From the early Equus to the Primeval Thoroughbred Types

Horse entered the European continent via Eurasia. The archeological findings detail a migration path starting in Siberia, which eventually concluded in the countries of the far west. Very early on branches started to peel off the main stream, wherever the herds were forced to bisect or rest and at least three types of wild horses developed.

Today - after the latest finds and genetic research - the long-held presumption that all the modern horsebreeds have developed out of the so-called Preszewalski wild horse cannot be maintained. Instead there are now at least three ancestors known, each of them very idiosyncratic when compared to the others, which have to be counted among the forefathers of the european horses. These three originate indeed from the first wild horses which entered the eurasian continent.

The three earliest branches were the asian wild horse (the ancestor of the Preszewalski), the northern or forest tarpan (ancestor of the primeval crossbreed or Diluvial horse and the primeval pony) and the southern or steppe tarpan.

The southern branch split into two distinct types, these two nowadays being called Type III and Type IV, with I and II forming the 4 foundation types of modern horse breeds.

Contrary to the myths spread by Arab breeders, recent research - especially that of Gus Cothran in a concerted effort with Louise Ferouz - has proven that all oriental hotbloods derive from these two types: the Turkoman (Akhal Teke) from Type III and the Caspian from Type IV. The Arabian Thoroughbred has been found to be a hybrid of Caspian and Turkoman, while the Turkoman or Akhal Teke itself has no markers for Arab influence at all. This firmly debunks the myth of the Arabian having developed all by itself in the Nejd deriving from some solitary proto-arabian strain.

At the time (late Wurm Ice Age) the flat of Turan, though large in itself, was a microcosmos, a natural means of selection. Bordered by unsurmountable glaciers in the north, inland seas and marshes to the west and the mountain ridges of Altai, Elburs and Hindukush to the east and south this area was virtually cut off from the rest of the world, especially from the migration paths and herds of the wild horses further north and east. Thus nature herself brought the primeval thoroughbred into existance, through natural selection.

Without need for a thick winter coat, the cellular structure of the primeval thoroughbred became extremely fine-grained and they had no need for subcutane fatcells. The flat land enabled them to flee easily, a hard, fast gallop at short notice (contrary to the thick northern woodlands where a horse had to shy away very quickly for want of space to accelerate) sufficed, thus it was without too much fear and quite courageous. The indegeneous predators hunted mostly "on sight", meaning they hunted individually, trying to bring down prey with a short, very fast burst of speed. On the open, flat land any predator was easily visible and unless the short, fast hunt was sucessful their larger prey was able to keep them tagged. As is still the case with the zebras and antelopes of Africa, which know to the half-metre how close a cheetah may advance before it becomes dangerous. The primeval predators of the Turan helped the development of the fast primeval thoroughbred onwards just as efficiently as the racecourses did to form the English Thoroughbred.

When the Turan grew continuously drier over the following millennia natural selection towards the oriental thoroughbred was speeded up and deeply enhanced, as now the wild horses had to go with less water and grew into a major large prey for any predator, human hunters included. Only the fastest and most asthenic horses were capable to evade hunters and cover the growing distances between one waterplace and the next.

The Primeval Thoroughbred and Homo Sapiens of the Turan flat

The wild, golden horses of central asia were domesticated very early on, today archeologists maintain, that they were the first in history. This correlates with finds of the first agricultural settlements in the area of Anau (near the Ashgabat of today). The first Turan horses were probably caught to serve as live provisions, corralled close to the nomadic settlements at the waterplaces. This happened between 8.000 and 5.000 BC.

The humans living in the Turan then belonged to the indo-germanic/indo-iranian ethnological group, even at this time they lived a rather nomadic life, already most of the spare landscape did not well tolerate the exploitation of settlements and agriculture. Thus most of the archeological finds occur in the south, close to the Ashgabat of today and the Silk Road, where water was more plentiful. This division between nomads and agricultural societies produced a rift in lifestyles and survival techniques which can be felt even today.

The nomads, ancestors of the scyths or Saka (white scyths) of later time, quickly began to appreciate the semi-domestic horses within their care. The first foals must have fallen close to humanity, foals certainly more tolerant of human beings than their parents. The oriental thoroughbred had a courageous character, the mares being naturally willing to submit to authority, be it that of their herd stallion or that of the people tending them.

Until lately most archeological publications pertained that horses were first utilized in harness and mounted much later in history. Modern hippologists and archeologists who also have equestrian skills have begun to very much question this idea.

Firstly, the idea of "mounting" an animal is absolutely universal, it is something which quickly and naturally comes to the mind of any ethnological group. Apart from the horse so many different kinds of animals have been "ridden", that the presumption that someone somewhere would first think to construct a harness than to simply sit onto the back of a domesticated animal is self-excluding. Results may have been different, where yak, reindeer, elephant, donkey and horse have proved to be docile enough, southwestern cattle and other recalcitrant domesticated animals were either too uncomfortable or too intolerant.

Secondly, those who have negated the possibility that horses were at least ridden at the same time, maybe even earlier than put into the harness were scientists quite ignorant of the facts of horse-breaking, training and equestrian necessities. Given the fact that it is well-proven that the first domesticated horses actually were the early oriental thoroughbreds it is unthinkable to maintain that it would have been easier to harness them instead of riding them. As anyone who has tried to harness a bloodhorse knows it takes a lot more work to do so securely than to break the same horse to the saddle.

Also, for far too many generations of archeologists it has been self-evident that a horse had to be ridden with tack and saddle, a blanket at least. Only today there are modern scientists who have seen and sometimes even themselves ridden horses with an absolute minimum of mechanical help. With the presumption that only the saddle makes a horse really useful as a means of transport the conclusion came, that, as there were no saddles or tack uncovered belonging to the same period as the wooden chariots and carts which could be unearthed, there simply was no mounted horse at the time. Yet neither blankets of felt, leather or carpet, nor tack of leather or wool, nor saddles and bits of wood or leather would have survived the influence of climate or sand to be just as neatly uncovered as the war-chariots of the southern towns and settlements. Even today there are nomadic tribes which use these materials to saddle and bit their horses and the red indians of Northern America rode the - for them - completely unknown animal very soon using but a leather tong and a blanket, and they rode to make war so sparely equipped!

Thirdly, the fact that until a certain period but war-chariots (and no ridden horses) have been pictured on murals is often cited as being a proof for the fact that the harness came before the saddle. Yet, the region where modern scientists think that horses were first mounted is a region without firm settlements at all. The people who most probably rode these first mounted horses were nomads, tribes without any means to artfully present their life-style on walls, tapestry or pictorals. Their artforms were the decoration of their yurts (which disintegrated), their rugs (which disintegrated) and their jewelry (which tended to be melted down when discovered or taken). When the Pazyryk rugs were discovered everyone was absolutely astonished at the incredibly skillfull and pure artwork. Artwork which must have taken centuries, maybe even a millennium to develop so far and there we do have riders.

In conclusion it stands to every reason that - inspite of old scientific publications - the eurasian nomads not only kept their horses for food, they quickly mounted them as well. Carts or wagons were of absolutely no value to them, as large parts of their territory was deeply covered with loose sands or plain deserts, where the carting was quite impractical.