I am obsessed with this topic and Steppe culture in general. A huge part of the history of Eurasia, and the world, starts in the Steppe, an on the backs of horses. Thank you! This topic is criminally overlooked.
@@edelgyn2699 There’s a direct line between adorable, plague-carrying marmots in Kyrgyzstan and Columbus’ expeditions. 😉 Think of the global implications of the Black Death and its effects on Western Europe’s society. That’s just one delivery made via the Eurasian steppe that stretches from Siberia to Hungary, and you don’t even need a force like Genghis Khan to trigger changes with planet-wide effects. Migrations that began north of the Han state set off a chain reaction of invasion and migration that ended in the Roman Empire.
When I was 10 years old and taking English riding lessons, quite often the trainer had us riding bareback without reins to learn to control the horse with just our legs. On our ranch from a very young age, my cousins and I would catch our mule and ride her. No tack, no saddle and Butterfly would bite and kick every chance she got. None of that could keep us from wanting to ride her. My point is that the first riders were probably children sneaking up to and trying to ride anything they could. You certainly don't need to be riding a horse to catch one. I enjoy your channel thoroughly and send my thanks from the Sierras in California.
One wheel-less device is the travois, which in North America was used with dogs before horses got introduced. They were made entirely from wood and leather.
I think that is similar to what we called hurdles. Ive seen images from medieval book illustrations. Plus convicted felons (also martyrs) too tortured to walk or as an additionsl insult were dragged to the gallows on a hurdle. Always puzzled me when I was little.
Most people who ride horses started as children, and children with easy contact with horses pretty much inevitably climb aboard one way or another. Clanestinely, because adults (horse owners or not) have their own ideas about the use of their horses, and having a bunch of little kids playing with them, interfering with their milk production, their training, their availability for whatever use the adults want. And kids do die of messing with horses, so parents may just want to keep their kids safe. But I'm convinced that the first person on the back of a horse was a child. And that person may have broken an arm falling off and chosen not to ride again...until some other kid did. The psychological effect on a child who first gets on a horse is far more important to them than whatever's happening to their pelvic bones and femurs. I remember clearly being lifted up onto a horse the first time--it's my only memory for that early--I was no longer studk on the ground looking at the backs of adults legs at about knee level. I could see over them. I was told later I had to be forceably removed from the saddle, and every subsequent time I got on one, I felt the same way. "No evidence of horses in battle" is NOT a reason to think that nobody rode before soldiers did. And they could be used "aggressively" as soon as you were in a chariot behind them, not necessarily on them. But climbing on the first time *successfully* is more likely with a child than an adult. Look at child bones.
@@neilatkinson3974 I've known kids whose first rides were on calves, sheep, even dogs (the dogs decline, but the kids try) etc, so I suspect the "try to ride it" started early. I know that so-called "primitive" people kept animal pets, and children even rode (Indian) elephants, esp. in the water. So riding water buffalo and basically anything a bold child could thiink of sort of came naturally. I've seen a few videos now of kids stepping over a grazing horse's neck, sliding down to sit backwards on the back and then turning around...but a friend of ours had a mare you could mount on her neck (we always stepped over her neck facing forward, tug on her mane and say "Up, Pokey" and she'd slide you right down to her back. Or, you could mount over her rump by getting hold of her tail, putting a foot on her hock, and swarming up that way.
I've been taming a feral colt on a Welsh mountain for the past few months and agree with your thought there - I would make it a child riding a foal, perhaps an adopted foal being fed - a foal that had daily contact with that kid and so was entirely at ease with it. The colt I'm working with will let me massage him all over while he's lain flat-out snoozing now... I've had to resist getting on his back while he's lain there... were I a kid I'd have already done it and, if I was little, very lightweight, and had been tumbling and hugging him for a few months I doubt he'd mind that much if I lay or sat on his back now since the trust is there already. Of course, there is perhaps the genetic selection through domestication effecting the ease of the process of taming there but, I can't see a foal that's bonded with a human family rearing it behaving that much differently.
A late comment as I just discovered this on the size of the horse. When I was much younger I rode horses that were often 16+ hands. I could even get on a 17 hand horse with my stirrups jumping length I.e. short. Now in my 70s I ride a 14.2 Arabian and most of the time I don’t even try without a mounting block which the veterinarians now say is better for the horse. The point is that even with my delicate little mare the change in perspective and power versus being on your feet is immense. There would have been great advantages to the average size person in riding a horse.
I have no credentials other than my 82 years of experience, including with horses. (I can still create a bridle out of leather straps and iron rings and a bit). On the matter of tack, while modern perspective tells us that horses were unable to compete with oxen until the invention of the horse collar, which cushioned the equine windpipe, in fact the martingale did a nearly good enough job before then. A martingale is a "Y" made of leather straps. Native Americans used horses to pull weight but did not have the wheel, (or horse collar) using a travois, a contraption of poles and straps they had previously used with dogs. I have read that the Scythians hitched horses to large wagons without making teams, using a distributed system still used by Inuit mushers with sled dogs. This has every beast of burden individually hooked to the vehicle in a sort of radial effect, the length of the individual strap managing the pattern of the group instead of the more familiar European teaming in pairs. Inuit mushers (dog drivers) did fine for centuries before we came along and told them they were doing it wrong. :-) There were many ancient ways to attach a beast to a load that came before modern methods. I am not surprised archaeology hasn't found much evidence. You can ride a horse with only a short loop of rope through its mouth. Or even by directing it with the pressure of your knees if you have its cooperation. Horses are much like dogs in their trainability and willingness. A friendly horse can even love you. .A short horse is easier to mount than a tall one., oh, and did the Botai perhaps suffer a horse plague?
Horses in America died out more than 11 000 years ago. I would be very surprised if the humans that arrived in North America had been able to domesticate them. Otherwise they would probably be still around.
Quite enjoyed this. It seems possible that some early people did not use bits but rather used something like a hackamore. It relies on a nose band that puts pressure on certain parts of a horse’s face. The pressure is released when the horse slows and/or stops. Saddles are helpful but not absolutely necessary for basic riding. Balance and leg pressure are key to telling a horse which direction to go. Shifting your weight towards the back of a horse slows it down. Watch barrel racers and dressage riders to see these moves perfected. As prey animals, horses move away from leg pressure. My wacko theory - a prepubescent girl was the first to ride a horse. It is reflected in the seemingly gender-related love of horses through millennia. Lol. I write this as someone who first began asking her parents for a horse at 3. Took them 10 years to come around. I never did own a saddle. I started with a bareback pad and soon discarded that in favor of plain old bareback.
@@edelgyn2699 Credit where credit is probably due. Little girls want a pony waaaaaay more than little boys do. I think Kerry's observation probably spot on!
@@edelgyn2699 As men come to dominate all women's events at the Olympics (2028?) then one of the last strongholds will be equestrian dressage, cross-country and show jumping. It is not only girls who respond positively to horses, it's a two way street. "Wacko" ... you denigrate others so glibly I don't feel bad about labelling you as ignorant.
@@brigidsingleton1596 yes, I'm from the western United States, and "horseback riding" is the common term used here. I do appreciate your point about where else would one ride on a horse; I have, however, ridden on an elephant, and that was done on the neck of the animal, with its ears warming my legs.
@@cindysaroya1251 I see your point re elephants but the subject in hand - of which ye spake - was re actual _horse_riding ... _Not_ _elephant_ riding, so your point was / is moot.
The teeth of a horse don't have wear from wearing a bit in their mouth. There is a convenient natural gap in their dentition where it sits. The bit hitting teeth makes for a VERY cranky riding horse, because it's really uncomfortable for them. My guess is that at first they were domesticated for food and milk. And here you have to take into account that unlike goats or sheep, you can not really herd your domestic horses on foot very well. My guess is that relatively early they started using corrals and halters for controlling them and then these nomads used the horses to drag their gear when they changed camps. And from there to putting their kids and immobile old people on their backs while the adults lead them to some adventurous kids trying to control them while sitting on their backs and do things like gallopping around on them should have happened pretty early in their domestication.
Actually, the above post isn't quite accurate... some horses do show wear in their teeth from the incorrect use of metal bits. It is also worth noting that many horses have what are known as "wolf teeth", which sit inside that "natural gap" that so many do in fact have. Often these are associated with male horses but I have had 2 mares that had to have those "wolf teeth" removed before introducing them to a bridle with a bit. As a horse owner, breeder, and someone who took in and rehabilitated mis-used horses, I discovered quite a few types of bitless bridle. A Hackamore is incredibly powerful, and in the wrong hands can drop a horse to its knees (by stopping the intake of air through the nostrils). My favourite became the Scawbrig bridle, the use of which takes a skilled rider, as most of the communication comes through body-weight, coordination of hands and legs, as well as tapping of the heels and tugging on one rein or the other. There are many other bridles made from knotted rope, the knots can serve different purposes (pressure being applied to different spots), and of course they're infinitely customisable, depending on the shape and size of the horse's head. Having the use of metal certainly has nothing to do with the technology of horse riding and everything associated with the domestication of horses.
@@ruthcherry3177 The native American war bridle springs to mind. I do not understand why the human factor is not taken into account. I know a lot of 13 year old girls and boys. An overtly friendly foal playing with the children would have been ridden as soon as it would stand for someone leaning over it. That they were first used, like the dog, for the travois' to allow a mother of toddlers to get stuff done.
This statement isn't correct. I really suggest everyone check out the original research on bitwear analysis done by David Anthony and Dorcas Brown, where they carefully describe their methods of measuring and taking casts of ancient and modern teeth, including teeth of living horses. These researchers, as well as critics of their research AND the earliest people to use bits, are well aware of the ideal bit placement on the diastema (or "bars"), the gap between incisors/canines and the premolars. However, in order to avoid the pressure of the bit on the sensitive tissue of their gums, almost all horses develop the habit of lifting their tongue, rolling the bit back until it knocks against the anterior (front) surface of their first lower premolars. This is well-documented behavior, different from the phenomenon where some horses deliberately grasp the bit between their premolars to ignore rein signals and run away with the rider. The question here is to what degree the rolling of the bit causes damage to the anterior surfaces of PL1 teeth. Anthony, Brown, and others say that they've been able to measure distinct "bitwear bevels" on premolars to a degree that is not seen on unbitted horse teeth, while Levine, Bendry, and others argue that this could be natural wear present in all horses, or at least not caused by the earliest organic bits. As an archaeologist studying horses myself, I'm excited for the possibilities that bitwear studies may have in my part of the world (Japan) where the first bits were rather complex iron snaffle bits coming from the Korean peninsula. I understand some of the potential weaknesses and critiques of the analytical method, but I think it may have a lot to teach us about specific riding styles and bit use in the past.
Well arnt U the clever one. People rode bare back and hadn't invented the reigns yet , possibly for ages to begin with. I'm sure a harness over nose and possibly a soft material was used in the mouth later at first. Forged steel for bits etc came way later. Anyway, to be honest who really gives a rats testicals who rode first, it doesn't serve us any usefulness knowing it was walker steppe ranger distant cousin of leprechaun green
I don't think donkeys were ever mentioned, but donkeys preceded horses, e.g. in Egypt, where horses became prevalent only about the time of the Second Intermediate Period (approx. 1800-1550 BC), when chariots became fashionable among the very wealthy and powerful, and art depicting horse RIDING appears only about 1300 BC. Oddly, stirrups became common only in the 4th to 8th centuries AD. Still, the humble donkey needs his history to be told...
Agreed. And I wonder if some of the other equid species were also involved, tarpans, for instance. Any species that children got on, but adults did not find useful, wouldn't be in the records at all. But I'm sure kids also got on donkeys, where donkeys existed.
It occurred to me that every civilization learned how to ferment something to catch a buzz. With that “creativity” of thought, why wouldn’t they look at a house and say “that thing pulled my on my butt for an hour when we caught it, wonder if it could pull a log?” The jump to the idea of riding it wouldn’t be far behind IMHO. I can hear the conversation around the hut after a bit of ferment “hey guys, watch this!” God knows it only took me and my friends 3 weeks after getting our drivers license to tie a rope to the back of a car and drag each other around a dirt lot on a bit of carpet. Humans are predictable.
They didn't need a horse to catch a horse. They could hide by a water source and rope it when it came to drink. That is how native Americans caught wild horses. Groups of horses are moved in strings ( linking the horses together by a single rope). They also hobbled (tied the front legs together) to keep them from running away until trained. P.S. As someone who used to work with rope, I can say with confidence, that it is and would have been possible for strong tack, capable of pulling a cart, to be made by weaving or branding biodegradable leather or rope.
Also they can be driven and corralled in artificial or natural barriers preventing escape. Sometimes animal herds were driven over cliffs to havest their carcasses. But, as with domestication in other cases, the easiest way is to capture the young and raise them.
The history of the human race was written from the back of the horse. As an old horse lady I can attest to a lot of my aches and pains now in my hips and back can be attributed to riding as teen and 20 something.
It's possible that they rode elephants and ostriches before that... But whatever: writing appears quite late in human history and even Genghis Khan didn't write that much...
They wouldn't have been able to milk mares w/o some type of halter situation, and that could have been made from tough cloth. If they were milking mares, the human doing the milking would have imprinted the mare's foal (a foal is necessary to get the mare to start producing milk). People tend to get really tired while doing things with horses, so no doubt the person milking the mare would have leaned on the growing foal from time to time just to take a rest break. If they were drinking mare milk, they would not have weaned the foal in any hurry, and could have kept a foal on a mare until the foal was say 3 years old. A foal will keep drinking milk as long as the mare offers (or there is a new foal), which the mare will do because weaning the foal causes the udder to fill and causes pain if not milked. By that time, the person doing the milking could really lean on the foal quite a lot as the foal has matured a lot and is stronger. It wouldn't take much for the person milking the mare to climb on the foal that has been imprinted and leaned on for 3 years, in order to rest by using the foal as a sort of chair. That's probably how most of horse riding came about. Just going and leaping from the ground or a tree onto the back of a wild horse would soon be known to cause a very high rate of injuries or death, so I doubt most people would want to try that. I'm not saying some did and managed to train a horse to be ridden, but it wouldn't have been something a population would have been able or wanting to do. All you have to do to understand the latter point is look at how specialized the wild Mustang TIP training is and the trainers who do that kind of thing. They sure didn't have round pens like Clinton Anderson training a Brumby.
The Armenian wagon implies that the wheel was invented in the Caucasus and further developed by the Indo-European speakers in the Caucasian steppe. By this time however the Anatolian branch had already moved south and adopted their own independent terminology (applications of the same roots to different components). Horses convert grass to milk, freeing them from the river valleys, and lighter horse drawn wagons gave them the mobility to exploit that.
Writings from India would say they have been riding since 5,000 b.c.e. at very least. Their timelines are certainly skewed in some cases but still that entire culture raised cattle and drove chariots. Will be fascinating to see how far back they do go.
The Indo-Aryans who spread into India were a branch of the Yamnaya. The early vedas give us some of the oldest written insight into the broader culture.
The so called Arabian horse is over 5000 years old. I say so called because it's older than the Arab ethnicity and the cradle of civilisation was in Mesopotamia not Arabia. So I'd bet my family Jewels that the breed is Mesopotamian not Arabian.
Maximum time from domestication of horses to riding of horses is 15 years. At least 50% of kids who grew up around horses would have been on their backs by 15 years old.
Almost three quarters of the westward emigrants in the US used wagons pulled by oxen, it's far more probable the Yamnaya carts/wagons were also driven by oxen. In fact, it's got me wondering now if the wheel came before the 'saddle' so to speak, being semi nomadic an ox drawn wagon would have been a great way to move their chattels across the steppes.
@@helenamcginty4920 - Of course. Cows were domesticated by the precursors of the mainline European Neolithic (proto-Vasconics) in Southern Anatoli and then spread around easily. Think Çatalhöyuk, but also think Balcanic Painted Potery culture, Starcevo, LBK, etc. all those and many others had cattle as domesticate. It's not as old as goats/sheep but still quite old.
Thanks for your videos. 1) Have you ever seen cattle dogs working? Far more efficient than humans. Small-medium sized, quiet, responding to whistled commands, not much different from the English sheep herding collies. 2) Suggest that the bit was a later development after the bridal: basically, an evolved better method of control.
Being able to ride a horse would revolutionise life on the prarie/steppe. The distances are mind boggling and intimidating for a human reduced to walking.
The Mummies of Ürümchi clearly had riding breeches and some of the effigies in Mal'ta Burket seemed to have had breeches that could be interpreted that way. The Mal'ta Burket people also lived with horses. However, the people of the Train region fell well into the time frame of 4000 BCE, the Mal'ta Burket people were twenty thousand years before that. I think that horseback riding definitely required breeches. You wouldn't ride Lady Godiva style before saddles came about.
I have seen more than one country kid jump on a pig and ride away. Because pigs can grow so very large, and are so intelligent, is it possible that we are missing a very large field of probability in failing to research pig riding as an aspect of early human behavior? (It is possible that thinking of this means that I really need to get out more and stop living in my head so much.)
We can “observe” how non-metal using cultures adapted to using horses and what tack they used, plus methods of use by looking at the moments when First Nations peoples of the American plains started using the horses they adopted. Of course they would have witnessed the Spaniards astride their mounts so they would have known this was possible, but acquiring the animals alone, without the metal bits and bridles meant they would have to adopt methods of control that used natural materials which would leave no archaeological trace. And they utilized the animals as draft resources though they lacked wheeled vehicles as another comment or has suggested. Ultimately any serious warfare that is successfully done from horseback requires controlling the horse WITHOUT reins of any sort because you need both hand to effectively wield weapons. Perhaps getting to the field of battle is helped by having tack, but one in the battle itself previous training and leg aids/cues as well as verbal commands is how it was probably done…at least by the winners! We should not overlook the spiritual/mystical dimensions either of this great transition. Yes, cattle/oxen are marvelous for moving great weight or for cultivating a landscape, but the speed that a human achieves by being “one” with a horse is an entirely different dimension. Cattle basically move at the same speed as humans, as do all the other domesticated creatures, but horses (and Reindeer) add an almost mystical aura to the humans who manage to sit astride such creatures and move with them, without objection from the animal. Having control OVER such a force of power gives one status, just as those who could coax metal from stones and fire would be seen to possess magical skills. The horse that is ridden is allowing a union of spirit that we still recognize to this day whether it is us riding or if we are watching…. It still is a thing of magic and mystery that these powerful creatures allow themselves to be ridden by puny humans.
I thought it might be interesting to do a bit of historical linguistic research to see if this tallies with your osteo-archaeology. Interestingly the words for ‘ride’ and ‘horse’ both derive from *Proto-IndoEuropean - the hypothetical language identified with the Yamnaya - although the word to ride (*reidh-) also means to travel. However all the words for tack and for the different gaits of a horse derive from later languages. So these may have been concepts that the Yamnaya did not have.
Similarly the word for wheel traces back to a common *PIE root for many descendant languages implying that the Yamnaya had the wheel but conversely words for the different types of vehicles (carts, wagons, chariots) do not appear to do so…
Horse riding, like the wheel: started independently in several places. I agree with you: not using it in war is not proving they were not ridden. At first, horses were used in a livestock situation. Warring does not have to come into the equation because it is not the normal everyday. Animals and plants are the normal everyday. The war thing is hindsight!!
There are several indications that horses in the Yamnaya culture and in subsequent cultures didn’t play a major role in warfare. Firstly, all depictions of riders dated before 865 BC show the riders sitting on the croup (that is the part above the hind legs of a horse), just like donkeys are ridden today in some parts of the world. In this position the rider cannot have full control of the horse as necessary to fight from horseback. The first depiction of proper riding can be found in a dramatic fighting scene from Assyria around 865 BC. These riders are definitely in proper control of their horses, although they still needed a second rider riding alongside to hold the reins when the other shot his bow. Perfect mastery of horseback archery would still need another century or two. It is further significant, that only from this time onwards cavalry spread like wildfire all over Europe and Asia, whereas during the second millennium BC horse-related fighting was, as far as we know, done from chariots only. Had some people mastered the horse to this degree prior to the first millennium, surely this martial art would have spread much earlier, but there isn't the slightest evidence for such a spread. Furthermore it was found that around 2200 BC two important mutations occurred in domesticated horses, one concerning a gene associated with stronger backs and one in a gene associated with a more docile nature of the horse as compared to wild horses. This seems to have been a major contribution for the development of horses into strong and reliable partners for warfare, be it with chariots or riders. Thus, riding prior to the first millennium BC and especially prior to the second millennium seems to have simply been a mode of accelerated travel and transport and has in this way facilitated the expansion of the Yamnaya culture and of the proto-indo-european language.
The Plains Indians of the American Plains, who adopted horse riding after the 1600's, and especially the Comanche, were described as one with the Horse and fully developed fighting skills while riding, to the astonishment of educated Europeans who studied them. It would have been fantastic to have been able to compare the capabilities of those famous horse and cavalry cultures of Europe and the Asian Plains with those of the American Indians, to determine which culture had a pinnacle to being "one" with their Horses.
We boarded Shetlands on the farm where I grew up we used to jump on and ride for miles with only halters. We also rode one big sow pig that we had. She didn't go anywhere but would tolerate us. It was all great fun. Yes we were totally unsupervised and a bunch of little screaming heathens!
I must strongly disagree with the assesment on Botai: it doesn't matter if they spread or remained in their country and if the Indoeuropeans copied them (most probably) before exterminating them (also very likely), what matters is if they domesticated the horse... and they did. Also what about the Magdalenian horses with harnesses depicted in some atltals? What about onager or ass domestication (with carts) in Mesopotamia? What about the quite apparent independent domestication in or near Iberia?
Likely as per cowboys, riding horses would have been for the purpose of herding and corralling horses and cattle. Riding horses for military purposes would have developed much later, as mastery of controlling horses was required if one was also to wield weapons from horseback. If you look at the best known warriors of the past, the Greek hoplites, the Roman legionaries, the Vikings, the Samurai, and soldiers into the modern era, most were footsoldiers. Sure, there were the Persian horse archers, the Hittite and Egyptian chariot soldiers, and cavalry up to the early 20th century, but warfare on horseback was usually to gain a tactical advantage. It was rarely ever the modus operandi of battle. Effectively, you don't need proof of warfare on horseback to prove people were riding horses.
Very good point!.. Horses are NOT very good on the battlefield unless they are used in very specific ways. At the battle of the Little Big Horn the seventh cavalry had to dismount and one of every four soldiers had to move to the rear with four horses. Shooting a bow or rifle from a horse is very problematic and the cultures that were good at it took generations to get that way. The fact that horses won't run into a line of sharp sticks or bayonets is part of the reason the battle of Waterloo was lost. I believe the first ancient Egyptian depictions of chariots showed them being used solely as transportation to the field of battle.
@@flipflopski2951 - Mounted infantry is not "pointed rocks". If you know anything re. military history, you should know that the age of knights is short and overrated, that the almogavars (mounted infantry) were slaughtering cataphracts (heavy cavalry, knights) well into the Middle Ages even before the age of pikes, longbows, etc. had any development or effect.
I was very interested to know more when this research was released, particularly about how they decided what the signs of riding on the skeleton would be? The ancient people would have been riding without anything resembling a modern saddle, and without stirrups, which would leave very different skeletal changes to those seen in modern day riders. Also, the idea that the only way you can catch horses is from the back of a horse is amusing. No, you won't get near a wild horse if you just go running at it it like the bald ape that you are; but if you take the time to watch the herd, understand how they interact, learn how they talk to each other, and how to mimic that behaviour - you'll get a hell of a lot closer. Maybe close enough to herd them into an enclosed space where they can be caught more easily. Which is what they probably did when first domesticating them. I do think that the "monkeys riding pigs" story is relevant though! Imagine a couple of teenagers watching their herd, getting bored and competing to see who can stay on a horse for the longest. And, as you say, the horses were small so could probably be leapt onto from the ground. I'd really love it if archaeologists would talk to animal behaviourists about things like this, without understanding horses how can you imagine their beginnings in our lives?
Wagons don't make much sense with horses unless you have some kind of roads.. it would be very tricky, if you look at even the "flat" terrain in that area of the world. It makes much more sense that horses would be pack animals. Short stocky strong horses can carry a *lot*. (In areas with snowy winters you could use sledges.. just as was/is done with the reindeer you mentioned)
You do not need to use horses to catch horses. People hunted horses for food on the regular. Catching a full grown horse to keep alive would be more trouble than it's worth. Killing a mare for food and keeping the foal is likely how it initially started. Keep the foal around long enough to eat it but slowly figure out these things can carry stuff and they can be manageable and trainable if you take them young enough. Horses used to be smaller on average. I imagine the riding part came pretty quickly after having them carry stuff.
Have you seen the German Archaeology Institute’s video on the invention of trousers. It ties in nicely with this research although the garment they investigate is later in date than the skeletons in this study.
I loved that research documentary! They had specialists from a few different fields collaborate to recreate the earliest known trousers and explained why they developed the way they did.
@@tonyu5985 they were an indo European invention, I can't recall the specific genetic or archeological IE group. Yamnaya? Don't hold me to that. They definitely didn't claim it as Germanic, knowing darn well they didn't exist as a distinct IE group yet lol.
I was the first to ride, and I did it tens of millions of years ago. I was riding so long ago that the horses had three toes. I also tried to ride an ancient epycamilis (ancient camel speies), Hesperotestudo (a type of tortious... was too slow), the type of rhino which we had back then, and some kinds of birds. The birds were too small, and always ended up getting crushed. I stuck with the horse, which evolved to be bigger, and ended up having only one hoofed toe.
Fascinating discussion. Wish I’d found it earlier. I’ve been interested in this topic since reading David Anthony’s book which is a must if you want to understand the succession of cultures in this region. But listening to you talking about warrior expansion versus a peaceable group with a technological edga + plague, you sparked off an idea in my mind, which is that maybe the significance of the waggon/horse culture in this region is that it may be the first development of the classic nomad steppe way of life. Expansion and warfare associated with this culture would be secondary ( and I don’t believe in any totally peaceful societies) and contingent on factors eg plague or political disputes at the time. Interested in your thoughts on this.
I think it would be interesting to tie this up with the evolution of horses. Many of the heards of wild horses around the world are actually the result of the escape of domestic horses. I think it would be an interesting area to study just how much the evolution of the horse has been shaped by domestication. Obviously domestication of a smaller animals would have been significantly easier than the "glorious beasts" we have today. But once domesticated, those small horses could have been selectively bread to produce larger beasts of burden. If these escaped into the wild, it could have even given rise to the horses that we see in the wild today. I suspect that all the larger horses we now see in the wild today are descended from domesticated animals.
Google Sintasha culture. They bred horses with the most desireable traits which were so widely traded that basically all domestic horses descended from those.
Excellent point about pigs and monkeys! How well I remember, as a child, we tormented the wranglers constantly to let us ride bareback. Yippiekeyeyea As much part of human nature as a fondness for silly hats.
I think you'd enjoy watching/listening to TH-cam video "The Invention of the Trousers" by Deutsches Archaogisches Institut. It seems that the earliest trousers have been found in areas inhabited by horse-riding people. I wince thinking about riding in a kilt.
Knowing how we humans are, the first time we spied one of those things at full tilt, we must have said to ourselves I wanna jump on the back of one. You can just hear the camp fire conversation: ' So Jim what happened to your arm?' Jim; ' Horse mate' Oh really you got attacked by a horse, thats unusually?! No mate I tried to get on the back of one today!! Bahhahahaa
Like a few others commenting here, I'm wondering about the necessity, or not, of "tack" - viz. bareback riding on the one hand, and the "travois" as a precursor to carts & chariots on the other. Utility is given by both. Both would leave almost no trace to inform archaeology. - Bareback riding can surely be as efficient in day to day farming & herding as using saddles, but the travois is, I can only imagine, " a drag" in comparison with carts or chariots? And as others have succinctly pointed out, the carts pulled by cattle are the trucks or pickups, and the horses are the Porsches and speedbikes…. as much for the usefulness of speed as for making a (hopefully) grand impression.
It occurred to me whilst watching that: it would be clearer to say that... The researchers demonstrated that the most frequently observed pathology, experienced by modern day horse riders. Can be observed in skeletal remains dating back to 3000 bce.
its a difficult subject as all horses originated in the Americas and all horses alive to day are from domesticated stock, there are no wild horses living today - any that you might think are wild are effectively feral.
Gosh. I did vaguely know that there had been horses in America in prehistory but that they had died out. Had no idea they had originated there before spreading westward to the Asian steppes. Thanks. Love adding new titbits of knowledge to my brainstore.
So...when the Spanish came ashore with horses, the locals might have been waiting for that very thing? Okay. I looked it up. Nobody's great - great- great whomever would be old enough to remember them.
You need to be a bit more specific. There are no horses in the americas that did not come from previously domesticated stock. Some species of horses migrated from the americas to asia, possibly as early as 2+ miillion years ago. The last horses in the americas (before western domesticated breeds arrived and some became feral) went extinct between 6,000 and 11,000 BCE.. The first human migrations (each time the opportunity arose) began probably 100,000 years ago.. and quite possibly watched some species of horses moving west as they spread east into the americas. Each time the Bering land bridge or shoreline (including small boat) was possible.. people used the opportunity. There was never a "One Way" sign.. Back and forth.. Glaciers and ice formed and retreated.. humans and animals used those opportunities.. humans more easily, as horses and other animals don't make boats.. Be Well!! 😃
Look into the he Native American “war bridle” which was essentially reins with a loop and cinch in the middle, where the loop slipped onto the lower jaw and lodged in that convenient tooth gap between the incisors and molars. The cinch knot snugged and secured the reins quite firmly and gave as full control as a metal (or wood or bone) bit. It was invented by Native Americans horse tribes who didn’t have access to metal bits. A “war bridle” is also made from completely biodegradable materials, or might not be recognizable other than “an odd short rope” if found at all.
I’d like to point out that people did NOT have to be horseback to catch horses. If they knew where the wild horses grazed, they could build a trap, then line up a number of people around the herd and walk toward the horses, effectively driving the herd into the trap.
The Sami were my first thought when I was younger, as our first 'riders' - until I discovered how late the reindeer became a domesticated part of their culture, beyond just another prey animal. Edit: Just imagine the first 'Cavalry' group of 6 hairy grunts on Goats riding into some tent village...
Thank you so much for the knowledge contained herein. I will say it's the closest to feeling like I was reading a pre-screen reference book, on youtube. The data's useful, the pages turn slowly, you re-read the last page as you've been wondering about lunch recipes and not absorbed it... I don't mean to be mean or give anyone anything more than feedback. For the format, TH-cam, this needs more signposting, one of you needs to be summarising the other at least, and if you could revisit your major points in the conclusion that also would be progress.
It is likely that the use of waggons was an innovative advance from the use of a litter, as shown in recent times by the quick adaption to horses by the American Plains Indians, from riding (no saddle), through to using an improvised litter (made from their teepee poles when moving camp.
Cattle were used for heavy pulling until the pulling harnesses were invented that wouldn't cut the horses air off. A wooden yoke like is still used on oxen would compress the horses windpipe.
Why is it that some people can not understand that others are much more apt at trying things... Making mistakes, getting back on the horse and trying again? This is ridiculous. When i was a child we rode horses all the time without halters or bridles... We clung to the mane. Granted the horses were small but none the less we rode them. The only issue is when the horse is larger... I believe that the researcher needs to do much more homework... This is stupid. I... Me... rode a deer when I was young - not because it was tame but because I believed it was possible and so I mounted it. Another thing is people who are around horses "KNOW" horses. Ludicrous idea that some idiot gets an idea and sets out to prove it without knowing anything about the subject. Talk to horse people first! then set about investigating. The same applies to dogs, dolphins, sharks, etc, etc, etc, Science is BS in most hands! Horses and Humans have a relationship virtually as long as dogs and Humans. Given particular areas and wildlife I'm sure there are many relationships with other useful animals. Some below mentions 10K years - that of course pre supposes the 10k figure is accurate for human mobility. I doubt that number and lean towards the 30 k numbers. Why are they focussed on the BIT? Cows are still used today without a BIT.
Just a thought. Perhaps our ancients became dependent on cattle herding pastoralism long before any need for horses. They soon would have developed the ox-drawn cart. Inspired by their mastery of one large animal they then proceeded to try and domesticate the much more dynamic horse. Perhaps they were literally putting the cart before the horse!
I am fairly new to your TH-cam channel and I love the info and variety of topics you give. I was wondering if you have a video of books to read on all the ancient cultures or if you would consider doing video on this. Thanks. Love watching y'all and the laughs that comes with it.😊
Horses and riders still need special training to not bolt or panic when threatened. Remember they are herbivores with a long history of escaping from predators. So we shouldn't be surprised if horses were being ridden, pulling travois, or just being on a rein and leading in other animals for centuries before going to war. Even if you haven't worked out how to ride a horse or get her to pull a travois, a mare on a rein can lure stallions to your spears each time she goes on heat.
My dad was raised on horses on the family ranch. He was slightly bow legged as he quit riding when he left home. Not knowing technical terms, was that covered in catagory 1?
Another point. The researchers are asserting claims of showing some of, if not the, earliest horse riders based on skeletal injuries and differences. However, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Both Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens suffered a lot of head and neck injuries (and spine injuries) suggestive of rising as well. How is it that Neanderthals existed across such a broad range. They clearly ate horse and reindeer. So they were associated with both. Might they have ridden Przewalski's Horses? And what of the three (or more) species of Denisovans? I see no reason to presume that any of these species and even Homo Erectus did not ride horses or other similar animals. There is no evidence apparently of domestication per se. But that also does not imply they didn’t opportunistically use horses in this way.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
As a horseperson, I had that question rolling around in my brain for decades. Thank you!💝
I am obsessed with this topic and Steppe culture in general. A huge part of the history of Eurasia, and the world, starts in the Steppe, an on the backs of horses. Thank you! This topic is criminally overlooked.
The world? You may well be obsessed...
I’m obsessed 😁
@@edelgyn2699 There’s a direct line between adorable, plague-carrying marmots in Kyrgyzstan and Columbus’ expeditions. 😉
Think of the global implications of the Black Death and its effects on Western Europe’s society. That’s just one delivery made via the Eurasian steppe that stretches from Siberia to Hungary, and you don’t even need a force like Genghis Khan to trigger changes with planet-wide effects. Migrations that began north of the Han state set off a chain reaction of invasion and migration that ended in the Roman Empire.
I am glad you guys mentioned Dan Davis.
Really appreciated.
Oh lord, monkeys riding pigs..but seriously, I certainly enjoyed this dialogue. Many things were brought up to ponder. More like this please.
Friend of mine did ride on a pig as a kid , it was a hot day and the pig died of heatstroke! The kids dad had to pay the farmer…
@@mattiasdahlstrom2024 some monkey, that kid…
When I was 10 years old and taking English riding lessons, quite often the trainer had us riding bareback without reins to learn to control the horse with just our legs. On our ranch from a very young age, my cousins and I would catch our mule and ride her. No tack, no saddle and Butterfly would bite and kick every chance she got. None of that could keep us from wanting to ride her. My point is that the first riders were probably children sneaking up to and trying to ride anything they could. You certainly don't need to be riding a horse to catch one. I enjoy your channel thoroughly and send my thanks from the Sierras in California.
And the girls could continue to ride while the men grew too large, until larger breeds were attained..Amazons?
Agreed!!
I hope from Bishop in Sierra and Mule Days
That's why the analysis of the leg and pelvis bones of these steppe people is important because you can see the evidence of long term riding in them
One wheel-less device is the travois, which in North America was used with dogs before horses got introduced. They were made entirely from wood and leather.
I think that is similar to what we called hurdles. Ive seen images from medieval book illustrations. Plus convicted felons (also martyrs) too tortured to walk or as an additionsl insult were dragged to the gallows on a hurdle. Always puzzled me when I was little.
Most people who ride horses started as children, and children with easy contact with horses pretty much inevitably climb aboard one way or another. Clanestinely, because adults (horse owners or not) have their own ideas about the use of their horses, and having a bunch of little kids playing with them, interfering with their milk production, their training, their availability for whatever use the adults want. And kids do die of messing with horses, so parents may just want to keep their kids safe. But I'm convinced that the first person on the back of a horse was a child. And that person may have broken an arm falling off and chosen not to ride again...until some other kid did. The psychological effect on a child who first gets on a horse is far more important to them than whatever's happening to their pelvic bones and femurs. I remember clearly being lifted up onto a horse the first time--it's my only memory for that early--I was no longer studk on the ground looking at the backs of adults legs at about knee level. I could see over them. I was told later I had to be forceably removed from the saddle, and every subsequent time I got on one, I felt the same way. "No evidence of horses in battle" is NOT a reason to think that nobody rode before soldiers did. And they could be used "aggressively" as soon as you were in a chariot behind them, not necessarily on them. But climbing on the first time *successfully* is more likely with a child than an adult. Look at child bones.
Yes and in Southern Asia children ride the water buffalo quite routinely - I have to wonder which came first.
@@neilatkinson3974 I've known kids whose first rides were on calves, sheep, even dogs (the dogs decline, but the kids try) etc, so I suspect the "try to ride it" started early. I know that so-called "primitive" people kept animal pets, and children even rode (Indian) elephants, esp. in the water. So riding water buffalo and basically anything a bold child could thiink of sort of came naturally. I've seen a few videos now of kids stepping over a grazing horse's neck, sliding down to sit backwards on the back and then turning around...but a friend of ours had a mare you could mount on her neck (we always stepped over her neck facing forward, tug on her mane and say "Up, Pokey" and she'd slide you right down to her back. Or, you could mount over her rump by getting hold of her tail, putting a foot on her hock, and swarming up that way.
I've been taming a feral colt on a Welsh mountain for the past few months and agree with your thought there - I would make it a child riding a foal, perhaps an adopted foal being fed - a foal that had daily contact with that kid and so was entirely at ease with it. The colt I'm working with will let me massage him all over while he's lain flat-out snoozing now... I've had to resist getting on his back while he's lain there... were I a kid I'd have already done it and, if I was little, very lightweight, and had been tumbling and hugging him for a few months I doubt he'd mind that much if I lay or sat on his back now since the trust is there already.
Of course, there is perhaps the genetic selection through domestication effecting the ease of the process of taming there but, I can't see a foal that's bonded with a human family rearing it behaving that much differently.
Just wanted to give a shout out to you both - the production quality on this video is top notch👏
Thank you Ben! Good to hear. M😊
A late comment as I just discovered this on the size of the horse. When I was much younger I rode horses that were often 16+ hands. I could even get on a 17 hand horse with my stirrups jumping length I.e. short. Now in my 70s I ride a 14.2 Arabian and most of the time I don’t even try without a mounting block which the veterinarians now say is better for the horse. The point is that even with my delicate little mare the change in perspective and power versus being on your feet is immense. There would have been great advantages to the average size person in riding a horse.
It’s no accident the horse-riding women of the steppe are remembered in Greek myth and art as the Amazons.
Awesome reading ability, Rupert. Good humour.
I have no credentials other than my 82 years of experience, including with horses. (I can still create a bridle out of leather straps and iron rings and a bit).
On the matter of tack, while modern perspective tells us that horses were unable to compete with oxen until the invention of the horse collar, which cushioned the equine windpipe, in fact the martingale did a nearly good enough job before then. A martingale is a "Y" made of leather straps.
Native Americans used horses to pull weight but did not have the wheel, (or horse collar) using a travois, a contraption of poles and straps they had previously used with dogs. I have read that the Scythians hitched horses to large wagons without making teams, using a distributed system still used by Inuit mushers with sled dogs. This has every beast of burden individually hooked to the vehicle in a sort of radial effect, the length of the individual strap managing the pattern of the group instead of the more familiar European teaming in pairs. Inuit mushers (dog drivers) did fine for centuries before we came along and told them they were doing it wrong. :-) There were many ancient ways to attach a beast to a load that came before modern methods.
I am not surprised archaeology hasn't found much evidence. You can ride a horse with only a short loop of rope through its mouth. Or even by directing it with the pressure of your knees if you have its cooperation. Horses are much like dogs in their trainability and willingness. A friendly horse can even love you. .A short horse is easier to mount than a tall one., oh, and did the Botai perhaps suffer a horse plague?
Horses in America died out more than 11 000 years ago. I would be very surprised if the humans that arrived in North America had been able to domesticate them. Otherwise they would probably be still around.
@@spacefertilizer he is talking about horses that were introduced via European barbarians I guess
@@themaskedman5954 he’s changed his comment
Dan Davis does great work, top notch research.
1:32 "The paper is dryer than..." *Max Miller clicking hard tack.
OMG I've never seen two guys make history so boring. Just get t the point!
Quite enjoyed this. It seems possible that some early people did not use bits but rather used something like a hackamore. It relies on a nose band that puts pressure on certain parts of a horse’s face. The pressure is released when the horse slows and/or stops.
Saddles are helpful but not absolutely necessary for basic riding.
Balance and leg pressure are key to telling a horse which direction to go. Shifting your weight towards the back of a horse slows it down. Watch barrel racers and dressage riders to see these moves perfected.
As prey animals, horses move away from leg pressure.
My wacko theory - a prepubescent girl was the first to ride a horse. It is reflected in the seemingly gender-related love of horses through millennia. Lol.
I write this as someone who first began asking her parents for a horse at 3. Took them 10 years to come around. I never did own a saddle. I started with a bareback pad and soon discarded that in favor of plain old bareback.
'...gender-related love of horses...'?? Definitely wacko.
@@edelgyn2699 it's a well-reseached subject, actually
@@edelgyn2699 Credit where credit is probably due. Little girls want a pony waaaaaay more than little boys do. I think Kerry's observation probably spot on!
@@edelgyn2699 As men come to dominate all women's events at the Olympics (2028?) then one of the last strongholds will be equestrian dressage, cross-country and show jumping. It is not only girls who respond positively to horses, it's a two way street.
"Wacko" ... you denigrate others so glibly I don't feel bad about labelling you as ignorant.
If women were milking it was most likely a girl who rode a horse.
Bless you and thank you from a long-time lover of prehistory, horse cultures, and horseback riding.
Are you an American, I wonder...
"Horseback riding" ...(!!)
Where else would you sit?!
(We say _'horseriding_')
@@brigidsingleton1596 yes, I'm from the western United States, and "horseback riding" is the common term used here. I do appreciate your point about where else would one ride on a horse; I have, however, ridden on an elephant, and that was done on the neck of the animal, with its ears warming my legs.
@@cindysaroya1251
I see your point re elephants but the subject in hand - of which ye spake - was re actual _horse_riding ... _Not_ _elephant_ riding, so your point was / is moot.
I think wagons with oxon were the vans and trucks but horses were the cars and bikes
The teeth of a horse don't have wear from wearing a bit in their mouth. There is a convenient natural gap in their dentition where it sits. The bit hitting teeth makes for a VERY cranky riding horse, because it's really uncomfortable for them. My guess is that at first they were domesticated for food and milk. And here you have to take into account that unlike goats or sheep, you can not really herd your domestic horses on foot very well. My guess is that relatively early they started using corrals and halters for controlling them and then these nomads used the horses to drag their gear when they changed camps. And from there to putting their kids and immobile old people on their backs while the adults lead them to some adventurous kids trying to control them while sitting on their backs and do things like gallopping around on them should have happened pretty early in their domestication.
Actually, the above post isn't quite accurate... some horses do show wear in their teeth from the incorrect use of metal bits. It is also worth noting that many horses have what are known as "wolf teeth", which sit inside that "natural gap" that so many do in fact have. Often these are associated with male horses but I have had 2 mares that had to have those "wolf teeth" removed before introducing them to a bridle with a bit. As a horse owner, breeder, and someone who took in and rehabilitated mis-used horses, I discovered quite a few types of bitless bridle. A Hackamore is incredibly powerful, and in the wrong hands can drop a horse to its knees (by stopping the intake of air through the nostrils). My favourite became the Scawbrig bridle, the use of which takes a skilled rider, as most of the communication comes through body-weight, coordination of hands and legs, as well as tapping of the heels and tugging on one rein or the other. There are many other bridles made from knotted rope, the knots can serve different purposes (pressure being applied to different spots), and of course they're infinitely customisable, depending on the shape and size of the horse's head. Having the use of metal certainly has nothing to do with the technology of horse riding and everything associated with the domestication of horses.
@@ruthcherry3177 The native American war bridle springs to mind. I do not understand why the human factor is not taken into account. I know a lot of 13 year old girls and boys. An overtly friendly foal playing with the children would have been ridden as soon as it would stand for someone leaning over it. That they were first used, like the dog, for the travois' to allow a mother of toddlers to get stuff done.
This statement isn't correct. I really suggest everyone check out the original research on bitwear analysis done by David Anthony and Dorcas Brown, where they carefully describe their methods of measuring and taking casts of ancient and modern teeth, including teeth of living horses. These researchers, as well as critics of their research AND the earliest people to use bits, are well aware of the ideal bit placement on the diastema (or "bars"), the gap between incisors/canines and the premolars. However, in order to avoid the pressure of the bit on the sensitive tissue of their gums, almost all horses develop the habit of lifting their tongue, rolling the bit back until it knocks against the anterior (front) surface of their first lower premolars. This is well-documented behavior, different from the phenomenon where some horses deliberately grasp the bit between their premolars to ignore rein signals and run away with the rider. The question here is to what degree the rolling of the bit causes damage to the anterior surfaces of PL1 teeth. Anthony, Brown, and others say that they've been able to measure distinct "bitwear bevels" on premolars to a degree that is not seen on unbitted horse teeth, while Levine, Bendry, and others argue that this could be natural wear present in all horses, or at least not caused by the earliest organic bits. As an archaeologist studying horses myself, I'm excited for the possibilities that bitwear studies may have in my part of the world (Japan) where the first bits were rather complex iron snaffle bits coming from the Korean peninsula. I understand some of the potential weaknesses and critiques of the analytical method, but I think it may have a lot to teach us about specific riding styles and bit use in the past.
Well arnt U the clever one. People rode bare back and hadn't invented the reigns yet , possibly for ages to begin with. I'm sure a harness over nose and possibly a soft material was used in the mouth later at first. Forged steel for bits etc came way later.
Anyway, to be honest who really gives a rats testicals who rode first, it doesn't serve us any usefulness knowing it was walker steppe ranger distant cousin of leprechaun green
Wear on sides of crowns?
You say 'oriented' not '-tated'.
Thank you for being so well read.
I don't think donkeys were ever mentioned, but donkeys preceded horses, e.g. in Egypt, where horses became prevalent only about the time of the Second Intermediate Period (approx. 1800-1550 BC), when chariots became fashionable among the very wealthy and powerful, and art depicting horse RIDING appears only about 1300 BC. Oddly, stirrups became common only in the 4th to 8th centuries AD. Still, the humble donkey needs his history to be told...
Agreed. And I wonder if some of the other equid species were also involved, tarpans, for instance. Any species that children got on, but adults did not find useful, wouldn't be in the records at all. But I'm sure kids also got on donkeys, where donkeys existed.
It occurred to me that every civilization learned how to ferment something to catch a buzz. With that “creativity” of thought, why wouldn’t they look at a house and say “that thing pulled my on my butt for an hour when we caught it, wonder if it could pull a log?” The jump to the idea of riding it wouldn’t be far behind IMHO.
I can hear the conversation around the hut after a bit of ferment “hey guys, watch this!”
God knows it only took me and my friends 3 weeks after getting our drivers license to tie a rope to the back of a car and drag each other around a dirt lot on a bit of carpet. Humans are predictable.
They didn't need a horse to catch a horse. They could hide by a water source and rope it when it came to drink. That is how native Americans caught wild horses. Groups of horses are moved in strings ( linking the horses together by a single rope). They also hobbled (tied the front legs together) to keep them from running away until trained.
P.S. As someone who used to work with rope, I can say with confidence, that it is and would have been possible for strong tack, capable of pulling a cart, to be made by weaving or branding biodegradable leather or rope.
Also they can be driven and corralled in artificial or natural barriers preventing escape. Sometimes animal herds were driven over cliffs to havest their carcasses. But, as with domestication in other cases, the easiest way is to capture the young and raise them.
The history of the human race was written from the back of the horse.
As an old horse lady I can attest to a lot of my aches and pains now in my hips and back can be attributed to riding as teen and 20 something.
It's possible that they rode elephants and ostriches before that... But whatever: writing appears quite late in human history and even Genghis Khan didn't write that much...
@@andriesscheper2022 Perhaps she’s not speaking of literal writing. 🙄
They wouldn't have been able to milk mares w/o some type of halter situation, and that could have been made from tough cloth. If they were milking mares, the human doing the milking would have imprinted the mare's foal (a foal is necessary to get the mare to start producing milk). People tend to get really tired while doing things with horses, so no doubt the person milking the mare would have leaned on the growing foal from time to time just to take a rest break. If they were drinking mare milk, they would not have weaned the foal in any hurry, and could have kept a foal on a mare until the foal was say 3 years old. A foal will keep drinking milk as long as the mare offers (or there is a new foal), which the mare will do because weaning the foal causes the udder to fill and causes pain if not milked. By that time, the person doing the milking could really lean on the foal quite a lot as the foal has matured a lot and is stronger. It wouldn't take much for the person milking the mare to climb on the foal that has been imprinted and leaned on for 3 years, in order to rest by using the foal as a sort of chair. That's probably how most of horse riding came about. Just going and leaping from the ground or a tree onto the back of a wild horse would soon be known to cause a very high rate of injuries or death, so I doubt most people would want to try that. I'm not saying some did and managed to train a horse to be ridden, but it wouldn't have been something a population would have been able or wanting to do. All you have to do to understand the latter point is look at how specialized the wild Mustang TIP training is and the trainers who do that kind of thing. They sure didn't have round pens like Clinton Anderson training a Brumby.
The Armenian wagon implies that the wheel was invented in the Caucasus and further developed by the Indo-European speakers in the Caucasian steppe. By this time however the Anatolian branch had already moved south and adopted their own independent terminology (applications of the same roots to different components). Horses convert grass to milk, freeing them from the river valleys, and lighter horse drawn wagons gave them the mobility to exploit that.
Writings from India would say they have been riding since 5,000 b.c.e. at very least. Their timelines are certainly skewed in some cases but still that entire culture raised cattle and drove chariots. Will be fascinating to see how far back they do go.
The Indo-Aryans who spread into India were a branch of the Yamnaya. The early vedas give us some of the oldest written insight into the broader culture.
The so called Arabian horse is over 5000 years old. I say so called because it's older than the Arab ethnicity and the cradle of civilisation was in Mesopotamia not Arabia. So I'd bet my family Jewels that the breed is Mesopotamian not Arabian.
Thank you for this one. I've been telling this story for about five years now and it's very refreshing to see archeology and geneology confirming it.
Maximum time from domestication of horses to riding of horses is 15 years. At least 50% of kids who grew up around horses would have been on their backs by 15 years old.
Almost three quarters of the westward emigrants in the US used wagons pulled by oxen, it's far more probable the Yamnaya carts/wagons were also driven by oxen. In fact, it's got me wondering now if the wheel came before the 'saddle' so to speak, being semi nomadic an ox drawn wagon would have been a great way to move their chattels across the steppes.
Did they have any oxen available?
Absolutely, except that horses and wagons are associated in burials.
@@helenamcginty4920 - Of course. Cows were domesticated by the precursors of the mainline European Neolithic (proto-Vasconics) in Southern Anatoli and then spread around easily. Think Çatalhöyuk, but also think Balcanic Painted Potery culture, Starcevo, LBK, etc. all those and many others had cattle as domesticate. It's not as old as goats/sheep but still quite old.
@@LuisAldamizthanks. Too lazy to look it up myself. 😊
@@LuisAldamiz Only the ones that got buried...
Thanks for your videos. 1) Have you ever seen cattle dogs working? Far more efficient than humans. Small-medium sized, quiet, responding to whistled commands, not much different from the English sheep herding collies. 2) Suggest that the bit was a later development after the bridal: basically, an evolved better method of control.
I wouldn't say that ripped udders teeth punctures if you want vet bills use dogs lol
Being able to ride a horse would revolutionise life on the prarie/steppe. The distances are mind boggling and intimidating for a human reduced to walking.
That sentence at the start was in English but may as well have been in ancient Persian for all I understood it.
😅
The Mummies of Ürümchi clearly had riding breeches and some of the effigies in Mal'ta Burket seemed to have had breeches that could be interpreted that way. The Mal'ta Burket people also lived with horses. However, the people of the Train region fell well into the time frame of 4000 BCE, the Mal'ta Burket people were twenty thousand years before that. I think that horseback riding definitely required breeches. You wouldn't ride Lady Godiva style before saddles came about.
Tarim region, not train region - of course.
Vikings rode horses to the place of battle. Then leapt off and fought on foot. I believe the English did the same
Total sense.
@@LuisAldamiz The "Saxon" English did, apparently - which is why they lost to the Norman cavalry at the Battle of Hastings in 1066
Perhaps the origin of the Centaur in legends?
I have seen more than one country kid jump on a pig and ride away. Because pigs can grow so very large, and are so intelligent, is it possible that we are missing a very large field of probability in failing to research pig riding as an aspect of early human behavior? (It is possible that thinking of this means that I really need to get out more and stop living in my head so much.)
I was thinking the same thing Re: goat and sheep herders
We can “observe” how non-metal using cultures adapted to using horses and what tack they used, plus methods of use by looking at the moments when First Nations peoples of the American plains started using the horses they adopted. Of course they would have witnessed the Spaniards astride their mounts so they would have known this was possible, but acquiring the animals alone, without the metal bits and bridles meant they would have to adopt methods of control that used natural materials which would leave no archaeological trace. And they utilized the animals as draft resources though they lacked wheeled vehicles as another comment or has suggested. Ultimately any serious warfare that is successfully done from horseback requires controlling the horse WITHOUT reins of any sort because you need both hand to effectively wield weapons. Perhaps getting to the field of battle is helped by having tack, but one in the battle itself previous training and leg aids/cues as well as verbal commands is how it was probably done…at least by the winners!
We should not overlook the spiritual/mystical dimensions either of this great transition. Yes, cattle/oxen are marvelous for moving great weight or for cultivating a landscape, but the speed that a human achieves by being “one” with a horse is an entirely different dimension. Cattle basically move at the same speed as humans, as do all the other domesticated creatures, but horses (and Reindeer) add an almost mystical aura to the humans who manage to sit astride such creatures and move with them, without objection from the animal. Having control OVER such a force of power gives one status, just as those who could coax metal from stones and fire would be seen to possess magical skills. The horse that is ridden is allowing a union of spirit that we still recognize to this day whether it is us riding or if we are watching…. It still is a thing of magic and mystery that these powerful creatures allow themselves to be ridden by puny humans.
Another poster mentioned cattle bred for racing in India since many thousands of years ago. Don't know if they're mounted.
A great conversation to listen to. I'd heard of the study but haven't read it yet so this was perfect
I thought it might be interesting to do a bit of historical linguistic research to see if this tallies with your osteo-archaeology. Interestingly the words for ‘ride’ and ‘horse’ both derive from *Proto-IndoEuropean - the hypothetical language identified with the Yamnaya - although the word to ride (*reidh-) also means to travel. However all the words for tack and for the different gaits of a horse derive from later languages. So these may have been concepts that the Yamnaya did not have.
Similarly the word for wheel traces back to a common *PIE root for many descendant languages implying that the Yamnaya had the wheel but conversely words for the different types of vehicles (carts, wagons, chariots) do not appear to do so…
Horse riding, like the wheel: started independently in several places.
I agree with you: not using it in war is not proving they were not ridden. At first, horses were used in a livestock situation. Warring does not have to come into the equation because it is not the normal everyday. Animals and plants are the normal everyday. The war thing is hindsight!!
This study took my mind straight to my dictionary.
There are several indications that horses in the Yamnaya culture and in subsequent cultures didn’t play a major role in warfare. Firstly, all depictions of riders dated before 865 BC show the riders sitting on the croup (that is the part above the hind legs of a horse), just like donkeys are ridden today in some parts of the world. In this position the rider cannot have full control of the horse as necessary to fight from horseback. The first depiction of proper riding can be found in a dramatic fighting scene from Assyria around 865 BC. These riders are definitely in proper control of their horses, although they still needed a second rider riding alongside to hold the reins when the other shot his bow. Perfect mastery of horseback archery would still need another century or two. It is further significant, that only from this time onwards cavalry spread like wildfire all over Europe and Asia, whereas during the second millennium BC horse-related fighting was, as far as we know, done from chariots only. Had some people mastered the horse to this degree prior to the first millennium, surely this martial art would have spread much earlier, but there isn't the slightest evidence for such a spread. Furthermore it was found that around 2200 BC two important mutations occurred in domesticated horses, one concerning a gene associated with stronger backs and one in a gene associated with a more docile nature of the horse as compared to wild horses. This seems to have been a major contribution for the development of horses into strong and reliable partners for warfare, be it with chariots or riders. Thus, riding prior to the first millennium BC and especially prior to the second millennium seems to have simply been a mode of accelerated travel and transport and has in this way facilitated the expansion of the Yamnaya culture and of the proto-indo-european language.
The Plains Indians of the American Plains, who adopted horse riding after the 1600's, and especially the Comanche, were described as one with the Horse and fully developed fighting skills while riding, to the astonishment of educated Europeans who studied them. It would have been fantastic to have been able to compare the capabilities of those famous horse and cavalry cultures of Europe and the Asian Plains with those of the American Indians, to determine which culture had a pinnacle to being "one" with their Horses.
We boarded Shetlands on the farm where I grew up we used to jump on and ride for miles with only halters. We also rode one big sow pig that we had. She didn't go anywhere but would tolerate us. It was all great fun. Yes we were totally unsupervised and a bunch of little screaming heathens!
My favourite archeologist Brian Cunliffe first had me interested in this subject and the Scythians. Very interesting discussion ❤️
Not a tank but more like a Universal Carrier (Bren Gun Carrier) or a Willy's Jeep.
I must strongly disagree with the assesment on Botai: it doesn't matter if they spread or remained in their country and if the Indoeuropeans copied them (most probably) before exterminating them (also very likely), what matters is if they domesticated the horse... and they did.
Also what about the Magdalenian horses with harnesses depicted in some atltals? What about onager or ass domestication (with carts) in Mesopotamia? What about the quite apparent independent domestication in or near Iberia?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the Botaï, etc.
Likely as per cowboys, riding horses would have been for the purpose of herding and corralling horses and cattle. Riding horses for military purposes would have developed much later, as mastery of controlling horses was required if one was also to wield weapons from horseback. If you look at the best known warriors of the past, the Greek hoplites, the Roman legionaries, the Vikings, the Samurai, and soldiers into the modern era, most were footsoldiers. Sure, there were the Persian horse archers, the Hittite and Egyptian chariot soldiers, and cavalry up to the early 20th century, but warfare on horseback was usually to gain a tactical advantage. It was rarely ever the modus operandi of battle. Effectively, you don't need proof of warfare on horseback to prove people were riding horses.
Very good point!.. Horses are NOT very good on the battlefield unless they are used in very specific ways. At the battle of the Little Big Horn the seventh cavalry had to dismount and one of every four soldiers had to move to the rear with four horses. Shooting a bow or rifle from a horse is very problematic and the cultures that were good at it took generations to get that way. The fact that horses won't run into a line of sharp sticks or bayonets is part of the reason the battle of Waterloo was lost. I believe the first ancient Egyptian depictions of chariots showed them being used solely as transportation to the field of battle.
That doesn't mean they are not used for mobility. Mounted infantry was important.
@@LuisAldamiz Pointed rocks are important too... but not until you figure out how to use them.
@@flipflopski2951 - Mounted infantry is not "pointed rocks". If you know anything re. military history, you should know that the age of knights is short and overrated, that the almogavars (mounted infantry) were slaughtering cataphracts (heavy cavalry, knights) well into the Middle Ages even before the age of pikes, longbows, etc. had any development or effect.
@@LuisAldamiz Pikes are pointed sticks. You know that right?
@@flipflopski2951 - He said "pointed rocks", in clear reference to Paleolithic/Neolithic weaponry.
I was very interested to know more when this research was released, particularly about how they decided what the signs of riding on the skeleton would be? The ancient people would have been riding without anything resembling a modern saddle, and without stirrups, which would leave very different skeletal changes to those seen in modern day riders.
Also, the idea that the only way you can catch horses is from the back of a horse is amusing. No, you won't get near a wild horse if you just go running at it it like the bald ape that you are; but if you take the time to watch the herd, understand how they interact, learn how they talk to each other, and how to mimic that behaviour - you'll get a hell of a lot closer. Maybe close enough to herd them into an enclosed space where they can be caught more easily. Which is what they probably did when first domesticating them. I do think that the "monkeys riding pigs" story is relevant though! Imagine a couple of teenagers watching their herd, getting bored and competing to see who can stay on a horse for the longest. And, as you say, the horses were small so could probably be leapt onto from the ground.
I'd really love it if archaeologists would talk to animal behaviourists about things like this, without understanding horses how can you imagine their beginnings in our lives?
Look up “Kites” sorta capture corrals
Wagons don't make much sense with horses unless you have some kind of roads.. it would be very tricky, if you look at even the "flat" terrain in that area of the world. It makes much more sense that horses would be pack animals. Short stocky strong horses can carry a *lot*. (In areas with snowy winters you could use sledges.. just as was/is done with the reindeer you mentioned)
You do not need to use horses to catch horses. People hunted horses for food on the regular. Catching a full grown horse to keep alive would be more trouble than it's worth. Killing a mare for food and keeping the foal is likely how it initially started. Keep the foal around long enough to eat it but slowly figure out these things can carry stuff and they can be manageable and trainable if you take them young enough. Horses used to be smaller on average. I imagine the riding part came pretty quickly after having them carry stuff.
Thanks for the info guys.
I just found your channel. I am working my way through your vids. Well Done!
Have you seen the German Archaeology Institute’s video on the invention of trousers. It ties in nicely with this research although the garment they investigate is later in date than the skeletons in this study.
I loved that research documentary! They had specialists from a few different fields collaborate to recreate the earliest known trousers and explained why they developed the way they did.
I wonder how long it will be when they say trousers are Germanic.
@@tonyu5985 they were an indo European invention, I can't recall the specific genetic or archeological IE group. Yamnaya? Don't hold me to that. They definitely didn't claim it as Germanic, knowing darn well they didn't exist as a distinct IE group yet lol.
20:44 Love the Sami family/tribe photo
I was the first to ride, and I did it tens of millions of years ago. I was riding so long ago that the horses had three toes. I also tried to ride an ancient epycamilis (ancient camel speies), Hesperotestudo (a type of tortious... was too slow), the type of rhino which we had back then, and some kinds of birds. The birds were too small, and always ended up getting crushed. I stuck with the horse, which evolved to be bigger, and ended up having only one hoofed toe.
What about cattle? Elephants? Big cats? Just curious. And did you find that you had to refrain from quacking, for best results...?
Fascinating discussion. Wish I’d found it earlier.
I’ve been interested in this topic since reading David Anthony’s book which is a must if you want to understand the succession of cultures in this region.
But listening to you talking about warrior expansion versus a peaceable group with a technological edga + plague, you sparked off an idea in my mind, which is that maybe the significance of the waggon/horse culture in this region is that it may be the first development of the classic nomad steppe way of life. Expansion and warfare associated with this culture would be secondary ( and I don’t believe in any totally peaceful societies) and contingent on factors eg plague or political disputes at the time. Interested in your thoughts on this.
I think it would be interesting to tie this up with the evolution of horses. Many of the heards of wild horses around the world are actually the result of the escape of domestic horses. I think it would be an interesting area to study just how much the evolution of the horse has been shaped by domestication. Obviously domestication of a smaller animals would have been significantly easier than the "glorious beasts" we have today. But once domesticated, those small horses could have been selectively bread to produce larger beasts of burden. If these escaped into the wild, it could have even given rise to the horses that we see in the wild today.
I suspect that all the larger horses we now see in the wild today are descended from domesticated animals.
Google Sintasha culture. They bred horses with the most desireable traits which were so widely traded that basically all domestic horses descended from those.
Loved the video and your "style"/approach!
Excellent point about pigs and monkeys! How well I remember, as a child, we tormented the wranglers constantly to let us ride bareback. Yippiekeyeyea As much part of human nature as a fondness for silly hats.
Thanks guys appreciate you both
This post should curry the favor of your wider audience. 😁
They will also find that a rider's lower back and pelvis will have signs of arthritic problems. There will be signs of strain in elbows and shoulders.
I think you'd enjoy watching/listening to TH-cam video "The Invention of the Trousers" by Deutsches Archaogisches Institut. It seems that the earliest trousers have been found in areas inhabited by horse-riding people. I wince thinking about riding in a kilt.
Knowing how we humans are, the first time we spied one of those things at full tilt, we must have said to ourselves I wanna jump on the back of one. You can just hear the camp fire conversation: ' So Jim what happened to your arm?' Jim; ' Horse mate' Oh really you got attacked by a horse, thats unusually?! No mate I tried to get on the back of one today!! Bahhahahaa
Like a few others commenting here, I'm wondering about the necessity, or not, of "tack" - viz. bareback riding on the one hand, and the "travois" as a precursor to carts & chariots on the other. Utility is given by both. Both would leave almost no trace to inform archaeology. - Bareback riding can surely be as efficient in day to day farming & herding as using saddles, but the travois is, I can only imagine, " a drag" in comparison with carts or chariots? And as others have succinctly pointed out, the carts pulled by cattle are the trucks or pickups, and the horses are the Porsches and speedbikes…. as much for the usefulness of speed as for making a (hopefully) grand impression.
Thank you for an enjoyable listen. Have you done any research betwixt the Tocharians, the Ainu, and the Yamnaya?
Great subject :). Thank you for making.
It occurred to me whilst watching that: it would be clearer to say that... The researchers demonstrated that the most frequently observed pathology, experienced by modern day horse riders. Can be observed in skeletal remains dating back to 3000 bce.
Hit the nail on the head! Horses are heard animals; getting on a horse to ride one allows the herd to follow easier.
Very interesting. Enjoyed listening.
How sure are we that we weren't riding milk cows first?
This was great, thank you sirs! I hope you and yours are doing well and getting some spring weather!
Thanks, you too!
Check out the Russian Troika. Three horses abreast, taking up more room than the width of the vehicle being pulled.
its a difficult subject as all horses originated in the Americas and all horses alive to day are from domesticated stock, there are no wild horses living today - any that you might think are wild are effectively feral.
Gosh. I did vaguely know that there had been horses in America in prehistory but that they had died out. Had no idea they had originated there before spreading westward to the Asian steppes. Thanks. Love adding new titbits of knowledge to my brainstore.
So...when the Spanish came ashore with horses, the locals might have been waiting for that very thing? Okay. I looked it up. Nobody's great - great- great whomever would be old enough to remember them.
@@roxiepoe9586 Also, they were very, very small when they became extinct there.
You need to be a bit more specific. There are no horses in the americas that did not come from previously domesticated stock.
Some species of horses migrated from the americas to asia, possibly as early as 2+ miillion years ago.
The last horses in the americas (before western domesticated breeds arrived and some became feral) went extinct between 6,000 and 11,000 BCE..
The first human migrations (each time the opportunity arose) began probably 100,000 years ago.. and quite possibly watched some species of horses moving west as they spread east into the americas. Each time the Bering land bridge or shoreline (including small boat) was possible.. people used the opportunity.
There was never a "One Way" sign..
Back and forth..
Glaciers and ice formed and retreated.. humans and animals used those opportunities.. humans more easily, as horses and other animals don't make boats..
Be Well!! 😃
Dan Davis does a fine job, so do you guys!
As far as mounted warriors, when would the steppe people's have achieved the total package of composite bows plus mounted riding?
Are you guys sure that Spike Milligan didn’t write that first part you read
Look into the he Native American “war bridle” which was essentially reins with a loop and cinch in the middle, where the loop slipped onto the lower jaw and lodged in that convenient tooth gap between the incisors and molars. The cinch knot snugged and secured the reins quite firmly and gave as full control as a metal (or wood or bone) bit. It was invented by Native Americans horse tribes who didn’t have access to metal bits.
A “war bridle” is also made from completely biodegradable materials, or might not be recognizable other than “an odd short rope” if found at all.
Fantastic stuff!
You guys are a bit of calm relief this stormy zeitgeist
Oh thank you Rita! Nice to hear that we tip the balance a bit the other way. M😊
The easternmost group of Yamnaya, the Sintashta, were the ones who created the chariot, made war, and rode south and east to conquer.
I’d like to point out that people did NOT have to be horseback to catch horses. If they knew where the wild horses grazed, they could build a trap, then line up a number of people around the herd and walk toward the horses, effectively driving the herd into the trap.
Also want to mention how much I enjoy your banter as you enlighten us.
The Sami were my first thought when I was younger, as our first 'riders' - until I discovered how late the reindeer became a domesticated part of their culture, beyond just another prey animal.
Edit: Just imagine the first 'Cavalry' group of 6 hairy grunts on Goats riding into some tent village...
Thank you so much for the knowledge contained herein. I will say it's the closest to feeling like I was reading a pre-screen reference book, on youtube. The data's useful, the pages turn slowly, you re-read the last page as you've been wondering about lunch recipes and not absorbed it... I don't mean to be mean or give anyone anything more than feedback. For the format, TH-cam, this needs more signposting, one of you needs to be summarising the other at least, and if you could revisit your major points in the conclusion that also would be progress.
Y' know, chapters in the video and a list in description would be awesome! More work for the editor, though.
It is likely that the use of waggons was an innovative advance from the use of a litter, as shown in recent times by the quick adaption to horses by the American Plains Indians, from riding (no saddle), through to using an improvised litter (made from their teepee poles when moving camp.
They use ropes to catch a horse, too. Corrals, as well, and traps, such as deep sand.
Cattle were used for heavy pulling until the pulling harnesses were invented that wouldn't cut the horses air off. A wooden yoke like is still used on oxen would compress the horses windpipe.
Why is it that some people can not understand that others are much more apt at trying things... Making mistakes, getting back on the horse and trying again? This is ridiculous. When i was a child we rode horses all the time without halters or bridles... We clung to the mane. Granted the horses were small but none the less we rode them. The only issue is when the horse is larger... I believe that the researcher needs to do much more homework... This is stupid. I... Me... rode a deer when I was young - not because it was tame but because I believed it was possible and so I mounted it. Another thing is people who are around horses "KNOW" horses. Ludicrous idea that some idiot gets an idea and sets out to prove it without knowing anything about the subject. Talk to horse people first! then set about investigating. The same applies to dogs, dolphins, sharks, etc, etc, etc, Science is BS in most hands! Horses and Humans have a relationship virtually as long as dogs and Humans. Given particular areas and wildlife I'm sure there are many relationships with other useful animals. Some below mentions 10K years - that of course pre supposes the 10k figure is accurate for human mobility. I doubt that number and lean towards the 30 k numbers. Why are they focussed on the BIT? Cows are still used today without a BIT.
Just a thought. Perhaps our ancients became dependent on cattle herding pastoralism long before any need for horses. They soon would have developed the ox-drawn cart. Inspired by their mastery of one large animal they then proceeded to try and domesticate the much more dynamic horse. Perhaps they were literally putting the cart before the horse!
Dogs, horses and oxen, probably in that order, propelled humanity into what we consider to be the modern era.
I am fairly new to your TH-cam channel and I love the info and variety of topics you give. I was wondering if you have a video of books to read on all the ancient cultures or if you would consider doing video on this. Thanks. Love watching y'all and the laughs that comes with it.😊
bit, leaps, rider, gait, ranging, cropped, chase, tend, outliers, spread, trundling, gray, field, range, trace, length, galloping, gate
I think it's impossible to know when we 1st started riding horses,
I see the Yamnya as the Comanches of the step.
Oddly the red area on the map at 12.17 resembles a horse🐎heading east xxx
11000 year old pony footprints and butcherd carcasses have just been found in waterlogged ground, eastern England.
Horses and riders still need special training to not bolt or panic when threatened. Remember they are herbivores with a long history of escaping from predators. So we shouldn't be surprised if horses were being ridden, pulling travois, or just being on a rein and leading in other animals for centuries before going to war. Even if you haven't worked out how to ride a horse or get her to pull a travois, a mare on a rein can lure stallions to your spears each time she goes on heat.
My dad was raised on horses on the family ranch. He was slightly bow legged as he quit riding when he left home. Not knowing technical terms, was that covered in catagory 1?
Another point. The researchers are asserting claims of showing some of, if not the, earliest horse riders based on skeletal injuries and differences. However, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Both Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens suffered a lot of head and neck injuries (and spine injuries) suggestive of rising as well.
How is it that Neanderthals existed across such a broad range. They clearly ate horse and reindeer. So they were associated with both. Might they have ridden Przewalski's Horses? And what of the three (or more) species of Denisovans? I see no reason to presume that any of these species and even Homo Erectus did not ride horses or other similar animals. There is no evidence apparently of domestication per se. But that also does not imply they didn’t opportunistically use horses in this way.
It would probably have taken hundreds of years before rare horse riding developed to relatively common horse riding.