Who was the first people that domesticate these 4-legged alphas?
. Basically it was proposed some time ago that they were the Yamnaya, but recent studies and archaeological finds seem to refute this theory.
.some say that were the Yamnaya themselves, others that were people from the Eneolithic Steppe.
. People like Anthony say it was the Yamnaya who didn't use horses for war, and that they were too "complicated" to actually domesticate (DOM1) but states between the lines that they were used for herding.
Lastly, there is a theory that it was the late CWC, but that is still based on the separate wired commodity theory that argues a common sredny origin itself and treats the yamnaya as non-PIE.
and most importantly:
when were horses used for war? apparently it was ridiculously late, some argue as early as 1800, and use Homer as a basis. What do you guys say to me? oh, I need a name for my horse
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
most importantly, why mongols, chinks and those old dudes in the midle east rode manlet horses and plebeian shit like donkeys?
I'm new to this subject, I don't know how to answer. but it seems that this type of horse was used until around 1880 BC. and before it was low enough to be no more than a shepherd
so pure caveman genetic engineering for bigger horses?
Can shine some light on this?
Well, it depends on the theory that you accept.
I listed some theories in my topic, but I'm going to base myself on the fact that Anthony is right, basically the first horses were used for herding and over time, they perfect the breeds, maintain the characteristics they like and separate, discard or castrate the individuals that don't fit. fit the standard. and apparently, they used them for mounted warfare.
Maybe
>so pure caveman genetic engineering for bigger horses?
Basically.
Ponies were the default for many cultures until they grew them bigger.
Because those manlet horses run on nothing but wild vegetation and can march for 80kms on one journey to the point of death.That hardiness removes the logistical burden of other stronger breeds. If you need a cavalry horse meant for crushing through stuff you can just foster a Manchurian or a Balikun or anything else. 14 hands and up etc.
I don't know anything about all this talk of genetics or whatever the frick people are discussing, but I am an equestrian. That's the size horses are in their natural environment. see the horse in the top right of your picture? That's basically what they all looked like before humans started fricking around with them. As someone with a more compact horse, I can say that they tend to have more stamina and less health problems than larger lanklet horses, huge draughts, or miniatures, all of which have weird genetics causes by breeding for specific qualities. Also, nobody over 200 lbs should ever be on any horse.
Here's our pony
haha ugly and malnourished, and mine has blue eyes.
She's a fatty, her old owners let her overgraze on overgrown grass and she got diabeetus
Manlet horses are better, stronger and can run more, as they are closer to the og wild horses. Lanklet horses are domesticated abominations just like a pug is to a wolf.
Sintashta. The "original" horses were useless manlets
European Q-L54 descendant lines include two Eurasian paternal lineages, the Central Asian Q-L330 (Levi) lineage and the Scandinavian Q-L804. (Loki)
In Norse myth Loki Lauveyson brought horses into egypt (Hyksos into Osiris'gard) in trade for scripture with Odin (Thoth).
These two branches of Q split off from the parentbody of L54 exactly when we expect the central asian horse to have been domesticated, giving credibility to the attestation that haplogroup Q, recorded by the norse as Loki, was the parent of the first horses of Europe.
'...Sleipnir is Odin's steed, is the child of Loki and Svaðilfari, is described as the best of all horses, and is sometimes ridden to the location of Hel. The Prose Edda contains extended information regarding the circumstances of Sleipnir's birth, and details that he is grey in color.'
>Central Asian
Cool, except now we have tons of Q from East Europe. It's one of the most common EHG haplogroups and shows up also in Yamnaya. In fact, it's more common in Yamnaya than R1a.
So what you're saying is that I'm statistically likely to be correct?
? No way
There was strong competition between patrilinear clans in prehistoric and bronze age Europe. Men with haplogroups that once dominated the steppes (like Khvalynks with V1636) got replaced by later waves carrying different subclades. In one Khvalynsk cemetery Q males dominated and were buried with the richest grave goods, in another it was V1636 men.
There was even SHG Q
Likely correct in Shintasta
>location of Hel
Hellas / Hades btw.
'Helle' is the overhanging slab or sloping roof of caves, which served as the entrance to Hades.
horses were domesticated by R1a z93.
DoM2, were used to war and ride
I read basically all of Anthony's articles and he basically concludes that this subject is still highly debated and that in the future other types of debate will arrive with new hypotheses. I know, it looks like GTP chat? yes, but it's true... the evidence is very fragmented and far from any dogma, but one thing we know: DoM 1 PROBABLY has a relationship, if not directly, then indirectly with the first horses. and as Anthony always points out, there is a mistake in people's minds of confusing domestication with use in war, horses actually used in war only appear very late. I'm sorry for not answering you directly OP, I don't want to create my own theories, but the last theory you showed is rubbish, the SS was a mutt culture that wasn't very specific.
Call your horse spirit
Sredni Stog:
>Were the people of the Sredni Stog culture knights? Without bit wear or some other pathology associated with riding, we can't be sure. Dereivka objects tentatively identified as horn cheeks for bits could have had other functions. One way to approach this question is to ask whether Late Eneolithic steppe societies behaved like horsemen. It seems so to me. Greater mobility (implied by smaller cemeteries), more long-distance trade, greater prestige and power for prominent individuals, weapons of status appearing in tombs, and intensified warfare against settled agricultural communities are all things we would expect to occur after the cavalcade begins, and we we see them most clearly in cemeteries of the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka type.
>and intensified warfare against settled agricultural communities
historicallly based department called
Don't shine your eyes haha the shepherds lost a lot
do tell
It's pretty solid that horses weren't used as cavalry until very late. (mainly for war).
Even the carriages were mostly battle taxis
Warriors rode into battle and then descended to fight on foot, as in sources? Anthony and Homer
>Warriors rode into battle and then descended to fight on foot, as in sources?
some times they just went around chuggin poisoned spears at people, I'd swear there's at least one source on the celtic mega book I read that says that, but you're right that that same book also talks about a noble warrior going to battle in chariot and stepping out, obviously he had a driver
what book is this?
the celtic heroic age, a compilation of historical sources that talk about celts, celt folklore, etc
basically a list of historic literary sources, if you're interested in celts this is a must read
I didn't know about this book, thanks for the recommendation and God bless you
They were not the Yamnaya, the Yamnaya ""horses"" were as useful as ponies, the first people who used them for walking were the Eneolithic people, probably the Khvalynsk. forget that yamnaya shit
Cope
Why? Yamnaya had none of that.
The first domestic horses are synthasha. The closest thing to yamnaya horses ever found is a yamnaya with crushed balls.
Their burials are poor and primitive, their pottery is inverted, they did not have carts, etc.
Yes
Khvalynsk, the big daddy of PIE, the guys who produced apples with horse heads that were supposedly evidence of horse domestication, were completely exterminated.
The proposed models are clearly wrong.
The ancient Aryans.
I solved the mystery
>>when were horses used for war?
It depends on what you mean. I'm sure the early Yamnaya also used their herding horses to ride up to Volga farmer settlements, dismount and raid them. Is that using horses in war?
Sometime later the Sintashta figured out how you could have a platform behind a horse with a driver of it and a guy chucking missiles at the enemy. That was super effective and rapidly spred across Eurasia, the Sea Peoples adopting it to almost topple Egypt for example.
Then again a bit later in the early Iron Age weapons were developed and horses bred more to make them more effective purely on horseback. That's how you get the Assyrians, Achaemenids and shit.
>Is that using horses in war?
No. I'm not the OP, but where did you get that? There is no evidence of horses being used for battle before 1900 BC, Yamnaya horses were small and they were not the first to domesticate
If you're a herder with a horse who can carry a rider, that advantage of a horse that can carry you close to battle alone is huge. It doesn't need to be on the battlefield like a later Sintashta chariot, let alone charge the enemy like cavalry. You can turn up to an enemy's camp or settlement, dismount and post your horse nearby and raid it, then jump on your horse and ride away before the enemy can respond. It's literally consequence-free stealing.
Weren't they from the Americas originally, only to be hunted to extinction in there, as a food source only?
Yes. The same with botai
Interesting. So nature is actually healing with mustangs...
horses were domesticated by Srubnaya or Andronovo culture, at least they were the first to use them en masse.
we reached common ground;
were the syntashta in 1800 BC and they were the first to use them in battle and they were not useless ponies with tough meat
basically Sintashta = Poltavka (Yamnaya) + Abashevo (he believes they were some kind of uber mutts of everything from farmers to forest foragers) + intensified warfare.
The Yamnaya were the first to ride horses that were probably not used in any military capacity, but were still important for long-distance communications and fast travel.
>The Yamnaya were the first to ride horses
No
Yes
Source?
Dave Anthony suggests that the Yamnaya did not use horses for war, claiming that they were too skittish like DOM1s. He, however, thinks they were used for herding...
moron, read my comment again:
and the sintashta horse was literally used for a specific and different type
and we can go further than the moron wants;
Berezhnovka, evidence of Eneolithic Steppe people presents some evidence that rode horses.
Modern horses are younger than Yamnaya, and were domesticated between 2000 and 1800 BC.
idiot
perhaps they rode ox carts.
Botai horses did not make much of a contribution to the genetics of modern horses. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9
>Modern horses are younger than Yamnaya, and were domesticated between 2000 and 1800 BC.
idiot
No, you bastard. I showed evidence that shows the opposite, it was older and possibly since the Eneolithic, but the damn thing still uses an article that specifically says "war" and still uses botai as a source of domestication, sperm deposit, using a single study as a basis for everything is something a damn how would you do, cancer cell
>perhaps they rotate ox carts.
Do you want a prize? This has been known forever in fact. mainly with the yamnaya carts, but it is irrelevant to the article.
>Botai horses did not make much of a contribution to the genetics of modern horses.
yes, I said otherwise you worm? It was the idiot above and your article who said that, not me.
modern horses were domesticated between 2000 and 1800 BC.
read the article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9 you are the moron son of an AIDS prostitute, before sintashta horses were kept only as meat.
the girl, besides losing the argument and using the same font over and over again, is now angrier than me? Cope, it wasn't the sintashta and we have evidence of domestication older than the yamnaya itself.(domestication IS NOT SYNONYMOUS OF WAR)
besides, you idiot, I'm not going to read a single word. I hope your mother watches you die of cancer in a bed
you lost, moronic child of an aids prostitute.
your father is a gayot, by the way.
it may be that horses were domesticated earlier then some shit happened and they go wild and then they were re domesticated later?
As already mentioned, pre-Sintashta horses were used for riding and not for wars and chariots, (remember why the people of the Sintashta culture invented the chariot in the first place) so it is natural that another type of horse was created and replace the old ones through selection.
It's not really easy to make a population of horses used for riding suitable for war and chariots. and of course, after this the clear superiority of DOM2 horses that could be used for war and in chariots was established. and there is the option that the horses that were domesticated before were more regional than anything else
(I m not the OP or the other kids here)
>and there is the option that the horses that were domesticated before were more regional than anything else
since populations like DoM1 did not basically leave descendants with a continuous
Yes.
perhaps there really wasn't a cavalry as we know it until the Middle Bronze Age, but it is possible that the people of the Steppe used horses for warfare indirectly, after all, it is not impossible that a group of marauders used horses to arrive and move quickly across the battlefield and after the kill, leave the area before anyone arrives.
But who cares about yamnaya? They lost even to the chinese people
yes, this is possible. Maybe the horse was not used in battle before, not mainly because of its size (which I do not deny that has an influence) but because they were possibly a little "less well trained", they were probably skittish enough to not be able to have adequate cavalry training. It is not uncommon in history for small horses to be used for war and even in armies. I worked at a zoo and zebras, for example, are stronger than they look
Everyone already knows this, anon. Please, stop acting like this
the key to this whole discussion is to analyze word meanings, I mean, for some morons, domestication is necessarily limited to using an animal for war for a strange reason, but that doesn't limit domestication. Horses since around 3200 were used for pastoral purposes by people other than the Yamnaya, including older ones like Khvalynsk.
What are you talking about, captain obvious? the only idiot who doesn't understand abstract concepts of utility and necessity and how certain terms are not inherently restricted is not me. no one is acting like a child, just the Chinese guy and the girl.
>Special attention is deserved by the case of the individual of Csongrád-Kettőshalom in Hungary (fig. S12). Displaying five traits, this 25 to 35 years old scores as high as our five Yamnaya individuals and thus meets our requirements to qualify as a rider with a sufficiently high probability. However, his Copper Age date in the second half of the fifth millennium BCE and his geographical isolation call for caution because we lack comparably assessed skeletons of this period and his special cultural context.
>A migrant from the steppes buried in Hungary at Csongrad-Kettëshalom Bastanya, contemporary with Khvalynsk, had Y-haplogroup Q1b, and autosomal DNA similar to Khvalynsk. This steppe male was part of a diaspora of steppe males into the Danube valley that occurred about 4400–4200 BCE.
It's the same guy.
Anthony mentioned this migration in his book:
> Hoards of large golden and copper ornaments of Old European types were hidden at Hencida and Mojgrad in eastern Hungary, probably indicating unsettled conditions, but otherwise there was a lot of cultural continuity between Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur. This was no massive folk migration but a series of long-distance movements by small groups, exactly the kind of movement expected among horseback riders."
It's either a crazy coincidence or some eneolithic steppe men were horse riders.
the horses they "rode" were not found.
Plenty of horse bones from eneolithic steppe. Horse bones were the most common animal bones in Khvalynsk cemeteries.
Eneolithic horses from the region already had DOM2 ancestry.
>Plenty of horse bones from eneolithic steppe. Horse bones were the most common animal bones in Khvalynsk cemeteries.
because they kept horses as beef cattle, just like Botai.
You lost, again.
It's over, the horse meme is literally dead.
>However, although there is overwhelming lexical evidence for domestication of horses, horse-drawn carriages, and derived mythologies in the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family, linguistic indications of horse-breeding practices at the deepest Proto-Indo-European level are in fact ambiguous42 (Supplementary Discussion). The limited presence of horses in CWC43 assemblages and the local genetic makeup of CWC specimens reject scenarios in which horses were the main driving force behind the initial spread of Indo-European languages in Europe44.
that's right. The son of an AIDS prostitute lost.
the appearance of horses suitable for riding is associated with the spread of the sintashta–andronovo horizon.
CWC isn't Khvalynsk or eneolithic steppe. Culturally they weren't even that similar to Yamnaya.
I'm guessing they were peasants from some Western offshoot of Sredni Stog being pushed West by Yamnaya.
How long have you been using this disgusting forum? It's the same idiot above pretending to be someone else.
Odd that CWC came with so much Yamnaya MtDNA in so many different directions. And that they domesticated and bred horses that could be ridden. Doesn't sound like peasants to me.
t. I1 btw
the studies literally say they were used to ride., you are moronic, plus we have an impasse here:
your b***h with brain cancer statement: "they weren't domesticated" well damn, how then did they use him for courtship? in your own statement? Perhaps now you should prostrate yourself before me and ask for forgiveness and admit that horses were not domesticated by the Sintashta and that they were not used for war until recently. which is still debatable, by the way.
Lol sameflag
what are you talking about, you fricking animal?
It has already been explained to you 100 times that initially horses were used only as beef and dairy cattle, exactly until one group of IE people (obviously associated with sitashta) thought of using them as draft force for chariots, then saddles appeared in Cimmerian times and the first horse riders.
Sintashta horses are the offspring of the vast majority of modern horses.
You just stick to one study and ignore others who prove that earlier groups could also use horses for riding. I don't even understand what's your goal. Is this some ethno-nationalist thing? Are you Z93 and identify with Sintashta or something?
It's perfectly possible that DOM1 horses were also ridden, but were later replaced by MLBA Sintashta horses.
There are pre-Cimmerian depictions of horse riders.
See the top picture? That's from Bronze Age, I think it's from around 2200 BC as shown here.
>There are pre-Cimmerian depictions of horse riders.
literally doesn't exist.
Thank you.
I already knew it
I'm not the guy, but I think you're a little moronic.
>It has already been explained to you 100 times that initially horses were used only as beef and dairy cattle,
so they were domesticated, based on the premise that the people of the Pontic Steppe were pastoralists, and they even used horses to eat them, this naturally implies domestication of any kind. Now, using it for riding is another thing. But, we have some evidence
I said this to this donkey
4 times in a row, but this girl is based on the premise of studying "war horses" as the only possible means of domestication for equines, and this is not even limiting to the term "domestication" in general. In fact, my studies that I posted literally say this, that it was used for pastoral purposes, however, there is still evidence of pre-sintashta riding as presented here. but again, this semen drinker will say about le war le chariot, and in no case is it stated that they were used for war, at least in the literal sense.
now, the issue of DOM2 is not really something "new", several domesticated animals can be replaced by another different lineage, as is the case with primitive European dogs, the first domesticated animals can be replaced by another lineage, in this case, it can be DoM1. But it doesn't matter, the girl is moronic
horses were domesticated by Sintashta. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8550961/
in your article:
>Domestication of horses fundamentally transformed long-range mobility and warfare.
*exactly*, I didn't say war, you cancer cell, and do you know how reliable your article is? he says this:
>do not descend from the earliest domestic horse lineage associated with archaeological evidence of bridging, milking and corralling2–4 at Botai, Central Asia around 3500 bc3
see, it cites BOTAI as supposedly being one of the candidates of the oldest people who domesticated the horse, but it turns out that this study did not take into account that this is a moronic meme.
very reliable, I must say.
Why use the botai argument if it has already been disregarded?
Most Botai horses later became wild, contributing only about 2% of the modern domestic horse lineage at most. Their purest descendants are actually the Przewalski wild horses, these very cute wild horses, which were once considered wild, but in fact simply became wild. It is also unknown whether Botai did more than eat his horses. Some studies suggest wear on the teeth due to bits, meaning they were ridden, but the study of ice age North American horses shows similar wear on the teeth without any domestication or riding. But nah. This study for some reason, don't know this
NO
the Yamnaya learned from the Botai
Dude?
so the shittiest kind of evidence can be used evidence now?
There is a 4200 BC Suvorovo sample with all the material wear indications of horseriding that the recent paper used to determine Yamnaya rode them. they always had horses.
the horse takes place are 3,500 BC and 2,200 BC. Based on the genes of modern horses and ancient horses, the domestication of horses did not begin until 16,000 BC, most likely later. If we go by archaeological evidence, the start date of the horse domestication process is probably around 4,800 BC.
The horse began to be used in warfare via chariots in 2100 BC. Cavalry became around 700 BC.
I'm not saying this happened overnight, but the amount of time you think it took isn't accurate at all
They were definitely riding horses earlier. It probably wasn't common, but there are depictions from the bronze age showing people riding horses.
wikipaste; "While genus Equus, of which the horse is a member, originally evolved in North America, these horse relatives became extinct on the continent approximately 8,000–12,000 years ago."
hypothesis;
Q-L54 immigrants into the americas split into two factions based on their previous eurasian migration patterns.
pro-horse and anti-horse.
the pro-horse faction followed wild horses as a means of evading deserts and dead end mountainpasses, in addition to using their dung for primitive agriculture.
the anti-horse faction instead chose to specialize on buffalo dung.
When the north american horses vanished, Q-L54 went back to siberia where their horse-friendly adapted hormones and immune systems. they had become adapted to handling their dung, and thus didn't fall sick, or make the herd sick, when interacting with their habitat and getting close with them.
cue some more thousands of years of nomadic tailgating of horses, and Q-L54 became naturalized with the horse like how wolves became naturalized earlier on.
Q are not something Turkic, by the way.
It's like with Tianyuan ancestors of ANE forming pro-snake and anti-snake groups. The anti-snake guys went North and mixed with West Eurasians producing ANE. This is why Indo-Europeans hated snakes (RQ), but Chinese loved snakes (NO). Snakes being prototypes of dragons.
There was actually an N guy who convinced American Indians (Q) to like snakes which is why they worshipped Quetzalcoatl.
only stepoids (R1aR1b) hate snakes. The EEF, Natufians and other basaloids seem to have revered them.
I'm convinced that Humbaba was a lost ANE/WSHG (Kumsay) guy. Cedar forests were supposedly east of Mesopotamia, so close to Iran. It's close from Iran to Kazakhstan and there are some WSHG outliers from BMAC. Maybe Kelteminar guys were also pretty big.
Worth noting that Loki is considered the parent of the wolf Fenris, horse Slepnir and serpent Jormungand.
Basically all 3 beings that eventually merged into the mythologic Dragon, in large part due to the superstitions and fears of the enemies of Q.
OP have 12y old
They didn't saw a horse and thought I'm gonna breed it until I can ride it.
With horses it's theorized that they were originally kept as simple livestock for meat and milk, this way they came to be more subservient which led people find more uses for them.
>they were originally kept as simple livestock for meat and milk
I would argue this is high likely, merely observing the lifestyle of the mongols
weren't also scythians drinking blood of their horses when on long military campaigns or was that the mongols, I don't recall, if anyone has a source for that that'd be great
Likely both anon. And eating raw horse meat when there was no game or wood for fire or time. American frontier men and Native American braves did as much as well.
Lots of cultures put raw meat between the saddle and the horse and used friction to tenderize it
>to tenderize it
I think that also kinda cooks it, same way you can cook meat by just hitting it repeatedly with a wide head hammer
The people of the Steppe were shepherds, they didn't consume their meat like any HG idiot, but from what was said here there is the possibility that they were used beyond that. eating an animal does not imply that yours is restricted to that, sheep are used for other functions, oxen, etc.
possible, and I've already been attacked by a wild horse
Go back to home OP
Herding and domestication of horses were invented by the Botai (non-whites).
>alphas
Ancient primitive horses were barely over one meter tall.
Anyway it's easy to get them for male horses build harems at ratio of 10 to 1 and bachelors form roaming herds.
Doesn't mean they weren't used for riding.
Well, at least they were more important than you
I wonder how many slaves would be equivalent in price to one war horse in prehistory. Probably more than a few.
Well friend, as much as your question is very interesting, they were probably not used for war until recently... ancient domesticated horses were generally used for riding in addition to their pastoral function by the people of the Steppe. and as already mentioned here, it was probably something very regional, for obvious reasons: the ancient horse was not very well controlled and was not "modern" enough to leave its natural habitat, and believe me, horses are risky as hell, one went after me for almost 5 minutes. and I'm talking about semi-wild horses
That's interesting. I never spent much time around horses tbh anon. I just knew that ancient war horses were astoundingly expensive, worth the price of many good riding horses. Not quite sure when cavalry became a thing but what you're saying makes sense.
SREDNY STOG are the first skeletons with hip wear consistent with riding.
SREDNY STOG were identified as having domesticated horses as far back as the 80's and they have cheek bits and other tack in their faunal assemblies
STOG is shown to be genetically ancestral to Yamnaya people and Yamnaya DOM2 horses come from STOG horses.
Yamnaya just made the horses better through breeding probably to make them less skittish and with stronger backs to carry a man for longer,
Sintashta then bred Yamnaya horses to be even better and Sintashta DOM2 horses replaced earlier DOM2 breeds. But all DOM2 horses come from those ridden by STOG so STOG get the credit
>SREDNY STOG are the first skeletons with hip wear consistent with riding.
Source?
the oldest Yamnaya sample in Trautmann et al 2023cis actually STOG
You lost
Yamnaya or SS
Yes. several guys said this here, but some have other conclusions about who the first domesticators were.
They were clearly not used in war, however
They were not used in combat. But they facilitated larger herds and so healthier men raised on more protein. Horses can also be used during war for scouting, recon, and fast extraction - just because they aren't fit for combat does not mean they weren't used in war
I won't say who directly was the first, it could be SS, Yamnaya or even Khvalynsk. This remains open, but clearly the horse was not domesticated only in 1800 BC as idiots say, the first were horses of the DoM1 type and the DoM2 were basically superior to the previous ones and were replaced.
The Celts
Picrel related.
Some ancient mongolian dude found a little baby horsey out on the steppe and its foot was hurt so it limped and could not run, he was a sweet man who loved animals and he fed the little horsey yak's milk. He brought the little horsey back to the camp and took it with him everywhere he went, it became very comfortable with the nice humans as it grew up, when it bucked his feelings were very hurt and he beat it hard in anger, because he had cared so much for the little horsey, and then the little horsey felt terribly ashamed and eventually stopped bucking and running away and felt so sorry that he even let the mongolian man ride him one day to everyone's cheering and rooting and whooping and hollering.
That man was Ghengis Khan and the little horsey he road was named Ur-Mom. The end.
Lovely story, anon. Very nic- HEY WAIT A MINUTE WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY MOM?!