Published Catalogue Text: Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Bronzes at the Harvard Art Museums
Portraying a mouflon striding to the left along a groundline, this cheekpiece was intended for the proper left side of a horse’s mouth. Sculpted in the round, the mouflon’s head is turned to face the viewer. Its thick horizontally incised horns rest atop its erect ears. The rather naturalistic face has recessed bead eyes and a damaged muzzle. The plain, low body features modeled haunches and a short tail.
The center of the mouflon’s torso is punctuated by a bit hole (1.3 cm in diameter) that is circumscribed by a ridge. Loops emerge on the top edge of the rear haunch and from behind the head; two conical spikes also project from the concave reverse.
Cheek pieces are components of equestrian gear that were worn on either side of a horse’s mouth (1). They are identified by a central hole through which a bit would have been secured. Cheek straps would have passed through loops at the top, and spikes on the undecorated reverse would have helped control the horse by digging into its cheeks.
Cast zoomorphic cheek pieces may have adorned, protected, and goaded horses. However, it is not clear that this gear was used or if it served specifically as funerary adornment in horse burials, as grave goods in human burials, or as votive objects (2). Although many cheek pieces are attributed to Luristan, no elaborate figural examples come from archaeological contexts (3). Simpler cheek pieces and harness components, however, have been excavated at various first-millennium BCE Iranian sites, including Hasanlu, Giyan, and Sialk (4).
Luristan-style zoomorphic cheek pieces typically feature obverse relief depictions of an animal striding on a groundline facing the direction in which the horse itself would have advanced. Horses, mouflons, and griffins, among other creatures, are represented—variations in imagery may have reflected the identity of the horse or rider, as well as regional and temporal differences.
Because right and left cheek pieces were made from separate molds and no in situ examples have been excavated, it is problematic to attempt to reconstruct matched pairs. Among the abundant figural cheek pieces classified as Luristan are probable forgeries and aftercasts (5).
NOTES:
1. See P. R. S. Moorey, Catalogue of the Ancient Persian Bronzes in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1971) 106-107, nos. 116-27, pls. 16-21; O. W. Muscarella, Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, 1988) 155-64, nos. 250-56; and J. A. H. Potratz, Luristanbronzen: Die einstmalige Sammlung Professor Sarre, Berlin (Istanbul, 1968) 15-27, nos. 73-79, pls. 16-17.
2. See Muscarella 1988 (supra 1) 157.
3. See J. A. H. Potratz, Die Pferdetrensen des alten Orient, Analecta Orientalia 41 (Rome, 1966) 143-70.
4. See G. Conteneau and R. Ghirshman, Fouilles du Tépé-Giyan près de Néhavend, 1931 et 1932 (Paris, 1935) pl. 5, fig. 6; M. De Schauensee and R. H. Dyson, “Hasanlu Horse Trappings and Assyrian Reliefs,” in Essays on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson, eds. P. O. Harper and H. Pittman (New York, 1983) 59-77, esp. 64-68, figs. 7-9.b and 13-14; R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Sialk près de Kashan 1933, 1934, 1937 (Paris, 1939) 2: pl. 56; C. Goff, “Excavations at Baba Jan, 1967: Second Preliminary Report,” Iran 7 (1969): 115-30, esp. 123-26, figs. 6-7; and Muscarella 1988 (supra 1) 65-66 and 155-66, no. 94.
5. See Muscarella 1988 (supra 1) 161; and id., “An Aftercast of an Ancient Iranian Bronze,” Source 1.2 (1982): 6-9.
Amy Gansell
