MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
A Sample Treasure Hunt Level : Level One (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
admin
Librarian


View user's profile
Reply with quote

Anybody wishing to clear up this mystery (and a whole lot else that hasn't been bothering you about pre-history) should go on the The Great Human Origins Treasure Hunt, which will be available shortly.
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

What about the horses of the Xeni Gwet'in Nation? The Xeni Gwet'in nation lives in a remote valley called the Nemiah Valley and Brittany Triangle in BC. The first road wasn't built there until 1973.

There are a herd of wild horses that live there which the government classifies as feral and the natives classify as wild and claim that they've been living there for hundreds of years.

This herd of horses is remarkable in that it is one of the only in the world which lives in an environment similar to which horses evolved. They live with their natural predators - the large carnivores like bears, cougars, wolves (which go after the young ones) as well as moose, elk, etc.

Orthodoxy says these horses ventured up from way down south in the US in the early 1500's, arrived at a remote valley in BC, learned how to read the cues of the forest telling them that their predators were around and not get killed by them, and then the Xeni Gwet'in Nation domesticated some of them, all in time for Simon Fraser to note in the first decade of the 1800's that the natives make use of horses.

It's too bad that genetic testing at this point can only tell us that horses are related to horses. I saw something about these horses on the news a few years ago in regard to the natives wanting to protect them from logging and the government claiming that there is no need to because they're feral Spanish horses mixed with escaped horses from ranches in BC. I didn't think much of it at the time. Why protect these horses when we can just go round up a bunch from various ranches and set them free in the woods and create a herd of wild horses?

Maybe these horses came down with the natives from Alaska after the last glacier melted. Canadian Geographic printed an article with this claim in relation to horses in Western Canada: "Also, there is clear evidence of horses until 12,000 years ago with isolated finds indicating there may have been horses closer to 3000-1000 years ago." Too early for the Spanish horses. It is at the bottom of this page: http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ma05/indepth/naturalhistory.asp
But if this claim of Canadian Geographic could be true, why haven't we heard anything about it?
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Where'd everyone else get their domesticated horses from?

Did the idea of domesticating horses spread around so that a tribe would go out and lasso whatever kind of wild horse was in the region, or did the tribe with the first set of domesticated horses go around selling them to other tribes, and those tribes went and sold them to other tribes, etc?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That's a small question with a big answer that goes along these lines:

a) the "coversity" of horse DNA tells us that they were not plucked from wild horses everywhere. If they were, then a wide variety would be represented. But they're not: all horses are closely related compared to fossil horses: the fossil horses were wild. (Since domestication at 10,000 years ago or so is completely off the orthodox radar, you'll hear that horse DNA is oddly diverse, closely related to a lot of different "wild" horses, and made-up scenarios to explain the admixture.)

b) Everything you've heard about primitive hunter-gatherers... and indigenous people still living the original lifestyle... and settled life being the more recent development, with villages then towns then cities all stemming from agriculture... the idea of which spread around organically and geographically... and nomads being the remnant of the old ways, not yet taken over by the new ways... is a great big steaming bucket of poo... and stale wee.

The obvious answer to "where'd everyone else get their domesticated horses from?" is from a horse dealer, same as pigs and chickens and sacks of seed corn and ploughs... but they'll say that's not applicable. I maintain it is. Please see the New Concepts > Jacobs Crackers? thread.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Coupla AE points.

It's too bad that genetic testing at this point can only tell us that horses are related to horses

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that orthodoxy will adopt the Xeni Gwet'in horses as a genetic marker. Assume for a moment that these horses really are from the original wild stock, and assume that they are given the genetic once-over. Well...there'll be a hellova difference which will arouse everyone's interest. But of course since it won't overthrow the paradigm, it will just sit there being a massive anomaly.

And there is one sure way of solving this massive anomaly and that is for orthodoxy to say, "Aha! We know how much genetic drift takes place in five hundred years of horses-gone-feral." It's true this will raise Godnose how many other problems but that never bothers orthodoxy when it's Defending The Paradigm. It's always a case of "Unto the day, dear boy, unto the day."

Maybe these horses came down with the natives from Alaska after the last glacier melted. Canadian Geographic printed an article with this claim in relation to horses in Western Canada

And since North America is a horse-paradise, they would have covered the whole continent in the twelve thousand years since. A perfect example of solving one problem by erecting a larger one.

But if this claim of Canadian Geographic could be true, why haven't we heard anything about it?

I am a little staggered by it even reaching Canadian Geographic, which sounds reasonably authoritative. The breakdown of Careful Ignoral always heralds at least the potentiality of the Paradigm Dam cracking. Oh happy days!
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You know this whole thing about wild horses. Feral. Left-over. Reserve gene pool. Whatever.

Anyone happen to notice the same is true of human beings?
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

And the answer to that is that there have only been two in the whole of recorded history: the Mongols of Central Asia (to use a shorthand term) and the Plains Indians. So horse nomad cultures are very odd indeed.


Wrong. There have been many "horse cultures" - Cossacks, Arabs, European mediaeval Chivalry all readily come to mind. Horse nomad cultures are another issue.
Send private message Send e-mail
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The original words were chosen with care: "the Mongols of Central Asia (to use a shorthand term)", which certainly encompasses the Cossacks, perhaps the Arabs and maybe by extension the Touareg and Bedouin. However, the last few might not count since we're not talking about making extensive use of horses and other animals for the conduct of herding and whatever other business; we're talking about utterly hippocentric cultures of massive geographic extents. Medieval knights definitely do not count.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. If you mean Central Asia you can't include the Cossacks who live in Europe, nor the Arabs who never got any closer to Central Asia than Iran, nor the Touareg who live in the Sahel nor the Bedouin who have always hung around the eastern part of North Africa and the Arabian peninsular. And I wouldn't suggest to a Bedouin that he is really a Mongol from Central Asia, if I were you unless you are very well protected at the time.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Master of the Hunt wrote:
Good point about the size of horses, Quirkey, expand on that.

If I might return to horses, a subject with which I am acquainted as a former owner, rider and breeder of horses.

Firstly on size. You can, using a markedly preponent stallion, breed up or down by as much 1.5 hands and fix the trait (more or less) within 3 or 4 generations.

Secondly on numbers. Horses start to become fertile before they are two years old. Because their fertility is still a bit patchy and because their growth cycle is still incomplete, domestic mares rarely are bred until they are 2-3 years and colts later still. It appears that wild/feral horses adapt their breeding cycles according to habitat, climatic conditions etc. In ideal conditions, mares start to breed at around 2 years old but stallions don't normally get the opportunity until they are around 5 or 6 when they have the strength and the character to challenge for herd "ownership".

Assuming ideal habitat, if you start with a theoretical bunch of 5 escapees (1 stallion and 4 mares) by year 10 you would probably have 3 herds each with 7 or 8 breeding mares plus a total of 20-25 followers. Horses do not have a menopause and will breed every year with some diminution about aged 20. And so it goes.

Thirdly on distance. Horses will normally stay within a 5-10 kilometre radius of their water-holes providing that the pasture is good and they are not too troubled by predators. However if the alpha mare (who leads the herd) decides that they should move on they can cover up to 100 kilometres a day providing they don't have new-born foals at foot.
On this basis, the orthodox account would seem highly probable and not in need of challenging.
Send private message Send e-mail
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Are you saying that the Spanish horses, large sturdy and presumably the result of long and careful breeding, belong to the same stock as the Native Plains ponies and that this clear differentiation in size and appearance arose within a few years?

There was a programme on TV called 'Sex and the Neanderthals' which proposed that Neanderthals are still with us, in other words they were assimilated by Homo Sapiens. This is predicated on the idea that different species interbreed when circumstances encourage it and the theory explains human diversity over a period of 40,000 years.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

So far as I know, all horses can interbreed with all other horses and produce non-sterile offspring. I remember reading somewhere that there was some doubt as to whether that included the Prezwelski (spelling?), but I don't think that anybody has put that to the test.
And no, I am not making any statement about whether group A is descended from or related to group B. Merely that size between, say, 14 hand and 16 hands can vary quite a lot over a relatively short time duration.

It is also interesting to note that there does seem to be a "regression to the mean" with feral horses. Today's mustangs and brumbys (which are the world's two largest groups of feral horses) are all generally about 14.5-15.0 hands no matter what was their original founding stock.
Send private message Send e-mail
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Today's mustangs and brumbys (which are the world's two largest groups of feral horses) are all generally about 14.5-15.0 hands no matter what was their original founding stock.

Neither mustangs nor brumbys are feral strictly speaking; they roam across prescribed areas, much as our Dartmoor and New Forest ponies, but are nevertheless used as working or show horses if the occasion demands.

The only 'wild' ponies according to wiki are the Mongolian ponies but it's clear that their numbers are controlled, enough to provide breeding stock but not so many that the domestic herds have to compete for food. They can be caught and corralled at the appropriate time, much as the Inuit reindeer.

Interesting that mustangs are still recognisably mustangs; does this not suggest that the Spanish 'wild' horses didn't breed with the Plains ponies?
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Neither mustangs nor brumbys are feral strictly speaking; they roam across a prescribed area, much as our Dartmoor and New Forest ponies, but are nevertheless used as working or show horses if the occasion demands

Not so. Here in the states of Victoria and New South Wales we have herds of brumbys that roam all over the High Country - an area of land about as large as Scotland. They are very definitely wild in the sense that they have at least 150 years of "undomestication".

They are not wild in the sense that they are part of the original fauna of Australia, so we must call them feral. They are indeed captured and broken. It takes between a month and six months, depending on the animal, to get a brumby to the point when it can commence its "proper" schooling.

The "Man from Snowy River" movie may be somewhat romanticised but it doesn't stray too far from essentials.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Brumby numbers: Australia has more wild horses than any other country in the world. Estimates are in the thousands, however no one really knows. Numbers are declining very rapidly though, with many being shot, or going to the 'doggers' for pet food, or for overseas meat consumption.


This quote is from the Brumby Watch website.
Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 6

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