Did Bronze Age Men Have a Beef With Mares?
scientists are becoming so blinded by ideology that, too often, they have stopped asking practical questions
Not long after Bronze Age Eurasians developed equestrian culture, they also began selectively breeding horses to better suit its needs, and the pragmatism of serviceability in the field necessarily took over. Used in travel, herding, and perhaps most importantly for warfare, the horse became central to Eurasian cultures. Like all aspects of warfare, there may be an element of manliness bound up with traditional notions of horsemanship. However, was this the driving force behind the stockbreeding and management choices ancient people made with regard to their herds? Was it the driving force behind their symbolic, religious, and ritual relationship with these animals? Or do we need to develop a deeper, more nuanced understanding of ancient peoples and their motivations, free from the imposition of modern values?
According to a recent paper published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, “Horse males became over-represented in archaeological assemblages during the Bronze Age.” Analysis of 268 genetic samples of horses from across Eurasia ranging from the Upper Paleolithic to the Middle Bronze Age led the authors to conclude:
The time period around ~3900 years ago marked a drastic shift in male:female sex ratios inferred from excavated remains, after which the horse osteological record comprises approximately four males for every female (Fig. 2). This over-representation of horse males was maintained when disregarding those animals excavated from ritual burial sites (77/25 ~ 3.08 males for every female) and even more pronounced in the animal bones found in funerary contexts (66/14 ~ 4.71 males for every female). This indicates that the status of male and female horses dramatically changed during the Bronze Age period. This is in line with archaeozoological evidence from the Late Bronze Age cemeteries of the Volga-Ural region associated with the Sintashta [earliest evidence of chariots], Potapovka and Petrovka cultures [all three are related cultures representing the probably originators of Indo-Iranian languages], that suggest a domination of male horses in funerary rates (Kosintsev, 2010). Interestingly, this pattern somehow mirrors that observed in humans, for whom a clear binary gender structure ubiquitous across all funerary practices, clothing, personal ornaments and representations is not observed during the Neolithic but became the norm from the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age onwards (Robb and Harris, 2018). In addition, the prevalence of male horses in funerary contexts throughout the past three millennia is in line with archaeological evidence from burial sites (Bertašius and Daugnora, 2001, Taylor, 2017) and suggests that stallions (or geldings) were more prized for sacrificial rituals. This is possibly due to symbolic attributes then-associated with masculinity, mounted warriors and chariotry, such as power, protection and strength (Frie, 2018). In particular, petroglyph images associated with vehicles, characterized by two wheels with spokes, became typical by the late third – early second millennium BCE (Jacobson-Tepfer, 2012). They are generally associated with male warriors and the emergence of mobile warfare (Anthony, 2007) or ritual needs, in particular the passage to the after-life land (Jones-Bley, 2000). This suggests an essential ideological role of stallions and their use in elite warfare and ritual practices (Drews, 2004, Kelekna, 2009, Novozhenov and Rogozhonskiy, 2019). [emphasis added]
There is so much to unpack in this single paragraph.
This indicates that the status of male and female horses dramatically changed during the Bronze Age period.
Given that we can’t know what the respective status of male and female horses was prior to this period, should we immediately assume that it was the status of male horses that changed, or rather that practical considerations intervened in the selection, breeding, and distribution of the respective sexes that necessitated innovative management practices? Or perhaps both informing one another: a proven and pragmatic system created a ritual and symbolic system that then helped perpetuate and sustain itself indefinitely among the people.
for whom a clear binary gender structure ubiquitous across all funerary practices, clothing, personal ornaments and representations is not observed during the Neolithic but became the norm from the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age onwards (Robb and Harris, 2018)
Gender differentiation was clearly present during and before the Neolithic in items such as clothing, personal ornaments and representations, where they exist, as well as in societal roles including divisions of labor. Funerary representation may be lacking generally because of the apparent nature of funerary beliefs about “taking it with you” and what items actually accompanied the deceased into the grave during this period. However, the Neolithic revolution was the beginning of widespread agriculture and settled life, with increased differentiation and specialization on nearly all fronts. The Neolithic heralds the beginning of this starker differentiation, which the Bronze and Iron Ages intensify. To pretend otherwise is to engage in a utopian fantasy. However, differentiation does not automatically indicate “inequality.” Each member of the society may have contributed differently but in a uniquely valued capacity.
During the formative Bronze Age period, the domestication of and symbiosis with the horse led to the formation of an equestrian class of mounted and chariot-riding warriors whose power, prestige, and array of social norms and expectations became intimately bound up with the art of horsemanship. There are several aspects of this to explore, but the least and shallowest of them is the alleged inherent bias of males toward other male things the authors of this study project onto prehistoric ancient peoples. The “we assume men prefer stallions because they have the same dangly bits” argument is unscientific at best and juvenile at worst, not to mention it conveniently sidesteps the foundational Indo-European tradition of myth and ritual that honors mare-goddesses as representations of kingly sovereignty, bestowers of abundance, and progenitors of heroes, among other exalted attributes. So, we don’t have to assume that the ancient Eurasians engaged in the same dualistic antagonism between the sexes we perpetuate today (and which are largely influenced by Near Eastern traditions.) There are reasons to believe men chose male horses for riding, just not those reasons.
To begin with, mares and stallions do behave very differently, despite the paper linked by the sloppy Science article, which firstly references geldings and mares—not stallions—and secondly deals in circumstantial evidence (I greatly value lived experience and observation, but an assembly of random horsemen’s opinions is not a scientific study of horses but of their handlers.) In case anyone is unfamiliar with these terms, a gelding is a castrated male horse, a stallion is an unaltered or “entire” male horse, and a mare is an unaltered female horse. Male horses are castrated to make them more docile and manageable as well as to prevent unwanted breeding in mixed herds and ordinary stable environments, as stallions require additional management protocols to keep them from breeding with mares—or aggressively trying to. It should be remembered that modern horses have been selectively bred, not just for athletic ability, but for temperament, and today’s stallions are far more gentle than their ancestors from millennia ago. Even so, a powerful or athletic stallion can break down or jump over a paddock fence or even a stall wall when properly motivated. At horse shows, stallions often have something like Vics VapoRub put in their nostrils so they can’t easily smell mares in heat, which would make them at best lose focus and at worst become uncontrollable maniacs. I have seen normally docile stallions ignore their riders and mount unsuspecting mares whose own riders were still sitting on them! An angry or frightened stallion can attack after a rider has been thrown to the ground. Often today, stallions and mares are segregated in separate barns, though some well-behaved stallions can be kept in the same stable with mares if managed carefully (I have kept stallions before without incident, though I have also seen failed attempts at management at other barns.) Very often mares are artificially inseminated, partially for the convenience and partially to avoid injury to both horses and their handlers. A stallion can even be inappropriate with a human female. If you have ever had a dog hump your leg, imagine if that dog weighed 1,200 lbs. However, so long as there are no mares around, well-trained stallions generally avoid fighting, and are consistent in their behavior, as is perhaps best evidenced by the Lipizzaners of the Spanish Riding School in Vienna, whose training facility houses over 80 stallions.
But it will be noticed that the Spanish Riding School does not mingle mares with these stallions. Is it gender bias that enforces this policy? Maybe a little. There has developed a tradition of knights and soldiers preferring the powerful, virile symbol of a stallion to augment their own masculine image, along with a myth that the stallion’s fiery temperament and combative nature can be an asset on the battlefield—though more likely it can prove a disaster when one just needs a horse to steadily follow commands. Either way, the last thing one needs is a stallion—or group of stallions—distracted by mares. Focus like that achieved by the Lipizzaner stallions would be impossible in the presence of mares. If all or even a few of the horses kept in herds or trained for purposes of war by the Bronze Age men referenced in the paper were entire, mixing regularly cycling mares in among them would have been suicidal. A successful cavalry would necessarily have to be composed of a single sex of either all stallions, all unbred mares, or one of the above mixed with geldings. Anything else would have been a logistical nightmare.
Furthermore, mares are slightly different animals to work with and ride. They are generally sensitive, careful, and defensive—they don’t respond well to being bullied (nor should they). Many mares require a light touch, a more patient approach, and cannot “take a joke”, i.e. will not tolerate a rough or clumsy hand or clashing aids. This does not make them better or worse than stallions or geldings, just different, and not suitable for every rider, particularly some beginners or the heavy-handed. Exceptions exist, and one of the first horses I learned to ride on was a mare who knew her job inside and out, and took care of me despite what were probably countless rude mistakes. Which is another feature of many mares: they can be protective of their riders, especially children. Horses are all individual, but pretending mares and stallions are equal and interchangeable is false, in the same way as pretending stallions and geldings are the same. There have, over time, been countless fine examples of excellent show and sport mares—and even warhorses—and their ability to hold their own and even outcompete their male counterparts demonstrates that a mare can certainly be a reliable partner. However, for every success story of an exceptional mare, there are probably five stories of mares that no one would bother with. Whether because of poor training or poor attitude is irrelevant to the final result: these probably ended up as broodmares or worse.
Between spring and late fall, mares undergo a regular 22 day-long estrus cycle. For some of them, the heat phase is a mild inconvenience and for others it is a painful, mood-altering, back-sensitizing ordeal. And the last thing these poor animals want during these few days is someone climbing on their backs and yahooing around. So, yes, mares can have performance limitations. My mother’s mare becomes cold-backed (back-sore) and refuses to stand still at the mounting block during her heats. Since we ride for pleasure these days, we simply give her those days off rather than fight her when she’s clearly uncomfortable. Some owners resort to hormonal injections, but these were not a luxuries available in the Bronze Age.
That assumes, of course, that during the Bronze Age it would have been practical and even preferable to keep mares barren. As stated above, separating mares from stallions is an involved undertaking even in modern stabling facilities. On the open steppe or in the average unfenced communal pasture shared among early Bronze Age villagers, this would have been extremely difficult given the numbers of horses the society required for defense. Would it have been worth the effort to maintain an equal number of ridden mares alongside an equal number of ridden stallions? Or would they eventually have streamlined their management practices and picked the more reliable sex of the two as their primary riding partners—which may have had the added advantage of also being bigger, stronger, more reliable, and, I grant, symbols of virility—and kept only the necessary stock of mares aside for equally valuable breeding and possibly dairy and meat production?
Another disconnect between cause and effect emerges in the paper itself as the authors overlook the significance of the advent of horsemanship and the central religious, social, political, and economic role horses would hold within Indo-European cultures up to the modern era. They attribute these changes solely to the advent of bronze metallurgy (an improvement and expansion upon existing copper technology and employing much of the existing production and trade infrastructure) and not to the completely novel invention of spoked wheeled vehicles and the commencement of horse riding and driving and for herding, rapid long-distance travel, and combat, a technological and cultural revolution akin to the rise of agriculture:
This strongly suggests that the economic shifts associated with the early Bronze Age introduced a bias in the occurrence of males within horse osseous assemblages. Indeed, the adoption of Bronze metallurgy, as it necessitated work compartmentation and favoured the development of long-distance exchange of prestige goods, strongly contributed to the emergence of social stratification (Kristiansen and Rowlands, 2005), and hence to a social and symbolic distinction in the role of males and females in Eurasian cultures. [emphasis added]
In truth, we should be speaking of the Equine Age more so than the Bronze Age, as horse riding was the engine of more significant, rapid, and sustained cultural transformation and expansion across two continents than bronze. While bronze certainly contributed to economic shifts and social stratification associated with them, was it the primary cause of this stratification? This stratification already existed to some degree in the copper age—as it apparently did already in the Neolithic—and was only heightened—or even reordered entirely—by the implementation of a new, highly successful martial paradigm within the culture. One which allowed a pastoral people to not only protect their own herds and flocks, but to aggressively expand them and their pastures, ensuring their survival in a dangerous and precarious world.
Did they, as the authors suggest, mirror their horse husbandry after their “newly” male-dominated society in an “as above; so below” ideal of godlike patriarchy, recreating all aspects of their world in their own macho image? Or was it something less paranoid and more practical? It seems more likely that the peoples in question determined how many broodmares and foals they needed to sustain their herds, how many the pastures would support in addition to its cavalry mounts and other livestock, and culled or sold the rest. Unlike the earlier Botai people, they had likely begun selectively breeding their horses to purpose, and this required planning and tighter control over their herds. (And I do not agree with Anthony and Brown’s interpretation of wear patterns on teeth from Botai settlements, etc. as being indicative of “bit wear”, as I have witnessed firsthand how confined horses will pacify themselves by chewing all manner of inanimate and inedible objects, and there is no reason to believe in the absence of better evidence that these food animals were used for transportation, much less bitted.)
this pattern somehow mirrors that observed in humans
“Somehow.” The authors don’t define the way in which this alleged process is supposed to have taken place. We just have this supposed mirror image. If that is so, then perhaps the reverse can also be true, and what is taken for the effect might actually be the cause? Maybe it was not men imposing their hyper-masculine patriarchy upon horsedom that led to the over-representation of male horses in the archaeological record, but rather the practical necessity of segregating horses into male and female herds for the purpose of regulating their reproduction and sexuality that first led to the idea of establishing any kind of masculine-feminine dichotomy: war-horses and broodmares => warriors and women. Perhaps men modeled their new society, their new mode of existence, on that of the noble horse, rather than fashioning the horse’s on his. The horse, after all, was sacred, the progenitor of kings, the embodiment of sovereignty. Horses pulled the chariot of the sun across the sky, and only in the most holy rites was the horse permitted to be sacrificed. Etc. Bronze Age Eurasians’ survival depended upon the horse. If one had to choose a pattern to mirror, the totem of the sacred horse—the martial animal—would be an obvious one to emulate… Without evidence and in the face of only speculation, the reverse can also be true, can it not? Which is why it remains important for science to follow the evidence, not the ideology.
This is possibly due to symbolic attributes then-associated with masculinity, mounted warriors and chariotry, such as power, protection and strength
The study tracks the period when humans transition from hunting horses (already a male-dominated activity), to herding them for milk and meat, to the early and later phases of riding and driving which accompany the technological and cultural explosion of the first real horsemen, otherwise known as collectively as the Indo-Europeans, across Eurasia. This new riding and driving technology would have profound effects not only on the cultures it touched but on the way they organized their societies and resources, including the husbandry and distribution of the horses themselves, which had now become vital to their way of life. An entire complex of belief, ritual, art, knowledge, custom, status, and tradition would grow up around equestrianism, not because it was the province of men, but because it was vital to their societies’ survival. Those who provide necessities for the survival of the society will naturally grow in status and rise through the social hierarchy. Horsemen and horses were no different during this formative time in Eurasian history, but it is not yet clear that male horses were unduly revered by all of the society at the expense of mares, which had their place in the esteem of these cultures as well. Though certainly stallions (or geldings) were revered by the Bronze Age warriors who depended on them in battle and who chose to be buried beside them.
This was very informative. I really enjoy reading your newsletter alongside your fiction because it adds to it in a way. I also really like your perspective and find the points that you made in this post fascinating in comparison to the science article you quoted. I hadn’t known the difference between a stallion and a gelding. The idea that maybe we mirrored the dichotomy of horses was a new perspective. I have a knew respect for these majestic creatures!!
Also, did you watch the 148th (whichever was the most recent one) Kentucky Derby? My dad told me what happened and I thought it was something out of a movie!