Re: Possible Cavalry Harness(headpiece of horse)found!

[mcbishop]

That is one ugly piece of kit, but yes, it's what archaeologists tend to call a hackamore (but then get told off for) and which horsey folk then drift off into hours of circumlocution trying to say what it is or is not... so I still call them hackamores. The unique twist is the large winged pendant of a type I have come to associate with mounted Thracian units in Britain (or anywhere else, come to that). It's earlyish (Tiberio-Claudian probably), but I would have thought it would seriously upset the horse having that bouncing up and down on its nose.

So far as I know, it's the first time one of these large pendants has been found in the context of its parent piece of equipment, although we have at least one with the suspension loop still round the neck.

Mike Bishop

[Vindex]

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/carolem...905888359/

Scroll down to image 14. Cirencester Museum.

Being one of the circumlocution horsey types I'd say that this is unlikely to be a hackamore although it could very well be a different type of harness attachment.

As Mike says, you'd probably end up suffocating your horse, if it didn't buck you off first having those rivets in it's face. (Although possibly evidence to suggest that the nosebands were padded in some way.)

[mcbishop]

The Cirencester reconstruction assumes it's a breast pendant but there is no actual evidence for that assumption other than its size. The nature of the band and the position of the loops shows it is what has traditionally been called a hackamore. Still damned strange, though. Pendants may well have been backed, we don't know.

Mike Bishop

[Vindex]

The Cirencester reconstruction assumes it's a breast pendant but there is no actual evidence for that assumption other than its size. The nature of the band and the position of the loops shows it is what has traditionally been called a hackamore. Still damned strange, though. Pendants may well have been backed, we don't know.

Mike Bishop

Hmm...my page is cut off a bit, or are you refering to the jointed piece above the circular object? If so, that picture suggests it a finer piece that the one shown here without an attachment for the plate; and the practicalities surely preclude it from being so?

Edit:
[attachment]img-816130022-0001.pdf[/attachment]


There's supposed to be a pdf attached to this...forum doing wierd things tonight!

Let's not forget that the original description for the saddle stiffners found in Colchester were epaulettes!!!

[PhilusEstilius]

When we look at the upper most of the three rivets this one may well have held it onto a Leather Peytral or Breast Band of a horse, for it would not have been against the face of the animal.

[PhilusEstilius]

We are indeed going a bit off topic the subject is indeed the artifact however I would not say it is a hackamore, as I have mentioned earlier it looks to be the bronze decoration from a Peytral or Breast band.
It would have been backed by a broad sheet of leather around the chest of the horse where the huge bronze would have not been in contact with the skin of the animal.

[mcbishop]

We are indeed going a bit off topic the subject is indeed the artifact however I would not say it is a hackamore, as I have mentioned earlier it looks to be the bronze decoration from a Peytral or Breast band.

Well, I'm afraid I disagree. It is definitely part of what is usually termed a hackamore, although Ann Hyland would probably prefer psalion (here's a good one from the Bay of Naples). The diamond-shaped expansion from the centre of the nose band is readily apparent here and, indeed, on tombstones.

The best starting-point for hackamores is Annabel Taylor's (now Lawson's!) paper:

Taylor, A.K. 1975: 'Römische Hackamoren und Kappzäume aus Metall', Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 22, 106-33

In that she illustrates a piece from Valkenburg with similar rivet holes at the top and the bottom of the diamond (her Taf.63,4).

Additionally, I had earlier missed another rather important contribution this piece makes to the whole hackamore debate: the pendant suggests the loops go upwards -- towards the top of the horse's head -- and the lower band under the chin (as Littauer suggested; Taylor, followed by Hyland, preferred to see the loops go downward and the lower band under the jaw). This appears to be proof of the way it was worn!

Go on, Moi, you know you want to comment ;-)

Mike Bishop

[Virilis]

Here are the pics of the roman horse gear back for further discussion. The moderators reconsidered the forum rule #4 and decided it to be appropriate to put it back. Here you are :wink: :

Found in Southern part of the Reichswald Germany, about 60 cm depth. about 25 meters from the road Gennep-Kleef (Grunewaldstrasse)

Question is: Roman ? Cavalry ?

[Vindex]

Go on, Moi, you know you want to comment ;-)

Mike Bishop

Just found this and still thinking about it...but even if you turn the object upside down (which is what I assume you mean) to try and make it into a "hackamore" I'm not convinced that the width of the plate is directly proportional to the alleged width of the bit ie the muzzle would be very small and the plate very big; that is the curve of the "hackamore" is not reflected in the curve of the plate (I don't think the plate curves at all, actually)

The poor horse STILL has three nasty bits of metal work sticking in the most sensitive part of it's nose and although the cavalrymen are maligned with having severe bits for their horses, they are horsemen and one would suppose not that keen on damaging their fighting platform!

[PhilusEstilius]

Mike.

What you have shown is indeed a hackamore but the horse bronze plate that Moi has shown from the Cirencester is a chest plate horse bronze that would have been fitted to a Peytral very much the same as what we have here.