MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Equus (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/06/healthscience/06horses.php
So, now orthodoxy places the domestication of horses back to 3500BC - due to the more slender physiology of the domesticated horses. How long would / could it have taken to get from wild horse to domesticated horse? Couple of generations? 100 generations? Do we have any clue?
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

How long would / could it have taken to get from wild horse to domesticated horse? Couple of generations? 100 generations? Do we have any clue?

Judging by the discussion on dogs and reindeer et al. it's not so hard if you catch 'em young. Funnily enough a friend forwarded an article on the same theme entitled 'Origins of the domestic horse revealed' which does nothing of the sort

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7926235.stm

The conclusion is that horse genes are markedly more diverse than the genes of other domestic animals and that "77 mares" were the mothers of the modern horse because they can't decide whereabouts in the world horse domestication began.

The DNA of wild horses from Sweden and Estonia living about 2,000 years ago were compared with the DNA of Alaskan horses of 28,000 years ago (though whether the Swedish/Estonian breeds were "wild" is a moot point).

They were very different in terms of their genes, suggesting that several distinct horse populations were first captured from the wild.

This could also suggest that horse domestication is far older than supposed; how long would it take for people living across the valley to cotton on and start their own horse rearing programmes (it doesn't seem to take long for diverse strains to be bred in, say, racing pigeons)?
Send private message
Buck Trawicky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Greetings! To you AEL honchos and honchas, especially the horse-lovers:

(1) One of my serious interests is the Indian Effigy Mounds of Wisconsin (USA).

Know that the bodies of horses have been found in Indian Effigy Mounds. These have been found within some of these mounds, by archaeologists (or local amateur archaeologists). (Actually, these finds tend to be in what are called 'conical mounds' -- we've got 3 general mound types: linear, conical, and effigy. The Effigy Mound Culture here in southern Wisconsin and nearby is dated to roughly AD 800-1200. Not to be confused with other mound-building cultures in cis-Mississippi (eastern-side-of-the Mississippi) North America (tho' Iowa has some, on the western side; which is natural: a watershed).

Ours are 'Taoist'--no ostentation, no buried treasures to loot; but with high math and astronomy encoded, detectable only with precise True North surveying. (Also symbology -- about which no Elders talk to me (or maybe any white guy) in more than the most basic detail. Our guys are HoChunk (aka Winnebago, tho' they say that's only the name for a fat house-on-wheels).)
Send private message Send e-mail
Buck Trawicky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Unfortunately, the horsey remains, tho' presented to museums, universities, etc, disappeared. They were immediately categorized as late intrusions: 'A farmer buried a favorite horse's body in his Mound.' So, the evidence went who knows where -- it was an anomaly.

Complain though you-all do, I aver that you Europeans suffer far less than we North Americans from the effects of the suppression of archaeological data.

(When I think to curse, I send one towards the shade of Hrdlicka -- he really stunted our Americanists' minds. As my revered way-superior senior colleague James P. Scherz says, 'American archaeologists go to bed in fear that they'll wake up to learn that the Vikings have crossed over from Canada. ' Which is contemptible.
(But our old geezers of the previous generation (tho' they're only in their 60s) are losing their grip, a bit.)

(2) Regarding domesticated horses during the Upper Paleolithic: (*) I've done a Search of the AEL site, and find no reference to Mary Settegasts's 'Plato Prehistorian.' (1986, 1990). This is a remarkable book, and I had to get it from 'Outer Library Loan', to our Public Library's discredit; the next time I call for it, I'm just gonna xerox the entire thing.
(*) For those of you (perhaps very few) who don't know it, herewith an appreciation: (*) Her contention is that Plato's discussion of Atlantis should be taken seriously. (*) She has no interest in discussing matters occurring beyond the Pillars of Hercules, but she takes very seriously what he says about the War that occurred in the Mediterranean drainage and the Levant. (*) She argues that there is clear evidence from the archaeological reports, (even at the time of her writing -- c.1980+) that there was indeed a huge war, quite unprecedented, in the last stage of the Upper Paleolithic: for example, well-stocked cemeteries with skeletons obviously killed by weapons, including arrows. And these cemeteries are found all around the area.

All this is extraordinarily intriguing to me, but what's relevant here is her matter on domesticated horses.

I have been studying up on the Upper Paleolithic folks and times, for years, as a hobby. And I've recurrently encountered references to depictions of horses on Cave Painting walls, with assertions that some were bridled. And I've looked at the photos, and, by gum, that seems to be true. And Mary Settegast agrees, assuredly. Which is nice: we both agree (sorta, on my part; and emphatically, on hers): the Magdalenians (whom, by the way, she regards as folks on the way down from earlier long phases of higher excellence) had domesticated horses, with bridles. This is a flabbergasting thought, which I love, and hug to my bosom. Ah! My Guys! I'm so often proud of you!

(3) An Indian Mounds colleague, some years ago, handed me a fat file-folder of paper, saying 'Buck, I've collected this mass of stuff on Horses in America. Now, you please, deal with it.' The which I should now start to do. I'll read through it (probably slowly), and post anything that's electrifying, or even barely relevant. It's sure to be mostly about anomalous horse-evidence in pre-Columbian America. Does this prospect tickle your collective fancy?

--Buck, in Wisconsin

By the way, do not Google anymore: they say upfront they keep a record of every keystroke you send them, until forever, and then hand over the records to anyone with a badge. This is vile behavior. I use www.ixquick.com, a Dutch search-engine that does an excellent job (eg, I find you-all with no problem), and promises to forget me after 2 days: superb privacy.
Also, Ms. Settegast seems to have a practice of doing one thing completely, and then moving on to another entirely different subject. I think her worthy of emulation.
Send private message Send e-mail
Jorn



View user's profile
Reply with quote

From Discover Magazine

"Icelandic horses can move in an odd way. All horses have three natural gaits: the standard walk; the two-beat trot, where diagonally opposite pairs of legs hit the ground together; and the four-beat gallop, where the four feet hit the ground in turn. To those, Icelandic horses add the tölt. It has four beats, like the gallop, but a tölting horse always has at least one foot on the ground, while a galloping one is essentially flying for part of its stride. This constant contact makes for a smoother ride. It also looks... weird, like watching a horse power-walk straight into the uncanny valley.
...
Leif Andersson, one of the leaders of the study, was completely surprised by the discovery. 'There are hundreds of genes that contribute to variation in height in humans, and each has a tiny effect. Gait in horses sounds like it should be at least as complex a trait.' It's not. By itself, DMRT3 explains much of the difference between horses that stick to the normal trinity of walk/trot/gallop, and those that adopt special gaits.

link

It is a video there for those that want to see how a horse tolting looks like.

Some American mustangs are natural "tolt"ers, and Icelandic horses also often have multicolored fur. You also find multicolored tolting horses in Iberia, not strange when you find Viking fishing villages there as well.

This is in Portugal, Povoa de Varzim, so we know that Scandinavia did have cultural contact with Iberia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povoa_de_Varzim

This is just one quote from the article.

"The Lancha Poveira is a boat that developed from the Drakkar Viking, but without a long stern and bow and with a Mediterranean sail. According to a tradition that persists to this day, the youngest son is the heir of the family, as in old Brittany and Denmark, because it was expected that he would take care of his parents when they became old.[12] Women govern the family, because men were usually away from home fishing."

Women used to be the mistress of the house in Scandinavia as well, and the men the master outside the house.

Also worth mentioning is that horses was not upper class in Scandinavia, as you needed horses for plowing. Oxen needs to rest to chew cud, so that it is only usable a few hours a day, while a Scandinavian horse given oats can work all day. The last part is very important when you have a short growing season.

The Scandinavian horses are also not fragile creatures, as they were bred to be able to walk in rocky terrain, and some even to walk outside and find food for themselves for most of the year. Only when the horse were expected to work hard, were it given oats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordlandshest/Lyngshest

More indication that the European contact with America before Columbus is larger than assumed, is the Main Coon Cat and the Norwegian Forest Cat. The Siberian Cat is also related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skogkatt

The Cat is not probably not indigenous to Scandinavia though, as the Stoat=Hermine is today called "r�yskatt" but used to be called "Ur-katt" (Ur=Original, but ur also means R�ys). Even more indication to this, is that ones used to have a house snake, to take care of rodents in some of the oldest sources.

As for Freya's cats, they were probably the Lynx.

PS. I have a hard time getting my links to work, so if you just cut me some slack, I will learn how to do it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

When the team sequenced 352 Icelandic horses and found that all the pacing animals have two copies of the shortening mutation. When they looked at other breeds, they found that the DMRT3 mutation is extremely common in those that show alternative gaits. Almost all Tennessee walking horses have it. So do all Peruvian pasos. So do all Kentucky mountain saddle horses. Even among the four-gaited Icelandic animals, which can tölt but not pace, two thirds of the animals carry at least one copy of the mutation.

Of course this might support the theory advanced in The Megalithic Empire that the horse was domesticated in North America thousands of years ago. But contrariwise, it might undermine the theory because of the possibility they were introduced by the Vikings! Still, either way, the theory that it was the Spanish what done it is blown apart.

Also worth mentioning is that horses was not upper class in Scandinavia, as you needed horses for plowing. Oxen needs to rest to chew cud, so that it is only usable a few hours a day, while a Scandinavian horse given oats can work all day. The last part is very important when you have a short growing season.

This is tremendously helpful. It has long been a puzzle as to why some cultures used oxen and some horses, right up until the American pioneers of the mid-nineteenth century who used oxen to pull their wagons across the continent but clearly thought horses were way better for farm work as soon as they could make the switch.

The special case of limited daylight aside, oxen are cheaper to run unless and until corn prices are rock bottom. But if corn prices are rock bottom then you have to use horses to increase productivity in order to produce a lot of corn because the price is so low. Horses become economic when you can feed them corn ie when corn is cheap etc etc.
Send private message
Jorn



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
This is tremendously helpful. It has long been a puzzle as to why some cultures used oxen and some horses, right up until the American pioneers of the mid-nineteenth century who used oxen to pull their wagons across the continent but clearly thought horses were way better for farm work as soon as they could make the switch.


The Norse used oxen to pull heavy stuff, so the farmers close to the "eids" and "drags" are supposed to have had oxen that they rented out to pull the boats over land. Oxen were used to pull heavy stuff in mining as well, up until the 1700 century.

Horses did not take over this function until the large horse breeds came from England. If the Norwegian and Icelandic breeds did not have an advantage in that they could eat cheaper fodder, they would probably not have survived. That Fjord and Icelandic horses are cheaper to keep, is one of the reasons they are becoming popular again, also outside Scandinavia.


The way the Scandinavian horses were/are bred is also interesting. It was not common to to bring the steed to the mare or visa versa, but rather let them free in the mountain, and have them graze together in a herd under the watch of a Sheppard**. During this timespan the steed would have plenty of opportunity to impregnate the mares. It is still done, and is called a "hesteslipp".

IIRC they used to have many steeds competing for the mare in the olden days, and sometimes the steeds would kill each other fighting over the mares. I have also read that they did the same with heifers and bulls.

Did the Indians in the Americas do it the same way? How about horse breeding in England, in the time of the commons?

** I have looked somewhat into this, and there are at least two words that are used for Sheppard in Norwegian. "Hyrde" that seems to have been used for those that herd horses and cattle, and "gjeter" that herds sheep and goats.

Hyrde is also the word used in the bible, and it looks like German and OE follows the same pattern.
OE "Crist ðú góda hyrde" Christ, thou good shepherd

It is also interesting that the herders(?) in the Heliand poem, gave Jesus foals, rather than lambs, and that the old northern Kings had a "hird", whose mission it was to watch and protect the King.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Jorn wrote:
I have looked somewhat into this, and there are at least two words that are used for Sheppard in Norwegian. "Hyrde" that seems to have been used for those that herd horses and cattle, and "gjeter" that herds sheep and goats.


Use of local spelling often only confuses things. These two words are obviously the same in all essentials as those that would be used in English: Herder and goater.
Send private message
Free-Radical



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Before I forget about this thread I need to point out that the most important idea missing from this discussion is Neoteny:
the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood.

Humans, for example, are distinguished from apes by many characteristics found in young and even embryonic apes, but not adult apes. And adult birds appear to be proportioned much like juvenile dinosaurs. Domesticated animals also tend to not "finish" their development into fully adult form. Or perhaps it should be turned around, animals that can be kept from assuming fully adult form are "domesticable".

This would explain the rule that domesticated animals "tend to be smaller than the wild versions" for example. Modern cattle are much smaller than the Aurochs they are believed to be descended from. On the other hand, domesticated dogs have been deliberately bred to be much larger than wild wolves for certain purposes. So that is not an absolute rule.

I would cite from Chapter 9 of Guns, Germs, and Steel here, but the Wikipedia page on Domestication has already got the list of characteristics he discusses. (He doesn't say anything about neoteny, oddly enough). One of them is "modifiable social hierarchy". And it's true that social animals, those which live in herds or packs, are particularly domesticable. Cattle, goats, sheep, even dogs, are all social animals.

But think of this: even wild animals recognized as un-domesticable can be kept while juveniles. Great cats like lions and tigers. Bears, and smaller animals like racoons can be managed while young. Chimpanzees are sweet-natured as juveniles but quite dangerous as adults. It's foolish how some people keep them as exotic pets. Every so often you see another news story about someone's "pet" chimp savaging someone. It's a characteristic of young animals to be controllable. Of course, they have to obey their parents to survive. But when they become adults they follow their instincts instead of their handler's wishes. So, when humans can find a way to keep the animals in a juvenile state, they remain controllable as adults and become "domesticated".
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Free-Radical wrote:
Before I forget about this thread I need to point out that the most important idea missing from this discussion is Neoteny:
the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood..

Yes, we covered this in some depth, in (if I remember correctly) the Crying Wolf thread.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Jump to:  
Page 9 of 9

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group