http://www.photonette.net/
Domestication of the horse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThere are a number of
theories regarding the domestication of the horse. Although horses
appeared in Paleolithic cave art as early as ca 30,000 BC, these were truly
wild horses and were probably hunted for meat; how and when horses became
domesticated is less clear. The most common date of domestication and use as a
means of transport is c. 2000 BC, although in the Kurgan hypothesis the
domestication of horses is dated as early as 4500 BC.
OverviewAttempts to date
domestication by genetic or morphological analyses rests on the assumption of a
separation of the genotype or phenotype of the domesticated and the wild
populations. Such a separation has doubtlessly taken place in historical times,
but dates based on such methods can only ever result in an estimation of the
latest possible date for domestication without excluding the possibility of an
unknown period of significant gene-flow between wild and domestic populations
(which will occur naturally as long as the domesticated population is kept within
the habitat of the wild population).
The date of the
domestication of the horse depends to some degree on one's definition of
"domestic." All horse populations retain the ability to revert to a feral
state, and all feral horses are of domestic types; that is, they descend from
ancestors that escaped from man. The domestic horse is Equus caballus. Its
wild ancestor was Equus ferus. No genetic originals of native wild
horses currently exist, other than the never-domesticated Przewalski's Horse.
Predecessors
to the domestic horse
The Ice Age featured a
number of subspecies of Equus ferus, a controversial term used to
describe the wild prototype of edquus caballus, which were hunted for
meat on the tundra and steppes by early modern men.[citation needed]
Numerous kill sites exist and many cave paintings in Europe tell us what they
looked like. The main problem for students of horse domestication is many early
subspecies were apparently hunted out by humans, particularly in North America,
where the horse became completely extinct.[citation needed]
There is a theory that
there were four basic "proto" horses that developed with adaptations
to their environment prior to domestication. There are competing theories, some
arguing that the prototypes were separate species, others suggesting that the
prototypes were physically different manifestations of the same species. Other
theories hold that there was only one wild species was domesticated and all
different body types were entirely a result of selective breeding.[1]
Either way, the most common
theories of multiple wild subspecies from which other types are thought to have
developed suggests the following base prototypes:
- 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, 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.
Only two truly
"wild" groups survived, Przewalski's horse and the Tarpan. The Tarpan
became extinct in the 19th century and Przewalski's is endangered and until
recently was considered extinct in the wild. Although researchers such as Gimbutas
theorized that the horses of the Eneolithic were Przewalski's, more recent
genetic studies indicate that Przewalski's horse is not an ancestor to modern
domesticated horses. Other subspecies of Equus ferus not yet known to
modern science may have existed. Scholars refer to these unknown animals as
"caballine", meaning that they are not Equus caballus, but are
ancestral to it.
Even though horse
domestication was widespread in a short period of time, it is still possible
that domestication began with a single culture, which passed on techniques and
breeding stock. The earliest domestication is most likely to have occurred in
the 8000 BC - 5000 BC window. It is possible that the two "wild"
subspecies remained when all other groups of "wild" horses died out
because all others had been, perhaps, more suitable for taming by humans and
the selective breeding that gave rise to the modern domestic horse.[citation
needed]
How could those horses
possibly have survived in Europe after 8000 BC, the approximate date of their
extinction in the Americas? The most probable answer is that humans, having
hunted out the feral herds, kept horses as livestock. If that is true, one
might speak of "domestic horses" dating from 8000 BC. Scholars are
currently looking for convincing evidence for this theory.[2]
Recent genetic studies by a
team headed by C. Vila, using the DNA of frozen fossil horse feet found in the
Alaskan permafrost, dating from 28,000 to 12,000 BP, identified 77 mares who
were ancestral to today's Equus caballus, from different times and
places. Vila concluded that horses were widely domesticated over Eurasia and
that the horse taming technology passed between different cultures.
Archaeological
evidence
Incontrovertible evidence
of domestication comes from archaeological finds of human artifacts connected
with horses:
- depictions of horses used as mounts or
draught animals
- equipment such as bits or other types of horse
tack
- horse remains in archaeological context,
particularly horses interred in human graves or showing other signs of
ceremonial burial.
Studies of morphological
features of existing animals compared to those of fossil remains (frozen
remains, other preserved remains, and sub-fossils) led to the hypothesis that
horses were domesticated in one small area of the great steppes of Eurasia,
perhaps around the mid 5th millennium. The earliest archaeological evidence of
domestication are bone bits and horse remains in human graves found in the eneolithic
(5th millennium) Samara culture at the middle Volga. Interestingly, this same
culture is suggested to correspond to the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the Kurgan
hypothesis.
It remains for archaeology
to find and excavate the sites that will tell us what happened. In historical
times, the use of horses is nearly a diagnostic of Indo-European culture in the
diaspora phase. It is certainly one if hardly the only way to account for the
rapid spread of the Kurgan culture and the ease with which it seems to have
gotten the upper hand over Pre-Indo-European cultures. For the most part, the
forest-steppe region and the plains of Asia remain archaeologically unexplored,
leaving room for future discoveries.
The earliest
incontrovertible evidence of horses used as trained animals are the chariot
burials of the Sintashta-Petrovka culture, dating to around 2000 BC.
The earliest evidence of
horse domestication spreading outside regions that encompassed the wild horse's
natural habitat is found in early depictions of horses as draught animals in
the Ancient Near East, dating to ca. 1800 BC. These images showed harnessed
horses controlled with nose rings, as was also the practice with the onagers (Equus
hemionus) native to the Near East;[3] horses
controlled in such a manner could draw chariots in processions, but not in
battle. Widespread introduction of the horse to the Near East coincides with
the turmoil of the Kassite period from ca. 1600 BC.[4]
The first evidence of
domesticated horses in China dates to the late Bronze Age Yin Dynasty, and
evidence for introduction to the Indian Subcontinent (see History of the horse
in South Asia) and Northern Europe (see Trundholm sun chariot) date to about
the same period.
Genetic
evidence
More recently, a
comparative study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from living and fossil horses
suggests that horses were domesticated in many places, at many times.
Evolutionary biologists at Uppsala
University in Sweden studied mitochondrial DNA from 191 pedigreed horses,[5] including examples of historical English and Swedish
breeds considered "primitive," and one breed derived from animals
imported to Iceland by the Vikings. They also obtained DNA samples from the Przewalski's
horse. They compared these samples with fossil DNA from leg bones of horses
that have been preserved in the Alaskan permafrost for more than 12,000 years
and with other samples from 1000- to 2000-year-old archaeological sites in
southern Sweden and Estonia.
This analysis showed that
the modern horses had almost as much genetic variation as samples of fossil
horses. By contrast, similar analyses of mitochondrial DNA had shown that
modern individuals from cattle, sheep, water buffalo, and pig breeds are much
less genetically diverse than their ancient forbears. Thus, it appears that a
large number of wild lineages were involved in the domestication of the horse,
many more than in any other domestic mammal, and suggests that the domesticated
horse had ancestors in many places. This probably means either that
domestication occurred in many areas or that the gene pool of the domesticated
population was continuously refreshed from that of the wild population by new
captures.
These studies also indicate
that the equine matrilineal most recent common ancestor (the mt-mrca)
clearly predates the domestication of the horse. On the other hand, the patrilineal
most recent common ancestor (the Y-mrca) may be more recent.[6]
Location
and time of domestication
The time of domestication
is also difficult to establish, and here again there seem to be several
competing theories. One claim is that evidence at several sites shows equine
tooth wear that only could result from the friction of a bit against the
molars, indicating captive animals--though not necessarily domesticated ones. Sites
include Dereivka, a Ukrainian settlement site (circa 4500–3500 BC), and sites
identified as the Botai culture, dated 3500–3000 BC in the northern steppes of Kazakhstan,
east of the Ishim River. Not all molars at the sites showed bit wear: one
theory argues that the horses with bit wear were cult animals and were kept as
objects of veneration. Another theory suggests that there would be a large
population of equines in the area; some would be captive and others would
remain wild. The captive animals would be used to hunt the wild individuals;
only the captive animals would show bit wear.[citation needed]
Another camp resists this
evidence of domestication altogether because there are no skeletal changes that
provide incontrovertible proof that the horses were actually domesticated—that
is, bred in captivity—and not merely tamed. A species cannot be said to be
truly domesticated until it will reliably breed in captivity. Marsha A. Levine,
one of the foremost researchers in this field, points out that traditional
peoples world wide (both aboriginal hunter-gatherers and horticulturists)
routinely tame individuals from wild species, typically by hand-rearing infants
whose parents have been killed.
Levine's model of horse
domestication starts with individual foals being kept as pets while the adult
horses were slaughtered for meat. Foals are relatively small and easy to
handle. Horses, being herd animals, need companionship to thrive, and the
modern data show that foals can and will bond to other domestic animals to meet
their intimacy needs. Levine envisions horses being repeatedly made into pets
over time, preceding the great discovery that these pets could be ridden or
otherwise put to work.
The traditional scenario,
in which the horse would have been domesticated in one isolated locale in the 5th
millennium BC, is not without some serious anthropological puzzles. On one
hand, logic suggests that horses would have been ridden long before they were driven.
But it is also far more difficult to gather evidence of this, as the materials
required for riding—simple hackamores or blankets--would not survive as
artifacts, and other than tooth wear from a bit, the skeletal changes in an
animal that was ridden would not necessarily be particularly noticeable. Evidence
of horses being driven is much stronger.
As Levine points out, the unequivocal
date of domestication and use of the horse as a means of transport is circa 2000
BC, the date of the Sintashta chariot burials in the southern Urals. However,
shortly thereafter, the expansion of the domestic horse throughout Europe was
little short of explosive. In the space of possibly 500 years, there is
evidence of horse-drawn chariots in Greece, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. By another
500 years, the horse-drawn chariot had spread to China.
Driving
versus riding
A difficult question is if
domesticated horses were first ridden or driven. While the most unequivocal
evidence shows horses first being used to pull chariots in warfare, there is
strong, though indirect, evidence for earlier uses.
For the proposition that
horses were ridden before being driven, David W. Anthony, one of the
co-founders of the Institute for Ancient Equestrian Studies, wrote (Anthony,
1998):
"The Dereivka stallion exhibits bit wear
made by a hard bit - perhaps bone. The amount of wear would have required at
least 300 hours of riding with a hard bit, according to our experiments. If the
deposit containing the stallion skull and mandible dates to about 4000 BC, as
Brown, Telegin and I would argue, it pre-dates the invention of the wheel. If
the bit wear at Dereivka precedes the introduction of wheeled vehicles, it
probably resulted from riding. The bit wear at Dereivka is the earliest
evidence for the use of horses as transport animals anywhere in the world. "
In addition, as the modern
hackamore demonstrates, horses can also be ridden without a bit by using rope
and other evanescent materials to make equipment that fastens around the nose. So
the absence of unequivocal evidence of early riding in the record does not
settle the question.
On the other hand, others
debate the issue, arguing that evidence of bit wear does not necessarily
correlate to riding. Some theorists speculate that a horse could have simply
been led by placing a bit in the mouth, connected to a lead rope, and leading
the animal while pulling a primitive wagon or plow. Since oxen were usually
relegated to this duty in Mesopotamia, it could be guessed that early plows
might have been attempted with the horse, and a bit may indeed have been significant
as part of agrarian development rather than as warfare technology.
To resolve this issue,
analysis on equine remains could focus on shoulder and spine stress, to
determine if heavy pressure such as a plow can be discerned.[citation
needed]
Horses
in ancient warfare
While riding may have been
practiced during the 4th and 3rd millennia BC, the first known impact by horses
on ancient warfare was by pulling chariots, introduced circa 2000 BC.
Horses in the Bronze Age
were relatively small by modern standards, which led some theorists to believe
the ancient horses were too small to be ridden and so must have been driven. Herodotus'
description of the Sigynnae, a steppe people who bred horses too small to ride
but extremely efficient at drawing chariots, illustrates this stage.
The Iron Age saw the rise
of mounted cavalry as a tool of war, as evidenced by the notable successes of mounted
archer tactics used by various invading equestrian nomads such as the Parthians.
Over time, the chariot gradually become obsolete.
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). However,
small horses were used successfully as light cavalry for many centuries. For
example, Fell ponies, believed to be descended from Roman cavalry horses, are
comfortably able to carry fully grown adults (although with rather limited
ground clearance) at an average height of 13.2 hands (1.37 m). Likewise, the Arabian
horse is noted for a short back and dense bone, and the successes of the Muslims
against the heavy mounted knights of Europe demonstrated that a 14.2 hand horse
can easily carry a full-grown human adult into battle.
Mounted warriors such as
the Scythians, Huns and Vandals of late Roman antiquity, the Mongols who
invaded eastern Europe in the 7th century through 14th centuries AD, the Muslim
warriors of the 8th through 14th centuries AD, and the American Indians in the
16th through 19th centuries each demonstrated effective forms of light cavalry.
Notes
- ^ Bennett, Deb. Conquerors: The Roots of
New World Horsemanship. Amigo Publications Inc; 1st edition 1998. ISBN
0-9658533-0-6
- ^ Budiasky, Stephen. The Nature of
Horses.
- ^ Note that the Sumerian term for
"horse" is derived from that for "donkey", ANŠE.KUR.RA
′↳⊏, literally "mountain
donkey", indicating introduction of the horse to the plains of Mesopotamia
from Anatolia or Persia.
- ^ This association has occasionally
inspired descriptions of the Kassites as equestrian nomads.[citation
needed]
- ^
Vilà et al., 2001
- ^ Lindgren et al. (2004); note that also in human genetics,
"Y-Adam" is considerably younger than "mt-Eve".
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestication_of_the_horse&action=history
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
Attempts to date
domestication by genetic or morphological analyses rests on the assumption of a
separation of the genotype or phenotype of the domesticated and the wild
populations. Such a separation has doubtlessly taken place in historical times,
but dates based on such methods can only ever result in an estimation of the
latest possible date for domestication without excluding the possibility of an
unknown period of significant gene-flow between wild and domestic populations
(which will occur naturally as long as the domesticated population is kept within
the habitat of the wild population).
The date of the
domestication of the horse depends to some degree on one's definition of
"domestic." All horse populations retain the ability to revert to a feral
state, and all feral horses are of domestic types; that is, they descend from
ancestors that escaped from man. The domestic horse is Equus caballus. Its
wild ancestor was Equus ferus. No genetic originals of native wild
horses currently exist, other than the never-domesticated Przewalski's Horse.
Predecessors
to the domestic horse
The Ice Age featured a
number of subspecies of Equus ferus, a controversial term used to
describe the wild prototype of edquus caballus, which were hunted for
meat on the tundra and steppes by early modern men.[citation needed]
Numerous kill sites exist and many cave paintings in Europe tell us what they
looked like. The main problem for students of horse domestication is many early
subspecies were apparently hunted out by humans, particularly in North America,
where the horse became completely extinct.[citation needed]
There is a theory that
there were four basic "proto" horses that developed with adaptations
to their environment prior to domestication. There are competing theories, some
arguing that the prototypes were separate species, others suggesting that the
prototypes were physically different manifestations of the same species. Other
theories hold that there was only one wild species was domesticated and all
different body types were entirely a result of selective breeding.[1]
Either way, the most common
theories of multiple wild subspecies from which other types are thought to have
developed suggests the following base prototypes:
- 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, 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.
Only two truly
"wild" groups survived, Przewalski's horse and the Tarpan. The Tarpan
became extinct in the 19th century and Przewalski's is endangered and until
recently was considered extinct in the wild. Although researchers such as Gimbutas
theorized that the horses of the Eneolithic were Przewalski's, more recent
genetic studies indicate that Przewalski's horse is not an ancestor to modern
domesticated horses. Other subspecies of Equus ferus not yet known to
modern science may have existed. Scholars refer to these unknown animals as
"caballine", meaning that they are not Equus caballus, but are
ancestral to it.
Even though horse
domestication was widespread in a short period of time, it is still possible
that domestication began with a single culture, which passed on techniques and
breeding stock. The earliest domestication is most likely to have occurred in
the 8000 BC - 5000 BC window. It is possible that the two "wild"
subspecies remained when all other groups of "wild" horses died out
because all others had been, perhaps, more suitable for taming by humans and
the selective breeding that gave rise to the modern domestic horse.[citation
needed]
How could those horses
possibly have survived in Europe after 8000 BC, the approximate date of their
extinction in the Americas? The most probable answer is that humans, having
hunted out the feral herds, kept horses as livestock. If that is true, one
might speak of "domestic horses" dating from 8000 BC. Scholars are
currently looking for convincing evidence for this theory.[2]
Recent genetic studies by a
team headed by C. Vila, using the DNA of frozen fossil horse feet found in the
Alaskan permafrost, dating from 28,000 to 12,000 BP, identified 77 mares who
were ancestral to today's Equus caballus, from different times and
places. Vila concluded that horses were widely domesticated over Eurasia and
that the horse taming technology passed between different cultures.
Archaeological
evidence
Incontrovertible evidence
of domestication comes from archaeological finds of human artifacts connected
with horses:
- depictions of horses used as mounts or
draught animals
- equipment such as bits or other types of horse
tack
- horse remains in archaeological context,
particularly horses interred in human graves or showing other signs of
ceremonial burial.
Studies of morphological
features of existing animals compared to those of fossil remains (frozen
remains, other preserved remains, and sub-fossils) led to the hypothesis that
horses were domesticated in one small area of the great steppes of Eurasia,
perhaps around the mid 5th millennium. The earliest archaeological evidence of
domestication are bone bits and horse remains in human graves found in the eneolithic
(5th millennium) Samara culture at the middle Volga. Interestingly, this same
culture is suggested to correspond to the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the Kurgan
hypothesis.
It remains for archaeology
to find and excavate the sites that will tell us what happened. In historical
times, the use of horses is nearly a diagnostic of Indo-European culture in the
diaspora phase. It is certainly one if hardly the only way to account for the
rapid spread of the Kurgan culture and the ease with which it seems to have
gotten the upper hand over Pre-Indo-European cultures. For the most part, the
forest-steppe region and the plains of Asia remain archaeologically unexplored,
leaving room for future discoveries.
The earliest
incontrovertible evidence of horses used as trained animals are the chariot
burials of the Sintashta-Petrovka culture, dating to around 2000 BC.
The earliest evidence of
horse domestication spreading outside regions that encompassed the wild horse's
natural habitat is found in early depictions of horses as draught animals in
the Ancient Near East, dating to ca. 1800 BC. These images showed harnessed
horses controlled with nose rings, as was also the practice with the onagers (Equus
hemionus) native to the Near East;[3] horses
controlled in such a manner could draw chariots in processions, but not in
battle. Widespread introduction of the horse to the Near East coincides with
the turmoil of the Kassite period from ca. 1600 BC.[4]
The first evidence of
domesticated horses in China dates to the late Bronze Age Yin Dynasty, and
evidence for introduction to the Indian Subcontinent (see History of the horse
in South Asia) and Northern Europe (see Trundholm sun chariot) date to about
the same period.
Genetic
evidence
More recently, a
comparative study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from living and fossil horses
suggests that horses were domesticated in many places, at many times.
Evolutionary biologists at Uppsala
University in Sweden studied mitochondrial DNA from 191 pedigreed horses,[5] including examples of historical English and Swedish
breeds considered "primitive," and one breed derived from animals
imported to Iceland by the Vikings. They also obtained DNA samples from the Przewalski's
horse. They compared these samples with fossil DNA from leg bones of horses
that have been preserved in the Alaskan permafrost for more than 12,000 years
and with other samples from 1000- to 2000-year-old archaeological sites in
southern Sweden and Estonia.
This analysis showed that
the modern horses had almost as much genetic variation as samples of fossil
horses. By contrast, similar analyses of mitochondrial DNA had shown that
modern individuals from cattle, sheep, water buffalo, and pig breeds are much
less genetically diverse than their ancient forbears. Thus, it appears that a
large number of wild lineages were involved in the domestication of the horse,
many more than in any other domestic mammal, and suggests that the domesticated
horse had ancestors in many places. This probably means either that
domestication occurred in many areas or that the gene pool of the domesticated
population was continuously refreshed from that of the wild population by new
captures.
These studies also indicate
that the equine matrilineal most recent common ancestor (the mt-mrca)
clearly predates the domestication of the horse. On the other hand, the patrilineal
most recent common ancestor (the Y-mrca) may be more recent.[6]
Location
and time of domestication
The time of domestication
is also difficult to establish, and here again there seem to be several
competing theories. One claim is that evidence at several sites shows equine
tooth wear that only could result from the friction of a bit against the
molars, indicating captive animals--though not necessarily domesticated ones. Sites
include Dereivka, a Ukrainian settlement site (circa 4500–3500 BC), and sites
identified as the Botai culture, dated 3500–3000 BC in the northern steppes of Kazakhstan,
east of the Ishim River. Not all molars at the sites showed bit wear: one
theory argues that the horses with bit wear were cult animals and were kept as
objects of veneration. Another theory suggests that there would be a large
population of equines in the area; some would be captive and others would
remain wild. The captive animals would be used to hunt the wild individuals;
only the captive animals would show bit wear.[citation needed]
Another camp resists this
evidence of domestication altogether because there are no skeletal changes that
provide incontrovertible proof that the horses were actually domesticated—that
is, bred in captivity—and not merely tamed. A species cannot be said to be
truly domesticated until it will reliably breed in captivity. Marsha A. Levine,
one of the foremost researchers in this field, points out that traditional
peoples world wide (both aboriginal hunter-gatherers and horticulturists)
routinely tame individuals from wild species, typically by hand-rearing infants
whose parents have been killed.
Levine's model of horse
domestication starts with individual foals being kept as pets while the adult
horses were slaughtered for meat. Foals are relatively small and easy to
handle. Horses, being herd animals, need companionship to thrive, and the
modern data show that foals can and will bond to other domestic animals to meet
their intimacy needs. Levine envisions horses being repeatedly made into pets
over time, preceding the great discovery that these pets could be ridden or
otherwise put to work.
The traditional scenario,
in which the horse would have been domesticated in one isolated locale in the 5th
millennium BC, is not without some serious anthropological puzzles. On one
hand, logic suggests that horses would have been ridden long before they were driven.
But it is also far more difficult to gather evidence of this, as the materials
required for riding—simple hackamores or blankets--would not survive as
artifacts, and other than tooth wear from a bit, the skeletal changes in an
animal that was ridden would not necessarily be particularly noticeable. Evidence
of horses being driven is much stronger.
As Levine points out, the unequivocal
date of domestication and use of the horse as a means of transport is circa 2000
BC, the date of the Sintashta chariot burials in the southern Urals. However,
shortly thereafter, the expansion of the domestic horse throughout Europe was
little short of explosive. In the space of possibly 500 years, there is
evidence of horse-drawn chariots in Greece, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. By another
500 years, the horse-drawn chariot had spread to China.
Driving
versus riding
A difficult question is if
domesticated horses were first ridden or driven. While the most unequivocal
evidence shows horses first being used to pull chariots in warfare, there is
strong, though indirect, evidence for earlier uses.
For the proposition that
horses were ridden before being driven, David W. Anthony, one of the
co-founders of the Institute for Ancient Equestrian Studies, wrote (Anthony,
1998):
"The Dereivka stallion exhibits bit wear
made by a hard bit - perhaps bone. The amount of wear would have required at
least 300 hours of riding with a hard bit, according to our experiments. If the
deposit containing the stallion skull and mandible dates to about 4000 BC, as
Brown, Telegin and I would argue, it pre-dates the invention of the wheel. If
the bit wear at Dereivka precedes the introduction of wheeled vehicles, it
probably resulted from riding. The bit wear at Dereivka is the earliest
evidence for the use of horses as transport animals anywhere in the world. "
In addition, as the modern
hackamore demonstrates, horses can also be ridden without a bit by using rope
and other evanescent materials to make equipment that fastens around the nose. So
the absence of unequivocal evidence of early riding in the record does not
settle the question.
On the other hand, others
debate the issue, arguing that evidence of bit wear does not necessarily
correlate to riding. Some theorists speculate that a horse could have simply
been led by placing a bit in the mouth, connected to a lead rope, and leading
the animal while pulling a primitive wagon or plow. Since oxen were usually
relegated to this duty in Mesopotamia, it could be guessed that early plows
might have been attempted with the horse, and a bit may indeed have been significant
as part of agrarian development rather than as warfare technology.
To resolve this issue,
analysis on equine remains could focus on shoulder and spine stress, to
determine if heavy pressure such as a plow can be discerned.[citation
needed]
Horses
in ancient warfare
While riding may have been
practiced during the 4th and 3rd millennia BC, the first known impact by horses
on ancient warfare was by pulling chariots, introduced circa 2000 BC.
Horses in the Bronze Age
were relatively small by modern standards, which led some theorists to believe
the ancient horses were too small to be ridden and so must have been driven. Herodotus'
description of the Sigynnae, a steppe people who bred horses too small to ride
but extremely efficient at drawing chariots, illustrates this stage.
The Iron Age saw the rise
of mounted cavalry as a tool of war, as evidenced by the notable successes of mounted
archer tactics used by various invading equestrian nomads such as the Parthians.
Over time, the chariot gradually become obsolete.
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). However,
small horses were used successfully as light cavalry for many centuries. For
example, Fell ponies, believed to be descended from Roman cavalry horses, are
comfortably able to carry fully grown adults (although with rather limited
ground clearance) at an average height of 13.2 hands (1.37 m). Likewise, the Arabian
horse is noted for a short back and dense bone, and the successes of the Muslims
against the heavy mounted knights of Europe demonstrated that a 14.2 hand horse
can easily carry a full-grown human adult into battle.
Mounted warriors such as
the Scythians, Huns and Vandals of late Roman antiquity, the Mongols who
invaded eastern Europe in the 7th century through 14th centuries AD, the Muslim
warriors of the 8th through 14th centuries AD, and the American Indians in the
16th through 19th centuries each demonstrated effective forms of light cavalry.
Notes
- ^ Bennett, Deb. Conquerors: The Roots of
New World Horsemanship. Amigo Publications Inc; 1st edition 1998. ISBN
0-9658533-0-6
- ^ Budiasky, Stephen. The Nature of
Horses.
- ^ Note that the Sumerian term for
"horse" is derived from that for "donkey", ANŠE.KUR.RA
′↳⊏, literally "mountain
donkey", indicating introduction of the horse to the plains of Mesopotamia
from Anatolia or Persia.
- ^ This association has occasionally
inspired descriptions of the Kassites as equestrian nomads.[citation
needed]
- ^
Vilà et al., 2001
- ^ Lindgren et al. (2004); note that also in human genetics,
"Y-Adam" is considerably younger than "mt-Eve".
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestication_of_the_horse&action=history
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html