Domestication of the horse received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
The conclusion ought to be that mankind early understood the importance of breeding good stallions since they can produce much more foals than a mare can.
How is this stallion producing foals without a mare? Clearly I'm missing something. Ubermonkey
I.e. a single stallion could fertilize many different mares, bearing offspring, while a single mare could not bear more foals during the time she is pregnant. Maybe it could be rewritten.
It seems to me that the idea that the use of a bit implies the invention either of riding or of wheels ignores the use of the sledge. The timber dray (Horse-drawn vehicles - Find: dray), the troika and other sleighs used horses for traction without the use of wheels.
A light sledge suitable for carrying the folded homes of nomads could be and was quite easily made of two suitably curved poles to act as both shafts and runners. On snow, ice or grass, they would not wear very rapidly and would bear the weight of the goods so that only friction need be overcome. See Travois. (RJP 19:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
"Theories from DNA evidence"
this section needs a little scientific help. i read the report on genetic variation and the authors do not support either the single domestication theory or the multiple domestication theory, but they do seem to lean towards the first. what they actually proved (more or less) is that domesticated horses decend from multiple herds rather than one herd. this could still indicate one orginal domestication site, and addition breeding into the original line with new local herds as the horse-breeding knowlege spreads from culture to culture. this seems to be their preferred explaination, but they don't have proof of that, only proof (within the limits of the small DNA samples they had access to, and very limited wild DNA) that there was more that one original herd.
also the part regarding one original stallion is a little confused. with any given sexually-reproducing species you can trace back Y-chomosome inheritence to a common male ancestor. because the Y-chomosome is inherited soley from the father, there is an unbroken line backwards in time of father-to-son inheritance. this doesn't work in forwards in time, though, because some males do not have any male offspring and therefor their Y-chomosome line died out. so tracing Y-chomosome inheritence back far enough, you will awalys come up with one single male somewhere back in time that is the Y-chomosomal "adam" for that species. there were other males alive at the same time, but none that had an unbroken male line. the other male's genetic information can still be passed into the gene pool through female children, so they do contribute to the species. in humans, the Y-chromosomal adam lived about 75,000 years ago or so.
the same thing can be done with the mitochondrial dna for female inheritance, as mitochondria is inherited soley through the mother. humans have a mitochondrial "eve" about 150,000 years ago.
finally, there's another interesting tidbit to through in the mix. apparently there were original many different species of wild horse. all but one species (possible two, depending on how you classify the species) were rendered extinct about 10,000 years ago, almost certainly through human hunting. so, how did our domesticated horse survive from 10,000 years ago until 4,000 years ago when the first chariots show up? it seems unlikely that they could have survived extinction on their own when all the other species died, so it has been suggested that they were already being kept as food or pet animals from that time onwards.
~~slamorte
Such a clear explanation might be employed in re-editing the article itself. Why not log in and get to work on it, slamorte? --Wetman 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article still a mess
There is some material that covers the same information but stated differently in different places. There is a need for some consolidation and cleanup. I've tried, but it's daunting, and I don't have the time to locate some necessary information to be sure the material is stated accurately and the controversies each stated fairly.
It is important to note that size actually doesn't matter...the large heavy horse wasn't needed for mounted cavalry until the "invention" of the fully armored knight...look at Ancient Greek art--those fellows clearly were on small horses, look at how they carried their feet--wrapped around the barrel or hanging underneath.
It also floors me that there is even a debate over whether horses were first ridden or driven. Aren't any anthropologists horsemen? Some of their theories defy logic and proof even in the present day that light cavalry is extremely effective. I mean, duh...people rode first. Ever try to train a horse? MUCH easier to teach them to be ridden than to drive. At least as long as you aren't afraid of falling off... Montanabw 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
your revert is apparently uninformed of a difference between the Bronze Age (1500 BC) and the Iron Age (500 BC). Of course the Iron Age horses were still "small", and it is undisputed that they were used for light cavarly, especially mounted archers, from at least 800 BC. The horses in 2000 BC may however have been still smaller, and your argument about Roman cavalry (late Iron Age) is completely irrelevant to the Bronze Age. There is simply no evidence of cavalry in the 2nd millennium BC. The Sigynnae are actually a good example of a steppe people apparently preserving the Bronze Age state of things into the Iron Age. We are not discussing "Icelander" size (14hh): of course these may be ridden even in warfare. I suppose we are looking at 10-12hh (Caspian pony): you certainly may trot around sitting on these (thus, I have no problem accepting that herdsmen were riding them long before the chariot was invented), but I have serious doubts about galopping into battle. dab(ᛏ) 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not assume that I am "uninformed." That's sort of a slam by Wiki guidelines. I think, however, that your clarification of horses as used in warfare versus domestication generally does the trick. I can't find the source now, but there ARE cave paintings of humans on horseback that predate the Bronze age...however, I will agree that the image was not of a warrior, and that evidence for use of mounted horses in warfare is a different kettle of fish.Montanabw 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that's all I meant to say :) I assume it is a pretty natural idea to try and sit on a horse's back as soon as you catch one, even in the paleolithic. The "riding vs. driving" debate was misrepresented by alleging the "driving" side claims no human had sat on a horse before 2000 BC. That's of course nonsense. The point is that the horse did not become an efficient means of transport, much less of warfare, before that time. dab(ᛏ) 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
looking into Tarpan, it appears possible the horses were already between 12 and 13 hh at the time of domestication. That's still "pony" size, of course, but still noticeably larger than the Caspian pony. I don't have a definite source for this though. dab(ᛏ) 11:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, is about all I can say for this article. Might I suggest a different approach, think of it as highlights in horse domestication. An encyclopedic entry on the subject should focus on an overview of the topic and not a thorough discussion on each theory. A timeline approach acknowledging the early theories and going all the way to present day is what I expected. I can see that a lot of effort went into developing a thorough discussion on the various theories for horse domestication and they should not be lost, they can go into separate to cover each theory with its strengths and weaknesses. Mike padilla 03:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might be onto something. Maybe the thing to do is to create "sandbox" off of this page and start a more or less new article there, importing it over to the "real" space when those who care deem it ready. A better organizational approach is definitely where to start. That said, there's nothing wrong with a detailed article, just that there certainly is a line between detailed and bogged down, which is the problem here. And moving some theories to their own article might work if they got to be more than a paragraph or two. Well, anyone who wants to start the sandbox, I'm in. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mrcas
I am sorry, I appreciate the point about "gibberish", but great care should be taken that 'dumbing down' things for readers unwilling to click on wikilinks isn't done at the expense of accuracy. Which is clearly the case in the following:
Investigations on the Y chromosome, published in 2004 suggests that all horses, big and small, may descend from one single stallion. On the other hand, similar studies showed that there are at least a hundred different maternal ancestors of the modern horse, though fewer as studies go deeper in time.
The study in question certainly didn't "suggest that all horses may descend from a single stallion". That would be stating the obvious. We may state the obvious for our readers' benefit, but we may not allege that a research paper did so. I imagine that the paper much rather suggested that "the Y-mrca, that is, the stallion from which all horses great and small, pretty and ugly, alive today are descended" did in fact live at such-and-such a time (later than the Neolithic). Similarly, it is nonsense to state that "there are at least a hundred different maternal ancestors of the modern horse". I imagine that the intended reading here is that "studies show that maternal lines around the presumed time of domestication do not converge to a single individual." It is again clear and not the study's result, that if you go further back in time (how far?), these maternal lines will, in fact, converge to a single strand. Again, I am not opposed to some dumbing-down (as long as the reader isn't being talked down to), but if you're going to do that, you have to take care to give facts precedence over quality of prose. dab(ᛏ) 20:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having not read the study, I was taking what was written, just trying to blend different explanations into something readable for an adequately educated member of the general public. I certainly agree corrections and the style could be improved. However, I have a law degree and 10 years of higher education, including some life science. But I'm not a scientist. This makes my eyes cross and gives me a headache! Clarity and good, readable style isn't "dumbing down, that's my only point. Also, wiki links can be "piped" so that what is said in the article flows nicely. It's nice to get the gist WITHOUT having to read 10 wiki articles, especially when some people still live with a dialup ISP. So how about this: Don't cut other material, but write down the facts, explain why they matter, make the point that all this is about (which is, I assume, that all domesticated horses apparently came from one progenitor stallion?) Then I can try to improve the style so it can be read by people other than geneticists??Montanabw 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the paper myself, but as far as I understand, the point is that all domesticated horses might descend from one domesticated stallion: the entire point is that the Y-mrca appears to have lived after the presumed date of domestication, while the mt-mrca lived before that time. But since we both haven't seen the paper, we have to be extra careful not to introduce unverified claims. Now, again, please accept my apologies if I seemed rash: I did not remove the passage because I found it 'dumbed down', but because it contained factual errors. Wikipedia was slow as molasses for me yesterday, or I might have tried rephrasing it. I am all for clarity and readable style. It's just that we are trying to discuss an expert paper we haven't even seen, and since the concept of mrca is rather complicated to explain to someone encoutering it for the first time, there is a real danger the paragraph will be seriously sidetracked if we try to do it here. Of course I support spelling out the abbreviation, linking to most recent common ancestor, but people interested in figuring out the details will have no choice but to go and read that article. dab(ᛏ) 08:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Overall, the article is getting better. The trick, as always, is to write factually but for a general audience. If you think Wiki was slow, try it on a dialup in a rural area!
import/ToC
I've imported the material on horse domestication on Samara culture (which did not deal with the Samara culture in particular); the material now present in the article may have to be re-organized in a better thought-out ToC. dab(ᛏ) 09:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it some, it will need more. The original article already had some disorganization and redundancy, but better to have it all in one place and then edit than leave something out that is important.
Too Homogenous
4ex, it says
The horse of the Iron Age was still relatively small, perhaps 12.2 to 14.2 hands high or 1.27 to 1.47 meters, measured at the withers. This was shorter overall average height than modern riding horses, which range from 14.2 to 17.2 hh (1.47 to 1.78 meters).
The horse of the Iron Age in which areas? "Iron Age" is a junk designation anyway. One people are in the Iron Age when another are in a Bronze Age and a third in a Stone Age. Since I don't know what the original writer is referencing, I can't correct it. This sounds like, say, a Parthenon pony, but doesn't apply to horses elsewhere at the same time, like the Persian's Nisaeans, 16-17 hh, or the horses of the Sea of Grass, 14.2-15.3 hands (both from excavated remains). Am I allowed to rewrite this from the ground up, since I can't just tweak it?
This is such a common failing of tech history articles: assuming one culture represents all cultures, whether in horses, bows, or plants gathered.HollyI 20:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about using this talk page as a "sandbox" for a section rewrite and you can also provide your sources. Those of us who care can check your work and give you our "blessing" (grin) when it seems ready to incorporate into the main article. (I created the header, below) Keep in mind that there are multiple theories out there and sometimes it is important to "teach the controversy" by mentioning all sides. (For example, the "were horses driven or ridden first" controversy... sigh, don't get me started on THAT one!) As for "Iron Age," it may be appropriate to clarify that we are talking primarily about ancient Mesopotamia and the immediate surrounding areas. There were no horses in North America at the time, so that area needs not be noted, and most sources I have seen place initial domestication as starting with either the Scythians or some of the peoples of the Fertile Cresecnt itself and spreading fairly quickly from there. (Dates of domestication in China and India are worth knowing...)Montanabw(talk) 21:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, before you state that ANY ancient horses were actually 17 hands tall, your source needs to be impeccable, as there are certainly few if any sources making that claim. (and a LOT of folks digging up and analysing ancient sites know squat about horses, hence the infamous driving or riding controversy...) I just spent a whole bunch of time becoming painfully aware that modern research pretty much shows that the "Great Horse" of the middle ages was nowhere close to the size of the modern horse, as is often argued. Montanabw(talk) 21:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a general edit to the entire article
I am an archaeologist who specializes in Eurasian steppe prehistory and specifically in the prehistory of human-horse relationships. I have started a general edit of the article on the Domestication of the Horse. As this is my first Wikipedia effort, I am still uncertain about some technical editing matters, particularly on uploading images. The article could use some added images, and I have many. At this point, 10/25/07, I have made substantial changes to the Introduction, the section on the Predecessors of the domestic horse, and the section on Genetics. I am not offended by rewrites myself, so feel free to change my changes. I am about to begin on the Archaeological Evidence, which is my actual area of expertise. I have, however, read a lot of literature on equid taxonomy and genetics, and I have added references to those sections. This will be an ongoing project perhaps for the next week, whenever I have the time. Gohs 16:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overally, you are doing a job that is much needed, but be careful about readability and POV. See my edits and perhaps you should consider using the "sandbox" area I have created below for drafting material, though it's also OK to be "bold." Some of your material is very good, and when it is sourced, it is better. I am doing a lot of wordsmithing for readability, though. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a learned treatise (whenever you have sources that can be linked to the web, try to add a link, even if it is a subscription database. Also try to add ISBN numbers for books) However, there are competing theories, and the Eurasian steppes are not the only place where domestication may have occurred, and thus you need to watch your POV. I have no idea if you are also a person who knows horses at all, but I'm sure you realize that some "expert" theories out there are clearly full of shit. (Like the one that argues that horses were driven before being ridden). Montanabw(talk) 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: Went through and mostly just wordsmithed. However, saw a couple of things you need to watch.
Please do not blank most questionable material without first using the {{fact}} tag to allow other editors a chance to defend their material. You will note that I threw that tag on some sections, and not necessarily because I question all of them (some I agree with) but because they DO need a cited source.
You can delete or hide rather than tag things that seem beyond the pale, but usually only if the material is potentially rather offensive and apt to trigger edit wars. (Like I tossed the material about the Blackfeet and the magpies!) For example, today I hid one rather outlandish theory that was in there. I didn't delete it because maybe there's a source, but it's still a loopy theory that if it IS sourced, (like the Blackfeet and the magpies) I will go out and find the sources that say otherwise. (Mares, no matter what their position in a herd, do not "submit" to stallions unless receptive to breeding, ask the large number of people with stallions who have suffered severe injuries from being kicked by mares. And the docile stallion theory is also nuts, bachelor herds have mild behavior, but even a very well-mannered stallion is going to act differently in the presence of a mare in estrus. That particular theory just defies all biological sense. But I digress...) Anyway, we also have to work on that Tarpan issue. They really existed, and I haven't the energy to source that stuff now, but maybe read Konik and Heck horse and see what you think. Montanabw(talk) 18:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New note: Please read Wikipedia:Footnotes, part of the problem is that we need to do a little wiki markup language to make footnotes work here the way they are supposed to. I fixed a bunch, you can probably see how it works from there. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox for rewrites
Four foundations
The following text, formerly under the heading The "Four Foundations" theory, I removed from Evolution of the horse per discussion on that article's talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A theory has been advanced that four basic "proto" horses developed in Europe through natural selection with adaptations to their environment prior to domestication of the horse. Some competing theories, however, argue that the prototypes were separate species, while others suggest that the prototypes were physically different manifestations of Equus ferus or Equus caballus. Either way, the most common theories of historical wild species from which other types are thought to have developed suggests the following base prototypes:[1]
The "Warmblood subspecies" or "Forest Horse" (Equus ferus silvaticus, also called the Diluvial Horse), thought to have evolved into Equus ferus germanicus, and which may have contributed to the development of the warmblood horses of northern Europe, as well as older "heavy horses" such as the Ardennais.
The "Draft" subspecies, a small, sturdy, heavyset animal with a heavy hair coat, arising in northern Europe, adapted to cold, damp climates, somewhat resembling today's draft horse and even the Shetland pony.
The "Oriental" subspecies, (Equus agilis) a taller, slim, refined and agile animal arising in western Asia, adapted to hot, dry climates, thought to be the progenitor of the modern Arabian horse and Akhal-Teke.
The "Tarpan subspecies," dun-colored, sturdy animal, the size of a large pony, adapted to the cold, dry climates of northern Asia, the predecessor to the Tarpan and Przewalski's Horse as well as the domesticated Mongolian horse.
To begin to qualify as encyclopedic content, the above needs thorough sourcing. --Una Smith (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was sourced, if you noticed. I'll insert it here. Thanks at least for not removing it altogether. Montanabw(talk) 04:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out-of-date
I have added an out-of-date tag on the domestication section, because many genetic studies do not confirm the main idea proposed here, the four foundations theory. Genetic research using ancient DNA shows clearly that there are no subspecies within the wild horse in Europe. The idea promoted by Bennett was in vogue for a time before more insights in the genetics were obtained. -- Kim van der Lindeat venus 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with the tag. However, "Europe" is a pretty limited range, particularly when you consider that the horse was domesticated in the steppes north of Mesopotamia and spread into the Ancient Near East, north Africa and western Asia long before really being used in Europe... I really must ask that sources be shown that disprove the four foundations (which actually are seven subspecies, when you count Przewalski's, etc...) LOL! Montanabw(talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Repaired?" LOL! We ARE prepared! Actually, if you read the article, you will note that we already discuss the Botai culture extensively. The BBC is behind the curve. This stuff has been known for quite a while, though I suppose the controversy is perhaps now finally settled. Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated references: First domestication
Ok, we need some solid references for when the horse was first domesticated. And with that I mean, not speculations, or discredited finds. Everything on the 4000 claim seems to come down to one book, if you follow the reference trail, a Clutton-Brock (?) 1992 book that I can not access. And that no scholarly source references for the same date. That is a reliable source, but outdated. This seems to be a general issue with this article, outdated and discredited ideas are pushed as being still valid. -- Kim van der Lindeat venus 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added information from CBC's Quirks and Quarks last week (Canada's national science radio show), which talks about domesticated horse remains found from 3500 BC. This was from researchers at U. of Exeter in England. Suggest the lead para is changed to cite 3500-4000BC, with the two existin citations plus the Quirks and Quarks citation? Zatoichi26 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the lead to say 3500-4000 BC. Kentucky Horse park's International Museum of the Horse is not a major university, but they are trying to be a credible source. I agree with Kim that we want to look for the best possible sources and that sometimes TV or Newspaper articles should be double-checked when possible and the original sources found. Overall, I'm comfortable with the direction things are going. Basically, the main thing that gets me grumpy are things, like a recent history book I just bought, that still claim the first domesticated horses pulled chariots over a thousand years after we have clear evidence of domestication. (ARRGH! and sighing). Source it, discuss it first if it's going to be a big change, and I will be a happy camper. Montanabw(talk) 06:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domestication and color
[1] This paper came out recently. The authors concluded that unusual colors were not present in wild horses, and early domesticated horses would have been plain-colored. Rich bays, greys, palominos, white markings all arose later. The paper is reviewed in more accessible terms [2] here. These findings are consistent with long-term studies of domestication [3].
In any event, I'm not entirely sure how this would work in, but I feel that given some of the widespread misunderstandings - that the leopard complex predates domestication, for example - that the issues of "What did the earliest domesticated horses look like?" and "What happens when a species is domesticated?" are best answered by this article. Countercanter (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it is better here or in horse breeding. It may be a good addition, but it also is part of the bigger issue of the impact of selective breeding in general..that whole issue of when a species is "domesticated" as opposed to "tamed" is sort of ducked in this article at the moment...Hmm. There is also stuff like the "four foundations" and question of what phenotypes were developed by natural selection and which by selective breeding... I don't know the answers to all of this, but that is, at least, the question. Basically, either way, anything put in that goes against traditional wisdom (but darn it, there ARE spots on the horses in the prehistoric cave paintings, which PROVES the Appaloosa dates to the dawn of time! LOL!!) will need to be explained, with the conventional wisdom also explained, and meticulously sourced.I think you DO have a cool notion here, and I'm up for exploring the idea. Maybe look at the horse breeding article and maybe also selective breeding, which is about animals in general...isn't it true that weird coloring and spotting in general is a characteristic of domestication, save when it is useful for camoflague??? Montanabw(talk) 04:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proves? I see the spots...but they don't suggest leopard complex to me, or to researchers. Countercanter (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BINGO! (I was being sarcastic and trying to be funny. Whoops, didn't come through in text...) One book I have suggests that the cave paintings simply reflect a "spot happy artist! LOL! What the issue is, however, is that the people who are fond of the very old breeds have a hard time letting go of the concept that they are a wild prototype (I was once one of these people, and now feel a certain dedication to burst everyone else's balloon too (evil grin) bwahahaha!) Montanabw(talk) 02:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank goodness! I was so worried. "Surely....surely she doesn't believe that there were lots of boring bay duns and blanket appaloosas running around?" Countercanter (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Sometimes I go off the chart on the snark meter and hence no one realizes how hilarious I am trying to be. You were supposed to do a ROFLMAO about that! (grin). Maybe this is why I never made it in comedy. I suppose there is such a thing as too dry... bummer (crossing off another career option, consigned to the dustbin along with ballerina, figure skater, jockey...) Montanabw(talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Follow up': The scientific journal link is to a subscription-only site, may have to dig for a free site source (at least for reading, in a wiki article, we can cite to the hardcopy version). Can you find one? Sounds like the study is quite interesting, but I found the MSNBC version amusing. "brown-gray"? Um, I believe that is what we call "Dun." (Dontcha LOVE popular culture) I was also floored about the comment that chestnuts are considered easier to handle. That's a pile of horse pucky! (grin) (I personally do not see significant color-linked characteristics, though I know a lot of people make such claims --but even if true, in the Thoroughbred and Arabian worlds, chestnuts are reputed to be "hot!" LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nefirious, I don't quite think the article is quite ready for GA yet, but if you want, I would be OK if you wanted to put it up for a Peer review to see what others have to say. See WP:PEER. The standards have gotten pretty tough for GA and I know that when it comes to issues on sourcing and such, I will probably wind up having to be the person to do the heavy lifting (and a couple other people at WPEQ who have lots of good reference works). And I am sort of distracted by the GA push for the Dominant white article right now... That said, a peer review may help everyone get a sense of where this article may still need work and I'd be glad to support such an effort. Montanabw(talk) 01:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cavalry revolution
This article should mention this term, which refers to the major changes that occurred in cultures that mastered the art of horse riding (refs). The article is also unclear on when and where the horse riding begun and how it spread. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I'll review the source, remind me if I don't get to it. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication in the lead?
The last paragraph of the lead has these two sentences, one after the other.
Regardless of the specific date of domestication, use of horses spread rapidly across Eurasia for transportation, agricultural work and warfare. Possibly as early as 3500-3000 BCE, and certainly during the period 2500-2000 BCE, human reliance on domesticated horses spread across Eurasia for transportation and warfare.
Seems like they could be boiled down to just one. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will peek and see if I can tweak. Good catch. Montanabw(talk) 08:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the earliest verified date of tamed horses: apparently it is already known that the date is much earlier than the article states.
For example, there are Cro-magnon cave paintings dated around 15,000 B.C.E. or earlier, such as the Cave of Les Trois Freres in the French Pyrenees[2] showing normal-size horses exuberantly ridden by colorfully dressed riders, complete with strange boots, one with long reddish-brown hair flying in the wind.
One fresco-type painting seems to deliberately depict a chaotic incident: brave-postured 'see-through' images, with horseman surrounded and overlapped by various recognizable animals and weaponed warriors. Anyway, the horses obviously have reins, bridles, harnesses and normal coloration: one is light tan with medium brown tail and mane.
Because of these and other similar cave paintings from the time period of about 30,000 to 15,000 B.C.E., the referenced article states, "Currently scientists think that the Cro-magnons of Neolithic France understood horses better than other races of the same time period."
Special:Contributions/ (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These claims have been raised before, but no one seems to be able to provide any actual "scientists" who have verified it. If you can find peer-reviewed sources for any of the above please provide them. Otherwise, this is simply "Clan of the Cave Bear" nonsense. Montanabw(talk) 20:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
riding/drawing
Thus, on one hand, logic suggests that horses would have been ridden long before they were driven. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.52.128 (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Horse was first domesticated by Arabs and it was borrowed from Semitic to various (at very different periods, thus explaining aberrations of the reflexes of supposed PIE *ekwo) IE languages
The Horse was first domesticated by Arabs and it was borrowed from Semitic to various (at very different periods, thus explaining aberrations of the reflexes of supposed PIE *ekwo) IE languages
I've read in the book "Indo-Europeans and Indo-European languages" of Ivanonv-Gamkrelidze that some Semitic and Egyptian words for horse seem to be loans from some IE languages
such as Hebrew sus, Akkadian sisu, Ugaritic sisw, Aramaic sisya, Egyptian ssm, I think we can also connect Arabic šušan
šuš (quick young female camel) and Arabic šawšan (camel servant), All those words stem perhaps from the word such as Mitanni Aryan ašušanni
wich means horse trainer however on light of the discovery of Arabia (Magar archeological cultural complex*) it could be that it's from one(s) of the Semitic languages that IE languages borrowed this word because:
1/this word shows very aberrant reflexions on each one of the IE languages it is attested on so that we cannot even provide a secure form of the proto IE word for horse
2/this word seems to lack an internal semantico-phonetical motivation within IE, while it looks very well rooted and explainable on Semitic motivation
Indeed the root "šwš" means to be quick and hurry in Semitic
3/this word is attested in Semitic and Egyptian as early as script begins
But of course those are speculations that need to be confirmed by archeologists and linguists
"This discovery shows that horses were domesticated in the Arabian Peninsula for the first time more than 9,000 years ago, whereas previous studies estimated the domestication of horses in Central Asia dating back 5,000 years", Ali al-Ghabban, vice-chairman of the Department of Museums and Antiquities, said at a news conference late Wednesday.
Closing in on the Archaeological Garden of Eden
WRITTEN BY: SF FANDOM HISTORIAN - AUG• 25•11
Scientists in Saudi Arabia disclosed this week the discovery of artifacts from a lost 9,000-year-old culture that has been dubbed the “Al-Maqar Civilization”. Al-Maqar is a region in central Saudi Arabia that, until now, had not attracted much scientific interest.
Evidence of modern human habitation of the Arabian peninsula dates back at least 100,000 years but recent analyses of Neolithic settlements along the coast of the Persian Gulf conclude that there was once a robust Neolithic culture which lived in the now-flooded lowlands around 9-11,000 years ago.
The Al Maqar culture would have been contemporary with the Persian Gulf culture and may even have enjoyed close ties with those communities. The Al-Maqar culture was sophisticated enough to have left behind “mummified skeletons, arrowheads, scrapers, grain grinders, tools for spinning and weaving, and other tools that are evidence of a civilization that is skilled in handicrafts.”
Another of the remarkable claims scientists have made about the Al Maqar culture is that they appear to have domesticated horses. If that is true, then horse domestication has been pushed back by at least a few thousand years. This discovery may support the conclusions of a recent study of the horse genome that suggests today’s domesticated horse breeds arose from an unknown common ancestral group that was domesticated many thousands of years ago.
Modern male domesticated horses all share almost the exact same genetic markers, meaning their ancestry was fixed thousands of years ago after a long process of domestication. If horses were being domesticated by Neolithic humans in Arabia 9,000 years ago then there must be a trail that leads to the Asian steppes where current archaeological theory holds that domesticated horses were first used to pull carts and provide milk for humans.
There are other traces of human migration from the Middle East. DNA studies on pigs show that the earliest domesticated pigs in Europe and the ancestors of east Asian domesticated pigs may have originated in central Asia or Asia Minor. Wild pig species were domesticated in both regions after the introduction of domesticated pigs; in Europe the native pigs replaced the Asian breed(s).
DNA studies also suggest that most European men are descended from Middle Eastern farmers who migrated into Europe starting around 10,000 years ago (specifically to the Aegean region at that time, spreading north and westward from that point over the next several thousand years). Recent research suggests that most British men are probably descended from the more ancient hunter-gatherer population of Europe that was displaced by the Middle Eastern farmers.
Other research supports the British isolation thesis insofar as it suggests that agriculture was adopted by hunter-gatherer groups in the British Isles and Scandinavia rather than brought in by invading farmers. That research suggests that Europe’s oldest fringe populations may be quite ancient, and indeed it is now believed that Neanderthals contributed to the modern human genome in Europe and Asia (but no traces of Neanderthal DNA have been detected in modern African populations).
The archaeological and biological trails mostly lead us back to the Middle East, which is believed to be the birthplace of modern agriculture. Two arguments have been put forth suggesting how agriculture may have arisen in the Levant (what is now Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the West Bank). One theory says that graneries may have been developed before grains were domesticated to hold wild plants that were harvested. Another theory suggests that figs may have been the first domesticated crop.
These hypotheses have been challenged but it seems that we still don’t have the whole picture. We know there were well organized communities living in permanent structures by 10,000 years ago and most likely 11,000 years ago. These peoples would have required reliable food sources. Were there enough wild grains, nuts, and fruit trees living within walking distance of their villages to support them?
Only 2,000 years separates the founding of Jericho and the approximate dating of the Al Maqar culture. But culture don’t simply pop out of the Earth fully formed. They arise gradually through successive generations of experimentation and subtle change. Change may be forced upon human communities by environmental influences. Indeed, scientists have already documented the rise and fall of 2 cultures in the Green Sahara: the Kiffian, who lived 10-8,000 years ago and the Tenerian, who lived 6,5-4,500 years ago.
Permanent stone structures were already being constructed as far north of Al Maqar as Jericho in Palestine 11,000 years ago. It follows that the Al Maqar culture may have built similar structures. The fact that Jericho had a wall 11,000 years ago also implies there may have been armed conflict between communities (the researchers who analyzed the tower and wall suggest they may have been built for ritualistic purposes but fail to present compelling evidence to show that was the case).
We do not need to theorize that there was warfare among the far-flung Neolithic communities of 10-11,000 years ago but we do know that the Persian Gulf was a dry valley watered by rivers from about 14,000 years ago until about 9,000 years ago when the sea began to encroach upon the valley. It was completely submersed by 8,000 years ago (6,000 BCE) in what was probably an “outburst event”, a sudden flood.
Archaeologists and amateurs alike point to the flooding of the Persian Gulf as a possible source for Noachian legends (although a similar Black Sea transition from fresh water lake to salty sea in the same timeframe has also been proposed). If humans were living in the Persian Gulf valley until 8,000 years ago then an environmental disaster would have caused massive migrations and climactic changes.
Historical cultural migrations are usually accompanied by or causes of significant conflict between peoples. Let us suppose that the Persian Gulf Valley held a sophisticated culture that had mastered agriculture and animal husbandry. Let us suppose that this culture was destroyed by the inundation of the valley 8,000 years ago. Let us further suppose that survivors attempted to settle along the coasts of the newly formed gulf but found themselves competing for resources with neighbors deeper in the Arabian peninsula.
In 1993 Dr. Farouk El-Baz of Boston University suggested that satellite imagery of ancient rivers in Saudi Arabia indicated that the peninsula was well-watered from about 11,000 years ago until about 5,000 years ago. This period obviously coincides or overlaps with the Green Sahara and the dry Persian Gulf Valley.
We don’t know how radical the transition from green Arabia to dry Arabia might have been, but a displaced population moving into the peninsula from the flooded lowlands may have stressed the ecosystem. Is it feasible to suggest that these populations may have been driven north by the combination of competition for dwindling resources and changing climate? Furthermore, if they encountered indigenous, related cultures of similar capability, these migratory peoples would have faced three options:
Pass through the existing civilizations (if permitted)
Settle among and become absorbed into the existing civilizations
Attack the existing civilizations
Sumerian mythology does suggest that they may have come from the south. The problem with a northern migration for the Sumerians is that their civilization rose up along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now southern Iraq. The Persian Gulf lay on their border. They would have had to lived along the coast of the gulf. Of course, the Sumerians also preserved a story of a flood event and spoke of an ancient land they called Dilmun (not to be confused with a later Dilmun that is acknowledged in historical records).
A migration from the Persian Gulf region to the Aegean region around 6,000 years ago seems plausible. Whether tribes simply bumped each other north or an organized migration passed through existing communities cannot be discerned from the available evidence. We also have to consider the impact that the rising Black Sea would have had on communities in its vicinity. At the very least we can conclude that the search for new homes and the competition for resources would have provided reasons for conflict between peoples.
The migration of Middle Eastern farmers into Europe, who subsequently engaged in armed conflict with the hunter-gatherer societies in Europe, may have been spurred by environmental disasters that overwhelmed ancient cultures that may have flourished in lowlands. Although we know very little about the Black Sea culture there is ample evidence to suggest that the dry Persian Gulf Valley culture may have possessed agriculture. Perhaps pigs were domesticated near the Black Sea.
Archaeological and biological evidence suggest that modern humans settled in the dry valley that is now the Persian Gulf.
It is entirely possible that the lands where agriculture and pigs were domesticated now lie under the waves. We have to keep looking but our picture of the Neolithic period in the Middle East and Europe is constantly evolving and we now know that our ancestors were not nearly as primitive and unsophisticated as 19th and 20th century popular imagination had made them out to be.
