct line drawn between humans and all other animal species (Kalof and Fitzgerald (2007) provide a

Do the clothes make the horse?

159

thorough overview). Moreover, traditional archaeological paradigms of human relations with domesticates have been heavily inuenced by an over-emphasis on issues of exploitation and control, fostering a domination-through-pain model of human-animal relations. Under this view, domesticates are coerced through the whip, spur, harness and hobble, all of them designed either to restrict or to induce movement through the iniction of physical force, and sometimes acute pain (Ingold 2000: 73; on physically painful means of control, see also Dietz 2003; Drews 2004: 7480; Tuan 1984; but see Baker and Manwell 1983; Brownrigg 2006; Budiansky 1992; Cassidy and Mullin 2007; Coppinger and Coppinger 2001; OConnor 1997; Oma 2010; Russell 2002; Tani 1996). This is not surprising considering that social and cultural anthropologists come to domestication via an intellectual trajectory that is strongly inuenced by Marx (Cassidy 2007: 7). Following this path, the natural tendency is to explore human-animal interactions in terms of an over-focus on economics and social inequality, where notions of human control and hierarchical dominance are privileged. One signicant problem with a Marxist-based archaeological approach is that, by focusing only on the powerreplication aspects of human interaction, it seeks to explain highly complex social action through but one of the ways in which social needs are met. For example, psychologist William Schutz (1966; still considered relevant today, Grin 2002: 93101) identied three motivations which drive people to participate in groups: inclusion, aection and control. Considering only issues of control discounts inclusion and aection as equally potent human drives. Likewise, traditional anthropological/archaeological paradigms which present animals merely as subalterns within an anthropocentric world negate the capacity of many animals for rich social and emotional lives, and for agency within those lives (see Beko 2007). This is not to imply that domination and oppression did not and do not exist, and are not worthy of study, nor to discount that horses have been exploited, for they most certainly have been and continue to be. I suggest, rather, that the relationship between humans and horses is not necessarily exploitive. As anthropologist Elizabeth Lawrence noted: It should be stressed, because of commonly held misconceptions, that human interaction with horses is multi-faceted and includes, but is not limited to, those relationships involving domination (1984: 39). The nature of schemes focusing solely on control issues whether in human-human or human-nonhuman interactions cannot be assumed a priori. I propose that a cooperative, relational model might be explored, here within the particular type of interactions between humans and the ridden horse.

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Relationality and the agency of the horse A relational approach acknowledges that, in the linkages between humans and horses, horses are not simply objects of study, but are often participants in the co-creation of culture and identity (Birke et al. 2004; Brandt 2004; Brown 2007; Game 2001; Oma 2007; Sharpe 2005). Applying a relational approach to archaeological material (Bru ck 2004; also Tarlow 1999, 2000) can be expanded to include animal others, here, horses. This allows us to back away from the assumption of humans unilaterally acting upon animals. It recognizes that domination and subjugation are the not sole deners of either

160

Gala Argent

human-animal, or human-human, interactions. It retreats from notions that control and exploitation are the key drivers of human behavior, or are the most interesting aspect to explore in prehistoric societies. Further, it considers how we constitute ourselves and others through embodied engagement with the world we inhabit, which includes animal others (Brown 2007). Within the body of archaeological work exploring humans and horses as they interact, the term relationship is usually used to denote associations between and among dierent sets of quantiable data: deposition assemblages and patterning, and horses numbers, ages, injuries. Indeed, every article in the volume Horses and Humans: The Evolution of Human-Equine Relationship (Olsen et al. 2006) deals with the horse in this manner. This is not the only possible denition of the term. Rather than connections between inanimate variables, the type of relationship I am concerned with is a state of aairs between those having relations or dealings (Gove 2002: 1916). I am concerned with the manner in which two living beings relate with one another. Of course, one does not consider other beings with whom one relates as objects, but rather as subjects, with agency of their own. This is not only appropriate but also, considering that horses are large and powerful beings, necessary. As any working rider knows, inicting physical pain through whip, spur, harness and hobble will induce one of two responses. First, it can cause a horse, who has undergone a critical loss of control of its environment, to display learned helplessness (McGreevy and McLean 2005: 203) apathy indicative of a broken will. A ridden horse must not be shut down so, but must be mentally capable of using his unique sensory and physical abilities to make decisions which will ultimately aect his and his riders safety. Second, with ill treatment the horse can exhibit agonistic behaviors biting, kicking, bucking, rearing and striking the human (McGreevy and McLean 2005: 201). This sheer physical revolt can take the shape of waiting for a time the human is distracted to disobey, feigning a misstep or bucking to unseat the rider, or even physically attacking the person who has treated them thus. While one might want a horse used as a pack animal to display learned helplessness, or be able to stay clear of striking hooves when a horse is in the traces, with neither of these outcomes of domination would one have a horse suitable for use as a riding partner, particularly in dangerous situations. A horse so treated is simply not trustworthy. Turning to Xenophons epigraph to this study, neither of these behaviors is wanted in a horse to whom one entrusts ones own body in dangers. Thus, as well put by philosopher and horse trainer, Vicki Hearne, the objection to cruelty is simply that it doesnt work (2007: 160). Furthermore, considering the agency of the horse is especially essential because humans and ridden horses each through their own decided actions put each other in danger or keep each other safe every time they come together (Brandt 2004; Hearne 2007; Sharpe 2005). In order to stay safe, working riders understand that they must necessarily acknowledge not only the agency of horses, but each individuals character. Each horse owns not only a biological self, but also a separate and distinct life history: a biographical self. Although certain general understandings of horses apply, one horse cannot be dealt with exactly in the manner as another each is an individual, with dierent abilities, likes and dislikes, and fears and anxieties which can put a rider in danger if not acknowledged. Relationships between horse and human can be seen to increase in breadth and depth on a continuum, depending upon the nature of the joint action. When the horse is merely

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Do the clothes make the horse?

161

being handled or asked to move from one place to another, very little is expected or required; when the horse is ridden at high levels of precision or in dangerous situations, a great deal of mutual understanding and trust are necessary. In this latter instance, which takes many, many years to develop fully, just as the rider must know the horse, the horse must know the rider. As stated of the horses and people of the North American Blackfoot culture: Through experience in hunting a rapport was established between man and mount that enabled the rider to know the peculiarities and capabilities of his mount and the horse to understand the wishes of his rider under trying conditions that required their close cooperation. (Ewers 1955: 1967) How, then, might we better understand such human-horse intersubjectivity? I propose that a necessary step preceding any attempt to understand how certain animals might have inuenced people in the past includes having a sense of the animals themselves.

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Horses themselves: human and equine sociality and bonding Primary to a relational model of human-equine interaction is the fact that both species are social animals (Kennedy 1998: 216; Reed 1988). The horses innate psychology derives from its condition as a prey species and consists of two main aspects: hierarchy and cooperation. Hierarchy facilitates the survival of the band. Far from a simple pecking order, rank is based upon multiple factors including: age; personal characteristics such as athletic ability and strength; association, as a foal, with a high status dam; temperament, with more assertive individuals achieving higher status; and order of arrival in the group (Boyd and Keiper 2005: 5582). Horses establish and maintain statuses and roles within their community (Boyd and Keiper 2005; nsdo ttir et al. 2002). Each group will have a lead mare or gelding who makes Sigurjo decisions about the movement and safety of the group, and horses will take turns on sentry duty for others while they rest. Horses, like humans, operate within learned norms of appropriate behavior and right actions understood by those within the community (Boyd and Keiper 2005: 556; Fey 2005: 83; Morris 1988: 49; Reed 1988: 112; see also Vitebsky 2005: 175 on reindeer social norms). At the same time, horses are highly aliative. They are gregarious and engage in a variety of nurturing behaviors towards others: mares lick and nuzzle foals to comfort them, young and adults engage in co-grooming, and cohorts will stand head to tail and swish ies o each other (Godfrey 1979: 4; Morris 1988: 54). Like humans, they cooperate and form long-term bonds and friendships (Fey 2005: 836), and are faithful and loyal to nsdo ttir et al. 2002: 45). Horses will their preferred partners (Morris 1988: 49; Sigurjo bond with only one or two such preferred social partners over the course of their lives (Fey 2005: 86). Furthermore, such [p]referred attachment . . . [appears] not only between dam and foal, but also among peers of all ages, genders and between species (Dierendonck and Goodwin 2006: 30, emphasis added).

162

Gala Argent

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

In sum, humans and horses share similar social needs, and because of this each can empathetically feel something of what the other goes through. Horses, like humans, are driven to participate within groups by inherent needs for control, but also for inclusion and aection (Godfrey 1979: 48; Morris 1988: 54). The social characteristics of each species, the type of co-created language used to communicate (Argent forthcoming; Brandt 2004; Smuts 2008) and the close interactions and lengthy timeframe necessitated by schooling for riding both allow and encourage intersubjective communication, empathy and cooperation between the two, through which deep bonds can form. Working riders regularly refer to a horse of a lifetime, reecting such bonds from the human side. An anthropocentric analysis would stop here. But I would like to also venture that these factors can been seen from the horses side: that humans can gure in horses lives in similar ways. Because horses form enduring relationships with only a few individuals in their lives, and can bond with other species, they can and do bond deeply with specic people; horses, too, can choose particular people as their person of a lifetime. With such a bond, horses can show a protective, possessive attitude toward the rider which would motivate them in battle to think well and bravely (Hearne 1997: 149). Ancient authors refer to precisely such bonds between great warriors, like Alexander the Great, and his named horse-companion, Bucephalus (Schwabe 1994: 50; see also Ko u c mkulk z , 2007 on named horse-heroes in Kyrgyz epics). Before meeting Alexander, Bucephalus was considered erce and unmanageable, allowing no one to ride him. Through Alexanders understanding of him as an individual, he became a valued battle partner, a horse of a lifetime. Bucephalus died in battle after sustaining multiple spear wounds: but though at the point of death, and almost drained of blood, he turned, carried the king with a bold dash from the very midst of the foe, and then and there fell down, breathing his last tranquilly now that his master was safe, and as comforted by it as if he had had the feelings of a human being. (Morgan, in Xenophon 2002 [1894]: 105) There are several ways to interpret this narrative. The traditional view might consider that the tellers of this tale merely witnessed an event and anthropomorphized Bucephalus actions. From a strictly behavioristic, ethological perspective, it could be said that within an equine band the lead individuals responsibility is to assess any dangerous situation and take the others away from danger. Conversely and considering the relational model I have proposed, Bucephalus actions could be explained as one bonded friend using his own agency, mind and body taking care of another the best way he understood. Looking deeper into this anecdote, within the context of its telling it is apparent that it was written by and told to people who believed that horses possessed not only the agency to act, but also courage and altruism. Quite possibly, though, it is many of these things and more it is a powerful story, which transcends time and culture, of a horse who indeed thought well and bravely. These examples show that in some past, and other, societies perceptions of horse-human bonds were qualitatively dierent from, and do not t within, the dominated-horse model.

Do the clothes make the horse?

163

I now turn to how these understandings might fruitfully be applied to archaeological material.

The Pazyryk human-horse burials Part of a broader complex, Pazyryk Kurgan 1 sits on a high mountain plateau in the Altai Mountains of Southern Siberia, and is dated to between c. 350 BCE and 250 BCE (Mallory et al. 2002; Vasiliev et al. 2001). The Pazyryk excavations (Gryaznov 1950, 1969; Rudenko 1970 [1953]) yielded a wealth of artifacts, including the well-preserved bodies and clothing of those buried; they were not decayed but preserved in permafrost. Buried with the man in Kurgan 1 were ten elaborately costumed horses each decorated dierently and with iconography on the saddle and bridle of each horse containing consistently represented motifs. In keeping with the traditional anthropocentric archaeological focus, prior studies of Inner Asian Iron Age horses have viewed them as functional objects, symbolic objects or proxies for attributes of human subjects (e.g. Anthony and Brown 2000; Francfort et al. 2006; Hanks 2003; Hiebert 1992; Kuzmina 2006; Levine 1998; Levine et al. 2003; Mallory 1981; Olsen et al. 2006; Polosmak 1994a, 1994b; Samashev et al. 2000). Explanations for the variability in outts from horse to horse and the iconographic consistency of each horses costume have followed suit. One hypothesis is that the horses were gifts from allies or subordinates brought to be sacriced at the rulers funeral (Francfort et al. 2006: 122 3). Each horse was decorated dierently because each was burial tribute from people of dierent tribal aliations, all part of a larger confederacy beholden in some manner to the deceased (Francfort et al. 2006: 123). Alternatively, the presence and decoration of the horses in the burials has been argued to indicate the social importance of the humans with whom they were buried: their presence and adornment indicated or dierentiated the roles, statuses or prestige of the interred humans (Belenitskiy 1978: 378; Hiebert 1992: 124; Rudenko 1970 [1953]). I propose a dierent interpretation. The special cultural complex of the Altai-Sayan mountains was dened by common geographical and ecological conditions and included an economy which consisted of hunting, gathering, shing and horse breeding (Seleznev 2005). It is assumed that, where possible, horses were used to help accomplish these activities. Further, several pieces of evidence point to the fact that at least some of the horses were ridden in battle. These include that they were honourably killed with a military weapon, the battle-axe Gryaznov (1969: 155), that some horses were buried with shields as a part of their trappings and that some humans interred within the complex died of battle wounds. That they were so used implies many years of schooling, over which a particular form of relationship between the horse and the rider developed, one which required the highest degree of mutual trust, understanding and responsiveness (Littauer 1934; McTaggart c. 1913). If, at a very practical level, working riders like myself must necessarily view horses as individuals in order to deal with them safely, might not the people of Pazyryk who apparently rode their horses in various dangerous situations have viewed them in a similar manner? These people knew the biographies of these horses. These people and

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

164

Gala Argent

these horses necessarily knew each other, intersubjectively. If we accept that this might be the case and view the horses not as objects but as individuals with whom the Pazyrykers shared their community, how might the wide variation in their costumes be explained dierently?

The Pazyryk horse costumes: does the horse make the clothes? I have ordered the ten horses from Pazyryk Kurgan 1 according to increasing levels of complexity of patterning the type, size and elaborateness of their decorations (Table 1). When organized this way, another pattern can be noted: there is a correlation between costume complexity and a general trend upwards in age. This correlation suggests a logical continuum of training wherein the horse is entrusted with riskier activities as his level of schooling, reliability and trustworthiness are proven. It is possible to suggest that the increasing saddle complexity, relating as it does to the age of the horse, refers to divisions of labor, to the type of activity for which the horse was used: its role within the community, based upon its level of training. The outts can be further dierentiated as follows: set one: the saddles with leather fringe (Fig. 1: horses 14); set two: the saddles with short felt pendants (Fig. 2: horses 58); and set three: the very elaborate costumes of the masked horses (Fig. 3: horses 910). The set one horses, aged 1011, wear saddles with a simple fringe hanging down to about the horses underline. Considering the mountain taiga environment, the fringe on this set would not entangle in brush or tree branches. All of these saddle seats are decorated with iconography. Based upon these elements, these could belong to predator/prey applique hunting horses, those with a moderate amount of schooling and considerable reliability. The set two horses, aged 917, all have short felt pendants which hang above or slightly s on below the horses underline. Two of the saddles (5 and 8) have predator/prey applique the saddle seats similar to those of the fringed saddles, and shields were associated with these two horses. Of the three shields, two are associated with this set. (That the third is associated with horse 4 also argues for a continuum of training; the sets to some degree blend.) Human heads decorated with horse hair hang down from the saddle pendants of horse 5, one of only two representations of humans found in the kurgan. This set of saddles could be for war use, where the iconography and pendants presented a fearsome sight to the enemy. If ridden and schooled regularly, horses in this age range would have developed the dependability necessary for the dangers of battle. The set three horses, aged 18 and 20, are elaborately caparisoned with headdresses and longer pendants. These outts, although well-used and in some places mended, are impractical for everyday use. The saddle pendants of horse 10 hang low and would catch and tear if worn in any but open vegetation. These outts were probably reserved for ceremonial use and, due to their being well-worn, such use was common. These horses would have had the most schooling, including special gentle training to desensitize the ight response that such unnatural, heavy, cumbersome and vision-restricting outts would engender. The mere fact of these outts discounts a domination-through-pain relationship because they imply that these horses trusted their people: a frightened horse cannot be bullied out of its fear; an unschooled horse cannot be wrestled into a valuable

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Table 1 Horses of Pazyryk Kurgan 1, ranked by complexity of outt

Horse Fringe Fringe Fringe Fringe Pendants Pendants Pendants Pendants Pendants (human heads) 12 (ram heads) 8 (sh/ram heads) 4 (ram heads) 6 (sh) 12 Yes Lion, full body (2) Pendants (lion heads/legs) 4 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lion attacking ram (2) Lion attacking mountain sheep (2) Grin and lion ghting (2) Lion attacking elk (2) Eagle attacking moose (2) Ram heads (8) Lion heads (4) Lion attacking horned sheep (2) Lion attacking moose (2) No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No

Age

Hanging elements (motif)

Rear fringe

Seat motif

Shield

Headdress (motif)

Tail Braided Tied Tied Braided Loose? Tied Tied Tied Covered Covered

Mane None None None None None None None None Covered Covered

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(1G/7R) (1G/7R) (6G/8R) (4G/4R) (7G/1R) (8G/10R) (9G/6R) (3G/2R) (5G/3R)

1011 No age 10 No age 9 17 1617 No age 18

10 (10G/5R)

20

No No No No No No No No Yes (grin, lion, wings) Yes (antlers, leopard)

Do the clothes make the horse?

Note Numbers in parentheses in Horse column refer to the numbering systems of M. Gryaznov (1950) and S. Rudenko (1970 [1953]).

165

166

Gala Argent

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Figure 1 Horses #14 of Pazzyrk Kurgan 1, as numbered by author (after Gryaznov 1950 and Rolle 1980).

costume. These horses were retired veterans, entrusted now to carry their elaborate and signicant outts. When viewed this way, rather than as having been brought as funeral gifts from various sub-communities, the ten horses can be seen as the horses of this one man; a band with varying degrees of schooling, a work in progress which shows a training regimen whereby successful co-action with people is acknowledged and rewarded with increasing responsibility and represented by increasing decoration. To take this one step further, in addition to the saddles reecting the horses roles within the human-horse community, rather than indicating the identities and statuses of humans with whom the horses were interred, the costumes might be seen to reect the activities, abilities and accomplishments the statuses and identities of the horses themselves. Here, iconographic variation within the costume set could relate to attributes of individual horses: this horse with the rams on his saddle is strong and eet like a ram (horse 6); this

Do the clothes make the horse?

167

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Figure 2 Horses #58 of Pazzyrk Kurgan 1, as numbered by author (after Gryaznov 1950 and Rolle 1980).

horse with the human heads as decorations helped slay many enemies (horse 5). This is not to suggest that the decorations and iconography did not also contain elements related to the persons status and accomplishments, or to the horse-rider pair, or to other meanings entirely, but to open the door for alternative interpretations of these as the only meanings. on his saddle seat, and the four Viewing horse 10 more closely, there is a feline applique pendants which drape more than halfway down the length of the horses legs each culminate in a felines head, with hair attached as if a mane. Stepping back from the ne detail on the saddle, an additional perception becomes apparent: the entire saddle-andpendant composition appears as if a deceased large feline were being carried home by this horse. The detail of the lions heads at the bottom of the pendants is lost, and they appear as legs with feet. This awareness is conveyed through the size and proportion of the

168

Gala Argent

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Figure 3 Horses #910 of Pazzyrk Kurgan 1, as numbered by author (after Gryaznov 1950 and Rolle 1980).

arrangement, and also through the manner in which a horse could be understood to carry such a heavy and large animal. Further, this horse wears a headdress showing a blue fur leopard with gold spots, its head on the horses forehead, front legs wrapped around the eyes, back legs around the horses nostrils. The elements of this outt, taken together, could be seen as metaphorically reective of this horses courage in a successful encounter with a large feline. This special horse was exceptionally brave because he faced down and carried home such a cat. This latter would be an extraordinary feat, as large cats are horses only true predators; fear of them is hard-wired still today after millennia of domestication. This courageous horse would have been one on whom high honor was bestowed. Over many years, his person

Do the clothes make the horse?

169

entrusted his body to him in dangers, and he rose to the responsibility. He acted bravely in is own right and for this, through his trustworthiness, he climbed the ladder of status within the co-created community. Now, he wears the symbols of his actions. Such a view is supported by the manner in which we award achievement today, which does not dier signicantly between humans and equines. Examples include Girl or Boy Scout badges representing accomplishments; the military commanders medals worn on the coat; the ribbons placed upon the show horses bridle after his win, colors symbolically reecting judged ability; and the wreath of roses the race winner wears. Further, the more accomplishments one has, the more, and more complex, medals one acquires. That particular images or decorations might have held signicance based upon the abilities, accomplishments or activities of the horses is also informed by ethnographic analogy from other communities who used horses in battle, the Native peoples of North America. Within these cultures, warhorses were richly costumed for both battle and ritual (Horse Capture and Her Many Horses 2006). Among the Plains tribes, horses, in addition to warriors, were awarded coups for bravery in battle, and were marked through material adornments and body painting. Before leaving this discussion of complexity, roles and statuses, and lest we myopically view these aspects as the only things worth looking at as many archaeologies with Marxist, functionalist or domination-through-pain slants do I want to tie back for a moment to the notion of intersubjective relationships. Working riders necessarily know that horses vary widely in psychological traits such as volatility, patience, work ethic, sensitivity and emotionality. They refer to particular horses as honest, stoical or stalwart (and, so as not to mislead about their nature, certainly also possibly as sullen, stubborn or crabby), and other riders know exactly what they mean. Yet to write of this academically, I feel compelled to put such terms in scare quotes. Riders understand horses this way not out of misguided logic or intellectual naivety about the perceived dangers of anthropomorphism. They do so because having been carried by them, having necessarily understood them as other beings, not as objects or academic constructs it is the only way to do so that truly makes any sense at all (cf. Hearne 2007). Viewing the Pazyryk horses biographically, as individuals, has allowed alternative interpretations to explain the variability of their outts. Each of these horses was a unique being these people knew over the course of many years of working together. Human-human interpersonal relationships are distinguished by uniqueness, irreplaceability and interdependence (Adler et al. 2003: 1415), as are the relationships that develop between rider and ridden horse. For humans, longer-term relationships involve greater empathy and emotional investment, and it is not out of line to suggest that the older, more-adorned horses were not simply more valued because of functional and economic considerations. Under a working-rider view, they would also hold more worth because of the quality of the developed bond between the horses and the riders. Indeed, it is depth of trust and understanding, shared experiences and personal histories that cause us to feel our long-term relationships are stronger, more expansive and more impressive than those with others we know only supercially. They are worth more. An approach focused upon relationality whether considering human-human or human-animal interactions and social structures allows for a fuller understanding of the importance of our connections to others in both past and present societies. Approaching this archaeologically visible material with a clearer understanding of horses themselves,

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

170

Gala Argent

and how they come to connect with the people who ride them, allows for consideration of them as subjects. This alternative lens shows that the Pazyrykers relationships with these horses clearly fall outside the domination model; the lives of these people and these horses were interdependent, and there is nothing to suggest they were cruelly treated in life. Within this blended and co-created social landscape, horses were perceived as dierentlyabled subjects with whom the Pazyrykers partnered for projects, with at least to some degree roles and statuses of their own. In scenes both daily and epic, these horses were more than mere props supporting the human storyline. They were key actors.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Kristin Armstrong Oma for her feedback on this piece, and for her ongoing support and encouragement. I am also grateful for valuable comments on the original version of this paper following the WAC-6 conference in Dublin, Ireland, particularly those from Marcus Brittain. 350 Cherry Ave., Auburn, CA 95603, USA gala@me.com

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Notes 1 With a nod to American humorist Mark Twain: Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no inuence on society. 2 Xenophon (c. 430335 BCE), a Greek who wrote the rst known text on the ridden horse, The Art of Horsemanship, encouraged mutual respect between riders and horses. References
Adler, R. B., Rosenfeld, L. B. and Proctor, R. F. 2003. Interplay: The Process of Interpersonal Communication. New York: Oxford University Press. Anthony, D. W. and Brown, D. R. 2000. Eneolithic horse exploitation in the Eurasian steppes: diet, ritual and riding. Antiquity, 74, 7586. Argent, G. (forthcoming). Toward a privileging of the nonverbal: communication, corporeal synchrony and transcendence in humans and horses. In Experiencing Animals: Encounters between Animal and Human Minds (eds J. A. Smith and R. W. Mitchell). Baker, C. M. A and Manwell, C. 1983. Man and elephant: the dare theory of domestication and the origin of breeds. Zeitschrift fur Teirznuchtung und Zuchtgsbiologie, 100: 5575. Beko, M. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals. Novato, CA: New World Library. Belenitskiy, A. M. 1978. I Ideologicheskikh Predstavleniyakh Narodov Srednei Azii i Evraziiskikh Stepei v Drevnosti i Rannem Srednevekovy (From ancient times to the Middle Ages: the role of the horse in cults and beliefs of the peoples of Central Asia and the Steppes of Eurasia). In Rannie Kochevniki: Sbornik Nauchnykh Statei (Early Nomads: A Collection of Scholarly Articles and Short Reports). Moscow: Nauka, pp. 318 (in Russian).

Do the clothes make the horse?

171

Birke, L., Bryld, M. and Lykke, N. 2004. Animal performances: an exploration of intersections between feminist science studies and studies of human/animal relationships. Feminist Theory, 5(2): 16783. Boyd, L. and Keiper, R. 2005. Behavioural ecology of feral horses. In The Domestic Horse: The Evolution, Development and Management of its Behaviour (eds D. S. Mills and S. M. McDonnell). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5582. Brandt, K. 2004. A language of their own: an interactionist approach to human-horse communication. Society & Animals, 12(4): 299316. Brown, S-E. 2007. Companion animals as selfobjects. Anthrozoos, 20(4): 32943. Brownrigg, G. 2006. Horse control and the bit. In Horses and Humans: The Evolution of HumanEquine Relationships (eds S. L. Olsen, S. Grant, A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz). Oxford: BAR International Series 1560, pp. 16572. Bru ck, J. 2004. Material metaphors: the relational construction of identity in Early Bronze Age burials in Ireland and Britain. Journal of Social Archaeology, 4(3): 30733. Budiansky, S. 1992. The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Cassidy, R. 2007. Introduction: domestication reconsidered. In Where the Wild Things Are Now (eds R. Cassidy and M. Mullin). Oxford: Berg, pp. 125. Cassidy, R. and Mullin, M. (eds) 2007. Where the Wild Things Are Now: Domestication Reconsidered. Oxford: Berg. Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. 2001. Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. van Dierendonck, M. C. and Goodwin, D. 2006. Social contact in horses: implications for humanhorse interactions. In The Importance of Social Relationships in Horses (ed. M. C. van Dierendonck). Proefschrift Universitat Utrecht, pp. 2844. Dietz, U. L. 2003. Horseback riding: mans access to speed? In Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse (eds M. A. Levine, C. Renfrew and K. Boyle). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 18999. Drews, R. 2004. Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe. New York and London: Routledge. Ewers, J. C. 1955. The Horse in Blackfoot Indian Culture: With Comparative Material from Other Western Tribes. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 159. Fey, C. 2005. Relationship and communication in socially natural horse herds. In The Domestic Horse: The Evolution, Development and Management of its Behaviour (eds D. S. Mills and S. M. McDonnell). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8393. Francfort, H.-P., Ligabue, G. and Samashev, Z. 2006. The gold of the grins: recent excavation of a frozen tomb in Kazakhstan. In The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Perspectives on the Steppe Nomads of the Ancient World (eds J. Aruz, A. Farkas and E. Valtz Fino). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia. Game, A. 2001. Riding: embodying the centaur. Body & Society, 7(4): 112. Godfrey, J. F. 1979. How Horses Learn: Equine Psychology Applied to Training. Lincoln, NE: Authors Guild. Gove, P. P. (ed.) 2002. Websters Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged. Springeld, MA: Merriam-Webster. Grin, E. 2002. A First Look at Communication Theory, 5th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

172

Gala Argent

Gryaznov, M. P. 1950. Pervyi Pazyrykskii Kurgan (First Pazyryk Kurgan). St. Petersburg: Hermitage (in Russian). Gryaznov, M. P. 1969. The Ancient Civilization of Southern Siberia (trans. J. Hogarth). Geneva: Nagel. Hanks, B. K. 2003. Human-animal relationships in the Eurasian steppe Iron Age: an exploration into social, economic and ideological change. PhD diss., University of Cambridge. Haraway, D. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Hearne, V. 2007. Adams Task: Calling Animals by Name. New York: Skyhorse. Hiebert, F. T. 1992. Pazyryk chronology and early horse nomads reconsidered. Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 6: 11729. Horse Capture, G. and Her Many Horses, E. 2006. A Song for the Horse Nation: Horses in Native American Culture. Washington, DC: Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian. Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London and New York: Routledge. Jones, A. and Richards, C. 2003. Animals into ancestors: domestication, food and identity in Late Neolithic Orkney. In Food, Culture and Identity in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age (ed. M. Parker Pearson). Oxford: BAR International Series 1117, pp. 4551. Kalof, L. and Fitzgerald, A. 2007. The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings. Oxford and New York: Berg. Kelch, T. G. 2007. Toward a non-property status for animals. In The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics (eds J. Donovan and C. J. Adams). New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 230 49. Kennedy, G. A. 1998. Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Knight, J. (ed.) 2005. Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Intimacy. Oxford: Berg. Ko u c mkulk z , E. (trans.) 2007. The Kyrgyz Epic Manas. Available at: http://www.silkroadfounda tion.org/toc/index.html (accessed 3 January 2007). Kuzmina, E. E. 2006. Mythological treatment of the horse in Indo-European culture. In Horses and Humans: The Evolution of Human-Equine Relationships (eds S. L. Olsen, S. Grant, A. M. Choyke and L Bartosiewicz). Oxford: BAR International Series 1560, pp. 26370. Lawrence, E. A. 1984. Human relationships with horses. In The Pet Connection (eds R. K. Anderson, B. L. Hart and L. A. Hart). Minneapolis, MN: Center to Study Human-Animal Relationships and Environments, University of Minnesota, pp. 3843. Levine, M. A. 1998. Eating horses: the evolutionary signicance of hippophagy. Antiquity, 72(275): 90. Levine, M. A., Renfrew, C. and Boyle, K. (eds) 2003. Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Littauer, Capt. V. S. 1934. Modern Horsemanship for Beginners. Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing. Mallory, J. P. 1981. The ritual treatment of the horse in early kurgan tradition. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies, 9: 20526. Mallory, J. P., McCormac, F. G., Reimer, P. J. and Marsadolov, L. S. 2002. The date of Pazyryk. In Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia (eds K. Boyle, C. Renfrew and M. Levine). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 199211.

Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Do the clothes make the horse?

173

McGreevy, P. and McLean, A. 2005. Behavioral problems with the ridden horse. In The Domestic Horse: The Evolution, Development and Management of Its Behaviour (eds D. S. Mills and S. M. McDonnell). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 196211. McTaggart, Lieut. Col. M. F. c. 1913 (no date). Hints on Horsemanship. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott. Morris, D. 1988. Horsewatching. New York: Crown. OConnor, T. P. 1997. Working at relationships: another look at animal domestication. Antiquity, 71: 14956. Olsen, S. L., Grant, S., Choyke, A. M. and Bartosiewicz, L. (eds) 2006. Horses and Humans: The Evolution of Human-Equine Relationships. Oxford: BAR International Series 1560. Oma, K. A. 2007. Horses in Scandinavia 500 BC1000 AD: enduring structures, symbols of transformation, and mutual becomings. Paper given at Nordic Theoretical Archaeology Group conference. Aarhus, Denmark. Oma, K. A. 2010. Between trust and domination: social contracts between humans and animals. World Archaeology, 42(2): 17587.
Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

Polosmak, N. V. 1994a. A mummy unearthed from the pastures of heaven. National Geographic, 186(4): 80103. Polosmak, N. V. 1994b. Stereguschie zoloto grify (Grins watching over gold). Novosibirsk: Eastern Department of Nauka (in Russian). Ray, K. and Thomas, J. 2003. In the kinship of cows: the social centrality of cattle in the earlier Neolithic of southern Britain. In Food, Culture and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (ed. M. Parker Pearson). Oxford: BAR International Series 1117, pp. 3744. Reed, E. S. 1988. The aordances of the animate environment: social science from the ecological point of view. In What is an Animal? (ed. T. Ingold). London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 11026. Rolle, R. 1980. The World of the Scythians. Munich and Lucerne: Verlag C. J. Bucher. Rudenko, S. I. 1970 [1953]. Frozen Tombs of Siberia: The Pazyryk Burials of Iron-Age Horsemen (trans. M. W. Thompson). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Russell, N. 2002. The wild side of animal domestication. Society and Animals, 10(3): 285 302. Samashev, Z., Bazarbaeva, G., Zhumabekova, G. and Sungatai, S. 2000. Berel. Almaty: O.F. Berel. Schutz, W. C. 1966. Interpersonal Underworld: A Reprint Edition of FIRO, A Three-dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Schwabe, C. W. 1994. Animals in the ancient world. In Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives (eds A. Manning and J. Serpell). London: Routledge, pp. 3658. Seleznev, A. 2005. Nomads versus Forest People in the Altai-Sayan. Paper given at European Society for Central Asian Studies Ninth Conference on Central Asia, Krakov, Poland. Shapiro, K. J. 2008. Human-Animal Studies: Growing the Field, Applying the Field. Ann Arbor, MI: Animals & Society Institute. Sharpe, L. 2005. Creatures Like Us? A Relational Approach to the Moral Status of Animals. Exeter: Imprint Academic. nsdo ttir, H., van Dierendock, M. C. and Tho rhallsdo ttir, A. G. 2002. Friendship among Sigurjo horses: rank and kinship matter. Havemeyer Foundation workshop on horse behavior. Available at: http://www3.vet.upenn.edu/labs/equinebehavior//hvnwkshp/hv02/hv02auth.htm (accessed 10 November 2006).

174

Gala Argent

Smuts, B. 2008. Embodied communication in nonhuman animals. In Human Development in the 21st Century: Visionary Ideas from Systems Scientists (eds A. Fogel, B. King and S. Shanker). Toronto: Council on Human Development, pp. 13646. Tani, Y. 1996. Domestic animal as serf: ideologies of nature in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. In Redening Nature: Ecology, Culture and Domestication (eds R. Ellen and K. Fukui). Oxford: Berg, pp. 387416. Tarlow, S. 1999. Bereavement and Commemoration: An Archaeology of Mortality. Oxford: Blackwell. Tarlow, S. 2000. Emotion in archaeology. Current Anthropology, 41(5): 71346. Tuan, Y.-F. 1984. Dominance and Aection: The Making of Pets. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Vasiliev, S. S., Bokovenko, N. A., Chugunov, K. S., Dergachev, V. A., Sementsov, A. A., Sljusarenko, J. U. and Zaitseva, G. I. 2001. Tree rings, wiggle matching and statistics of Scythian Age sites in Asia. Geochronometria, 20: 618. Vitebsky, P. 2005. The Reindeer People: Living with Animals and Spirits in Siberia. Boston, MA: Houghton Miin.
Downloaded By: [Argent, Gala] At: 15:27 5 May 2010

de Waal, F. B. M. 1996. Good Natured: The Origin of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Xenophon 2002 [1894]. The Art of Horsemanship (trans. M. H. Morgan). London: J. A. Allen.

Gala Argent is a PhD candidate at the School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, UK, where her work concerns theorizing the means by which we might model human-animal communication and relationships in order to access such interactions within the archaeological record, and how inter-species relationships can be seen to contribute to issues of individual and group identities. She currently lives in California, USA, where she shares space and lives with, among others, horses and the occasional bear who raids the refrigerator at night.